Why do people think russian musks are worse ?

[Dsy]

Normal musket 27% stronger and 31% more expensive than russian. Have a nice day!

lol

It wasnt a joke. Its a fact.

[lordraphael]

Kaiserclown logic:
1. OVERKILLING IS REAL AND HUGE ADVANTAGE HUEHUEHUEHUEHUE
2. *Someone tells Kaiserclown that it's not that simple and there are also other side*
3. INVALID ARGUMENT CAUSE OVERKILL EXISTS HUEHUEHUEHUE

Why I even bother to argue with 10 year old Kaiserclowns

My logic : trying russian musks vs normal musks in editor mode, and then conclude from what I see, with several tries, and different army sizes.
Your logic : flaming because that's all you can do, since you're not able to argue properly.

Btw, I guess you noticed that when you attack move skirms (I wonder why 21 range btw) most of time they won't split their fire with 3 shots per enemy musk ? Yeah I'm sure you did. So what so we care if they need 3 instead of 4 shots, since it will almost never make a difference if you have 15+ skirms ? Or maybe your micro is so godly that you manage to split them perfectly and not overkill anything, then yeah russian musks are crap !
Ofc with small armies russian musks die faster and don't get too much overkilled, but overall they do... You never played this game or what ? It's like saying strelets don't get overkilled, wtf

Did you even try to put units in the scenario editor? As far as I remember 24 russian muskets (barely) beat 20 normal musks.

Nah he's so sure he's right he won't even try it... Yet when you do you see clearly that russ musks > normal musks

While you guys may be right with your tests the conclusions you draw from it are utter bullshit
sompuu is right you cant compare how well russian musks do vs normal musks in an editor and conclude from that which musks are better.
Also the argument that cheaper musks outweight the fact that they are much worse than normal musks is bullshit. Whenever I play russia Id rather have more expensive musks which are better than those musks they currently have. Not because russian musks do badly in inf vs inf fights. They dont as proven by our editor pros kaiserklein and garja but because of their inherent weakness vs handcavalry.
Ovi 12 already gave a pretty good explanation why they suck vs cav so I wont go into detail but I will add that this problem which is somewhat latent in the colonial age becomes a blatant issue in the third age particularly vs cuirassiers where french can often go for a goon cuir combo vs pure musk and win the game with it. This is another reason why russia is so much weaker in the current semi-ff meta. Oh and also dont get me started on the batch mechanics which is def another weakness of russia ( tho it was supposed to be a strength of russia it kinda backfires in most situations.)

[momuuu]

The batch part is somewhat offset by the fact that they do train quicker I suppose. The cav argument is interesting indeed, where having fewer units (and thus less pathing) becomes more beneficial. Just imagine how good zerglings would be if they doubled their stats and doubled their cost haha. Well, cuirasiers are kinda the living proof that putting more stats on one unit is often better. Although at a certain point (mahouts) it can have a negative effect aswell I suppose. Anyhow, the having more for less is certainly a con, but they are 5% cheaper which definitely isnt nothing.

[lordraphael]

The batch part is somewhat offset by the fact that they do train quicker I suppose. The cav argument is interesting indeed, where having fewer units (and thus less pathing) becomes more beneficial. Just imagine how good zerglings would be if they doubled their stats and doubled their cost haha. Well, cuirasiers are kinda the living proof that putting more stats on one unit is often better. Although at a certain point (mahouts) it can have a negative effect aswell I suppose. Anyhow, the having more for less is certainly a con, but they are 5% cheaper which definitely isnt nothing.

the cheaper units factor barely comes into play because you can either age up and destroy them with skirm handcav cannon combinations or hit timings where russia doesnt have enough units due to weaker economy in the early stages when other civs just outmass russia in terms of army value , then break the contain and win the game.
Russia is very strong on paper, but its civ bonus and mechanics can be epxloited to easily this is what some people dont understand. You cannot just look at the stats in isolated situations you have to look at the whole picture to asses the stregth of russia.

[momuuu]

The batch part is somewhat offset by the fact that they do train quicker I suppose. The cav argument is interesting indeed, where having fewer units (and thus less pathing) becomes more beneficial. Just imagine how good zerglings would be if they doubled their stats and doubled their cost haha. Well, cuirasiers are kinda the living proof that putting more stats on one unit is often better. Although at a certain point (mahouts) it can have a negative effect aswell I suppose. Anyhow, the having more for less is certainly a con, but they are 5% cheaper which definitely isnt nothing.

the cheaper units factor barely comes into play because you can either age up and destroy them with skirm handcav cannon combinations or hit timings where russia doesnt have enough units due to weaker economy in the early stages when other civs just outmass russia in terms of army value , then break the contain and win the game.
Russia is very strong on paper, but its civ bonus and mechanics can be epxloited to easily this is what some people dont understand. You cannot just look at the stats in isolated situations you have to look at the whole picture to asses the stregth of russia.

I thought this topic was about assesing if the musks actually are cheaper or not regardless of if russia is strong or not. In other words, would you as brits go for russia musks over yours for that cost, assuming no batch training? Id be conflicted personally, probably go for an unconvincing no. But in musk vs musk fights, you would prefer the russian musks I suppose.

[gibson]

The batch part is somewhat offset by the fact that they do train quicker I suppose. The cav argument is interesting indeed, where having fewer units (and thus less pathing) becomes more beneficial. Just imagine how good zerglings would be if they doubled their stats and doubled their cost haha. Well, cuirasiers are kinda the living proof that putting more stats on one unit is often better. Although at a certain point (mahouts) it can have a negative effect aswell I suppose. Anyhow, the having more for less is certainly a con, but they are 5% cheaper which definitely isnt nothing.

The batch factor is so bad that it isnt even offset by the fact that they train faster. I mean the difference it takes to gather 75f 25g vs 281f and 83g is more than their difference in training time(I think). It essentially takes you more time to get out worse units and you end up floating(relatively) a lot of resources. Honestly if people had perfect macro russia would be completely unplayable because their eco is so subpar early that they would just die to any early push.

[Mimsy for President]

Cheaper and trained 25% faster, give me the Russian musks any day of the week.

[lordraphael]

The batch part is somewhat offset by the fact that they do train quicker I suppose. The cav argument is interesting indeed, where having fewer units (and thus less pathing) becomes more beneficial. Just imagine how good zerglings would be if they doubled their stats and doubled their cost haha. Well, cuirasiers are kinda the living proof that putting more stats on one unit is often better. Although at a certain point (mahouts) it can have a negative effect aswell I suppose. Anyhow, the having more for less is certainly a con, but they are 5% cheaper which definitely isnt nothing.

the cheaper units factor barely comes into play because you can either age up and destroy them with skirm handcav cannon combinations or hit timings where russia doesnt have enough units due to weaker economy in the early stages when other civs just outmass russia in terms of army value , then break the contain and win the game.
Russia is very strong on paper, but its civ bonus and mechanics can be epxloited to easily this is what some people dont understand. You cannot just look at the stats in isolated situations you have to look at the whole picture to asses the stregth of russia.

I thought this topic was about assesing if the musks actually are cheaper or not regardless of if russia is strong or not. In other words, would you as brits go for russia musks over yours for that cost, assuming no batch training? Id be conflicted personally, probably go for an unconvincing no. But in musk vs musk fights, you would prefer the russian musks I suppose.

hm read my post carefully and then you will find the answer.. As i have already said. One cannot asses a units strength in a isolated sitation most of the time. Having a musk vs musk fight in a russia vs X civ will never be a realistic scenario in a real game. So when asnwering the question as to why russias musks are considered worse than normal musks you have to view the complete picture.

This is also how good balancing is done not by looking at stats and say that unit is OP or not but by judging a units strength in connection with other important factors. Obviously there are some examples where stats are the most important factor by far , old han, yumi, genitours, abus guns are those units where stats matter the most. I included old han and genitours on purpose btw , so dont pick on that . One could even argue if yumis for exmaple are OP with their initial stats or becasue of other civ bonuses such as their upgrade cards and the golden pavillon (keyword: look at the whole picture ) .

[zoom]

Says virgin Italiano who's still living at moms basement and making shit computer game patches

Garja a virgin?

Clearly you've never heard of La Grotta di Garaja!

[lordraphael]

I thought this topic was about assesing if the musks actually are cheaper or not regardless of if russia is strong or not. In other words, would you as brits go for russia musks over yours for that cost, assuming no batch training? Id be conflicted personally, probably go for an unconvincing no. But in musk vs musk fights, you would prefer the russian musks I suppose.

Id go for a convincing no every day . Just imagine brits with ashis or sepoys. In general its just the rule stronger units >worse units despite the former costing more obviously.

[momuuu]

Well you can address the strength of russia and say the way they work means their units have to be better than avarage yes. Cossacks and strelets kinda are, musks are not, which is why they might feel somewhat weak. But they are not weak then, russia just isnt a top civ. You can use the same logic that makes russian musks weak to claim that port has weak musks tbh.

The batch training is a con. But gibson, the notion that russia would always lose if people had perfect macro is nonsense. People already basically have perfect macro and russia can manage itself decently. Not the greatest civ, and not the absolute worst (they might be the worst, but not by much imo).

Anyhow, should discuss how strong russia is in another thread. In terms of stats, I feel like their musks basically break even in terms of strength per cost.

[momuuu]

I thought this topic was about assesing if the musks actually are cheaper or not regardless of if russia is strong or not. In other words, would you as brits go for russia musks over yours for that cost, assuming no batch training? Id be conflicted personally, probably go for an unconvincing no. But in musk vs musk fights, you would prefer the russian musks I suppose.

Id go for a convincing no every day . Just imagine brits with ashis or sepoys. In general its just the rule stronger units >worse units despite the former costing more obviously.

Did you read my post doing a very rough and unprecise analysis of why the more expensive units seem better, and then concluded that the fact that the russian musks are cheaper kinda compensates for it?

[britishmusketeer]

Normal musket 27% stronger and 31% more expensive than russian. Have a nice day!

lol

It wasnt a joke. Its a fact.

Please do explain where you got those numbers from then lol

[lordraphael]

Well you can address the strength of russia and say the way they work means their units have to be better than avarage yes. Cossacks and strelets kinda are, musks are not, which is why they might feel somewhat weak. But they are not weak then, russia just isnt a top civ. You can use the same logic that makes russian musks weak to claim that port has weak musks tbh.

The batch training is a con. But gibson, the notion that russia would always lose if people had perfect macro is nonsense. People already basically have perfect macro and russia can manage itself decently. Not the greatest civ, and not the absolute worst (they might be the worst, but not by much imo).

Anyhow, should discuss how strong russia is in another thread. In terms of stats, I feel like their musks basically break even in terms of strength per cost.

i would to see you using my logic to explain why port musks can be considered weak.

[momuuu]

Well you can address the strength of russia and say the way they work means their units have to be better than avarage yes. Cossacks and strelets kinda are, musks are not, which is why they might feel somewhat weak. But they are not weak then, russia just isnt a top civ. You can use the same logic that makes russian musks weak to claim that port has weak musks tbh.

The batch training is a con. But gibson, the notion that russia would always lose if people had perfect macro is nonsense. People already basically have perfect macro and russia can manage itself decently. Not the greatest civ, and not the absolute worst (they might be the worst, but not by much imo).

Anyhow, should discuss how strong russia is in another thread. In terms of stats, I feel like their musks basically break even in terms of strength per cost.

i would to see you using my logic to explain why port musks can be considered weak.

You are basically arguing russian musks are weak because russia is weak. You could make the same cause saying port musk play is weak so port musks are weak.

Russia's civ mechanics kinda requires them to have slightly more cost effective units (thats basically their civ bonus). Their musks are not really slightly more cost effective but that doesnt make them weak. That just doesnt make them as great as strelets and cossacks are.

[iCourt]

Ruskets are not muskets. They are the Ruyter of the musket class. Ruskets only share the same skin and name as standard muskets.

[lordraphael]

Well you can address the strength of russia and say the way they work means their units have to be better than avarage yes. Cossacks and strelets kinda are, musks are not, which is why they might feel somewhat weak. But they are not weak then, russia just isnt a top civ. You can use the same logic that makes russian musks weak to claim that port has weak musks tbh.

The batch training is a con. But gibson, the notion that russia would always lose if people had perfect macro is nonsense. People already basically have perfect macro and russia can manage itself decently. Not the greatest civ, and not the absolute worst (they might be the worst, but not by much imo).

Anyhow, should discuss how strong russia is in another thread. In terms of stats, I feel like their musks basically break even in terms of strength per cost.

i would to see you using my logic to explain why port musks can be considered weak.

You are basically arguing russian musks are weak because russia is weak. You could make the same cause saying port musk play is weak so port musks are weak.

Russia's civ mechanics kinda requires them to have slightly more cost effective units (thats basically their civ bonus). Their musks are not really slightly more cost effective but that doesnt make them weak. That just doesnt make them as great as strelets and cossacks are.

thats a pretty big oversimplifaction especially because you completly dismissed the part where russian musks perform a lot worse vs cav than normal musk for pretty much the same reasons ovi already told us.

Also there is always this somehow strange approach that cossacks and stre are great units which is only partly true at best. Imo their strength is kinda deceiving because they are both rather unique units especially the stre. The strelet can be compared to skirm units somehow but not 1 to 1. They have very different situations in which the excel and overall id take the skirm over 2 stre or even 2.5 stre any day.
The cossack is probably the one unit that is truly a good unit both in terms of stats and cost and with the overall picture in mind. Stats are solid and becomes very solid once boyars have been sent, only cav unit which is 1 pop cost " only 75 " gold and incredible useful in pretty much every situation of the game.

[zoom]

I think it might be worth a try increasing the cost reduction on Russians Musketeers and Halberdiers to 1/3.

[momuuu]

thats a pretty big oversimplifaction especially because you completly dismissed the part where russian musks perform a lot worse vs cav than normal musk for pretty much the same reasons ovi already told us.

Also there is always this somehow strange approach that cossacks and stre are great units which is only partly true at best. Imo their strength is kinda deceiving because they are both rather unique units especially the stre. The strelet can be compared to skirm units somehow but not 1 to 1. They have very different situations in which the excel and overall id take the skirm over 2 stre or even 2.5 stre any day.
The cossack is probably the one unit that is truly a good unit both in terms of stats and cost and with the overall picture in mind. Stats are solid and becomes very solid once boyars have been sent, only cav unit which is 1 pop cost " only 75 " gold and incredible useful in pretty much every situation of the game.

The batch part is somewhat offset by the fact that they do train quicker I suppose. The cav argument is interesting indeed, where having fewer units (and thus less pathing) becomes more beneficial. Just imagine how good zerglings would be if they doubled their stats and doubled their cost haha. Well, cuirasiers are kinda the living proof that putting more stats on one unit is often better. Although at a certain point (mahouts) it can have a negative effect aswell I suppose. Anyhow, the having more for less is certainly a con, but they are 5% cheaper which definitely isnt nothing.

[gibson]

The batch training is a con. But gibson, the notion that russia would always lose if people had perfect macro is nonsense. People already basically have perfect macro and russia can manage itself decently. Not the greatest civ, and not the absolute worst (they might be the worst, but not by much imo).

Are you kidding me? No player has perfect macro and 99.99% of players aren't even anywhere close to having perfect macro. Perfect macro would mean that not only did your villagers have the least walking time and most gathering time possible, but also that every time you qued up a unit, your resources would read 0 0 0. Maybe you would have a small amount of wood due to saving for a house, but that's it. Floating resources above the cost of the units that you're training means you have imperfect macro, assuming you are under 200 population. Due to the fact that it's units are cheaper, Russia is much more forgiving of macro errors and they are much easier to correct than most other civs. An extreme example, but if you're playing french and making cuirs and realize that you're terribly mis macroed and have 1500 food and only 100 gold. It's going to be extremely hard to correct this mismacro especially if you're halfway through a batch being trained. However, if you're a russian player making muskets, it only costs 93 or so gold to que up 5 units and so moving a few vils to gold quickly corrects you're mismacro. Also, people often find themselves mismacro'ed at the end of a batch and so are only able to get out 3 units. Russia never has this issue with infantry. Russias eco is just so god awful early( at 5 minutes they only have 16 or so vils vs a civ like brit or french that has 20+ which is 20% more eco) that a player with perfect macro would be able to get out so many more units than the russian player that they would basically just lose early every game. You'll notice that the higher rank players get, aka as macro improves, the more unviable russia becomes. At like 2nd lt level, many players consider Russia to be op. At the captain level, many people still play them, even in tournaments. At lt colonal, very few people play them. And you never see top tier players playing them in a competitive setting.

[iCourt]

Sounds like you'd want to rebalance the Russians early game rather than adjusting a units stats which is honestly fine. Ruskets aren't great, but they are by no means bad.

[tedere12]

I think that you can have perfect macro for the first lets say 9 maximum minutes of the game.

[Garja]

thats a pretty big oversimplifaction especially because you completly dismissed the part where russian musks perform a lot worse vs cav than normal musk for pretty much the same reasons ovi already told us.

Also there is always this somehow strange approach that cossacks and stre are great units which is only partly true at best. Imo their strength is kinda deceiving because they are both rather unique units especially the stre. The strelet can be compared to skirm units somehow but not 1 to 1. They have very different situations in which the excel and overall id take the skirm over 2 stre or even 2.5 stre any day.
The cossack is probably the one unit that is truly a good unit both in terms of stats and cost and with the overall picture in mind. Stats are solid and becomes very solid once boyars have been sent, only cav unit which is 1 pop cost " only 75 " gold and incredible useful in pretty much every situation of the game.

Their effectiveness vs cav is relative. As I pointed out there are situations where having a big mass of mediocre musks is better than having few good ones.
Sometimes it is just a matter of critical mass after which having cheaper but weaker units is actually more effective.

It seems to me that your consideration are based on personal preference rather than objective facts. For example I prefer strelets and maces above normal skirms. Skirms have range so they allow you to make a play but strelets and maces are objectively better units when it comes to stats.

Cossack are indeed great but being "useful in pretty much every situation of the game" does seem to me a personal opinion.
In general strelets and cossack are great units because they have good stats compared to other average units (hussar and xbows) and they have several ups in colonial already (don't forget AA). As for musks they just complete the combo.

Id go for a convincing no every day . Just imagine brits with ashis or sepoys. In general its just the rule stronger units >worse units despite the former costing more obviously.

Again this is more a personal opinion imo.

[deleted_user0]

"rather than objective facts"

lold @ garja telling ppl about objective facts

[Kaiserklein]

While you guys may be right with your tests the conclusions you draw from it are utter bullshit
sompuu is right you cant compare how well russian musks do vs normal musks in an editor and conclude from that which musks are better.
Also the argument that cheaper musks outweight the fact that they are much worse than normal musks is bullshit. Whenever I play russia Id rather have more expensive musks which are better than those musks they currently have. Not because russian musks do badly in inf vs inf fights. They dont as proven by our editor pros kaiserklein and garja but because of their inherent weakness vs handcavalry.
Ovi 12 already gave a pretty good explanation why they suck vs cav so I wont go into detail but I will add that this problem which is somewhat latent in the colonial age becomes a blatant issue in the third age particularly vs cuirassiers where french can often go for a goon cuir combo vs pure musk and win the game with it. This is another reason why russia is so much weaker in the current semi-ff meta. Oh and also dont get me started on the batch mechanics which is def another weakness of russia ( tho it was supposed to be a strength of russia it kinda backfires in most situations.)

All we concluded from editor mode is russ musks beat normal musks. That's definitely true so I can't see why you say we can't compare musks using editor mode.
Then yeah against cav it's different as ovi said, but I think with proper micro it's ok because musks don't really have pathing problems when put in melee mode.

The batch part is somewhat offset by the fact that they do train quicker I suppose. The cav argument is interesting indeed, where having fewer units (and thus less pathing) becomes more beneficial. Just imagine how good zerglings would be if they doubled their stats and doubled their cost haha. Well, cuirasiers are kinda the living proof that putting more stats on one unit is often better. Although at a certain point (mahouts) it can have a negative effect aswell I suppose. Anyhow, the having more for less is certainly a con, but they are 5% cheaper which definitely isnt nothing.

The batch factor is so bad that it isnt even offset by the fact that they train faster. I mean the difference it takes to gather 75f 25g vs 281f and 83g is more than their difference in training time(I think). It essentially takes you more time to get out worse units and you end up floating(relatively) a lot of resources. Honestly if people had perfect macro russia would be completely unplayable because their eco is so subpar early that they would just die to any early push.

The batch problem is true only in really early colonial. Because there's something you didn't mention : once you gathered the first 281f, it's as easy to queue new batches of russian musks as it is to queue normal musks once you gathered 75f. Because russ musks train 25% faster and cost 25% less than normal musks, so you will spend the same amount of resources in the same time, once the first effort was done.
What makes us believe the batch training system is really hardcore is the fact that russia has to spend 70 extra food every 50 sec for their vils and has a shitty early game eco, so basically getting these 281f seems sometimes impossible for these reasons. With a french or brit early game eco they would train those musks batches np