The 3-Man Chariot

[Krill]

Ducki, there are no horses, So I would get a new start to illustrate this topic

[ducki]

I was afraid of that.
As a thought experiment, then, does anyone that looked at it feel that the Hittites are exceptionally burdened by the mountains if you assume horses next to the capitol?

Also, nbarclay, do you feel this is the sort of situation that makes the 3MC a burden instead of a boon? (On the assumption that there would be horses near the capitol.)

[Krill]

Personally I would think that the 3MC would be useful, but then I would have been using it sub-optimally, trying to conqueror the americans and palace jumping. I would only have had to road two mountains, which is only 20 turns for one worker, more like 8 with the three workers I had

[CarnalCanaan]

Originally posted by lockstep


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

There is a fundamental problem in assuming that a UU must be advantageous to its respective civ: all UUs are necessarily a hinderance to their civs.

i.e. The Persians and Germans both build UUs that are the same as their non-UU counterparts but with some distinct advantage and no additional hinderance (additional offense and blitz capability, respectively). However, one will get their GA at a much earlier stage in the game than the other. To recieve a GA so early, some would say, is a distinct disadvantage. Others might claim that waiting so long is the disadvantage. Most would argue that it is all relative to the in-game situation.

Just as the advantage-hinderance of the Three-man Chariot is relative to the in-game situation.

Just as the advantage-hinderance of the Expansionist trait is relative to the in-game situation.

et al.

To remove this Advantage-Hinderance Dynamic from Civ3 would cause it to cease being Civ3 and become... Civ2.

[Krill]

THe panzer does not gain the blitz ability. THat is the cossack in respect to other cavalry. The panzer has an extra move point.

[CarnalCanaan]

Civilization is the progress toward a society of privacy. The savage's whole existence is public, ruled by the laws of his tribe. Civilization is the process of setting man free from men.

Ision-

May I ask where that quote comes from? If it's yours, may I credit you with it?

CarnalCanaan

[lockstep]

Originally posted by CarnalCanaan
There is a fundamental problem in assuming that a UU must be advantageous to its respective civ: all UUs are necessarily a hinderance to their civs.

In terms of Golden Age timing: maybe (but GA timing is nothing discussed so far in this thread).

In terms of UU stats vs. costs: maybe (with PtW's 50-shield Gallic Swordsmen as an example).

In terms of 'pure' UU stats: clearly no, the 3-man-chariot being the sole exception.

[Ision]

CarnalCanaan,

It is a quote from the novelist/philosopher 'Ayn Rand'.

Sincerely,

Ision

[nbarclay]

Originally posted by ducki

Also, nbarclay, do you feel this is the sort of situation that makes the 3MC a burden instead of a boon? (On the assumption that there would be horses near the capitol.)

After generating a number of maps in the editor and seeing whether they had a starting position that would make the 3MC a liability, I doubt that the risk is as high as one game in fifty even with map types deliberately rigged to try to cause trouble. So while I still don't like the idea that there can be situations where the 3MC is a liability rather than an asset, I'm starting to think that the risk is probably not great enough to justify a rules change in the AU Mod. (Also note, by the way, that people who want to play the Hittites are probably a lot more likely to choose map conditions that are favorable for 3MCs than to deliberately choose map conditions that are likely to cause trouble for them.)

Still, situations that get nasty for 3MCs can happen, especially on huge maps (where terrain features tend to be wider than on standard-size maps). I'm attaching a scenario for a huge-map 16-civ game (3 billion / continents / 80% water / warm / wet / roaming barbs) that illustrates the point. I haven't changed the map at all; just defined who starts where. For those who want to just look at the scenario but not play it, the Hittites are near the upper left. Note the scenario it operates under standard rules rather than AU Mod rules; I didn't bother to load the AU Mod before I started looking at maps and stumbled across this map.

Examining the issue of when 3MCs might be a liability rather than an asset from a theoretical perspective (since I already wrote this analysis before I started looking at maps), there are four main issues involved.

1) When does the player want to attack? The earlier in the game a player wants to launch an attack, the greater the cost of diverting workers to build a road for purely military purposes. Thus, building a military road to get 3MCs through for what would normally be a relatively early "horseman rush" strategy is a much bigger deal than building the same road toward the end of the ancient era would be.

2) How far across is the adverse terrain? Roading through one or two mountain or jungles tiles is not nearly as big a deal as roading through a total of four or five or six.

3) What units does the player prefer to use? Some players prefer to use horseman-type units, some prefer swordsman-type units, some probably like a mixed force with different unit types playing different roles, and some probably don't care all that much. (Although I will note that one of the reasons for favoring horseman-type units - the ability to get to the enemy faster - is seriously undermined on rough terrain.)

4) What does the player have available? If iron is available, players have the option of using swordsmen instead of 3MCs even if that is not their first choice. But if iron is not available, the best thing the Hittites can use other than 3MCs is archers.

Put those elements together and the worst-case scenario for the 3MC is wanting to attack relatively early, having horses but not iron, and having a rather wide stretch of adverse terrain that would have to be roaded for 3MCs to reach an opponent. As I said, such situations are uncommon. But they are not impossible either, especially on huge maps.

Nathan

[nbarclay]

I just realized I missed an important point when I was looking at maps. Suppose an adverse terrain tile that has to be crossed to reach an enemy is five tiles away from the Hittites' road network. Then in order to get 3MCs through, the Hittites would have to either build a road the whole distance or waste four extra worker turns getting to the tile next to the adverse terrain. Further, a tile on either side of the adverse terrain must be roaded if I understand correctly, which increases the cost of the special road a bit. So there are probably more situations where adverse terrain makes 3MCs a liability than I initially thought.

I don't have time right now to generate more maps and see how big a problem that might be. But I might later.

Nathan

[CarnalCanaan]

Originally posted by nbarclay
Suppose an adverse terrain tile that has to be crossed to reach an enemy is five tiles away from the Hittites' road network.

Then attack someone else.

If one were playing that other civ, then of course we'd all use that terrain to our advantage. Why shouldn't the AI do the same?

[nbarclay]

Originally posted by CarnalCanaan


Then attack someone else.

That isn't always an option. In some games, any land route to reach any opponent has to start off along essentially the same path. If a terrain obstacle is along that path, it applies no matter who the target is. And that's not even getting into the issue that one civ may be a much better target than another for other reasons.

[Aeson]

I've always tried to have a road set up before any significant invasions, and generally don't invade before the land between myself and the target is claimed anyways. As the Hittites I'd just be more focused on getting those roads, much the same as when playing as Egypt.

I don't see it as much of a disadvantage. I generally regret it when I send out troops with no road connection to their target... so it might even be an advantage in that it forces you to do things 'the right way'.

There are other UU's which disadvantage the player in certain map conditions. Jags are awesome when you have neighbors, but aren't as good as Warriors on island starts where your first opportunity for war will be Swords and Galleys. Chasqui are much the same, on a lot of maps I'd rather be able to build 10 shield Scouts. Conquistadors too, when you want an explorer instead of a pillager. Even Sipahi and Galic Swords can be less useful than their Cavalry counterparts in some situations.

Generally though, those UU's are top teir, and the 3-Man Chariot is right with them.

[ducki]

that's not even getting into the issue that one civ may be a much better target than another for other reasons

I think getting into that would be a tough nut to crack. Terrain is as much a part of strategy as anything else, especially early game strategy.
We can't pick and choose which factors to weigh in a real game.

At any rate, I really think the situations where terrain kills or appreciably degrades the value of the 3MC are statistically small, particularly in light of your insight that people tweak the map settings to fit their civ quite often, or their playstyle. (How many of us played a lot of Ag civ games on Dry settings consistently?) I think if this was a big deal, we'd see more posts in more places complaining about how weak the Hittites are.

Anyway, I think nbarclay's post from 04-06-2004 06:14 said it best:

Put those elements together and the worst-case scenario for the 3MC is wanting to attack relatively early, having horses but not iron, and having a rather wide stretch of adverse terrain that would have to be roaded for 3MCs to reach an opponent. As I said, such situations are uncommon. But they are not impossible either, especially on huge maps.

I think situations like that should be possible, if only because at the extremes, I really like the idea of seeing another SVC from the demigods and beyond. No, AU isn't about creating SVCs, but it's not explicitly about preventing tough situations either. This particular UU as well as Egypt's - at map generator extremes - is simply more noticeable, but any fast-mover is hampered in the same situations, just not as much.

All things being equal, I think we should leave some things unequal.


Edit: Crossposted with Aeson, but...

Generally though, those UU's are top teir, and the 3-Man Chariot is right with them.

Wow. Seriously? Wow.

[nbarclay]

Originally posted by Aeson

Generally though, those UU's are top teir, and the 3-Man Chariot is right with them.

I'm highly skeptical about that. Horsemen are faster than archers, but in terms of actual attack ability, they are not particularly more potent than archers. Their ability to retreat helps reduce losses, but that is roughly offset by the fact that horsemen that are lost cost one and a half times the price of archers. So actual shield losses winning a given battle aren't necessarily particularly better for horsemen than for archers, much less for swordsmen. Worse, it takes at least as many horsemen as archers to attack a target successfully, and sometimes more because retreat eliminates the small chance of a come-from-behind victory. Since horsemen cost one and a half times as much as archers, that means it takes longer to build a large enough horseman force to start taking enemy cities.

Of course speed does provide advantages in that the enemy has less time to build additional units during the course of a war, and also in that reinforcements can normally reach the front lines a bit faster. But if horsemen or 3MCs take advantage of their speed inside enemy territory, they have to operate without catapult support. With how useful cats are in C3C, even at their higher cost in the AU Mod, that makes it hard for me to view 3MCs as sufficiently cost-efficient offensively to qualify as a "top tier" UU.

Granted, I've never actually used 3MCs. But I gave up using horsemen in favor of using swordsmen in most of my offensive operations long ago (at least when I have a choice). I'll gladly use war chariots or mounted warriors because they have a huge cost/benefit advantage over horsemen. But I don't see the 3MC as providing enough advantage over horsemen to make the UU particularly attractive to me.

Nathan