I'm discussing both. I'd like all the units in the game to function close to how they did historically. Whatever historically countered them should counter them in this game as well.

Sure, you can counter every unit in the game. The question is, is what the unit brings to the table proportionate to what it costs? Can you honestly tell me why a desert axeman who has better stats than the early legionary cohort costs less? The pila aren't that powerful to make them more expensive. Can you also tell me why the barely more powerful Pontic chariot archers cost 1060 vs. 570 for the Egyptian chariot archers?

I've used onagers. They don't do that much damage before the enemy closes in, though sometimes the stupid AI allows me to use all my boulders with impunity.

I've played Starcraft and Warcraft3. My definition of overpowered isn't something which beats everything else. If something is simply way more effective vs. what it costs, it is overpowered even if it has a counter. The time in the game when it is available is also a factor. You're beating the Egyptians' chariots/archers combo with more expensive, higher tech units because the Romans start so far away from them. You're also taking advantage of AI stupidity to counter them. Even if I'm just playing the AI, I'd like to play a game where I could counter a unit effectively if it was played by a human.

I could counter chariots as well but they are harder to counter than most units in the game. They also are a harder counter to units they do well against compared to other in game counters. To echo Red Harvest, they don't play right. What rendered them obsolete should be able to counter them the most effectively.

Reply