Sioux Discussion Thread

[Garja]

BR nerf has nothing to do with the redesign of Sioux. BR has to be nerfed because it's simply too good just like sepoy and ashigaru. Specifically it beats the counter unit (especially xbows) which is the bottom line to decide a unit nerf. Still, being nerfed in HP and not attack, raiding with BR is totally possible.
I agree that the other changes pushed for a different way to play Sioux.

[stronk]

BR nerf has nothing to do with the redesign of Sioux. BR has to be nerfed because it's simply too good just like sepoy and ashigaru. Specifically it beats the counter unit (especially xbows) which is the bottom line to decide a unit nerf. Still, being nerfed in HP and not attack, raiding with BR is totally possible.
I agree that the other changes pushed for a different way to play Sioux.

Give them bonus damage against vills

[momuuu]

BR nerf has nothing to do with the redesign of Sioux. BR has to be nerfed because it's simply too good just like sepoy and ashigaru. Specifically it beats the counter unit (especially xbows) which is the bottom line to decide a unit nerf. Still, being nerfed in HP and not attack, raiding with BR is totally possible.
I agree that the other changes pushed for a different way to play Sioux.

Normally I would pick apart your ridiculous garjuing, but in this case your argument is so bad I don't even have to. You are right, a unit has to be nerfed if it beats the counter unit. This is a fact, it's the factual definition which determines if a unit should objectively be nerfed or not. There is no disputing this statement, and I think you'd agree with me because that is your own argument to begin with.

Go in the scenario editor. Test 10 bow riders vs 19 xbows, one of the worst ranged infantry units there is. If you do that, you'll find that the xbows actually win that one pretty convincingly. I tested this without the xbows microing, kiting and using focus fire (xbows outrange and are much more microable). Your own argument is literally based on something untrue. Bow riders do not beat their counter unit. So bow riders should not have been nerfed according to you.

[Garja]

Dude I played from both Sioux and other civs pov countless tims on RE and no xbows don't beat BR in a real situation because they will be charged together with at the very least the WC and once on top of them xbows go in meelee. Other RI kinda have the same problem. Aside from that ye, RI do beat BR as it should be and musks do decent as well. Still BR nerf is totally fine.
Please cut your crap attitude cause I know the game much better than you.

[Garja]

BR nerf has nothing to do with the redesign of Sioux. BR has to be nerfed because it's simply too good just like sepoy and ashigaru. Specifically it beats the counter unit (especially xbows) which is the bottom line to decide a unit nerf. Still, being nerfed in HP and not attack, raiding with BR is totally possible.
I agree that the other changes pushed for a different way to play Sioux.

Give them bonus damage against vills

They already have no penalty while all other ranged cav do.
BR are fine.

[momuuu]

Dude I played from both Sioux and other civs pov countless tims on RE and no xbows don't beat BR in a real situation because they will be charged together with at the very least the WC and once on top of them xbows go in meelee. Other RI kinda have the same problem. Aside from that ye, RI do beat BR as it should be and musks do decent as well. Still BR nerf is totally fine.
Please cut your crap attitude cause I know the game much better than you.

Yet you apperantly don't know how xbow vs bow riders perform at equal cost?

[Garja]

I apparently know that in a real game xbows don't have a chance to counter BRs because the cav ball just goes on top of you and then they don't even deal ranged damage to begin with. Stats alone they do fine, of course. In fact xbows do better than colo skirms vs BR and other goon type units.

[deleted_user0]

he's not wrong tbh. BR were too strong for sure.

[momuuu]

But he's literally wrong, Bow riders don't beat xbows cost effectively. Even if you micro in the scenario editor, for example 15 bow riders vs 28 xbows (which cost less even than the bow riders), and try to actively micro the bow riders to get in melee range, the xbows will destroy the fight. In a real game with real armies and shit, maybe bow riders with a war chief and axe riders beat xbows yes, but then his entire argument is bullshit.

What even is 'too strong'? Were they so strong that they made sioux overpowered? Were they too strong in some sort of weird vacuum?

[deadrising78]

Are you seriously saying br arent too strong on re? Have you even played with or against sioux on re?

[deleted_user0]

maybe his statement that BR beat their counter is wrong, but BR were too strong. Anyone with experience in this game vs sioux can attest to this. Anyone with experience as sioux can attest to this. BR aren't actually strong because of their hp, but mainly because of their DPS. However, the hp was nerfed instead of hp to preserve the fact that sioux units generally are high dps low hp units (and BR were kinda the exception with high DPS and decent to good hp)

[Garja]

Btw I never stated that xbows don't win per cost. I said they beat their counter which they do in a real game, for a number of reasons. Hence the nerf.

[momuuu]

Are you seriously saying br arent too strong on re? Have you even played with or against sioux on re?

Again, what is too strong? Sioux is probably not overpowered on RE. Sioux should probably mix axe riders with their bow riders, or at least dog soldiers, because bow riders lose pretty badly to xbows. So then what's too strong about bow riders? The fact that they have really good stats compared to similair units? Would that even matter if sioux can't actually get as many bow riders as other civs can? This entire 'too good' thing is based on some arbitrary line people draw which determines when a unit's stats are randomly too good while completely ignoring the context.

And just compare them to aenna:
With hunting dogs and placer mines:
A sepoy would have:
~1.26 hp/villager second
~0.175 damage/villager second
A musketeer would have:
~1.26 hp/villager second
~0.1932 damage/villager second
A bow rider, with hunting dogs and placer mines, would have
~1.127 hp/villagersecond
~0.1802 damage/villager second
~0.3604 damage/villager second against cav
A cav archer would have
~1.331 hp/villagersecond
~0.1306 damage/villager second
~0.3917 damage/villager second against cav

This is ignoring the set up animation of bow riders and their speed of course. Generally, yes bow riders are relatively good against all units and due to their speed somewhat better against ranged infantry, but their stats are comparable to musketeers. They're pretty good against cav compared to how good they are in general, but on the other hand wakinas and cetan bows suck pretty hard. Even in isolation, bow riders aren't insane, although pretty great units of course. I just don't get the arbitrary line of 'bow riders are too strong' with no real basis to back that up.

[momuuu]

Btw I never stated that xbows don't win per cost. I said they beat their counter which they do in a real game, for a number of reasons. Hence the nerf.

In a real game sioux isn't too strong so you shouldn't nerf them? In any serious game, the player massing bow riders would not even have the same amount of cost in bow riders as xbows, because sioux eco is terrible, so in a real game bow riders would even get destroyed harder. They don't beat xbows, not in theory, not in the unit editor and not in real game scenarios. They just do okay vs xbows, just like how musketeers do okay vs xbows; xbows are pretty weak units.

[Garja]

No.

[deadrising78]

Are you seriously saying br arent too strong on re? Have you even played with or against sioux on re?

Again, what is too strong? Sioux is probably not overpowered on RE. Sioux should probably mix axe riders with their bow riders, or at least dog soldiers, because bow riders lose pretty badly to xbows. So then what's too strong about bow riders? The fact that they have really good stats compared to similair units? Would that even matter if sioux can't actually get as many bow riders as other civs can? This entire 'too good' thing is based on some arbitrary line people draw which determines when a unit's stats are randomly too good while completely ignoring the context.

And just compare them to aenna:
With hunting dogs and placer mines:
A sepoy would have:
~1.26 hp/villager second
~0.175 damage/villager second
A musketeer would have:
~1.26 hp/villager second
~0.1932 damage/villager second
A bow rider, with hunting dogs and placer mines, would have
~1.127 hp/villagersecond
~0.1802 damage/villager second
~0.3604 damage/villager second against cav
A cav archer would have
~1.331 hp/villagersecond
~0.1306 damage/villager second
~0.3917 damage/villager second against cav

This is ignoring the set up animation of bow riders and their speed of course. Generally, yes bow riders are relatively good against all units and due to their speed somewhat better against ranged infantry, but their stats are comparable to musketeers. They're pretty good against cav compared to how good they are in general, but on the other hand wakinas and cetan bows suck pretty hard. Even in isolation, bow riders aren't insane, although pretty great units of course. I just don't get the arbitrary line of 'bow riders are too strong' with no real basis to back that up.

Sioux is defenitly not overpowered but br is. Try playing some sioux instead of doing maths and you will see br is op

[Kaiserklein]

@momuuu 2 xbows vs 1 BR is a pretty even fight, even though xbows (and other kinds of bows) are supposed to beat RC harder than regular RI, because they have a higher base attack and a low multiplier against HI, but the same multiplier against RI. Like the 2 bows barely win it, by 1 shot or so. So garja is right, bows don't really counter BRs.

[spanky4ever]

An interesting discussion from momuuu, Umeu, and Kaiserklein, and Imo they all make good arguments.
Yeah, I think the nerfing of br where unjustified momuuu.
But I agree with Umeu that BR is not the only option sioux have. It would be foolish to play only BR, cos your oponent can with ease counter that. Axriders are pretty underestimated imo. (so are cetans btw - and Goongoon got to the semifinals in the last tournament by making tons of them). I strongly disagree though, that carnimata for better eco and defense is not needed from the start, but maybe as a late game option. By "late game" sioux prolly would have lost. I think making this option for them, fixes the biggest 2 flaws they have on RE. Thank you Goodspeed, very mart;) It was a clever way of boosting them, without totally change them. Remember that the boost to defense also is an option on RE.
Btw, why should it not be kind of obvious that both your economy and your defense would be better where you put up your teepees??
That is why I think Kaiserklein make most sense, saying that the teepee for defense and ecoboost is a very good idea, and very needed for them to have any chanse in being compatable.
Some proof of that should be in just watching them being played alot more - than cero, zip, nada, 0 in tournaments, and in streams.

[momuuu]

Are you seriously saying br arent too strong on re? Have you even played with or against sioux on re?

Again, what is too strong? Sioux is probably not overpowered on RE. Sioux should probably mix axe riders with their bow riders, or at least dog soldiers, because bow riders lose pretty badly to xbows. So then what's too strong about bow riders? The fact that they have really good stats compared to similair units? Would that even matter if sioux can't actually get as many bow riders as other civs can? This entire 'too good' thing is based on some arbitrary line people draw which determines when a unit's stats are randomly too good while completely ignoring the context.

This is ignoring the set up animation of bow riders and their speed of course. Generally, yes bow riders are relatively good against all units and due to their speed somewhat better against ranged infantry, but their stats are comparable to musketeers. They're pretty good against cav compared to how good they are in general, but on the other hand wakinas and cetan bows suck pretty hard. Even in isolation, bow riders aren't insane, although pretty great units of course. I just don't get the arbitrary line of 'bow riders are too strong' with no real basis to back that up.

Sioux is defenitly not overpowered but br is. Try playing some sioux instead of doing maths and you will see br is op

I know how strong bow riders are. I also know how weak sioux is because I've also played the civ. Bow riders are basically sioux's civ feature. Otherwise they're a weak basic civ. I think the no houses requirement is compensated by the fact that they start with 5 vills, and then they just have basic age ups (in practise just 400w and fast age up), bow riders instead of musketeers, weak xbows, decent pikes and sorta average cav. No steel traps, only a 4v shipment as eco option, can't really use 700w, bad skirms, only 1 skirm shipment, no real good goon shipments and ofc no minutemen. And then they of course have the big button. If you'd strip france of all civ bonuses, gave them bow riders instead of musketeers/dragoons and a big button, they'd be a slightly stronger sioux basically. Bow riders are sioux's thingy so it can be OP. In theory, manors are the most OP thing ever. A 3 SW + 2 uhlan shipment is ridiculous. Aging up with a free agra fort and 2 sepoy is ridiculous. Aging up with some tower that provides 8 villagers is insane. Strelets are insane, getting extra shipments is insane.. All civs have a thing that is OP compared to the standard, and thus no civ is OP; having some OP thing is basically the norm for any civ, and for sioux that is the bow rider. Nothing wrong with that.

@momuuu 2 xbows vs 1 BR is a pretty even fight, even though xbows (and other kinds of bows) are supposed to beat RC harder than regular RI, because they have a higher base attack and a low multiplier against HI, but the same multiplier against RI. Like the 2 bows barely win it, by 1 shot or so. So garja is right, bows don't really counter BRs.

I tested 10 bow riders vs 19 xbows (even cost) with and without microing the bow riders and 15 bow riders vs 28 xbows (xbows costing less) also both with and without micro, and xbows won these fights pretty convincingly. Even if you spawn bowriders in range of the xbows, the xbows will win. I also microed it perfectly one time where the bowriders where clicked as close to the xbows as possible forcing as many as possible in melee range and the xbows still won it easily.

[Hidddy_]

People neglect their booming capabilities. The population civ bonus lends to these capabilities by freeing up lots of wood. They can easily use wood shipments to get a lot of useful infras like warhuts for protecting res, a firepit for minutemen and other flexible options, an extra tc (coupled with fp on fertility dance), and even for setting up a stage coach line if the opponent is turtling too much/the map doesn't lend to raiding.

[gamevideo113]

And just compare them to aenna:
With hunting dogs and placer mines:
A sepoy would have:
~1.26 hp/villager second
~0.175 damage/villager second
A musketeer would have:
~1.26 hp/villager second
~0.1932 damage/villager second
A bow rider, with hunting dogs and placer mines, would have
~1.127 hp/villagersecond
~0.1802 damage/villager second
~0.3604 damage/villager second against cav
A cav archer would have
~1.331 hp/villagersecond
~0.1306 damage/villager second
~0.3917 damage/villager second against cav

The thing is that even if these numbers look similar, bow riders are almost twice as fast as musks and they have 2x vs vills which is just insane. Speed is not taken into account with this comparison. And also you can see yourself that the BR dps is basically 50% higher in comparison to a cav archer, which btw is a fortress age unit and has a way longer animation. Arguing that BR weren't too strong on RE is a bit silly imo, but speaking of sioux in general i agree. I'm not a fan of the direction taken by EP in regards to sioux. Cetan buff, 5v buff, BR nerf and a more conservative TP buff would be better than the current state imo. Then you'd also have more options like mustangs buff/onikare buff or something else to refine the whole thing, but the general idea should be more simple.

[stronk]

what is wrong about bow riders being good on RE? The 3 sw shipment is also a lot better than a normal 5 vill shipment. Especially when you consider that you get free uhlans with it. So Bowriders are better than all other comparable units and now? Sioux weren't OP on RE so I don't see the problem with having a characeristic unit

[gamevideo113]

1 single shipment being 20% better than its counterpart for other civs is a marginal difference; having a unit with probably the highest dps in colonial after abus and the highest mobility considering the warchief, is not really a neglectable thing for a civ.

[momuuu]

And just compare them to aenna:
With hunting dogs and placer mines:
A sepoy would have:
~1.26 hp/villager second
~0.175 damage/villager second
A musketeer would have:
~1.26 hp/villager second
~0.1932 damage/villager second
A bow rider, with hunting dogs and placer mines, would have
~1.127 hp/villagersecond
~0.1802 damage/villager second
~0.3604 damage/villager second against cav
A cav archer would have
~1.331 hp/villagersecond
~0.1306 damage/villager second
~0.3917 damage/villager second against cav

The thing is that even if these numbers look similar, bow riders are almost twice as fast as musks and they have 2x vs vills which is just insane. Speed is not taken into account with this comparison. And also you can see yourself that the BR dps is basically 50% higher in comparison to a cav archer, which btw is a fortress age unit and has a way longer animation. Arguing that BR weren't too strong on RE is a bit silly imo, but speaking of sioux in general i agree. I'm not a fan of the direction taken by EP in regards to sioux. Cetan buff, 5v buff, BR nerf and a more conservative TP buff would be better than the current state imo. Then you'd also have more options like mustangs buff/onikare buff or something else to refine the whole thing, but the general idea should be more simple.

I don't actually think bow riders have a better animation than cavalry archers, and cav archers are actually notably bad yet still better against cavalry than bow riders are, so they actually do prove a point. Bow riders are worse vs general units than musketeers and worse against cav than cav archers. They are 'mediocre' statwise in both regards, but of course the combination is pretty great. Their speed is indeed especially useful against xbows, but buys you nothing against musketeers. So generally, the bow rider is probably the best anti cav against RI, not the best against cav (that'd be goons/pikes/cav archers) and not the best against HI (that'd be musketeers). It's definitely a good unit, but it's not the endall destroyer of worlds like people make it out to be.

PS. I literally doubled the Bow rider attack to 40 to account for their 1.5 ROF, that doesn't account for the generally poor set up animation.

[momuuu]

1 single shipment being 20% better than its counterpart for other civs is a marginal difference; having a unit with probably the highest dps in colonial after abus and the highest mobility considering the warchief, is not really a neglectable thing for a civ.

They have worse dps than musketeers..