Sioux Redesign ideas.

User avatar
India TNT333
Lancer
Posts: 530
Joined: Sep 13, 2018
ESO: TNT333

Re: Sioux Redesign ideas.

Post by TNT333 »

U know the huts r made of wood covered with skin
"We are kings or pawns" Napoleon Bonaparte
No Flag SiegeDance
Musketeer
Posts: 64
Joined: Oct 1, 2016
Location: Kathmandu, Nepal

Re: Sioux Redesign ideas.

Post by SiegeDance »

TNT333 wrote:U know the huts r made of wood covered with skin


I know, wood used as poles, not as planks. But they are for the most part dried animal hides. And btw, do you know the Indian villagers eat food and not wood?
No Flag deleted_user0
Ninja
Posts: 13004
Joined: Apr 28, 2020

Re: Sioux Redesign ideas.

Post by deleted_user0 »

But in that time they used wood to make fire to cook the food. Hmmm chapathi, paneer masala curry, samosa, pakora, kulfi. Yum yummy fill my tummy!
No Flag SiegeDance
Musketeer
Posts: 64
Joined: Oct 1, 2016
Location: Kathmandu, Nepal

Re: Sioux Redesign ideas.

Post by SiegeDance »

umeu wrote:But in that time they used wood to make fire to cook the food. Hmmm chapathi, paneer masala curry, samosa, pakora, kulfi. Yum yummy fill my tummy!


Lol. I'm hungry.
United States of America Dolphincup
Musketeer
Posts: 96
Joined: Mar 26, 2019
ESO: Dolphincup

Re: Sioux Redesign ideas.

Post by Dolphincup »

Hi, sioux main here. Haven't played ESOC patch yet as my friends are too casual, but I've watched a lot of content online. I like the gist of the rework ideas but it seems like it's too much. and as was mentioned before, the teepee aura is already a lot. but if one insists on this type of rework, maybe something simpler that can accomplish the same goals.

I actually don't think that making TC's cost some food is a bad idea. how about 300f/300w ? slightly cheaper than 500w and much more convenient for a civ that has to go very far out of their way to get a sub-par economy going. but free hunting dogs is going too far. You wouldn't even need a market any more, and the age-up times could break the game.

BR .5 on vills, teepees can garrison 5 vills each. or just garrison if capping is difficult. seems like a simpler way to accomplish much of what your proposed rework intends to do. "nomadic" feel, trading raiding powers for some raid protection. seems balanced. Teepees are still low-hp.

as for RR, seems pretty obvious that its original design was to be a unique anti-heavy infantry cav unit, but they wanted to maintain consistency w/ other ranged cav and it became a jumbled mess of a unit. if anything should be done to RR, it should be focused down to solely countering heavy infantry with a light cav tag, IMO.

If you want to give sioux an artillery-like option, just give Marauders by default. seems little known that 18 tashunke prowlers is actually very strong. they have 76 attack w/ 2 splash and almost 400 HP. here's a google doc with details on tashunke prowler scaling. buffing them is dangerous IMO, but maybe buffing their base and reducing the rate at which they scale in numbers would be a proper way to make them more playable.
https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1RiVNe6xc9bvoRzCqQTsHwIoYddS8CPNJGmmRSmDCQAI/edit?usp=sharing
User avatar
Italy Garja
Retired Contributor
Donator 02
Posts: 9729
Joined: Feb 11, 2015
ESO: Garja

Re: Sioux Redesign ideas.

Post by Garja »

Food TC makes no sense. No balance/gameplay reason for that and no design reason either.
BR x0.5 vs vills makes sense but it's too big of a change and I don't know if it improves or worsen balance (surely needs tons of compensation elsewhere).
RR are fine. If anything, but this is more for design than really balance, remove the heavy cav tag and add the artillery tag, since they're basically a cav/culv (counter artillery and warships).
As for balance, 20 range wakina is what they need in the current meta. Removing axe penalty vs ranged cav is also to consider even tho it's probably risky (br+axe kinda kill goons).
For eco they would be fine just with 5v, really. The problem comes from the comparison with the other civs due to the maps and to some civs in particular whose eco has been stretched too far with the EP.
Image Image Image
No Flag SiegeDance
Musketeer
Posts: 64
Joined: Oct 1, 2016
Location: Kathmandu, Nepal

Re: Sioux Redesign ideas.

Post by SiegeDance »

Dolphincup wrote:Hi, sioux main here. Haven't played ESOC patch yet as my friends are too casual, but I've watched a lot of content online. I like the gist of the rework ideas but it seems like it's too much. and as was mentioned before, the teepee aura is already a lot. but if one insists on this type of rework, maybe something simpler that can accomplish the same goals.

Teepee aura lends to a campy sioux game, with as many teepes one can build as close as possible. Design wise doesn't suit sioux.

I actually don't think that making TC's cost some food is a bad idea. how about 300f/300w ? slightly cheaper than 500w and much more convenient for a civ that has to go very far out of their way to get a sub-par economy going. but free hunting dogs is going too far. You wouldn't even need a market any more, and the age-up times could break the game.

Making them cost food and not a combination of wood/food, is to simplify the resource management. And it doesn't have to be free hunting dogs. They have many hunting and bison cards that can be made viable through some tweaks.

BR .5 on vills, teepees can garrison 5 vills each. or just garrison if capping is difficult. seems like a simpler way to accomplish much of what your proposed rework intends to do. "nomadic" feel, trading raiding powers for some raid protection. seems balanced. Teepees are still low-hp.

I think teepee garrisoning villagers would be silly. As only the chinese villages have them and they are VILLAGES not houses. Teepees low hp design is good if they have a role that serves some map control or surveillance purpose, so that losing them isn't much of a big deal.

as for RR, seems pretty obvious that its original design was to be a unique anti-heavy infantry cav unit, but they wanted to maintain consistency w/ other ranged cav and it became a jumbled mess of a unit. if anything should be done to RR, it should be focused down to solely countering heavy infantry with a light cav tag, IMO.

I think as a fortress age unit, RR should more be focused on countering light infantry and artillery then anything else. Wakinas are good against heavy infantry already and they have good speed for ht and run tactics.

If you want to give sioux an artillery-like option, just give Marauders by default. seems little known that 18 tashunke prowlers is actually very strong. they have 76 attack w/ 2 splash and almost 400 HP. here's a google doc with details on tashunke prowler scaling. buffing them is dangerous IMO, but maybe buffing their base and reducing the rate at which they scale in numbers would be a proper way to make them more playable.
https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1RiVNe6xc9bvoRzCqQTsHwIoYddS8CPNJGmmRSmDCQAI/edit?usp=sharing

I didn't say anything about buffing them. Just for the kind of units that have no upgrades in the stable, they would be more suited as units made trainable by the warchief himself. No buffs or nerfs. Point was to give them a specialized role, as they are stealthy, it makes sense they would better suit as raid units. Which currently BRs do. That's why BR should not be the raiding cav, as it also kills any raiding efforts by other civs.

No Flag SiegeDance
Musketeer
Posts: 64
Joined: Oct 1, 2016
Location: Kathmandu, Nepal

Re: Sioux Redesign ideas.

Post by SiegeDance »

Garja wrote:Food TC makes no sense. No balance/gameplay reason for that and no design reason either.

If you have followed the explanation for the Food TC, it's to better utilize the food cards that sioux have. Their eco design is hunting, with 3 hunting cards, 4 bison cards, a politician that further improves hunting and provides bisons. We are ignoring their eco design and making them play like a watered down version of euro civs.

BR x0.5 vs vills makes sense but it's too big of a change and I don't know if it improves or worsen balance (surely needs tons of compensation elsewhere).

It will make the games more interesting imo. Sioux needing to rely on melee cav for better raids, also enables other players to go for counter raids as well. Making BRs the only desirable unit for sioux in colonial keeps enemy units pinned in their base and go for turtle/boom in almost every game accept maybe vs Otto.

RR are fine. If anything, but this is more for design than really balance, remove the heavy cav tag and add the artillery tag, since they're basically a cav/culv (counter artillery and warships).

They are fine on paper. Never a practical choice. WR/BR do well what it does. And WR/BR is more versatile. Changing RR to counter LI and artillery would be good, as that's what sioux lack with not having artillery themselves. Falconets are most used against destroying infantry than sieging for the most part of the game. RR could fit in here to provide some anti - infantry sniping, being a fortress age unit.

As for balance, 20 range wakina is what they need in the current meta. Removing axe penalty vs ranged cav is also to consider even tho it's probably risky (br+axe kinda kill goons).

We are trying to buff the infantry of a civ that needs to rely heavily on cav for most of their military needs. Wakinas are absolutely fine for role that they play.

For eco they would be fine just with 5v, really. The problem comes from the comparison with the other civs due to the maps and to some civs in particular whose eco has been stretched too far with the EP.

I don't think they had early eco problem ever. It's the late game eco that they sucked. 5V just adds more eco in stage of the game that they never required. It's when they run out of hunts, and have no good eco cards for farms and plantations when ther eco starts sucking. Which can be solved with giving them constant supply of hunts from bison cards.

User avatar
Italy Garja
Retired Contributor
Donator 02
Posts: 9729
Joined: Feb 11, 2015
ESO: Garja

Re: Sioux Redesign ideas.

Post by Garja »

5/5 wrong replies. Things are basically the opposite of what you proposing here. Cba going in detail.
Image Image Image
No Flag SiegeDance
Musketeer
Posts: 64
Joined: Oct 1, 2016
Location: Kathmandu, Nepal

Re: Sioux Redesign ideas.

Post by SiegeDance »

Bringing back to the topic.

It's the current Skirms/goons/falcs meta that's making the TWC civs take the back seat. And the changes are being made to make the TWC civs play some kind of a derivative of the same skirms/goons/falcs combination, and throwing away every uniqueness in unit compositions and variety that they might possess.

Current sioux are all WR/BRs, as that fits more into the realm of skirms/goons type of game and easier to tackle balance wise. But that's why nobody plays sioux. RRs, Tashunkes, DS are supposed to be the main fortress units for sioux but we are rather willing to nerf a colonial unit and buff a sub-par skirmisher unit, when sioux aren't even supposed to have good infantry. NO focus on their fortress units at all.

Current IRO plays the same early toms, and Forest prowler/Musket rider, and also heavy kanya usage in the fortress, while they are supposed to be an infantry centered civ with better ranged combat by design. Ignored units: Mantlets. And mantlets are supposed to be the best unit of IRO in their civ description. Mantlets are their fortress units that should see good play in the fortress. No wonder people find it boring. Iro are currently like china's cheap derivatives of apple products.

Aztecs are melee heavy civ, lacking good ranged potential and yet they also do the similar style of play with maces/eagles and coyotes. Jaguars, their best units by civ description? Useless. As any other melee infantry in the game, except maybe rods. Melee is aztecs military design, powerful melee, weaker ranged. But, no changes are made to make that aspect of Aztec more viable.

We are approaching changes because of a popularity/effectiveness/viability of a specific unit combination, skirms/goons. And that's not the strength for every civs. Especially, sioux and aztec. That's what is killing these civs. What's the incentive for playing them other than reveling in the design quirks and uniqueness that don't even factor in an actual game?
User avatar
Italy Garja
Retired Contributor
Donator 02
Posts: 9729
Joined: Feb 11, 2015
ESO: Garja

Re: Sioux Redesign ideas.

Post by Garja »

This meta doesn't cater to TWC civs, that's true.
However, wakina are not a marginal unit for Sioux, even tho yes, Sioux is a cav civ. RR, tashunke and DS are more of unique Sioux units, not necessarily their main ones. Actually because they're unique and mostly hard counters, they are in fact marginal units and are not supposed to appear frequently.
Iro is quite a complete civ actually. They even have ups for cav. And cav is just useful overall, can't expect them to not use it just because the emphasis is on inf and artillery. With that said yes, current could actually employ more infantry and artillery, and that's what I sometimes do, but it is totally MU dependent, and really up to players, not balance in itself.
Same thing more or less for azzies. Players tend to mimick skirm/goon play because they come from other civs. Of course ERK are terrific so you want use them if you have the opportunity.

Overall the changes are not made to favor a certain unit composition/meta. They are decided on what is considered best balance at the moment and that leads to this specific meta. When you talk about underused units, there is a discount factor for them which it seems you ignore. JPK are slow meele units. They have great stats but it is hard to use them effectively at high level. Tashunke cost too much and their strenght is largely based on surprise effect, again not the greatest thing at high level.

If anything maps do cater to a somewhat calm, straightforward approach to the game. This cuts out some unique ways of playing, being them aggresive strats or just occasional unique strats.
Image Image Image
No Flag SiegeDance
Musketeer
Posts: 64
Joined: Oct 1, 2016
Location: Kathmandu, Nepal

Re: Sioux Redesign ideas.

Post by SiegeDance »

Garja wrote:This meta doesn't cater to TWC civs, that's true.
However, wakina are not a marginal unit for Sioux, even tho yes, Sioux is a cav civ. RR, tashunke and DS are more of unique Sioux units, not necessarily their main ones.

Wakinas are good units. And that's why they don't need buffs I think. I agree that DS are unique units as they are not trainable per say, but RR and tashunkes are available in fortress and trainable, and those units are supposed to provide a workaround for what they lack in the fortress age. RRs being the most advanced units for the sioux, they should have some impact in the games when Sioux reach fortress like falcs do. And stealth not being that integral part of the game, tashunkes are pretty bad too as of now. And being limited by numbers, they could be treated in a same way like disciples for chinese, trainable by WC. May be they could see some occasional uses this, like surprise raids, and emergency reinforcements.

Actually because they're unique and mostly hard counters, they are in fact marginal units and are not supposed to appear frequently.

RRs are not supposed to be unique and marginal unit imo. It's their answer to other civs fortress age units and tech, that should have more immediate impact in the fortress. Rifle riders are hard counters to 3 different unit types but they also are hard countered by three others. It's this design that's stopping them from having any impact in the fortress, that they should be doing.

Iro is quite a complete civ actually. They even have ups for cav. And cav is just useful overall, can't expect them to not use it just because the emphasis is on inf and artillery. With that said yes, current could actually employ more infantry and artillery, and that's what I sometimes do, but it is totally MU dependent, and really up to players, not balance in itself.

I agree, Iro are very all rounded in terms of options with their military. They can go any route actually. But making them utilize more infantry and less cavalry would really be nice as their design suggests. But the fact that they have to deal with arty in the fortress age stops IRO from going heavy on infantry for the most part. I think mantlet was designed to help them here, with high ranged resistance and hp, but somehow they are failing to be that unit for the IRO in the fortress that IRO instead go heavy on cavalry. With some tweaks, mantlets could be the answers to a good infantry based IRO fortress army composition, with lesser reliance on cavalry. That would be interesting to see.

Same thing more or less for azzies. Players tend to mimick skirm/goon play because they come from other civs. Of course ERK are terrific so you want use them if you have the opportunity. Overall the changes are not made to favor a certain unit composition/meta. They are decided on what is considered best balance at the moment and that leads to this specific meta. When you talk about underused units, there is a discount factor for them which it seems you ignore. JPK are slow meele units. They have great stats but it is hard to use them effectively at high level. Tashunke cost too much and their strenght is largely based on surprise effect, again not the greatest thing at high level.


Eagles are amazing. No doubt about that. I think I probably have less complains with aztecs among TWC civs. They are quirky, but except for JPK, every unit is viable and can make good impact as per their needs. Again, stealth and melee not being that relevant, JPK suffer. But they are kinda cool unit. JPK was supposed to be their answer for mass heavy infantry/Heavy cav counter, as an upgrade to maces/puma in the fortress. But it's hard to utilize stealth. If their speed was boosted significantly, removing their ambush potential, I think they would be good alongside coyotes and ERK, replacing pumas/maces past fortress for the most part. Although maces will still be needed occasionally.

And something similar for tashunkes can be done, removing their stealth, but boosting their hp individually, removing their aura hp bonus and making them trainable by WC could help, as emergency units in case a stable loss to raids, or in reinforcements. They wouldn't still have a main role as they are limited by numbers, but still could see use every game.


If anything maps do cater to a somewhat calm, straightforward approach to the game. This cuts out some unique ways of playing, being them aggresive strats or just occasional unique strats.
User avatar
Norway spanky4ever
Gendarme
iwillspankyou
Posts: 8389
Joined: Apr 13, 2015

Re: Sioux Redesign ideas.

Post by spanky4ever »

:idea: I think the sioux is fine on EP ;) what is this big upset about? Did you lose a game to Sioux, when you expected to just roll over them? Is the Sioux raides threatening to your built ups? Seriously, what is the big deal you have with this civ when it finally looks to have some competitive eco. at the cost of those BR you used to hate.
This is pathetic, double 100. :biggrin: In the last patch, sioux got a nerf, then on this patch they got another nerf, - when are you OP guys satisfied?
Hippocrits are the worst of animals. I love elifants.
User avatar
Norway spanky4ever
Gendarme
iwillspankyou
Posts: 8389
Joined: Apr 13, 2015

Re: Sioux Redesign ideas.

Post by spanky4ever »

count me out if you nerf sioux more. I am done
Hippocrits are the worst of animals. I love elifants.
User avatar
Armenia Sargsyan
Jaeger
Donator 01
Posts: 3372
Joined: Dec 18, 2017
ESO: lamergamer
Location: North Macedonia
Clan: c0ns

Re: Sioux Redesign ideas.

Post by Sargsyan »

Köenig*
krichk wrote:For some reason, you want the world to know that you're brave enough to challenge Challenger_Marco
No Flag SiegeDance
Musketeer
Posts: 64
Joined: Oct 1, 2016
Location: Kathmandu, Nepal

Re: Sioux Redesign ideas.

Post by SiegeDance »

iwillspankyou wrote::idea: I think the sioux is fine on RE ;) what is this big upset about? Did you lose a game to Sioux, when you expected to just roll over them? Is the Sioux raide threatening to your built ups? Seriously, what is the big deal you have with this civ when it finally looks to have some competitive eco. at the cost of those BR you used to hate.
This is pathetic, double 100. :biggrin: In the last patch, sioux got another nerf, - when are you OP guys satisfied? its just stupid :idea:

You got me wrong here. I play mostly with Sioux. And have ever since TWC came. I'm not a Sioux hater as you are making me out to be. Quite the opposite. In fact, the current Sioux strats are built upon some badly designed as well as not well implemented ideas. Ignoring their eco design, wasting their unique units, even worse for a nomadic civ, they play campy as hell, and by being not raid-able, they are actually making it more difficult for themselves as any other civ would just sit back and boom/turtle and outmass and win with current EP resources.

By making easier for Sioux to expand with cheaper buildings, sioux could themselves choose to boom if the opponents decides to turtle and boom. Now with BRs not being able to raid, opponent player can also opt to raid Sioux, and SIoux can do the same. More possible ways to play, than just one. The only viable strat for sioux now is to raid relentlessly. My intention is to make Sioux see more play and have much bigger player base, and it will not happen by making Sioux win every game but by giving them more depth and options to their gameplay, not just one viable strat and playstyle and also by utilizing the cards that are unique to Sioux.

You keep asking this question all the time, how many sioux games have you seen in the tourneys and how many have they actually won? Because they are bottle-necked by their poorly implemented design.

No Flag SiegeDance
Musketeer
Posts: 64
Joined: Oct 1, 2016
Location: Kathmandu, Nepal

Re: Sioux Redesign ideas.

Post by SiegeDance »

iwillspankyou wrote:count me out if you nerf sioux more. I am done


I'm not asking to nerf anything. Please read from the start of the post.
User avatar
Norway spanky4ever
Gendarme
iwillspankyou
Posts: 8389
Joined: Apr 13, 2015

Re: Sioux Redesign ideas.

Post by spanky4ever »

SiegeDance wrote:
iwillspankyou wrote::idea: I think the sioux is fine on RE ;) what is this big upset about? Did you lose a game to Sioux, when you expected to just roll over them? Is the Sioux raide threatening to your built ups? Seriously, what is the big deal you have with this civ when it finally looks to have some competitive eco. at the cost of those BR you used to hate.
This is pathetic, double 100. :biggrin: In the last patch, sioux got another nerf, - when are you OP guys satisfied? its just stupid :idea:

You got me wrong here. I play mostly with Sioux. And have ever since TWC came. I'm not a Sioux hater as you are making me out to be. Quite the opposite. In fact, the current Sioux strats are built upon some badly designed as well as not well implemented ideas. Ignoring their eco design, wasting their unique units, even worse for a nomadic civ, they play campy as hell, and by being not raid-able, they are actually making it more difficult for themselves as any other civ would just sit back and boom/turtle and outmass and win with current EP resources.

By making easier for Sioux to expand with cheaper buildings, sioux could themselves choose to boom if the opponents decides to turtle and boom. Now with BRs not being able to raid, opponent player can also opt to raid Sioux, and SIoux can do the same. More possible ways to play, than just one. The only viable strat for sioux now is to raid relentlessly. My intention is to make Sioux see more play and have much bigger player base, and it will not happen by making Sioux win every game but by giving them more depth and options to their gameplay, not just one viable strat and playstyle and also by utilizing the cards that are unique to Sioux.

You keep asking this question all the time, how many sioux games have you seen in the tourneys and how many have they actually won? Because they are bottle-necked by their poorly implemented design.


The ideas may be fine, but you should take notice of the persons posting on your thread. I would say they are not in for making Sioux better. They mostly post to make them worse, to the level that they are not a threat anymore. You make a whole lot of changes, and that will not happen, not in a million years, even if your changes could be good ;)
Hippocrits are the worst of animals. I love elifants.
User avatar
Norway spanky4ever
Gendarme
iwillspankyou
Posts: 8389
Joined: Apr 13, 2015

Re: Sioux Redesign ideas.

Post by spanky4ever »

SiegeDance wrote:
iwillspankyou wrote:count me out if you nerf sioux more. I am done


I'm not asking to nerf anything. Please read from the start of the post.

This message is not only for you.
Hippocrits are the worst of animals. I love elifants.
No Flag SiegeDance
Musketeer
Posts: 64
Joined: Oct 1, 2016
Location: Kathmandu, Nepal

Re: Sioux Redesign ideas.

Post by SiegeDance »

iwillspankyou wrote:The ideas may be fine, but you should take notice of the persons posting on your thread. I would say they are not in for making Sioux better. They mostly post to make them worse, to the level that they are not a threat anymore. You make a whole lot of changes, and that will not happen, not in a million years, even if your changes could be good ;)


Now, that's a different story all together. I'm not that familiar with people here. Can't say about intentions of anyone. But, I'm sure of one thing. Arbitrary balance on paper doesn't make a game good. It's the depth of tactics possible with a civ that makes for a larger player base. Of course some civ will be "suited" for a certain play style, doesn't mean they should just have that one way of playing.
User avatar
Norway spanky4ever
Gendarme
iwillspankyou
Posts: 8389
Joined: Apr 13, 2015

Re: Sioux Redesign ideas.

Post by spanky4ever »

SiegeDance wrote:
iwillspankyou wrote:The ideas may be fine, but you should take notice of the persons posting on your thread. I would say they are not in for making Sioux better. They mostly post to make them worse, to the level that they are not a threat anymore. You make a whole lot of changes, and that will not happen, not in a million years, even if your changes could be good ;)


Now, that's a different story all together. I'm not that familiar with people here. Can't say about intentions of anyone. But, I'm sure of one thing. Arbitrary balance on paper doesn't make a game good. It's the depth of tactics possible with a civ that makes for a larger player base. Of course some civ will be "suited" for a certain play style, doesn't mean they should just have that one way of playing.

would you recommend walling opportunity for Sioux, as the only civ that do not have these options? How about cannons, why should Iro have them, and Azzy has flaming arrows, and Sioux has nothing to compete with that? This is why they struggle so hard in a longer game. Maybe you should address that?
Hippocrits are the worst of animals. I love elifants.
No Flag SiegeDance
Musketeer
Posts: 64
Joined: Oct 1, 2016
Location: Kathmandu, Nepal

Re: Sioux Redesign ideas.

Post by SiegeDance »

iwillspankyou wrote:would you recommend walling opportunity for Sioux, as the only civ that do not have these options? How about cannons, why should Iro have them, and Azzy has flaming arrows, and Sioux has nothing to compete with that? This is why they struggle so hard in a longer game. Maybe you should address that?


My workaround for not having walls is to redesign teepes as high Line of sight raid warning structures that you can throw around the vital areas in the map around your base, near your far gathering villagers, and have good vision around your them. That would make the faster sioux cav to deal with raids before much damage is done. Adding to this if having more than one TCs was easier with sioux, by making them cheaper (weaker) and actually all buildings for sioux, then they can have multiple retreat points for their villagers during raids. And even if they lose a TC, they would still have a means of vills production and the match wouldn't be insta-loose.

And regarding cannons, Sioux has rifle riders, which with a little tweak to their design can give similar impact in fortress for the sioux that they lack currently. Another idea was to give cetans a longer range against buildings, and a slightly higher siege damage than now. In fortress, with siege dance, you can then have a way to deal with turtling/walling civs.

IRO has cannons but in the industrial, and they are supposed to be the civ utilizing more of the european techs by their design, so cannons were given to them. But they are industrial units. Iro still have to deal with falcs in the fortress and it can be a struggle for them as well.
User avatar
Norway spanky4ever
Gendarme
iwillspankyou
Posts: 8389
Joined: Apr 13, 2015

Re: Sioux Redesign ideas.

Post by spanky4ever »

@SiegeDance could be your recommendations are good, but it would take a total remake of the civ, and that will never happen. Right now we should hold on the buffs they had, because there are too many ppl who want to take it away. It is OK to dream though, but that is what it is (dreams)
Hippocrits are the worst of animals. I love elifants.
United States of America Dolphincup
Musketeer
Posts: 96
Joined: Mar 26, 2019
ESO: Dolphincup

Re: Sioux Redesign ideas.

Post by Dolphincup »

SiegeDance wrote:
Dolphincup wrote:as for RR, seems pretty obvious that its original design was to be a unique anti-heavy infantry cav unit, but they wanted to maintain consistency w/ other ranged cav and it became a jumbled mess of a unit. if anything should be done to RR, it should be focused down to solely countering heavy infantry with a light cav tag, IMO.

I think as a fortress age unit, RR should more be focused on countering light infantry and artillery then anything else. Wakinas are good against heavy infantry already and they have good speed for ht and run tactics.

If you want to give sioux an artillery-like option, just give Marauders by default. seems little known that 18 tashunke prowlers is actually very strong. they have 76 attack w/ 2 splash and almost 400 HP. here's a google doc with details on tashunke prowler scaling. buffing them is dangerous IMO, but maybe buffing their base and reducing the rate at which they scale in numbers would be a proper way to make them more playable.
https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1RiVNe6xc9bvoRzCqQTsHwIoYddS8CPNJGmmRSmDCQAI/edit?usp=sharing

I didn't say anything about buffing them. Just for the kind of units that have no upgrades in the stable, they would be more suited as units made trainable by the warchief himself. No buffs or nerfs. Point was to give them a specialized role, as they are stealthy, it makes sense they would better suit as raid units. Which currently BRs do. That's why BR should not be the raiding cav, as it also kills any raiding efforts by other civs.



Changing RR to counter the one thing they currently don't counter is like creating an entirely new unit. besides, regular hand cavalry units (of which sioux has 3) counter light infantry just fine, and sioux has cav units with splash damage, just like cannons do. The civ doesn't need a 4th infantry counter. You said yourself (and I agree) that the goal should be enabling the unique quirks of the TWC civs instead of trying to force them to fit into the european meta, so why try to force sioux's most interesting unit into a falconet role? I think that's a bad approach.

And I also didn't say anything about buffing tashunkes. I just think they need to be more accessible if they ever want to see play.
No Flag SiegeDance
Musketeer
Posts: 64
Joined: Oct 1, 2016
Location: Kathmandu, Nepal

Re: Sioux Redesign ideas.

Post by SiegeDance »

Dolphincup wrote:Changing RR to counter the one thing they currently don't counter is like creating an entirely new unit. besides, regular hand cavalry units (of which sioux has 3) counter light infantry just fine, and sioux has cav units with splash damage, just like cannons do. The civ doesn't need a 4th infantry counter. You said yourself (and I agree) that the goal should be enabling the unique quirks of the TWC civs instead of trying to force them to fit into the european meta, so why try to force sioux's most interesting unit into a falconet role? I think that's a bad approach.

And I also didn't say anything about buffing tashunkes. I just think they need to be more accessible if they ever want to see play.


DSs are occasional. They are not trainable, unless from the fire pit. Tashunkes not used currently. That leaves only Axeriders in the role. And they have to close in to get kills, in a stage of the game when every civ has some goon-like unit in the field. This is where falcs and arty comes for other civs, so they can pick at units from range, especially, infantry. And the whole dynamic of the battles changes there. With Rifle riders, you can enable Sioux to have more or less similar impact in the game, if they remain good against infantry and artillery. And by infantry, I meant all infantry, not just light infantry. Sorry if I just wrote light infantry before. Also by removing the light cav tag, removing multipliers against cavalry and changing the hand resistance to ranged, that way they would still suck against other heavy cav. That way, with WR/RR/BR, you will have a good fighting chance against Skirms/Goons/Huss/falc or any such combo.

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 17 guests

Which top 10 players do you wish to see listed?

All-time

Active last two weeks

Active last month

Supremacy

Treaty

Official

ESOC Patch

Treaty Patch

1v1 Elo

2v2 Elo

3v3 Elo

Power Rating

Which streams do you wish to see listed?

Twitch

Age of Empires III

Age of Empires IV