AU mod: The Keshik

alexman · January 16, 2004, 13:41

The problem

The Knight the first fast-moving offensive unit that does not require defensive support. It's appeal is that is can move into enemy territory and attack without the fear of getting slaughtered in a counterattack, and without having to wait for slow defenders to catch up.

The Mongol UU is a Knight replacement with a reduced defense and cost. That means that Keshiks can't attack as effectively without defensive support, so they have to advance more slowly. Not only is this unfair to the Mongols, it's also historically inaccurate.

Consider a vet Knight in enemy plains, attacked by a vet Medieval Infantry. The attacker will win 60% of the time, which results in an expected shield loss of 42.3. Now consider a Keshik in the same situation. The Medieval Infantry wins 80% of the time, which is an expected shield loss of 47.5. Surely a UU should give the Mongols a better deal than that!

Possible Solution:

Give the Keshik zero-range bombardment of 2.

That means that it has a 50% chance of removing a hit point from an attacking Medieval Infantry, which improves its overall chance of defending from 20% to about 30%. That's an expected shield loss of 42.7, almost identical to that of a Knight in that situation!

A nice element of flavor from this change is that the zero-range bombard is an ability given to Archer-type units in stock C3C, and the Keshik is actually a mounted Archer, according the unit graphics!

So what do you think about the Keshik? Does it need some help, or are the Mongols doing fine as they are now? any other ideas?

ducki · January 16, 2004, 13:49

What a stellar idea! If that one doesn't get support, I suggest dropping the cost further to make the expected shield loss equal or less than the knight.
They were called the Mongol Horde - there should be a lot of them and cheaper = more, IMO.

But the 0-range bombard is inspired and would be my first choice.

donZappo · January 16, 2004, 14:31

I like this idea as well! Sounds like a good, creative solution to the problem. How does the estimated shield loss compare to it having a bombardment value of 3?

-donZappo

lockstep · January 16, 2004, 14:34

Quote:

Originally posted by ducki
What a stellar idea!

Actually, player1 suggested this two months ago:

http://apolyton.net/forums/showthrea...hreadid=101611

And I really like it.

Stuie · January 16, 2004, 16:04

Excellent idea (and I'm glad lockstep found player1's thread so I wouldn't have to go looking for it...).

Kuciwalker · January 16, 2004, 16:47

Dominae · January 16, 2004, 20:55

I like the zero-range bombard idea, too.

The topic of Knight replacement UUs gets me thinking about Ansar Warriors. Anyone else think that what is basically a cheap Rider is a little too powerful?

Dominae

nbarclay · January 16, 2004, 21:19

Count me as another person who likes the idea of zero-range bombard for Keshiks.

Regarding Ansars, I don't want to get in a game of "Let's tone down all the best UUs," and I don't view the Ansar as so much better than other first-tier UUs that we need to single it out. The cost difference between Ansars and Riders isn't huge; Arabia isn't Militaristic and so gets fewer promotions (and hence leaders) than China; and the Ansar is more vulnerable than the Rider on the admittedly relatively rare occasions when it is subject to counterattack.

Nathan

alexman · January 19, 2004, 10:22

Under consideration:

Yes/No: Give Keshiks a zero-range bombard strength of 2.

Voting on Friday.

MrWhereItsAt · January 21, 2004, 07:38

How about the cheaper shield cost idea as well? As a non-panel member I certainly take ducki's point about the 'horde' well.

alexman · January 21, 2004, 07:44

We will revisit the cheaper cost proposal after the first version of the mod has been released. It's easier to decide on the cost of the unit after we have decided whether or not it will have zero-range bombard.