Tweet
Today I first time looked through Conquest Info on civ3.com (I know it is kind of late) and I realized that Incas UU is quite worthless.
Incas have Chasqui Scout: 1/1/2 which is armed version of the scout and moves across hill/mountains at cost 1. Looks great so far, but...
a. Inca starts with regular scout;
b. it costs 20!
c. it does not upgrade to anything millitary worhtwhile, explorers? (unless they changed normal upgrade path).
(a), (b), and (c) makes this Chasqui Scout worthless for the purpose it was designed!
If Incas can build normal scouts then it is a better option because putting out 2,3,4 or more additional scouts (depends on map settings) is paramount, so 20 shields cost does not cut in). Thus, these Chasquies will not be built for scouting -- too expensive.
On the other hand, if Incas can build only Chasqui then they are in serious disadvantage compare to other expansionists: they cannot field as many scouts ASAP and will be lagging behind with goody hut popping.
Another draw back of Chasqui is accidental GA if somebody (excluding barbarians) attacked it and lost.
As it now the only use of it is to build one around middle age to trigger GA on some redlined Archer or Longbowman.
My suggestions:
1. Incas have to start with Chasqui (not regular scout).
2. Chasqui should cost 10.
Cost 10 is not the great advantage: the do not upgrades to swordsmen like Aztecs Warriors, so rushing somebody with them or building them for military purpose is somewaht pointless.
As goodie huts are explored, Chasqui could hunt barbarians and their camps, so here they should cost 10 because attacking something with unit 1/1/2 at price 20 is rather stupid. Warriors and archers could do that better and elites could be used for GL later without fear of unwanted GA.
A more radical approach is to give them +1 to movement: 0/0/3 at normal cost and no terrain discounts (it might be too good if combined).
The bottom line: Scouts should never costs more that 10, othrewise they are not worth they price.
Incas have Chasqui Scout: 1/1/2 which is armed version of the scout and moves across hill/mountains at cost 1. Looks great so far, but...
a. Inca starts with regular scout;
b. it costs 20!
c. it does not upgrade to anything millitary worhtwhile, explorers? (unless they changed normal upgrade path).
(a), (b), and (c) makes this Chasqui Scout worthless for the purpose it was designed!
If Incas can build normal scouts then it is a better option because putting out 2,3,4 or more additional scouts (depends on map settings) is paramount, so 20 shields cost does not cut in). Thus, these Chasquies will not be built for scouting -- too expensive.
On the other hand, if Incas can build only Chasqui then they are in serious disadvantage compare to other expansionists: they cannot field as many scouts ASAP and will be lagging behind with goody hut popping.
Another draw back of Chasqui is accidental GA if somebody (excluding barbarians) attacked it and lost.
As it now the only use of it is to build one around middle age to trigger GA on some redlined Archer or Longbowman.
My suggestions:
1. Incas have to start with Chasqui (not regular scout).
2. Chasqui should cost 10.
Cost 10 is not the great advantage: the do not upgrades to swordsmen like Aztecs Warriors, so rushing somebody with them or building them for military purpose is somewaht pointless.
As goodie huts are explored, Chasqui could hunt barbarians and their camps, so here they should cost 10 because attacking something with unit 1/1/2 at price 20 is rather stupid. Warriors and archers could do that better and elites could be used for GL later without fear of unwanted GA.
A more radical approach is to give them +1 to movement: 0/0/3 at normal cost and no terrain discounts (it might be too good if combined).
The bottom line: Scouts should never costs more that 10, othrewise they are not worth they price.
Comment