AU mod: The Enkidu Warrior

[alexman]

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

Wouldn't it be rather awkward to have old Enkidus upgrade to Swordsmen and new ones to Pikemen? Then you lose your iron, and they upgrade to Swordsmen again...

[lockstep]

Although this won't change anything:

NO

(But adding the 'offense' strategy may be a good idea if combined with shield costs of 15 - this way, the Enkidu Warrior becomes sort of a cheaper/weaker Numidian Mercenary. Oh well ... we shall try the 10-shield version and see.)

[alexman]

This is the first time we are being concerned about improving the AI too much in this mod!

That hints that the Enkidu probably needs to be made more expensive.

[Theseus]

Yes... but I'd prefer to see it in conjunction with an increase in cost to 15 shields.

[IthacaMike]

Originally posted by 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.

A cleaner way would be to duplicate the Spearman (and create the Sumerian Spearman) so you can tell at a glance what the unit is and what it will upgrade to.

I like this one.

IthacaMike

[nbarclay]

Originally posted by alexman
This is the first time we are being concerned about improving the AI too much in this mod!

That hints that the Enkidu probably needs to be made more expensive.

Maybe, maybe not. Keep in mind that AIs tend to build vastly more defensive units than humans do, and therefore tend to get vastly more advantage out of strong defensive UUs than we do in conventional warfare. For example, Greece is one of the AIs I least like to fight against in the early game because Hoplites are so powerful and cost-effective defensively. But in spite of the danger posed by Hoplites in AI hands, I always dismissed them as almost completely uninteesting as a UU to use myself in normal games. I'm only now starting to reconsider, because it occurs to me that Hoplites have the same kind of "pillage and dare the enemy to attack them" potential that Enkidus do.

So what we have with the Enkidu under the standard rules is a situation in which AIs get vastly more advantage than most humans out of the Enkidu with conventional tactics, while humans can potentially get vastly more value from using them in unconventional tactics. If those two factors are currently in reasonably good balance (and I don't know whether they are or not), changes that significantly increase AI use of Enkidus for pillaging could upset the balance without implying that a cost of 10 for Enkidus in human hands is unbalancing.

I have absolutely no doubt whatsoever that Enkidu pillaging can be a very powerful tactic in human hands, but I'm far more skeptical about whether its power is out of proportion to that of other tactics. I don't recall seeing any real-world reports of how players have used the tactic (which may just mean I haven't looked the right places). And without such reports, it's hard for me to form a firm opinion of whether the Enkidu's power at cost 10 is really so far out of line with the power of other UUs - especially the "big guns" like Immortals, Mounted Warriors, and War Chariots - as to require a change.

Nathan

[Theseus]

Good point, Nathan... subtle.

Enkidus should be 15 shields for human players, but for the AI? Whatever... until there is an "AI as Aeson" option.

Something I shall endeavor to remember for other AU discussions.

[ZargonX]

"AI as Aeson"

[ducki]

I don't recall seeing any real-world reports of how players have used the tactic (which may just mean I haven't looked the right places).

I think most folks feel that pillaging is counterproductive - they'd rather not have to reroad and remine. Aeson has shown some very effective use of the ultra-early pillage strategy and the old oscillating-war-aka-pruning hints at it, but it seems not many folk do pruning without taking territory.

My own (new) opinion is that (usually) captured territory, especially very early, is highly corrupt, and therefore any mines are unnecessary for some time, therefore I'm more apt to pillage of late, even if I intend to take a town - if pop is high, I'm going to starve and rush workers anyway, so I'll re-improve before it's really needed. If pop is low, I don't really need the improvements. Roads are nice, but not necessary for anything other than connecting lux.

I just realized I'm rambling.
The point is, I think most folks see pillaging as creating future inconvenience for themselves - they'd rather have the enemy be slightly better off in the short term because it means they don't have to manage workers fixing what they just broke.

I could be wrong, but that's how I see it in _most_ discussions where it comes up, which doesn't seem very often.

[nbarclay]

In my view, increasing the cost of the Enkidu is justified only if the Enkidu at cost 10 in human hands is more powerful than generally recognized first-tier UUs such as the Mounted Warrior, War Chariot, Immortal, and Rider. If the Enkidu at cost 10 is merely a good UU, even a first-tier one, that is not sufficient to justify a change in cost.

In purely or primarily conventional warfare, the Enkidu does not come even close to being as attractive as the other UUs I listed; at least not with anything resembling the playing styles I normally use. Thus, the only way the Enkidu's power can be out of line with that of generally recognized first-tier UUs is if its pillaging ability provides enough advantage, often enough, for enough players, to make up for its lesser value in conventional warfare. I'm open to the possibility that that might be the case, at least if enough players get used to and good at early-game pillaging tactics. But I'm also highly skeptical, especially since Enkidu pillaging on any significant scale is almost certain to trigger a GA.

Nathan

[player1]

Something I discovered while testing Numidians and offense/defense flags.

Units with defense flag can often attack other units.
They would not take great risks, but at any time they have advantage they will attack if having nothing better to do.

For example, in one test mod I had AI with multiple Spearmen roaming around and attaking barbarians warriors.

Also, when testing Numidian without offense flag they did attacked lone archers. Even a city defended with spearman (but not too often)!

Only thing that defensive units did not do was suicidaly attacking cities when having no advantage.

For example, AI will attack with warrior a spearman, but will not attack same spearman with enkidu warrior (although both units would attack a warrior).



P.S.
Although I may say that in this particular case, adding Offense flag was justified, since it helps AI to get proper number of units.

But, in case Impi or Numidian I think that no offense flag at all would work well.

[alexman]

Thanks player1. We were actually aware of the fact that defensive units can attack when they have good odds of winning and if they are not protecting another unit, but it's nice to have it confirmed by you.

See the related thread for the discussion on Numidian Mercenaries and Impi (Numidian Mercs in the AU mod do not have the AI offense flag, but Impi do. The impi decision was hotly debated and we had to vote twice on it).

[pvzh]

I would like to re-visit this topic.

I do not like them at all: it comes instead of regular warrior, so I cannot build swordsmen through upgrade. It is the only civ that is forced to build swordsmen with shields if you need swordsmen.

What if we just enable warriors to Sumerians, so they will get offensive units, and revert Enkidu to defence only flag? Enkidu Warrior is a 1/2-cost spearman for all intents and purposes, and have nothing to do with being "warrior". What about renaming it as well?

[Dominae]

I think Sumeria is strong enough as is without introducing the option of upgrading Warriors. The loss of that upgrade path (or, the beginning of it) is the main reason the Enkidu was priced at 10 Shields instead of 15 (and why it replaces Warriors instead of Spearmen). Allowing human players to upgrade their Enkidus to Swordsmen does little to nothing to help the AI.

[joncnunn]

I believe the whole point of the AU mod is to make things easier for the AI and not the human.

Originally posted by pvzh
I would like to re-visit this topic.

I do not like them at all: it comes instead of regular warrior, so I cannot build swordsmen through upgrade. It is the only civ that is forced to build swordsmen with shields if you need swordsmen.

What if we just enable warriors to Sumerians, so they will get offensive units, and revert Enkidu to defence only flag? Enkidu Warrior is a 1/2-cost spearman for all intents and purposes, and have nothing to do with being "warrior". What about renaming it as well?