AU mod: The Enkidu Warrior

[alexman]

The Sumerian unique unit is a half-price Spearman that replaces both the Warrior and the Spearman, and upgrades to a Pikeman.

Firaxis has recognized that the Enkidu Warrior is overpowered in multiplayer, so they have increased its cost to 15 shields in the MPTournament mod. In a similar way to the old Jaguar Warrior, the Enkidu could be used as a cheap unit for early rushes.

The question is whether an Enkidu Warrior rush against the AI is powerful enough to warrant a change in the AU mod. Building a dozen Enkidus and sending them for pillaging certainly has the potential to cripple the AI, but is this strategy unbalancing enough to justify a change?

Another consideration is that the Enkidu Warrior has only the defense strategy marked for the AI. That means that the AI does not have an offensive unit available at the beginning of the game, so it doesn’t get any bonus offensive units at higher difficulty levels. This is unfair to the Sumerian AI.

For the human player, the upgrade path of the Enkidu means that the Warrior upgrade strategy is not feasible. If you want Swordsmen, you have to build them from scratch.

Perhaps the Sumerian UU would be less awkward (and less powerful) if it replaced only the Spearman, at a higher shield cost:

• Increase cost of Enkidu to 15 shields.
• Allow Sumerians to build regular Warriors.

What do you think? Does the Enkidu need a change? If so, any other ideas?

[Aqualung71]

You've also mentioned that the Enkidu is only marked for defence. Shouldn't we consider flagging it for offense as well to help the AI?

Perhaps another option is the reverse of what you've suggested - have the Enkidu upgrade to Swordsmen and allow the Sumerians to build Spearmen. This makes it a super-warrior instead of a half-priced spear.

[alexman]

Both of your suggestions are good.

A problem with marking the Enkidu as AI offense without other changes is that the AI will build some in the place of other, better offensive units. And when time comes to upgrade it, it will be transformed to a AI defensive unit, suddenly leaving the AI with a lack of offensive units. I'm not sure which is worse for the Sumerians, to start with fewer units, or to use Enkidus for offense.

The problem with the Swordsman upgrade is that Sumerians will be left without their cheap Spearman after they connect Iron, assuming they have triggered their GA.

[Aqualung71]

You're right of course. It would be a bit weird giving a 1/2/1 unit an offensive flag.

The only other alternative I can think of (playing the devil's advocate here, since I think your original suggestion stands up pretty well) is changing Sumeria's starting tech to Warrior Code (replacing say, Bronze Working), allowing them to build offensive Archers and defensive Enkidu. In that case they wouldn't really need to build Warriors for offense - though of course this would mean the Warrior-SWordsman upgrade strategy that many players love is still not possible, but I don't see any reason why all strategies must be available to all civs.

On the other hand, it may be too much of a change for AU purposes, and I'm not sure how it would affect overall balance.

On the cost increase, I tend to think that a cheap cost for defensive units is quite ok. The Enkidu becomes obsolete relatively early as a pure defensive unit, and the cheaper upfront cost just means you have to pay more to upgrade later if you want them to remain effective defensive units.

Another thought - under the current rules, if Sumeria triggers its GA before researching Feudalism, is it left without a defensive unit to build (apart from Swordsmen which have the same defence rating but are an attacking unit)? If so, this seems a little unfair.

[alexman]

A UU becomes unavailable only after a GA has been triggered, and the unit has become obsolete in the upgrade chain. The Enkidu upgrade to Pikemen, so they will be always available until Feudalism, even after a GA has been triggered.

[Nor Me]

I'd have thought that Thrillers' idea of giving the Enkidu the offensive flag for the AI certainly makes sense if it's cost stayed at 10. The Enkidu is the best offensive unit the Sumerians can build to start with and I'd expect them to Enkidu rush reasonably often.

Later on, they would build Enkidus as well as archers and swordsmen more but I doubt it would be that significant. It's a reasonable attacker for it's cost anyway.

I wouldn't imagine that that many offensive Enkidu's would survive to Feudalism and we've already got infantry upgrading to defensive only.

The question is thsn whether the Enkidu would be better at 10 or 15 shields.

Even at 10 shields, I wouldn't prefer a 1/2/1 Enkidu to 15 costing 1/1/2 Jaguars or Chasquis for pillaging or harassing an AI civ. It's too easy to draw off the AI's attackers with one fast unit so there's less chance of others being counterattacked. It's a human's advantage at counterattacking that makes them better than these in MP.

One advantage of the Enkidu is in defending archers, especially the ability of regular Enkidu warriors to defend ahead of veteran archers. But it's still not as good as the bowman for that and that's hardly a killer UU.

The proposed changes aren't bad but I'd prefer to see just the offensive flag mainly because it's more conservative.

[Krill]

Personally I think that giving the Sumerian AI so many defensive units is over powering; A quick rush would kill (most) civs early on in the game. I think that we should leave the Enkidu as it is, but allow the use of warriors. stops any rush prior to 3000BC, and the AI starts with the correct number of units. End of problem.

[alexman]

Under consideration:

Yes/No: Add AI offense strategy to Enkidu Warrior

Voting in a week

[alexman]

Time to vote! AU mod panel, you have 48 hours.

My vote: Yes.

[Nor Me]

Yes.

[Stuie]

Yes.

[nbarclay]

No, at least for the moment. In terms of how much more cost-effective in shields the UU is than the unit it replaces, the Enkidu is probably the most powerful UU in the game. Under those conditions, I would want to see test results of how effectively the Sumerian AI uses Enkidus in an offensive role before flagging them offensive in the AU Mod - and thereby potentially making them more potent in AI hands.

There is no cost-effective defense against a "pillaging Enkidu" strategy, especially in the early game. Even weight of numbers cannot possibly offset the fact that Enkidus cost half as much as archers and have a defense value as high the archers' attack value. The defender has to either allow the Enkidu to go about its pillaging (thereby playing havoc with the defender's economy) or engage in combat on highly unfavorable terms.

For Enkidus in human hands, that power is partially offset by two factors, or three on the higher levels. First, we're playing to win the game, not just to beat one particular opponent. Thus, no matter how effective the "pillaging Enkidu" strategy might be against one or two opponents, it is not nearly so obviously the best way to build a prosperous civilization in the long term. But from an AI/game balance/game fun perspective, the Sumerian AI can cause a player to lose without setting itself up to win.

Second, players who view the "pillaging Enkidu" tactic as too overpowering can choose to refrain from using it in order to play a more balanced game. But AI behavior can't be turned on and off that way short of playing with a customized version of the Mod.

And third, on Monarch and higher levels, AIs get bonuses to offset their inferior tactics. Thus, in practice, the cost difference between a pillaging human Enkidu and an AI archer that attacks it is smaller than the nominal costs involved would imply. But with human archers forced to deal with pillaging AI Enkidus, the reverse would be true: the difference in shield costs in practice would be even higher than the nominal cost difference.

Thus, if the Sumerian AI with offensive-flagged Enkidus would stumble into something along the lines of a "pillaging Enkidu" stategy, that could cause serious trouble for human players in spite of the fact that the AI's strategy would not be nearly as concentrated or focused as what human players can come up with. Worse, it would be trouble that has no cost-effective counter-strategy (especially prior to catapults) because of the mathematics involved. That's not the kind of "helping the AI" that I want in the AU Mod.

Therefore, I view the change as something that could be either beneficial or harmful, depending on how the AI reacts to it. That being the case, I don't think the change belongs in the AU Mod until we have some evidence regarding how the AI would use offensive-flagged Enkidus. So, to re-iterate, I vote no at least for the time being.

Nathan

[alexman]

From what I have seen of AI behavior, pillaging is done by defensive units that have lost the offensive unit they were escorting. AI offensive units attack instead, or if they think their target is to strong, they move to attack another target.

However, the above observation doesn't come from systematic testing, just from in-game experience.

[Madine]

Here is an idea for allowing enkidus to upgrade to swordsmen without depriving the Sumerians of their cheap defensive unit:

Create a duplicate enkidu warrior as follows: Same stats as original, available at Iron working, requires iron, defensive flag only, upgrades to pikeman.

[ZargonX]

I'm trepiditious about it, but I guess we'll go with a "try it and see"

My vote: Yes