AU mod: The Conquistador

[alexman]

The problem

A UU is supposed to provide an advantage to its civilization, but the occasions where a Conquistador is worth building are very rare.

The Conquistador is meant to be a unit that penetrates deep inside enemy territory, and attacks weaker units. The problem is that this unit is so expensive for its stats that it's not worth the risk of losing the unit in a counterattack. The Conquistador costs as much as a Knight, but Knights have more attack and more defense than the Conquistador.

A possible solution

If the expected shield loss from an attack with a Conquistador is about the same as the expected shield loss from an attack with a Knight, Conquistadors will become a nice alternative to Knights.

Take the case where a veteran Conquistador attacks a fortified veteran Pikeman on grassland. Assuming no retreat, the Conquistador will lose 65.9% of the time. A 70-shield Knight would lose 50.6% of the time. Hence, in order to get the same number of expected shields lost, the Conquistador would have to cost 53.7 shields.

Against a fortified veteran pikeman in a city, the Conquistador shield cost would have to be 59 shields. to have the same expected shield loss as Knights.

Considering the ATR movement for the Conquistador, a balanced cost for this unit would be 60 shields.

What do you think? Is the Conquistador worth building for the Spanish? Does this proposed change make it worthwhile to build in parallel with Knights? Any other ideas to balance the unit?

[ducki]

I'm interested in making the Conquistador "worth building" to actually use as described in the 'pedia and this looks relatively conservative.

What's the conquistador upgrade path, though? If it's anything but Cavalry, I can't imagine investing much in a weaker-than-knight unit that won't at least make it to the main horse-path dead-end. I'd actually rather see Conquistadors upgrade into either the Marines path or the Infantry path, though I'm sure that's just wishful thinking.

Anyway, if they dead-end, I think you could make them cost 30 shields and I wouldn't build (m)any, especially for the same A-D-M as Ancient Cav(IIRC).

Spain is strong anyway, it's not like they "need" the UU, but it sure would be nice if it was more worthwhile. It seems like the F-15 of the middle-ages to me. Pretty, but dumb.

[alexman]

The Conquistador upgrades to Explorer, which cannot be built by Spain. But that might be OK if the Spanish beeline to Astronomy. There can be plenty of time to use Conquistadors before Cavalry, especially since Military Tradition is optional.

Speaking of upgrades, another change I believe should be made to the Conquistador is to allow Spain to build Explorers, and have the Explorer upgrade to the Conquistador, instead of the other way around. Without this change, Spain is the only civilization that cannot capture Explorers. They get destroyed instead.

[ducki]

My point still stands that they are militarily a dead end unit. And inferior in both attack and defense to their predecessor, the Knight. I just can't imagine me building (m)any of these guys even at half price. At least Cavalry, though a dead-end, are still quite usefull for some time. This unit, however, has Ancient-Age stats for a Middle-Age price and come relatively late in the era to live up to their name(sake).
The Conqueror unit does not wear its name well.
Besides, who among us still has any exploring to do that late in the game? And how much undeveloped land is going to exist at that point anyway?
I still think these guys should be given a military upgrade path in keeping with the spirit of their namesake.


One unrelated idea - decrease cost considerably to closer to the MW or Gallic Sword than the Knight and give them the ACav's extra HP. Now that's a Unique unit, and I might even build some.


Further idea - unless it's been decided, use Spain in the Power of Seafaring and require a war of conquest using Conquistadors instead of knights. Maybe even under Feudalism. Muwahahahahaha!

[pauli]

5/2/2/atar/enslave, 80 shields.

[alexman]

Wouldn't that make Knights obsolete?

[pauli]

well, add saltpeter as a requirement.

[alexman]

So you would need Astronomy and Gunpowder to build them?

I like the enslave idea, but to keep stock flavor, I think we have to keep Conquistadors weaker than Knights.

[pauli]

ok, how about 3/2/2/atar/enslave/colony, for horses and 70 shields?

conquistadors weren't sent out just to mail back postcards.

(granted, you'd still need to capture some workers to build a road...)

[Rellin]

I like the enslave/colony, guess it is somewhat realistic as well.

Just could tack on enslave and leave everything else alone though, and I think that alone would make them worth building.

[Kuciwalker]

I like the enslave idea. Make that ability be more a part of the game (rather than just being part of ONE unit).

[ducki]

Originally posted by alexman
So you would need Astronomy and Gunpowder to build them?

I like the enslave idea, but to keep stock flavor, I think we have to keep Conquistadors weaker than Knights.

Why? Aren't most UUs stronger than their contemporaries? I do get what you're saying, but I think it may be a premature assumption.

To a previous remark, how would a Unique Unit that is stronger than generic units make the generic unit obsolete? There's only one civ gonna be able to build them, not everyone, and if they still don't upgrade to Cavalry, they'll never make Knights obsolete unless we make Cav weaker/equal to the Conq.

[alexman]

Don't forget, in the case of the Conquistador, the unit it replaces is the Explorer.

Also Spain should build Knights sometimes, even after Astronomy. Otherwise we are reducing strategic options, which is the opposite of what we want.

[nbarclay]

In combat, the combination of two moves and ATAR allows conquistadors to strike deeper than even cavalry can, and allows them to do so without regard to intevening hills, mountains, forests, or jungles. Combining that with the attack power of knights, let alone anything more powerful than knights, would make them too potent.

I would propose adding the enslave ability, adding an upgrade path to cavalry, and reducing the cost to 60. (Since Spain is not expansionist in C3C, there is no reason Conquistadors need to be in the scout/explorer upgrade chain at all; they could start a new chain of their own much as WCs do.) Against pikemen, knights would be clearly more cost-effective in a straight-up attack but conquistadors could strike deeper and would be less subject to enemy counterattack, so there would be strategic interest in the choice of which to build. The enslave ability would add interest to using more conquistadors and fewer knights, especially to pick off weaker AI units, while the upgrade path to cavalry would take away one of the biggest deterrents to building conquistadors.

By the way, one role knights would almost definitely be useful for even if the stepped-up power of conquistadors makes them a player's preferred attacker is moving in over roads to defend cities captured by conquistadors. The ratio of defense value to cost is a whole lot better for knights!

Nathan

[Rellin]

60 Shields, Enslave, Calvary upgrade sounds good to this non-panel type.

[ducki]

Also Spain should build Knights sometimes, even after Astronomy. Otherwise we are reducing strategic options, which is the opposite of what we want.

I think you may have taken my AU Course suggestion to mean I think Conqs should replace Knights - I don't. I do feel that would be an interesting Course requirement to test any changes and see how useful they can be. Med Inf would still, in the course I outlined, probably be the preferred method of taking cities. Just prohibiting Knights for a course did not, does not, will not suggest I think the units are or should be analogs.

the combination of two moves and ATAR allows conquistadors to strike deeper than even cavalry can

So ATAR means that each movement point equals three tiles even in enemy territory? I assumed "as roads" would have the same limitations as normal roads. Interesting.

Another thought might be 3-3-2 + Enslave + (cost reduction OR useful upgrade path). The added defense giving a bit more staying power behind enemy lines and still leaves knights as more cost effective for general use.

Pretty much any of these non-knight-level suggestions would be interesting enough to try at least once.

[edit: or maybe give it the ability to Settle towns(naturally costing pop to build) or Build Forts? Mostly a fallback idea if nothing else is acceptible to the panel]

[nbarclay]

I'm not positive about ATAR allowing faster movement through enemy territory; I'm going based on some stuff I've read. (I don't think I've ever played Spain yet.) If someone with first-hand experience could confirm that (or tell us I'm wrong), it would be nice.

[Nor Me]

ATAR definately gives faster movement through enemy territory (and explorers can pillage as well.)

Something to remember about the conquistador is that it doesn't stop being useful in taking empty cities. With the changes to bombers and cruise missiles, it can do this even against the AI later on. In a nuclear arms race, it could be feasible and sensible for Spain to take all an AIs main cities on turn one of a war which may well be much more difficult for other civs.

Not that the ability to do that needs to be preserved.

If we're having a cavalry upgrade then Spain should be able to build the explorer so that they at least don't lose the pillage ability.

I think I've suggested 3/3/2 cost 60 before and tried to convince player1 that 50 shields would be unbalancing.

[pauli]

Something to remember about the conquistador is that it doesn't stop being useful in taking empty cities. With the changes to bombers and cruise missiles, it can do this even against the AI later on. In a nuclear arms race, it could be feasible and sensible for Spain to take all an AIs main cities on turn one of a war which may well be much more difficult for other civs.

what is this, 'nuke and trot?'

what about making the conquistador into a straight up replacement knight? or are there enough of those already?

[Risa]

It seems that the enslave ability is favored by many people. The next question is: enslave to what? Worker, warrior, or another conquistador?

[pauli]

sgl! sgl!

er, i mean worker.

/me whistles

[Rellin]

Definately not another Conquistador, warrior would need an upgrade to be worth anything, but worker would be most realistic, and worth the most to the person doing the enslaving, plus it would be vunerable on its way back to friendly territory if the Conquistador is out and about enslaving without armed troops, which might well be the case given its movement abilities.

[Risa]

I would definately not accept worker if conquistador were an ancient unit, because of barb-farming. And I still don't like the general idea of gaining pop-point by combat, even it's out of ancient times. That's why I suggest warrior.

[Alexander's Horse]

I like the conquistador.

[Rellin]

Yeah Warrior is most reasonable, but slaves are so cool.

[nbarclay]

Enslaving as conquistadors would be both ahistorical and overpowering. I'm a bit rusty on my history of that period, but I'm pretty sure the Spanish didn't do much in the way of arming natives and using them as troops. And the ability to get free conquistadors would tend to be a bit too powerful, especially if conquistadors are used mainly to attack units with a defense of two or less (and thus can very possibly gain more numbers through enslavement than they lose in combat).

[pauli]

...but enslaving the local population as workers was very much historical.

hmm... what would REALLY be neat is the ability to cause plague in enemy cities... but i don't think that's possible :/

[Rellin]

From Encarta:Link

The conquistadors came from areas of Spain where fighting was a way of life. The wars against Muslims in Spain had lasted for centuries, and clashes between rival clans were common. These men were accustomed to achieving their goals of fame and fortune through military endeavor. By taking treasure, territory, and subjects for their country, they won recognition from the king. Many explorers also felt it was their moral responsibility to convert people to Christianity.

The European explorers of Central and South America encountered native civilizations far richer and more sophisticated than the Caribbean cultures—for example, the Maya and Aztec peoples in Mexico and the Incas in Peru. They came upon technology allowing relatively abundant crops and encountered forms of empire where city-states dominated smaller satellite communities. Their conquests brought dramatic changes to both the Americas and Spain. The conquistadors and colonizers introduced European culture and religion to the Americas, while Spain gained enormous wealth from the spoils of its conquests and from silver and gold mines in the newly conquered lands.

Enslave would be the most historically accurate, as would ability to make a colony. Shame we can't make them enslave but only get some gold in return.

[nbarclay]

By the time conquistadors are available, there are typically size 12 cities that have excess food capacity and can turn out an occasional worker and be back to size 12 the next turn. So why use a conquistador to built a colony when a worker can do it a lot more cheaply? I can't see a "build colony" ability for the conquistador being used enough to make it worth the clutter in the list of rules changes in the mod.

[Rellin]

I agree, just was pointing out what was historically accurate.

I like your original post a few back suggesting, 60 shield, enslave, calvary upgrade, same a/d/m as stock.

I'd say enslave worker isn't really going to be all that powerful at this stage in the game either and would be most accurate.