Which of the new UUs need tweaking

[monkspider]

I'll start things off with my take on things and the short answer is: a lot of them.

Beserker - Too disruptive on the gameplay environment. Everyone rushes to take out the Vikings in antiquity, or face doom.
My take: reduce them to 5-2-1

Gallic Swordsman - WAY too expensive for what it does. It's a great unit on paper, but when you consider the cost, it's simply not worth it. Why would I want to pay 50 shields when I can get an Immortal for 30 (or even a regular swordsman for 30). The extra movement point isn't 20 shields good. It isn't even ten shields good in the case of units like the Jag, Impi, and Rider. Why doesn't warrant such a ridiculous price increase now?
My take: reduce the cost back down to 30

Conquistador- Too expensive for what it does. A combat explorer only has a narrow window of usefulness. Especially when you can get cavalry for just 10 shields more.
my take: reduce the cost to 40-50 or make it 4-3-2.

Sipahi- Not really any better than cavalry, at least not enough so to make it a UU. The 8-3-3 stats are of dubious usefulness anyway, since you are going to be mostly going up against defense 10 infantry. But it's 20 shields more expensive than cavalry to boot! Shield for shield it gives you only about 7% more firepower. Compare this to the mounted warrior, which gives you 33% more firepower for the same price as the horseman. So for all intents and purposes, the Sipahi is no better than a normal cavalry in most circumstances, unless you have a lot of high production cities, and shields are no object, and you would rather have a smaller number of higher attack units than a great number of lower attaack units (given this game's wacky combat system, I'll take the cavalry).
My take: reduce the cost by 20 shields.

H'wacha- The H'wacha is a unit that I'm somewhat confused about how to feel about. It is a great, useful unit. But the fact that you can't get a golden age with it is just such a huge strike against playing as Korea. In the recent chat Jeff said he thought lethal land would make them too powerful, I disagree mostly, but I can envision how a stack of about a dozen h'wacha's with lethal land might be really powerful. If it is the case, just reduce the attack of the h'wacha a bit. In any case, without a means of getting a military golden age, Korea is several orders of magnitude weaker than the other civs. I see this as a huge game balance issue that needs to be addressed.
My take: Just give it lethal land for pete's sake, and reduce it's attack if you must.

[Jaguar]

Keshik: Ignore hill move cost as well as ignore mountain move cost. Twice as fast on mountains as on hills is just illogical.

[monkspider]

Oh yeah, thanks Jag. I honestly meant to include that one as well. Thank you.

[ZargonX]

I've really only gotten to fool around with the Spanish so far, and my issue with the Conquestador is less its attack/defense, and more with its cost. It is clearly designed to be a harasser/pillager behind enemy lines. But, as you say monkspider, it is too expensive to be used in any quantity. For slightly cheaper, it would be a good support unit to pick away at enemy units and infrastructure from behind the lines. It doesn't have to be a city-conquerer, but with the right cost and proper implementation, it could be a very useful addition to waging guerilla war.

[ZargonX]

Oh! I made chieftain with that! Uninteresting for the rest of you, but minorly exciting for me. I will celebrate quietly...

[sun_tzu_159]

Ansar warrior - Arab - excellent, no tweak.

Numidian Mercenary - Carthaginian - too cheap at 30 shields, make it 35 for +1 attack; +1 defence.

Gallic swordsman - Celts - too expensive, add +1 to attack stat then leave price or drop price to 35/40 shields.

Hwacha - Korean - have to see how it performs in practice. Will need a defending force probably as low in defence itself.

Keshik - Mongol - 10 shields less for -1 defence, rather have it at 80 leaving in -1 defence but adding +1 move as they were supposed to be highly mobile. Ignore terrain is silly, maybe treat hill as grass, mountain as hill is logical.

Conquistador - Spanish - This is just a fighting explorer, stats are probably right as in CIVIII terms they slaughtered warrior units in South American Continent. All terrain as road is a bit unbalanced - again some respect for mountains. In times before modern era these were formidable barriers. Some still are today such as Himalya.

Sipahi - Ottoman - Vastly superior to knight, better than cavalry by +1 attack for same price. +1 movement for +15 shields would be a nice little addition as it could then skirmish with infantry and move off quickly. Retreat ability?

Berserk(ir) - Viking - Amphibious attack, +2 attack, +1 defence. Only +30 shields. What a unit. Hands off the Vikings - they are mine and no game goes past 1AD

Regards
Sun_Tzu

[Sinapus]

Re: Which of the new UUs need tweaking

Originally posted by monkspider
I'll start things off with my take on things and the short answer is: a lot of them.

Beserker - Too disruptive on the gameplay environment. Everyone rushes to take out the Vikings in antiquity, or face doom.
My take: reduce them to 5-2-1

...or change the flc so it looks like a kitten and use "Immigrant Song" for the sfx.

[Captain THC]

I agree with most of what's been said. It's really frustrating that they didn't tweak the unit costs for some of the old units, especially the over-powered ones, such as the Rider and the Immortal.

[vmxa1]

Sipahi are 833 vs calv 633. I should have added that is with 1.04F.

[miike]

Sipahi, are maybe a little too powerful. I was playing and due to a pretty good tech start. I was able to get Sipahi pretty early. Thanks to researching directly to it. It allowed me to wipe out 3 other civs, that only had musketeers to protect and let me get a domination victory at around 1700 or so. I was pretty impressed by that. Maybe the key to using Sipahi effectively is to research it directly while everyone else was reseaching music theory.

[zorbop]

gallic swordsman are definately worth it. even though it takes forever to build, they are very, very good. about 6-8 of them can EASILY take out a medium sized civ. the retreat is useful to. think of the sheer number of swordsman you lose in battle. then immagine of 60% of them RETREATED. worth 20 shields?

my gripe about it is that you can't build it when you get feudalism. they become obselete to medieval infantry! rediculous!

[werdhertz]

Ive played againts and as all the new Civs cept the Vikings (as) so far and found them all to be pretty balanced IMO

[vmxa1]

Originally posted by miike
Sipahi, are maybe a little too powerful. I was playing and due to a pretty good tech start. I was able to get Sipahi pretty early. Thanks to researching directly to it. It allowed me to wipe out 3 other civs, that only had musketeers to protect and let me get a domination victory at around 1700 or so. I was pretty impressed by that. Maybe the key to using Sipahi effectively is to research it directly while everyone else was reseaching music theory.

Isn't it a good idea to get to MT asap anyway? They are nice though.

[Zero]

As of right now, ansar warriors are far superior compared to mogol keshiks. They both lose 1 point in defense and are 10 shield cheaper. Mongols can cross mountain as if it was grassland but theoratically ansars have ability to cross hills as if it was grassland since original move is two, and ansars would have been stuck at hill at end of turn, but due to the +1 move, ansars can cross hill and an additional terrain allowing the same effect as if ansar can cross hill/forest or any other 2 move point as if it was one. In addition, if ansars crossed open terrain in can also move three squares as well while keshiks wont reap the benefit of mountain crossing. Only way the mongols have edge would be is if you are crossing a mountainous region first then to another terrain. Unless you're completely surrounded by mountain or have no choice but to confront the mountain, that kind of advantage doesnt come into play as much when you have extra movement to manuver out of the way of the mountain. I dont see how mongols can be real better then ansars!

The numidian merc is not too bad the way it is, but I dont like the fact that I dont use the numidians much to actually attack, (I try to come with excuse to do so, but usually using an available archer is smarter choice so it rarely happens) The +1 attack seems to fall into similar fate as musketeers... Though in numidian case its still better (100% increase). I was thinking though, what if numidians replaced warriors? I mean they are professional mercenaries right so they can replace a unit that isnt really professional like. what if their stat would be 1/2/1 (+1 def)... and their cost would be +10 shield... You may ask whats the point since spearmen is the same but remember that hoplite is just cheap pikemen version. In balance for +10 cost you can throw some intersting feature, I was thinking like mounted units cannot retreat from numidians and numidians start as veterans (since they are professionally hired)

EDIT: I think berserk should be 5/1/1... w/ same cost as longbowmen or 6/1/1 with same cost now or maybe 10 less. The fact that berserkers are just as good as marines (8vs6)in amphibious assault and that I actually use mix of both in ship armada in industrial is mindboggling.

[monkspider]

A lot of people have been charmed by the Sipahi, but really according to the math, it's hardly better than a normal cavalry.
Shield for shield it gives you only about 7% more firepower. Compare this to the mounted warrior, which gives you 33% more firepower for the same price as the horseman. So for all intents and purposes, the Sipahi is no better than a normal cavalry in most circumstances, unless you have a lot of high production cities, and shields are no object, and you would rather have a smaller number of higher attack units than a great number of lower attaack units (given this game's wacky combat system, I'll take the cavalry).