The 3-Man Chariot

[Ision]

I am not sure if the AU panel is still open to suggestions for changes at this time but I will give it a try anyway.

As I see it the 3MC could use a make-over. At 30 shields, IMO, this 2-2-2 wheeled unit is:

a) not enough bang for the buck - it cost the same as a Mounted Warrior without being nearly as powerful or useful long-term. Yes it does come earlier, but IMO this does NOT offset its overall weakness long-term.

b) as a wheeled unit that replaces the horseman it frequently leaves the Hitts at a disadvantage in relation to other CIVs until Chivalry.

c) lastly, IMO the Hittites could use the boost. Unlike the thread about the Aztecs and the Jags - it was often stated that the new trait advantages of the Aztecs in C3C (agri) should be a factor in considering whether to boost the Jags - this is not the case with the Hitts.

There are in my opinion 3 approaches one can take with changing the 3MC:

1) lower the shield cost (perhaps 25) in order to make the unit more cost efficient.

2) change the stats (zero range bombard, or 3-1-2 stats, or enslavement ability, ect...)

3) this last one is the most radical, but IMO the best solution - REMOVE the wheeled status of the unit. This would truly make the unit the defensive version of the Mounted Warrior. Concurrent with this idea would be considering whether to move the 3MC to Horseback Riding and allow them to build regular Chariots.

So whats your take on the 3MC?

Ision

[alexman]

The Hittites' traits are not that bad. They are about average on most maps, and very strong on large maps, so they do not need a killer UU. A fast UU makes them even stronger on large maps.

Also, the 3MC should be compared to the Horseman, not to the Mounted Warrior, which is an exceptionally strong UU that might need to be weakened. Compared to the Horseman, the Hittite UU is definitely an upgrade, even if it has the wheeled handicap.

If I were forced to make a change, I would not do anything more drastic than to give the ability to the Hittites to build Horsemen in addition to 3-man-chariots, and have both these units upgrade to Knights.

[nbarclay]

Originally posted by alexman

If I were forced to make a change, I would not do anything more drastic than to give the ability to the Hittites to build Horsemen in addition to 3-man-chariots, and have both these units upgrade to Knights.

I would view that as a very definite change for the better, at least from a human perspective. (Indeed, I didn't realize the Hittites couldn't build horsemen; I don't think I've ever played them.) Not only would such a change make it a lot harder for the Hittites to have situations where their UU gives them a disadvantage rather than an advantage, but the issue of how to balance building horsemen for their movement flexibility and building 3MCs for their defensive strength would be a strategically interesting one.

The one big question is whether having the AI Hittites able to build horsemen in addition to 3MCs would hurt them significantly. My initial inclination is that it would probably be a mixed bag for them: to whatever extent they would build horsemen instead of 3MCs, they would tend to lose more units on defense, but they could reach places they can't now. (In AU 501, the only way the Hittites had any real hope at all of getting 3MCs into Sumerian lands was by boat.) All in all, I doubt that the change would hurt the AI enough to be a real problem.

The 3MC is a long way from being my favorite UU, but I don't view it as the worst one in the game either. The only time I view improving UUs as appropriate in the AU Mod is when a case can be made that the UU is not better than its conventional counterparts (taking into consideration not just the unit it directly replaces but other contemporary units). With the Hittites unable to build horsemen, it can be argued that there are a significant number of situations where that would be the case. But if we allowed the Hittites to build horsemen, I would view the option of building 3MCs as a very clear asset, even if it is a relatively small one compared with the best UUs.

One last thing: since Egypt has the ability to build both WCs and horsemen, there is good precedent for allowing the Hittites to build both a chariot-based UU and horsemen at the same time.

[ducki]

From a flavor viewpoint, I'd prefer the Zero-Range Bombard(the third man is an archer). The AI wouldn't have to be coaxed into any special build-queue decisions and would automatically get the benefit.

That said, I don't have enough experience with the Hittites to specifically speak to their situation, but the Wheeled attribute is not a blanket hindrance. Certain map types would, indeed, make it more or less useful, but the same could be said for various other UUs.

That's my relatively inexperienced (with the UU) opinion.

[nbarclay]

Originally posted by ducki

From a flavor viewpoint, I'd prefer the Zero-Range Bombard(the third man is an archer). The AI wouldn't have to be coaxed into any special build-queue decisions and would automatically get the benefit.

That said, I don't have enough experience with the Hittites to specifically speak to their situation, but the Wheeled attribute is not a blanket hindrance. Certain map types would, indeed, make it more or less useful, but the same could be said for various other UUs.

Giving the 3-man Chariot zero-range bombard would make it stronger in cases where it already provides an advantage while doing essentially nothing to address situations where terrain makes the 3MC a liability rather than asset. In my mind, that is exactly the opposite of what a legitimate solution to the issue ought to look like.

I agree that the Wheeled attribute is not a blanket hindrance for the 3MC. Indeed, based on my fairly extensive experience with Egyptian War Chariots, I would expect games where building 3MCs instead of horsemen causes more harm than good overall to be relatively rare, especially for good players. But situations where a UU is a liability rather than an asset are frustrating, and the relative rarity of situations where the 3MC is a liability means only that players will be frustrated less often.

I've also thought of another aspect of letting Hitties build horsemen that could be considered either good or bad. If the Hittites could build horsemen, they could engage in fast-mover warfare without triggering their GA, albeit at a cost of doing without their UU's defensive advantages. Whether that is good because it adds an interesting strategic option or bad because it could help human players at the expense of AIs (or perhaps some of each) is a matter of perspective.

[ducki]

they could engage in fast-mover warfare without triggering their GA

I think this is a good example of a reason not to make this change.

If this is a valid reason for this change, I think we could make the case that the Egypt should be able to build regular chariots, the Celts should be able to build swordsmen, etc. The GA trigger is a double-edged sword and should not be, IMO, a reason for changing a UU. You have to make the decision to use or not use your UU and giving the Hittites an "easy out" is not consistent with other changes we've made, but if there are examples, I'm open.

[nbarclay]

There is a difference between something not being a good reason to make a change and its being a good reason not to make a change. I very much agree that giving the Hittites a fast-mover they can use without triggering their GA is not a valid reason to let the Hittites build horsemen. As you said, if we made the change for the Hittites for that reason, we'd have to do it for everyone else if we wanted to be consistent.

On the other hand, the only reason I'm interested in the idea of letting the Hittites build horsemen is that their situation under the stock rules is such a departure from the normal pattern. Their UU displaces two conventional units, not just one, and retains a significant limitation of the more primitive of the two. So it would be hard for the Hittites to be less of a strange case than they are now.

It is also worth noting that Egypt already has the option of forgoing use of its UU and building horsemen instead in order to fight using fast-movers without triggering their GA. The real difference between Egypt's situation now and the situation with the Hittites if we let them build horsemen is that because the Hittites' UU provides less advantage, the idea of forgoing its use for an extended period would be easier to seriously consider. But it would be hard to accuse that difference of making the Hittites unreasonably powerful.

To reiterate, I do not view the GA issue as a good reason to support letting the Hittites build horsemen. But I don't view it as a deal-breaker either.

Nathan

[ducki]

What about flipflopping the Egypt situation for the Hittites, then? Let them build Chariots and upgrade into 3ManChariots?

That's probably still too limited for some, so what if the 3MC had 3 movement instead of 2, but was still limited by the wheeled attribute?

I dunno, I - in my opinion - think the GA avoidance is a good reason not to make the change, not merely not a good reason to make the change. I understand the subtle difference, we just disagree. No biggie.

[nbarclay]

I think I have a solution. What if we'd create a Hittite Horseman unit that is a clone of the Horseman unit (including using the same graphic) but with the "Starts Golden Age" flag set? That would let the Hittites build horsemen but cause them to trigger their GA if they use them. I haven't tested to make sure that's workable, but from a quick look at the editor, it looks like it would be.

[ducki]

Re: The 3-Man Chariot

Originally posted by Ision
As I see it the 3MC could use a make-over. At 30 shields, IMO, this 2-2-2 wheeled unit is:

a) not enough bang for the buck

Horsemen don't address this one, IMO, but I included it because it was listed as an original reason for a possible change.

b) as a wheeled unit that replaces the horseman it frequently leaves the Hitts at a disadvantage in relation to other CIVs until Chivalry.

This seems to be the main point of contention.
Would a change to a) make this less of an issue? What if they were 3-2-2, like the Gallic Swords, but still wheeled?
Or 2-3-2, keeping with their defensive boost relative to the Horseman, and staying wheeled, maintaining their uniqueness among other HBR/Ironworking-level UUs?

c) lastly, IMO the Hittites could use the boost.

Again, I can't really speak to this one, not having enough experience with the Hittites in particular. Are they weak compared to other B-level civs(the ones that don't make the "best civ evar" lists)?

I just seems to me that the main thrust of Ision's original was that the UU compared to other UUs and the Hittites compared to other civs need a boost, not that Wheeled is an onerous burden for the UU. Our discussion, however, seems to have focused more on the wheeledness of the UU, which makes me wonder if the issue is more a dislike of the constraints of Wheeled units or a true balance issue. I don't know the answer, so don't assume I'm pointing fingers. The focus on wheeledness just strikes me as not the main point we should be looking at. Does wheeled truly weaken and unbalance the Hittites in the Ancient Age and the 3MC when compared to Horsemen?

(Just taking a step back to look at the original proposal.)

[Krill]

Or 2-3-2, keeping with their defensive boost relative to the Horseman, and staying wheeled, maintaining their uniqueness among other HBR/Ironworking-level UUs?

Er, Ducki, they would be better than hoplites and Numidian mercenaries. Unless they cost about 50 shields, that is unfair to the other civs

[ducki]

Only if Wheeled is not a significant disadvantage, IMO. I'm just throwing ideas out there that don't involve giving the Hittites 2 UUs.
I agree that 2-3-2 is strong, but so is 3-2-2 and 3-3-1 and 2-3-1.

So how much is wheeled worth, in shields, to give enough bang-for-buck without generating UU-envy?

[Ision]

Thanks ducki for re-focusing the debate.

IMO the most elegant solution would be to eliminate the wheeled status of the unit and move it to horsbackriding, while also allowing them to build standard chariots. This would not over-power this CIV, while at the same time giving them a defensive version of the Mounted Warrior.

While alexman may be correct in that the Iro's may be slightly overpowed with the combo of both agri as a trait and MWs - this would not be the case for the Hitts. Besides there will always be CIVs with ancient age advantages over others. My point with the Hitts is that their trait combo is a nice 'average' combo - but that their UU can often times turn an 'average' CIV into below-average. This solution reminds me of when the AU Panel gave the Mongol Keshik zero range bombard and the Indian Elephant a movement bonus in jungles.

This debate is no more, and no less neccassary than the one about the Aztec Jag or the Chasqui Scout. My personal expierence playing the Hitts, along with some oberservation of the AI performance with this CIV leads me to believe that this is a worthy topic for consideration.

Ision

[nbarclay]

Putting the issues Ision raised in more generic terms:

a) Such-and-such UU isn't as good as some of the other UUs.

b) Such-and-such UU can be worse than the standard unit it replaces under some circumstances.

c) Such-and-such civ could use a boost because it isn't as powerful as some other civs.

In my view, (a) is outside the scope of the AU Mod. Except on especially troublesome terrain, the 3MC is clearly better than the standard unit it replaces. Further, aside from the "wheeled" issue, the 3MC is to the horseman exactly what the Babylonian Bowman is to the archer. And it can be argued that the fact that horsemen are generally considered more useful units than archers makes up, or even more than makes up, for the disadvantage of the "wheeled" attribute overall. I can see improving a UU that's accused of providing no meaningful advantage over its standard counterpart. But both Alexman and I take the view that if we go beyond that and start improving UUs just because they aren't as good as some of the others, we'd be opening too big a can of worms.

Similarly, I also view (c) as outside the scope of the AU Mod. The can of worms we'd open up if we start adjusting UU stats to compensate for how "good" or "bad" civs' traits are is also a big and messy one.

On the other hand, I do view (b) as within the scope of the AU Mod. I can't think of a single case where a UU was accused of being worse than the standard unit it replaced that we didn't investigate. In some cases, as with the Gallic Swordsman in PtW, we concluded that the UU did in fact provide an advantage rather than a disadvantage. In the case of the Chasqui, we considered the complaint legitimate and modified the UU to compensate. So the precedent that it is within the scope of the AU Mod to deal with situations where a UU is worse than the standard unit it replaces is very clear.

Strengthening the 3MC would make it more powerful on average, but would do essentially nothing about the existence of situations where the 3MC provides a disadvantage rather than an advantage. At most, it would give the Hittites a little more return for their efforts if they do make the investment required to road through the mountans and/or jungles that are in their way.

On the other hand, allowing the Hittites to build either horsemen or a horseman clone that triggers a GA would tackle the issue head on. With the ability to build horsemen, the 3MC would never leave the Hittites worse off than if they had no UU. And I might add that allowing a civ to build a standard unit as well as a UU has been considered before in similar cases. When we thought the Gallic Swordsman might be a disadvantage rather than an advantage in PtW, allowing the Celts to build swordsmen was on our "short list" of answers. Similarly, if I recall correctly, allowing the Incas to build regular scouts as well as Chasquis was an option we considered. So letting the Hittites build horsemen or horseman clones would be within existing precedent rather than setting a new precedent that would encourage if not demand modifying other UUs as well.

Incidentally, the fact that the Hittite UU is relatively weak and the Hittites' traits are arguably not that great might provide a good argument for letting the Hittites build standard horsemen rather than GA-triggering clone horsemen. To the extent that it matters at all, the ability to use horsemen without triggering a GA might provide something interesting about the Hittites that would make them a more interesting civ to play. And because letting the Hittites build standard horsemen is also the simplest solution to the "wheeled" problem, it would do so purely as a side effect rather than opening a new can of worms in regard to other civs and their UUs.

Nathan

[nbarclay]

Originally posted by Ision

IMO the most elegant solution would be to eliminate the wheeled status of the unit and move it to horsbackriding, while also allowing them to build standard chariots. This would not over-power this CIV, while at the same time giving them a defensive version of the Mounted Warrior.

Strictly in terms of game mechanics, I agree (although I don't view moving the UU to Horseback Riding as necessary). The only thing that's stopped me from making a similar suggestion myself is the realism angle. Something doesn't feel right about having the game's heaviest type of chariot be the only type of chariot that isn't treated as a wheeled unit.