AU mod: The Conquistador

[alexman]

The problem

A UU is supposed to provide an advantage to its civilization, but the occasions where a Conquistador is worth building are very rare.

The Conquistador is meant to be a unit that penetrates deep inside enemy territory, and attacks weaker units. The problem is that this unit is so expensive for its stats that it's not worth the risk of losing the unit in a counterattack. The Conquistador costs as much as a Knight, but Knights have more attack and more defense than the Conquistador.

A possible solution

If the expected shield loss from an attack with a Conquistador is about the same as the expected shield loss from an attack with a Knight, Conquistadors will become a nice alternative to Knights.

Take the case where a veteran Conquistador attacks a fortified veteran Pikeman on grassland. Assuming no retreat, the Conquistador will lose 65.9% of the time. A 70-shield Knight would lose 50.6% of the time. Hence, in order to get the same number of expected shields lost, the Conquistador would have to cost 53.7 shields.

Against a fortified veteran pikeman in a city, the Conquistador shield cost would have to be 59 shields. to have the same expected shield loss as Knights.

Considering the ATR movement for the Conquistador, a balanced cost for this unit would be 60 shields.

What do you think? Is the Conquistador worth building for the Spanish? Does this proposed change make it worthwhile to build in parallel with Knights? Any other ideas to balance the unit?

[ducki]

I'm interested in making the Conquistador "worth building" to actually use as described in the 'pedia and this looks relatively conservative.

What's the conquistador upgrade path, though? If it's anything but Cavalry, I can't imagine investing much in a weaker-than-knight unit that won't at least make it to the main horse-path dead-end. I'd actually rather see Conquistadors upgrade into either the Marines path or the Infantry path, though I'm sure that's just wishful thinking.

Anyway, if they dead-end, I think you could make them cost 30 shields and I wouldn't build (m)any, especially for the same A-D-M as Ancient Cav(IIRC).

Spain is strong anyway, it's not like they "need" the UU, but it sure would be nice if it was more worthwhile. It seems like the F-15 of the middle-ages to me. Pretty, but dumb.

[alexman]

The Conquistador upgrades to Explorer, which cannot be built by Spain. But that might be OK if the Spanish beeline to Astronomy. There can be plenty of time to use Conquistadors before Cavalry, especially since Military Tradition is optional.

Speaking of upgrades, another change I believe should be made to the Conquistador is to allow Spain to build Explorers, and have the Explorer upgrade to the Conquistador, instead of the other way around. Without this change, Spain is the only civilization that cannot capture Explorers. They get destroyed instead.

[ducki]

My point still stands that they are militarily a dead end unit. And inferior in both attack and defense to their predecessor, the Knight. I just can't imagine me building (m)any of these guys even at half price. At least Cavalry, though a dead-end, are still quite usefull for some time. This unit, however, has Ancient-Age stats for a Middle-Age price and come relatively late in the era to live up to their name(sake).
The Conqueror unit does not wear its name well.
Besides, who among us still has any exploring to do that late in the game? And how much undeveloped land is going to exist at that point anyway?
I still think these guys should be given a military upgrade path in keeping with the spirit of their namesake.


One unrelated idea - decrease cost considerably to closer to the MW or Gallic Sword than the Knight and give them the ACav's extra HP. Now that's a Unique unit, and I might even build some.


Further idea - unless it's been decided, use Spain in the Power of Seafaring and require a war of conquest using Conquistadors instead of knights. Maybe even under Feudalism. Muwahahahahaha!

[pauli]

5/2/2/atar/enslave, 80 shields.

[alexman]

Wouldn't that make Knights obsolete?

[pauli]

well, add saltpeter as a requirement.

[alexman]

So you would need Astronomy and Gunpowder to build them?

I like the enslave idea, but to keep stock flavor, I think we have to keep Conquistadors weaker than Knights.

[pauli]

ok, how about 3/2/2/atar/enslave/colony, for horses and 70 shields?

conquistadors weren't sent out just to mail back postcards.

(granted, you'd still need to capture some workers to build a road...)

[Rellin]

I like the enslave/colony, guess it is somewhat realistic as well.

Just could tack on enslave and leave everything else alone though, and I think that alone would make them worth building.

[Kuciwalker]

I like the enslave idea. Make that ability be more a part of the game (rather than just being part of ONE unit).

[ducki]

Originally posted by alexman
So you would need Astronomy and Gunpowder to build them?

I like the enslave idea, but to keep stock flavor, I think we have to keep Conquistadors weaker than Knights.

Why? Aren't most UUs stronger than their contemporaries? I do get what you're saying, but I think it may be a premature assumption.

To a previous remark, how would a Unique Unit that is stronger than generic units make the generic unit obsolete? There's only one civ gonna be able to build them, not everyone, and if they still don't upgrade to Cavalry, they'll never make Knights obsolete unless we make Cav weaker/equal to the Conq.

[alexman]

Don't forget, in the case of the Conquistador, the unit it replaces is the Explorer.

Also Spain should build Knights sometimes, even after Astronomy. Otherwise we are reducing strategic options, which is the opposite of what we want.

[nbarclay]

In combat, the combination of two moves and ATAR allows conquistadors to strike deeper than even cavalry can, and allows them to do so without regard to intevening hills, mountains, forests, or jungles. Combining that with the attack power of knights, let alone anything more powerful than knights, would make them too potent.

I would propose adding the enslave ability, adding an upgrade path to cavalry, and reducing the cost to 60. (Since Spain is not expansionist in C3C, there is no reason Conquistadors need to be in the scout/explorer upgrade chain at all; they could start a new chain of their own much as WCs do.) Against pikemen, knights would be clearly more cost-effective in a straight-up attack but conquistadors could strike deeper and would be less subject to enemy counterattack, so there would be strategic interest in the choice of which to build. The enslave ability would add interest to using more conquistadors and fewer knights, especially to pick off weaker AI units, while the upgrade path to cavalry would take away one of the biggest deterrents to building conquistadors.

By the way, one role knights would almost definitely be useful for even if the stepped-up power of conquistadors makes them a player's preferred attacker is moving in over roads to defend cities captured by conquistadors. The ratio of defense value to cost is a whole lot better for knights!

Nathan

[Rellin]

60 Shields, Enslave, Calvary upgrade sounds good to this non-panel type.