AU mod: The Conquistador

[MrWhereItsAt]

Cool. So now is the week for final furious closing arguments before voting?

[donZappo]

Has moving the explorer up the tech tree ever been discussed in the AU? If you moved it up half an era it seems like it would make it somewhat useful while still allowing an effective explorer - conquistador upgrade chain.

I know that this isn't the thread for such a discussion, but not being a panel member I don't know how to get proposals initiated. Plus, it did actually seem related since you guys were talking about upgrade chains involving cavalry, but if both the explorer and conquistador were made more useful (with Spain being allowed to build explorers!) then the upgrade chain would seem to make logical sense.

-donZappo

[alexman]

Good idea, I will open a thread about Explorers soon. It's already in the list of topics in the main thread.

Edit: AU Mod: The Explorer

[Dominae]

alexman, you've forgotten the option of simultaneously reducing the Attack to 2 and increasing the Defense to 3. I'm not sure you put up enough of a case to seriously remove this option from contention.


Dominae

[alexman]

So now you're calling for a SoZ-style vote?

Seriously, it seemed to me that the 3.3.2 proposal got more support, so I opted for a simpler Yes/No vote. we can always hold another Yes/No vote to select between a 2.3.2 proposal and the winner of this vote.

[nbarclay]

It seems to me that 3.3.2 has the same defensive advantages as 2.3.2 without being anywhere near as radical a change. Rather than changing the entire character of the unit, 3.3.2 leaves the unit useful for everything it is useful for under the standard rules while letting it defend itself and other units a bit better. That seems more in the spirit of the AU Mod to me.

Would anyone else vote for 2.3.2 if that were an option under consideration? My impression is that the 2.3.2 idea didn't get enough support to make it worth the trouble of voting on.

[ducki]

I think the issue was:
The unit is (by many) viewed as a "penetrator" unit, designed to get behind enemy lines and wreak havoc. By the time Navigation(or is it Astronomy?) comes around, 2 attack isn't going to do much wreaking of anything other than road-busting, IMO. 3 is still fairly weak compared to much of what you'll see(Knights and Pikes) for attacking while the standard 2-defense is laughable in the face of Med-Inf, Knights, and Longbows.
The slight boost in defense actually gives a chance to survive the first round behind enemy lines while leaving the attack at the standard 3 actually give the chance to retailiate against Med.Inf and Longbows (and less effectively) a Knight.
I still don't think he'll last long in any opponent sufficiently advanced and developed enough to be able to defend against a main force of the era anyway, but the one extra defense makes it more interesting and (arguably) more survival-fit, while leaving the unit relatively stock and therefore still able to pose an actual threat to one or two enemy units, even when doing a solo, spec-ops-style assault. And I don't think we'll see them en masse, as that would detract from the training of Knights and Pikes.

At least that's how I saw the logic.

[alexman]

Time to vote (hey, it's Friday in most of Asia).

1. Yes: Reduce shield cost to 60.
2. Yes: If item 1 results in a Yes, also increase defense strength to 3.
3. Yes: Add enslavement ability (applies only if item 2 results in a No).
4. Yes: Add ability for Spain to build Explorers when horses are not available.

[lockstep]

YES: Reduce shield cost to 60
YES: If item 1 results in a Yes, also increase defense strength to 3
NO: Add enslavement ability (applies only if item 2 results in a No)
YES: Add ability for Spain to build Explorers when horses are not available

[ZargonX]

1. Yes
2. Yes
3. Yes
4. Yes

[Dominae]

1. Yes.
2. Yes.
3. No.
4. No.

[Theseus]

YNNN

[pauli]

1: yes
2: yes
3: yes
4: yes

[Stuie]

1. Yes
2. No
3. No
4. Yes

[Nor Me]

1,2,4: Yes
3: No.