AU mod: The Conquistador

[Dominae]

I would like to see the following changes to the Conquistador:

1. Reduce cost to 60 Shields. This is necessary because nothing upgrades to it and it's difficult to justify building a Conquistador when Knights/Cavalry are available.

2. Switch Attack and Defense values (i.e. stats become 2/3/2 instead of 3/2/2). This makes the Conquistador a very useful combined arms unit, playing the role of a highly mobile defender to both Knights and Cavalry (with lower cost, they will always defend first, and their high movement means they'll usually be fortified). This would be great for gameplay, but unfortunately has no real-world basis (I'm not one to care, but some of you might be).


Dominae

[MrWhereItsAt]

The proposed idea of adding enslave and either reducing cost or allowing an upgrade path sounds terrific to me. If it was just the cost reduction then I would never build a Conquistador where I could build a Knight, as Knights can upgrade AND have that better attack strength, which is so vital when facing Pikemen/Muskets. The enslave makes the Conquistador an interesting unconventiuonal unit in the Medieval era, and one to take along with larger stacks of Med Inf, Knights, Cats and Pikemen to take on weakened enemy units for the chance of enslaving some natives.

However Dom's idea is worth exploring further, as a defense three unit is not to be completely sneezed at even at the time of Knights and just before Cavalry. As a gameplay tool it would be great - a defender just lesser than the best vanilla defender of the Medieval Age, with the ability to move three tiles in enemy territory to reinforce where it is needed. Attacking with a Conquistador as its stats are would necessitate having something weak in the open, which is unlikely to make much difference. Either the attacked civ has better units and the Conquistador can only safely take on the obsolete, or it doesn't have units better than 2 defense and Spain is WAY ahead anyway. Thus dropping the attack rating would not IMO discourage its use.

[Kuciwalker]

You can't make it upgrade to Cavalry, unless you want other civs' Explorers to upgrade to Cavalry too.

[alexman]

Originally posted by Dominae
Switch Attack and Defense values (i.e. stats become 2/3/2 instead of 3/2/2). This makes the Conquistador a very useful combined arms unit, playing the role of a highly mobile defender to both Knights and Cavalry

Interesting. The only potential problem I see with this change is that the AI might not know how to use the unit. We would have to flag it as a defensive unit, and that would cause the AI to build some of them for defending their cities. In that case the unit should definitely upgrade to Cavalry (skywalker: we would remove it from the Scout-Explorer chain), so that it loses its defender status when upgraded, and has to be replaced by a better unit in the Industrial Age.

[ducki]

I had considered suggesting the 2-3-2 thing as it does give a bit more oomph! to the Conquitador in actually getting into enemy territory. I didn't, though, because 2 attack is just really weak.
With a 3 attack, at least it has a _chance_ against knights caught out in the open, or the odd pikeman. Against fortified pikes or worse, Muskets, there's gonna be a lot of plate armor with holes in.

I do like the 3 defense, though. Othewise, how is he going to get those slaves home when faced with Knights and Longbows?

With 2-3-2, I'd definitely need to see something more than just a cost-reduction to be very compelled to build them as a dead-end unit.

I do like it, though Dom. 2-3-2 just seems kinda weak for the time, just like 3-2-2. How much does the 2-3-1 Num.Merc. cost? 30 shields? Is 1 move and ATAR worth 100% markup? (Honest question, not baiting.)
Also, what's the cost on a Gallic Sword? Isn't that 30 as well? Is ATAR worth double price on GSs? (I really don't know the value of ATAR, which is why I ask. It doesn't seem worth it, to me, but I don't have much experience with it, either.)

Those are my thoughts, I'm glad someone else was thinking along the lines of making them as strong as pikes on defense for penetration/survival purposes.

[Dominae]

Yes, the AI is, as usual, a problem. With the offense flag set, will the AI use the 60-Shield Conquistador to attack before Knights because it's cheaper? I think so, because it's higher mobility means it will be able to reach targets way before Knights could. Then again, the AI does have a "make a big stack" behaviour, through which the defensive Conquistador I'm proposing could shine. I think this could use some testing.

Edit: Another reason I'm against removing the AI Offense flag is that the Conquistador has the fun effect of "keeping the human player honest" with respect to city garrisons; with a unit that can reach a city up to six tiles into your territory with little or no notice, you're forced to put units in your cities a bit further from the front line. Many players do this already, but for those of us that do not, fighting the Spanish in the Medieval era is just that much more interesting.


Dominae

[Dominae]

Originally posted by ducki
With 2-3-2, I'd definitely need to see something more than just a cost-reduction to be very compelled to build them as a dead-end unit.

2/3/2 ATAR for 60 Shields would definitely make it more attractive for us human players: protecting a Knight/Cavalry stack while popping in and out to capture Workers, pillage improvements, etc. is quite the job description for just one unit. You just have to get used to the fact that the Conquistador will not really be conquering anything on its own, but rather causing the enemy a lot of headaches.

As alexman notes, the version I'm proposing is more difficult for the AI to use. It might decide to "suicide" a 2-Attack unit to strike a heavily-defended area a turn or two before Knights come on the scene, a big waste.


Dominae

[alexman]

Originally posted by Nor Me
I think I've suggested 3/3/2 cost 60 before

I like this idea the best so far. This way the unit provides good value for its cost, especially on defense after penertating deep inside enemy territory. The AI will handle it well too.

That unit would be powerful enough so that the enslave ability would not be needed.

So should Spain be able to capture Explorers and build Explorers when there are no horses? Note that this would make possible up an Explorer-to-Conquistador upgrade possibility, much like the Horseman-to-Cavalry upgrade that people do by disconnecting saltpeter.

[ducki]

@Dominae - From your post, it seems safe to assume that ATAR definitely gives 3tiles per movement point even in enemy territory, so it does seem more attractive than I previously believed.
Also, you may be right that your proposal is sufficient for the mod. My counter was simply that, even as a Spain-fan, I'm not sure that your model would be compelling enough for me to build them, but I'm willing to give it a shot.

@Alexman - I think Explorers are a waste of pixels, personally, though maybe I should revisit them. One consideration is that any player can upgrade horses to Cav, though only Spain can do Explorer to Conq. Not that that's bad, just something that popped into my head.

I still like the Enslave to Worker idea. Not that you'd likely need them for working, but they'd certainly be a feather in your cap, a bargaining chip if you will, at the negotiations table. Or as gifts.

Anyway, I'd like to try either the 3-3-2 cost 60 Enslave or the 2-3-2 cost 60 ATAR.

[Kuciwalker]

(skywalker: we would remove it from the Scout-Explorer chain)

Doh! I forgot Spain couldn't build Scouts anyway

[nbarclay]

I like 3-3-2 cost 60 too. As for being able to capture explorers, remove the Conquistador from the scout-explorer upgrade chain and the problem of upgrading captured explorers to conquistadors goes away. (Then again, has anyone ever actually seen an AI explorer for a conquistador to capture? Offhand, I can't remember ever seeing one.)

The big difference I see between the horseman-cavalry upgrade path and the explorer-conquistador upgrade path is that the horseman-cavalry path has a purpose beyond just enabling a build-for-upgrade strategy. With horsemen, being able to build units solely for upgrade purposes is merely a side effect of the ability to upgrade horsemen intended to participate in wars (or at least intended to be available to participate in wars should the need arise) before more powerful mounted units became available. Indeed, I view the "pillage to enable building for upgrade" strategy as having enough of an "exploit" feel that I don't use it a whole lot, although I've been known to on occasion if I felt like I was in a tight spot. (I'm very willing to engage in deliberate inaction - such as not obtaining Chivalry - to keep horsemen available to build for upgrade, but engaging in deliberate destruction within my empire seems a bit much in SP.)

In contrast, since explorers and conquistadors come with the same tech, and since Explorers have so little value (and are so rarely used) in their own right, there would be no pretense that the upgrade path exists to address the obsolescence of units built in a previous era. The upgrade ability would exist essentially purely as an exploit - and, worse, an exploit almost purely for the advantage of the human player since AIs don't build units specifically for the purpose of upgrading them later.

Nathan

[lockstep]

3/3/2, cost 60, ATAR sounds good.

Still thinking about the upgrade chain ...

[alexman]

Under consideration:

1. Yes/No: Reduce shield cost to 60.
2. Yes/No: If item 1 results in a Yes, also increase defense strength to 3.
3. Yes/No: Add enslavement ability (applies only if item 2 results in a No).
4. Yes/No: Add ability for Spain to build Explorers when horses are not available.

Voting in a week.

[MrWhereItsAt]

I don't care for it myself, but enslave has been dropped as an option?

[alexman]

Thanks. I edited the proposal.
I think we agree that enslavement is not needed for a 60-cost 3-3-2 unit, so the enslavement vote applies only to a 3-2-2 unit.
A 70-cost 3-3-2 unit is not part of the proposal.

[MrWhereItsAt]

Cool. So now is the week for final furious closing arguments before voting?

[donZappo]

Has moving the explorer up the tech tree ever been discussed in the AU? If you moved it up half an era it seems like it would make it somewhat useful while still allowing an effective explorer - conquistador upgrade chain.

I know that this isn't the thread for such a discussion, but not being a panel member I don't know how to get proposals initiated. Plus, it did actually seem related since you guys were talking about upgrade chains involving cavalry, but if both the explorer and conquistador were made more useful (with Spain being allowed to build explorers!) then the upgrade chain would seem to make logical sense.

-donZappo

[alexman]

Good idea, I will open a thread about Explorers soon. It's already in the list of topics in the main thread.

Edit: AU Mod: The Explorer

[Dominae]

alexman, you've forgotten the option of simultaneously reducing the Attack to 2 and increasing the Defense to 3. I'm not sure you put up enough of a case to seriously remove this option from contention.


Dominae

[alexman]

So now you're calling for a SoZ-style vote?

Seriously, it seemed to me that the 3.3.2 proposal got more support, so I opted for a simpler Yes/No vote. we can always hold another Yes/No vote to select between a 2.3.2 proposal and the winner of this vote.

[nbarclay]

It seems to me that 3.3.2 has the same defensive advantages as 2.3.2 without being anywhere near as radical a change. Rather than changing the entire character of the unit, 3.3.2 leaves the unit useful for everything it is useful for under the standard rules while letting it defend itself and other units a bit better. That seems more in the spirit of the AU Mod to me.

Would anyone else vote for 2.3.2 if that were an option under consideration? My impression is that the 2.3.2 idea didn't get enough support to make it worth the trouble of voting on.

[ducki]

I think the issue was:
The unit is (by many) viewed as a "penetrator" unit, designed to get behind enemy lines and wreak havoc. By the time Navigation(or is it Astronomy?) comes around, 2 attack isn't going to do much wreaking of anything other than road-busting, IMO. 3 is still fairly weak compared to much of what you'll see(Knights and Pikes) for attacking while the standard 2-defense is laughable in the face of Med-Inf, Knights, and Longbows.
The slight boost in defense actually gives a chance to survive the first round behind enemy lines while leaving the attack at the standard 3 actually give the chance to retailiate against Med.Inf and Longbows (and less effectively) a Knight.
I still don't think he'll last long in any opponent sufficiently advanced and developed enough to be able to defend against a main force of the era anyway, but the one extra defense makes it more interesting and (arguably) more survival-fit, while leaving the unit relatively stock and therefore still able to pose an actual threat to one or two enemy units, even when doing a solo, spec-ops-style assault. And I don't think we'll see them en masse, as that would detract from the training of Knights and Pikes.

At least that's how I saw the logic.

[alexman]

Time to vote (hey, it's Friday in most of Asia).

1. Yes: Reduce shield cost to 60.
2. Yes: If item 1 results in a Yes, also increase defense strength to 3.
3. Yes: Add enslavement ability (applies only if item 2 results in a No).
4. Yes: Add ability for Spain to build Explorers when horses are not available.

[lockstep]

YES: Reduce shield cost to 60
YES: If item 1 results in a Yes, also increase defense strength to 3
NO: Add enslavement ability (applies only if item 2 results in a No)
YES: Add ability for Spain to build Explorers when horses are not available

[ZargonX]

1. Yes
2. Yes
3. Yes
4. Yes

[Dominae]

1. Yes.
2. Yes.
3. No.
4. No.

[Theseus]

YNNN

[pauli]

1: yes
2: yes
3: yes
4: yes

[Stuie]

1. Yes
2. No
3. No
4. Yes

[Nor Me]

1,2,4: Yes
3: No.