Praetorians!

[Thedrin]

I could never figure out why they gave the Praetorian a strength of eight - two greater than the unit it replaces - instead of seven.

[DirtyMartini]

Yeah, only other UU with as large an advantage over the base unit on a percentage basis is the skirmisher, which is primarily a defensive unit. The problem is that if Praets were a 7 instead of an 8, that's only a +16% bonus over the base unit, which is proportionately weaker than every other UU that gets a simple strength upgrade (+20% War Chariot, Cossack, Phalanx) rather than specific bonuses. Praet is only mildly tempered by the fact that it loses Swordsman's +10% city attack. Still, I don't think Praet is necessarily overpowered -- any civ with Ivory is nearly as scary to face IMHO.

edit. For accuracy sake, note that Cossack, Phalanx and Redcoat (+14% over base unit) get additional bonuses in addition to strength upgrade.

edit: spelling

[Nugog]

Re: Praetorians!

Originally posted by Smellycowsquid
Late last night, while looking on this site, I saw a thread about the Civ Rome, and I thought, "I haven't played with them yet." So I loaded Civ, found a good location, and went for Praetorians, I had them by 2400 B.C.(ish) and ran (and still running) rampant throughout my tightly pacted continent. To anyone who hasn't played with them, Do!!!!! Praetorians are pretty sweet, crushing archers and stuff, I will soon win.

I just was overjoyed, and had to tell someone.

Sweet music to my ears!

Praetorians are simply the best UU for the warmongering player. On a crowded Pangea they are perfect, perfect - perfect!

Originally posted by Lord Shiva I'm surprised it took you so long to try them out, especially with Nugog and myself constantly harping about them...

C'mon - I may mention them occasionally, but harping?

[Thedrin]

Originally posted by DirtyMartini
Yeah, only other UU with as large an advantage over the base unit on a percentage basis is the skirmisher, which is primarily a defensive unit. The problem is that if Praets were a 7 instead of an 8, that's only a +16% bonus over the base unit, which is proportionately weaker than every other UU that gets a simple strength upgrade (+20% War Chariot, Cossack, Phalanx) rather than specific bonuses. Praet is only mildly tempered by the fact that it loses Swordsman's +10% city attack. Still, I don't think Praet is necessarily overpowered -- any civ with Ivory is nearly as scary to face IMHO.

edit. For accuracy sake, not that Cossack, Phalanx and Redcoat (+14% over base unit) get additional bonuses in addition to strength upgrade.

Okay, I get that.

Praetorians with eight strength:

+32% advantage over swordsman.
+21% advantage over swordsmen when attacking cities.
+6% advantage over axemen.

Praetorians with seven strength and 10% bonus versus cities:

+16% advantage over swordsmen.
+16% advantage over swordsmen when attacking cities.
- 6% disadvantage against axemen.

While the low comparative improvement of strength seven praetorians compared to the likes of war chariots and skirmishers is a good case to make there are a few other things I'd take note of:

1) +32% advantage over swordsmen is massive.
2) +21% advantage over swordsmen when attacking cities is better than a city raider I promotion.
3) Unlike just about every unit in the game, praetorians have no natural counter (I'm aware of strategies that work against them).

The combined effects of having strength eight and no city attack bonus instead of strength seven look to be too powerful.

Looking at the skirmisher; not only does it get +33% strength over the archer but it also getrs a free etra strike. Why not give the praetorian +1 strength, the standard swordsman city attack bonus and something small extra, say another 5% when attacking cities.

Praetorian with seven strength and 15% bonus versus cities:

+16% advantage over swordsmen.
+ 22% advantage over swordsmen when attacking cities.
- 6% disadvantage against axemen.

This way the unit remains better than the generic swordsman and a far superior city beater but still has a natural counter.

[Nugog]

Originally posted by Thedrin
Praetorians with eight strength:

1) +32% advantage over swordsmen is massive.
2) +21% advantage over swordsmen when attacking cities is better than a city raider I promotion.
3) Unlike just about every unit in the game, praetorians have no natural counter (I'm aware of strategies that work against them).

Which is why they are so good !

The praetorians were feared and smashed their way across the known world at the time.

The disadvantage of Praetorians is that they really do lock you into one playstyle, it is impossible to turtle up and build, when you have praets at your disposal.

[DirtyMartini]

I agree -- Praetorians are the most powerful UU, have one of the longest useful lifetimes, and show up at a time when expansion is usually the thing that is called for strategically. In addition, they belong to a civ with organized, so they can be use to take a proportionately larger number of cities. They're right on the verge of being overpowered. The best sign that they might be overpowered is my overwhelming desire to always play as Caesar. The only saving grace is the requirement for iron. This is not insignificant -- in my current game, Caesar has the second largest empire, but no iron, so I have no fear. There have been plenty of times I've been lacking iron when playing as Caesar as well.

That being said, Thedrin makes a good point: 7str with +10 or +15% city attack might be OK.

[DirtyMartini]

OK, so I just sort of contradicted myself in my last two posts. For clarity's sake (if anyone cares) -- I don't think Praets are overpowered, just very nearly so. I also really enjoy using them, so hope they never are never changed (as a very early post in this thread implied might be happening).

Pleae excuse the double post.

[proviisori]

Originally posted by nugog


Which is why they are so good !

The praetorians were feared and smashed their way across the known world at the time.

The disadvantage of Praetorians is that they really do lock you into one playstyle, it is impossible to turtle up and build, when you have praets at your disposal.

Well.. not exactly. Praetorians hardly left the city of Rome. They were used to defend to city and as emperor's guards. Usually the emperor of Rome was chosen by the leader of praetorians (Prefect) or it was vital for the emperor to be in good terms with the prefect.

Legions did the most fighting and conquering.

[Prussia]

Iron and copper are probably the two most common resources on the map early on. If you don't have one of them on a balanced map, you'll certainly have horses, or some kind of combination.

[Thedrin]

Originally posted by DirtyMartini
The only saving grace is the requirement for iron. This is not insignificant -- in my current game, Caesar has the second largest empire, but no iron, so I have no fear. There have been plenty of times I've been lacking iron when playing as Caesar as well.

Japan needs iron for samurais - one of the more powerful unique units. For the duration of the very long era for which macemen and samurai are the most powerful city takers, if Japan has no access to iron it has to rely on horsearchers - which have a fairly simple counter - for city taking.

With access to iron: Rome gets the advantage - praetorians are more powerful for their era and gain a further advantage by coming earlier in the game.

Without access to iron: Rome gets the advantage - other city taking options are available in axemen and horsearchers - still have a simple counter but are much better against other units of the era. To reliably take cities in the pre-gunpowder era, Japan must build far more catapults than any other civ.

I'm not using this as evidence that the praetorian is overpowered or that the samurai is too weak. I'm using this to make the case that the praetorian iron requirement is not a big disadvantage to Rome.

[Prussia]

Thedrin, you made a good point. Japans disadvantage wouldn't really hurt them, it would just stunt their conquest forcing them to spend more on research to be the first to discover cavalry and use them: IF they have horses.

[DirtyMartini]

Don't crossbows require iron?

[Thedrin]

Thanks. Post fixed. Turns out knights need iron as well.

[Blake]

Praets aren't really that overpowered, here's why:
1) They replace a relatively useless base unit - Swordsmen have no niche and are generally inferior to Axemen. A slightly boosted Swordsman would still not be all that useful, so a significant boost is needed.
2) The Iron requirement is a significant disadvantage.
3) Praetorians have a counter - Axemen.

The reason Praetorians are overpowered vs the AI is that the AI builds a melange of units - most of which Praets ARE effective against. However a smart human will simply amass the perfect counter - Axemen.

If there is fighting to be done I would personally prefer the Aggressive trait over Praetorians. Aggressive gives you a superier army with copper alone and it works all game long - from warriors to mechinf.

Here's how Praets fare against Axemen:
With a barracks:
Agg Shock Axeman vs Com1 Praet: Str 5.5 vs 4.8
Non-Agg Com1 Axeman vs Com1 Praet: Str 5.5 vs 5.7

Basically, when Axemen have superier promotions (from Agg) they outright beat Praets. With equal promotions they are slightly weaker, but since they are cheaper they still beat praets.

A meaningful comparison is also comparing Praets with the ideal counter to a particular unit - rather than comparing Praets with Swords.

Take for example, vs Horse Archers, with all units having 2 promotions.
Agg Formation Spearman vs Shock Horse Archer: Str 4.8 vs 3.15 : 90% odds.
Non-Agg Com II Spearmen vs Shock Horse Archer: Str 4.8 vs 3.63 : 77% odds.
Com II Praetorian vs Shock Horse Archer: Str 9.6 vs 8.1: 72% odds.

As you can see, the ideal counter - Spearman, always has better odds than Praets (and is cheaper), the Aggressive Spearman has just 1/3rd the chance of losing.

What the Praet does have of course is flexibility - and again, that is useful vs the melange of units the AI likes to spew out. For the Roman player there is little reason to build anything other than Praets. But I consider the aggressive army to be stronger. Of course the Praet only takes a "UU" slot, while aggressive takes a whole "Trait" slot. But all aggressive leaders except Mongols get a UU which benefits from Aggressive which brings it's own advantages - Phalanxes eat Elephants and even Knights for breakfast, Samurais are nigh-unstoppable, Jaguars are more often than not underestimated (non aztec Agg without copper/iron is quite lame), everyone knows how overpowered Quecha's are vs high-difficulty AI's, Musketeers are quite hard to counter when promoted with Formation.

Overall, Praets are good, but the aggressive trait can make for just a good crutch.

[Nugog]

Originally posted by Flamer(fin)


Well.. not exactly. Praetorians hardly left the city of Rome. They were used to defend to city and as emperor's guards. Usually the emperor of Rome was chosen by the leader of praetorians (Prefect) or it was vital for the emperor to be in good terms with the prefect.

Legions did the most fighting and conquering.

Okay - point taken.

However they are still very very good!