The 3-Man Chariot

[Aqualung71]

Originally posted by ducki
Just curious why you don't want to join the discussion, Aqualung71? Is it simply a lack of experience with the Hittites that prevents you voicing an opinion?

Largely, yes. My experience of the 3WC is really limited to AU501, where the Hittites used their grossly outclassed UU's at a time when they should have had something much better to throw against the Byzantine forces.

Having said that, I'm feeling rather motivated to give them a try soon to see first hand what this is all about.

[nbarclay]

Originally posted by Dominae
The argument that the 3MC is inferior for Jungle/Mountain starting locations is analogous to the argument that Immortals, Gallics, etc. are inferior for Iron-less starting locations. War Chariots are sometimes completely useless, but no one here is complaining about them.

Not true. In cases where a player lacks a resource needed to build a UU, the player is no worse off as a result of having the UU than he would be if he had the standard unit instead. Celts without iron can't build GSs, but they couldn't build swordsmen either. Egyptians without horses can't build WCs, but they couldn't build regular chariots either. So while most UUs are useless if a player can't get his hands on the needed resource or resources, the UUS do not actually create a disadvantage. The 3MC can create a disadvantage compared with if the Hittites used regular horsemen on some terrain.

Regarding War Chariots' wheeled nature, note that Egypt can build horsemen. So again, we have a situation where the UU might be rendered useless (at least in the absence of extensive work on military roards), but not one in which a UU is useless and displaces a unit that would be useful.

[nbarclay]

Originally posted by ducki


I disagree with the logic here - while we have considered allowing a civ to build the standard unit that its UU replaces, we've never agreed to it, so there is, indeed, no precedent for actually implementing this.

There is not a precedent for actually doing it. There is a clear precedent for viewing allowing a civ to build the standard unit in addition to the UU as a viable solution.

In one post, you mention that the wheeled attribute can sometimes provide a distinct disadvantage, but in supporting a change, seem to make the assumption that the wheeled attribute does generally provide a disadvantage.

Not true. My goal is to adopt a solution that prevents the UU from ever being a significant disadvantage but that leaves situations where the UU does not provide a disadvantage essentially alone. I do think 3MCs are already better than horsemen on average, but how much good does being better on average do in games where half a dozen mountain, jungle, marsh, and/or volcano tiles are in the way of their reaching a target?

F) Move 3MC to HBR, allow Hittites to build Chariots and upgrade into 3MC. Retain wheeled attribute.

The only thing that would accomplish would be to allow the Hittites to use chariots as prebuilds for 3MCs, at the expense of their not being able to build 3MCs as early. It wouldn't address the primary complaint, which is the Hittites' absence of a non-wheeled fast-mover until Chivalry, at all. Do you really regard the inability to upgrade from 20-shield chariots to 30-shield 3MCs as that big a deal, or are you proposing this for some other reason that I haven't figured out?

G) Postpone a vote pending a course starring the Hittites as the Player Civ

The only way I can see that's being particularly useful is if the game would be rigged to have terrain clearly and significantly hostile to the use of 3MCs. (After all, we already all seem to agree that the 3MC is useful on good terrain.) Making sure players have to fight at least one war without iron would focus even more attention on the 3MC, since players would have to either find a way to make the 3MC useful or fight with archers if they want to go on the offensive. (And, I might add, cats have the same "wheeled" problem 3MCs do, so either both can be used or neither can.)

Actually, the more I think about it, the more I think such a course might be a good idea. I don't remember our ever having a course focused specifically on the use of military roads to overcome adverse terrain, and a course where the only offensive unit better than an archer is wheeled could be perfect for that purpose.

These are just my opinions. It seems that under certain map-specific conditions, the UU can be less advantageous than on other maps, but I think we disagree that that is reason enough for a change.

I agree that just being "less advantageous" is not sufficient grounds for a change. But I also see a big difference between merely being less advantageous under certain conditions and actually creating a disadvantage under certain conditions.

[Dominae]

Originally posted by nbarclay

Not true. In cases where a player lacks a resource needed to build a UU, the player is no worse off as a result of having the UU than he would be if he had the standard unit instead. Celts without iron can't build GSs, but they couldn't build swordsmen either. Egyptians without horses can't build WCs, but they couldn't build regular chariots either. So while most UUs are useless if a player can't get his hands on the needed resource or resources, the UUS do not actually create a disadvantage. The 3MC can create a disadvantage compared with if the Hittites used regular horsemen on some terrain.

You seem to be saying that whenever a player has access to Horses, he/she should always have access to a Horsemen-type unit or strictly better. I suppose that's one way of looking at it, but I see no justification for this.

The Celts do not have a 30-Shield Swordsman equivalent unit, nor the Carthaginians a 20-Shield Spearman equivalent unit. Why not transfer non-equivalence in Shields over to other characteristics? In both the cases above we're happy with the UUs because they're powerful despite their drawbacks (i.e. extra Shield cost). Why not do the same with the 3MC? Make it more powerful if need be, but leave it's defining characteristic alone (namely, it's Wheeled "ability").

In general, I feel it only takes away from the game if some civs can build the standard units in addition to their corresponding UUs. It strikes me as giving more power to the human player but taking away much of the fun.

Civ3 needs more variety, not less.

[nbarclay]

Originally posted by Dominae

The Celts do not have a 30-Shield Swordsman equivalent unit, nor the Carthaginians a 20-Shield Spearman equivalent unit. Why not transfer non-equivalence in Shields over to other characteristics? In both the cases above we're happy with the UUs because they're powerful despite their drawbacks (i.e. extra Shield cost). Why not do the same with the 3MC? Make it more powerful if need be, but leave it's defining characteristic alone (namely, it's Wheeled "ability").

As I keep saying, the problem with making the 3MC more powerful in some other way to compensate for its Wheeled attribute is that such a change would be most useful on maps where the 3MC already provides a clear advantage over horsemen while making significantly less difference on maps where players would be better off with horsemen than with 3MCs. Thus, it would "solve" something that isn't really a problem at all while doing very little about the issue that actually is a problem.

Regarding units that are better but more expensive, the key point is that they are better. The Numidian Merc has the same advantage over a spearman that a pikeman does, plus greater offensive ability (useful mainly for finishing off injured enemies), no matter what kind of map a person is playing. Part of the GS's advantage is map dependent, but the GS's ability to retreat is an advantage no matter what the map conditions are and it can cross terrain that slows it down and still use its speed advantage on the other side. Neither situation is anywhere near as map-dependent as the 3MC's situation is.

I actually prefer to let Hittites build horsemen rather than taking away the Wheeled attribute from the 3MC because that would preserve the 3MC's character. But I don't like the idea of leaving the Hittites as the only civ in the game without a non-wheeled fast-mover until Chivalry.

In general, I feel it only takes away from the game if some civs can build the standard units in addition to their corresponding UUs. It strikes me as giving more power to the human player but taking away much of the fun.

In general, I'm inclined to agree. But in general, UUs are capable of doing anything their standard counterparts can do, and of doing it at least as well if not better. Further, if the Hittites would be allowed to build horsemen, they would still in the situation of having a regular unit that they cannot build because of their UU - the chariot.

Civ3 needs more variety, not less.

Personally, I think Firaxis got the amount of variety among civs very close to exactly right. They put in enough variety to encourage players to adapt their styles to take advantage of differences in civs' characteristics, but not so much variety as to in effect tell players how particular civs are "supposed" to act. That provides more variety in the game while still leaving a feeling that I'm charting my own course for my civilization rather than following a script written by someone else.

Further, variety makes logical sense only up to a certain point. Once the Celts develop Gallic Swordsmen, it makes perfect sense that they would build those units instead of the inferior, conventional swordsmen. Even if conventional swordsmen might have advantages in certain situations (most notably as part of stacks with massive numbers of catapults) due to their lower cost, it is not hard to imagine prejudices and national pride getting in the way of building the kind of inferior unit other nations use.

But when a job needs done and a civ's special unit genuinely cannot do that job, it is virtually impossible to explain why the civ would not fall back on using the same type of conventional unit that other civs do in that role. The idea that a whole succession of Hittite rulers over a period of centuries would refuse to address their three-man chariots' mobility problem by putting people on horseback when they know other civs are using that technique strikes me as more than a little absurd.

Nathan

[nbarclay]

Following up on my previous post, in the vast majority of cases, there is no even remotely sane reason why a civilization (as distinct from a player) would want to build a standard unit instead of its UU. Players might want to build the standard unit because they want to trigger their golden age later rather than earlier, but that involves manipulation of game mechanics, not a reason that translates realistically from how the underlying civilization would reasonably be expected to think. On the contrary, a real-world civilization fighting a war would want to take every advantage it can get, and would not know that starting a golden age now will prevent them from having one later. Therefore, taking away the option of building the regular unit in addition to the UU makes it harder for players to play unrealistically.

In a few cases, there can be times when having regular units and UUs operate side by side would actually make sense in game terms independent of the issue of GA timing. Swordsmen are probably a better investment than GSs for attacking units that have already been reduced to just one or two hit points by cats. Knights could help protect Ansars or Keshiks in certain cituations because of their higher defense value. But even in those cases, the fundamental capabilities of the regular unit and of the UU are the same, and it is probably more realistic that the civ would stick to a single type of unit rather than developing the equipment and tactics for two closely related types.

The unique thing about the Hittite situation is that their UU lacks a fundamental capability of a regular unit it replaces. Thus, on some maps, the Hittites would have a very strong reason rooted in "real-world" needs to want to build horsemen instead of building only 3-man chariots.

Normally, if players would build regular units instead of their UUs, they would be stepping out of character in order to take advantage of game mechanics. They would be behaving in a way that would not make sense for a real civilization because they feel like the mechanics of the game will give them an advantage if they do so.

But with the Hittites, building horsemen in addition to or instead of 3MCs on some maps would be entirely in character because the horsemen can do things the 3MCs cannot. To me, that is a serious, fundamental difference between the Hittite situation and other situations involving UUs.

Nathan

[ducki]

Knights could help protect Ansars or Keshiks in certain cituations because of their higher defense value.

This one sentence kind of flipped the switch for me, and now I think I see where our difference of opinion comes from.

Yes, knights might be able to protect Ansars or Keshiks.
But that is non-sensical.

A UU - in this case, the Arab culture, history, and environment fostered a certain type of mounted unit, as did that of the Mongols that was special, different from their contemporaries - is a military unit that is unique to its culture.

This does not mean that the culture/history/environment took the "base unit" and kicked it up a notch. This means that the culture/history/environment took the parts they saw as good and melded that with their own outlook.

Which is why you didn't see very many Arab or Mongol "knights" in the European sense.

A UU is not a case of a culture deciding to give a certain type of unit a bit of flavor and some extra training on top of what the joes in the infantry got. This is how that culture saw that unit.

In its own unique way.


I think the argument that certain situations make it harder(nay, even impossible) to utilize a UU to its full Aeson-level potential is not valid for removing the flavor that UUs have, even if that means that one game out of ten means you might actually have to adapt to something unexpected and difficult to manage.

Yes, that's harsh, but I just don't agree with you. I think you are being inflexible in your vision of how the Ancient Ages should play out.

There is only 1 possible terrain configuration where I might agree with you, but I'm pretty sure none of us will ever see it in a generated map - you'd have to have a wall of volcanoes between the Hittites and all other civs to render the 3MC useless for conquest, and even then, the advent of Mapmaking gives you another interesting choice in how to take over the world.


The more I think about it, the more I rather wish more UUs - and units in general - had similar limitations, because I think that would give us more interesting decisions, more reliably often, than anything we're tinkering with here.


Of course, I may be wrong, or biased due to the fact that I play mostly on Monarch because I like just the sort of situations we're discussing eliminating(rather than Emperor or DemiGod).

At any rate, I sure do wish more members would weigh in - even if you haven't played the Hittites, I should imagine you can give an edicated-guess sort of opinion on this. Speak up and be heard before a vote is called for.

[Aeson]

I always thought Zulu Horsemen/Impi stacks were right up there in efficiency with Iroquois MW stacks. You lose more attacking, but lose less being counterattacked and have a wider array of options. Hittites do it cheaper than the Zulu, less support necessary, but have to deal with terrain issues. Impi are earlier, cheaper, and faster, but need those Horsemen to actually go on offensive.

The 3-Man Chariot is pretty well balanced with the Impi.

[Madine]

I think the underlying problem with UU's is that they were designed without much rhyme or reason.

The 3mc being worse in some situations doesn't seem to justify a change.

[Arrian]

You know, I saw this thread and thought "wow, I still haven't played the HIttites, and so I've not tried out this UU. Lemme go start a game with them and check 'em out..."

After a couple of restarts for various reasons, I get a good game going. Around the end of the ancient age, as I am finishing the Great Library and SoZ, I notice I don't have horses, and there is in fact only 1 source of horses on my continent (as far away as it can be, in the core of the most powerful of my AI neighbors). For a long time, I never even noticed... Gotta try again.

-Arrian

[JimiD]

Just cause I was asked...

Gotta agree with Ducki, I would like to see more variety between the Civs, though how that would be resolved in game balance is another thing....

[nbarclay]

Originally posted by ducki

A UU - in this case, the Arab culture, history, and environment fostered a certain type of mounted unit, as did that of the Mongols that was special, different from their contemporaries - is a military unit that is unique to its culture.

This does not mean that the culture/history/environment took the "base unit" and kicked it up a notch. This means that the culture/history/environment took the parts they saw as good and melded that with their own outlook.

That is an excellent way of explaining why Celts would not build swordsmen in addition to GSs, or why Arabs would not build knights in addition to Ansars, or why Mongols would not build knights in addition to Keshiks. Their culture already has a type of unit that fills the niche in question, so even if it might make a small amount of military sense to also build a similar but slightly different unit, it makes no cultural sense to do so.

But on maps where mountains and jungles present a serious obstacle, the 3-man chariot fills only part of the niche normally occupied by horsemen. Granted, if enough workers and enough time are available, they can eventually be made to fill the entire niche. But unless and until that happens, 3MCs' speed advantage can be used only for defending the homeland, not for taking the fight to the enemy.

Under those conditions, it would take a vastly greater cultural bias to prevent the Hittites from viewing building horsemen as a serious option. And if building horsemen in addition to 3MCs is something the Hittites would logically seriously consider under certain conditions in spite of their having a strong cultural preference favoring the use of 3MCs, then I think the option ought to be available to players.

Nathan

[ducki]

Part of culture is geography. A big part, actually.
The Hittites in a mountainous, rainforest area would not be the Hittites that were known for their war chariots. That was due to them being a mostly desert/plains culture.

Take for example the Chasqui, ignoring the movement penalty of mountains and hills. That makes perfect cultural sense, because of the geography from which the culture originated. The same goes for Ansar warriors and Keshiks. You can't separate culture from geography, because if you do, you have to change the Keshik and lose it's geographical/cultural flavor, as well as the 3MC. While we're at it, we'd have to make Samurai and War Elephants require horses, as those are both geographical/cultural flavors.

This seems like an unnecessary change that has support because "we can" - not because we should, or the Hittites are at a distinct(and general, widespread) disadvantage. I don't (personally) feel that this fits with "change as little as necessary".
If we hypothesize all the possible situations where a Civ might be disadvantaged because of the map, we'll end up with no UUs, no traits, and a lot less fun.
The cases where the Hittites are disadvantaged are random and originate with the map generator, which I don't feel we should fix.

I'm gonna let this one go for a while, so if any other lurkers have opinions but aren't voicing for whatever reasons, come out, come out wherever you are, whichever view you support or a view not yet expressed. The more input the panel gets, the better AU functions.

[ducki]

Ok, I haven't reinstalled AU Mod yet, so here's a stock rules, v1.20, Monarch level example of what I think is the main reason given to change the Hittites/3MC. I haven't gotten very far, but the starting location seems like the sort of thing we're talking about.

Not knowing if there are even horses yet is a bit of a drawback, but feel free to play it out to the point that you're ready to use your 3MCs - anyone that's interested.

Just looking at it, I feel it'll be a fun challenge, but by no means a walk in the park, to get units from the starting core to another civ. Have a go at it.
(Edit: Oh yeah. Warm, wet, 3billion, Roaming, Standard, Continents, 70% water, so it's tweaked against wheels.)

[lockstep]

Originally posted by nbarclay
The unique thing about the Hittite situation is that their UU lacks a fundamental capability of a regular unit it replaces. Thus, on some maps, the Hittites would have a very strong reason rooted in "real-world" needs to want to build horsemen instead of building only 3-man chariots.

IMO, this hits the nail on the head. Let the Hittites build horsemen in addition to three-man-chariots.