C3C: Incas UU -- Possible problem

pvzh · October 27, 2003, 15:35

Today I first time looked through Conquest Info on civ3.com (I know it is kind of late) and I realized that Incas UU is quite worthless.

Incas have Chasqui Scout: 1/1/2 which is armed version of the scout and moves across hill/mountains at cost 1. Looks great so far, but...
a. Inca starts with regular scout;
b. it costs 20!
c. it does not upgrade to anything millitary worhtwhile, explorers? (unless they changed normal upgrade path).

(a), (b), and (c) makes this Chasqui Scout worthless for the purpose it was designed!

If Incas can build normal scouts then it is a better option because putting out 2,3,4 or more additional scouts (depends on map settings) is paramount, so 20 shields cost does not cut in). Thus, these Chasquies will not be built for scouting -- too expensive.

On the other hand, if Incas can build only Chasqui then they are in serious disadvantage compare to other expansionists: they cannot field as many scouts ASAP and will be lagging behind with goody hut popping.

Another draw back of Chasqui is accidental GA if somebody (excluding barbarians) attacked it and lost.

As it now the only use of it is to build one around middle age to trigger GA on some redlined Archer or Longbowman.

My suggestions:
1. Incas have to start with Chasqui (not regular scout).
2. Chasqui should cost 10.

Cost 10 is not the great advantage: the do not upgrades to swordsmen like Aztecs Warriors, so rushing somebody with them or building them for military purpose is somewaht pointless.

As goodie huts are explored, Chasqui could hunt barbarians and their camps, so here they should cost 10 because attacking something with unit 1/1/2 at price 20 is rather stupid. Warriors and archers could do that better and elites could be used for GL later without fear of unwanted GA.

A more radical approach is to give them +1 to movement: 0/0/3 at normal cost and no terrain discounts (it might be too good if combined).

The bottom line: Scouts should never costs more that 10, othrewise they are not worth they price.

statusperfect · October 27, 2003, 16:09

I agree. Somehow i get the impression somthing is left out of the preview. They can't suck THAT bad :/

Spiffor · October 27, 2003, 17:05

Think of it this way:
Chasqui scout are chariots available right from the beginning, who do not require horses, and who explore quickly on mountains and hills.
If you play on a mountaineous map, chasqui scouts can be great, because they'd go twice faster than any other unit on the high grounds = those from where you can see two tiles around.
They'll also remain good as pillagers until the explorers come. Gotta love pillaging that lone Iron resource at the border, just the turn at which you declared the war

pvzh · October 27, 2003, 17:18

You can pillage with normal scouts anyway (in PTW at least) and 1 defence would not save you: enemy using its roads for 3x movement.

Chariots? Seriously, have you tried to fight with them? I do not mean War Chariots (Egyptian UU). Chariots are good as pre-builds only.

Saint Marcus · October 27, 2003, 17:28

Jaguar Warriors have the same stats, and cost half the money. The Incan UU sucks indeed.

Hagbart · October 27, 2003, 17:56

Yeah. I agree. It's bad that you can't upgrade it.

Fosse · October 27, 2003, 19:34

Chariots also upgrade, making them much more valuable.

I think the Incan scouth should simply replace their regular scout, cost ten, and upgrade to explorer. It would basically be a jaguar warrior instead of a scout.

WarpStorm · October 27, 2003, 20:33

Quote:

Originally posted by pvzh
My suggestions:
1. Incas have to start with Chasqui (not regular scout).
2. Chasqui should cost 10.

Let's use a scenario to show why this is a bad idea.

Instead of the Chasqui we'll use the Jag Warrior in this example.

Let's say you are playing a mod that let's you start with one Jag Warrior. Okay, say you are playing in an MP game with your buddy. Say he starts about 10 tiles away. Say you discover him with your starting Jag within 5 turns. Can you say game over for your buddy? He likely won't have any defender at this point but if he does it's about a 35% chance of taking his warrior out.

Now imagine it's not your buddy, but rather the AI and you. How would you feel when the AI Jag Warrior comes to your capital before you can build a single defender?

How is this scenario different from a standard Jag rush? Simple, the Aztecs don't start with a Jag and instead need to wait a few turns.

Wittlich · October 27, 2003, 20:39

Interesting point WS!

Fosse · October 28, 2003, 01:04

I think that the risk of such a quick defeat occuring every single time that I play as a civ from the Americas, start withing 10 tiles of the Incas and the Incans make a direct beeline to my undefeated city is worth not having another useless UU.

Let's face it... the above scenario isn't going to trouble the AIs that start with a handful of defenders, and is going to so rarely be a problem to the human player that giving the Incas a lame UU just isn't worth it.

A 20 cost scout does negate the purpose of having scouts, which are best used in groups of 4 or 5 as early as possible.

I'd rather have the Incans with a decent UU. I'm willing to live in fear that 1 in evrery 1000 games will be over in ten turns.

-Fosse

Spiffor · October 28, 2003, 01:31

BTW, the Chasqui Scout enslaves in the mesoamerican scenario (if I had it right). There is no mention of enslavement in the general game's pedia entry, but it may be an omission, I don't know.

WarpStorm · October 28, 2003, 06:34

Quote:

Originally posted by Fosse
Let's face it... the above scenario isn't going to trouble the AIs that start with a handful of defenders, and is going to so rarely be a problem to the human player that giving the Incas a lame UU just isn't worth it.

.
.
.

I'd rather have the Incans with a decent UU. I'm willing to live in fear that 1 in evrery 1000 games will be over in ten turns.

It is obvious that you don't play MP games.

FrustratedPoet · October 28, 2003, 07:10

I agree that on the face of it the Chasqui Scout sounds a bit rubbish. However, I still remember this time last year when many of us were fearful that the Gallic Swordsman would be so over-powered as to ruin the standard game. I'm reserving judgement until I play with the units for myself.

statusperfect · October 28, 2003, 08:14

Quote:

Originally posted by FrustratedPoet
I agree that on the face of it the Chasqui Scout sounds a bit rubbish. However, I still remember this time last year when many of us were fearful that the Gallic Swordsman would be so over-powered as to ruin the standard game. I'm reserving judgement until I play with the units for myself.

It was overpriced just like the scout

Fosse · October 28, 2003, 09:48

Quote:

Originally posted by WarpStorm

It is obvious that you don't play MP games.

My friends and I play Hotseat and LAN games all of the time., thanks.

Again, the odds of one of us beelining directly to an opponant's city from turn 1 are incredibly low. That's why I said it's really not a problem for humans.

I'd rather take that small risk and have a good UU when I play the Incas.

Dominae · October 28, 2003, 17:14

No civ should start the game with an Attack unit (especially not one with high movement).

That said, the Chasqui Scout does indeed suck.

Dominae

WarpStorm · October 28, 2003, 18:29

If I designed the unit, I think I'd have made it 0/0/1 ATR 10 shields (and still may once I start modding Conquests). This means that they can't get a GA with it, but it'd be a great scout.

Dominae · October 28, 2003, 18:36

Quote:

Originally posted by WarpStorm
If I designed the unit, I think I'd have made it 0/0/1 ATR 10 shields (and still may once I start modding Conquests). This means that they can't get a GA with it, but it'd be a great scout.

statusperfect · October 28, 2003, 18:49

But the vanilla players get a sucky unit :/

alexman · October 28, 2003, 18:55

I was hoping that this unit had something else to compensate for its poor stats and upgrade path (like the enslaving ability), but since beta testers think it sucks, it must indeed suck...

Oh well, that's what the AU mod is for!

player1 · October 28, 2003, 19:24

Quote:

Originally posted by WarpStorm
If I designed the unit, I think I'd have made it 0/0/1 ATR 10 shields (and still may once I start modding Conquests). This means that they can't get a GA with it, but it'd be a great scout.

I would probably drop price to 10 shields and reduce attack to 0 (while keeping defense of 1). And then make it a starting unit.

WarpStorm · October 28, 2003, 19:30

I'm not saying it sucks, there are uses for it. Suppressing and capturing workers comes to mind immediately. As does trashing the infrastructure of your fledgling neighbors.

I would rather see a quirkier better scout, though.

GhengisFarb™ · October 28, 2003, 19:49

Give it the Hidden Nationality ability and it would rock.

Never have worker problems again.

alexman · October 28, 2003, 20:36

Hidden Nationality UU?

Quote:

Originally posted by player1

I would probably drop price to 10 shields and reduce attack to 0 (while keeping defense of 1). And then make it a starting unit.

I was thinking the same.

Of course the AI will have a hard time triggering its GA that way (especially since it doesn't build any units with the "explore" flag, and you need both an attack and defense factor to be able to flag a unit as "offense" or "defense" for the AI to build it).

RobC · October 28, 2003, 21:33

I think I voted for 0/1/1 ATAR too...

Willem · October 28, 2003, 22:40

Quote:

Originally posted by pvzh
You can pillage with normal scouts anyway (in PTW at least) and 1 defence would not save you: enemy using its roads for 3x movement.

No you can't, Scouts can't pillage.

Quote:

Chariots? Seriously, have you tried to fight with them? I do not mean War Chariots (Egyptian UU). Chariots are good as pre-builds only.

I've never even built a single Chariot in any of my games. I'll always wait a bit longer until I can get Horsemen. They're pretty much useless units IMO, I don't know why they even stuck them in there.

Wittlich · October 28, 2003, 22:50

Well, to play the devil's advocate ... If you build Chariots early, they are cheaper in the long run to upgrade them to Horsemen or Knights than it would be to build your army of Horsemen (or knights) from scratch ... Granted, I myself, hardly ever follow this reasoning since the initial payoff is small to nonexistent, but the long-term payoff, IMHO, is actually damned good. Just some "food-for-thought."

EDIT: Now that I think about it, I've never tried it with Chariots but I have followed this reasoning in a number of games and compiled a force of Horsemen with the sole purpose of upgrading them at a later time to Knights.

UnityScoutChopper · October 29, 2003, 06:38

Yes, Chariot-to-Horseman works too, the only disadvantage being that you have to deliberately delay your acquisition of horseback riding to get the greatest advantage from it, and in some cases, to get any advantage from it at all.

If you are an expansionist (like, say, um... the Iroquois), it can be hard to avoid "accidentally" getting HB, and some players even use the exploit of researching 39 turns of HB and then going to 0% science to precisely control when they reach HB. Never done it myself; while I'm hardly the one to avoid exploits per se, this one doesn't pass my lameness filter.

USC

Dominae · October 29, 2003, 12:40

Quote:

Originally posted by Willem
No you can't, Scouts can't pillage.

Scouts can pillage.

Time to dust off some of those Expansionist civs!

Dominae

Willem · October 29, 2003, 15:00

Quote:

Originally posted by Dominae

Scouts can pillage.

Time to dust off some of those Expansionist civs!

Dominae

As a matter of fact, I always play American. But I always just hit the E key and forget about them, I've never even thought of trying to get them to pillage. I guess I'll have to check that out more often.