Spanish in Treaty

[pcups]

Today D posed the question, "Why use spanish in treaty?" when you can have a better economy with the french, when you can have better calvary, and skirms as the french."

And i simply said "missionaries and fast shipments"

It seems when you do the math, the 60% attack bonus the 10 missionaries, lancers become the most effective unit for attack per pop/per cost/ per anything. A FU lancer with out upgrades has 40 attack, or around there. A FU lancer with its upgrades has around 50 attack. I just rounded it so it's easier. With a 60% bonus its around 80.

80x4 to infrantry =.... 320 attack. Well, thats pretty fucking high. It doesnt matter if josh gets two pop, lancers destroy. And even if im not fighting infantry, i still do 80 damage. which is STILL more than a cuir. And a lancers HP is around 800, FU with cards.

I think 320 attacks ends in one hit
A strelet, cassador, skirmisher, i dont fucking know if the attack bonus works against the aztec infrantry, im sure it does so pretty much all of their units.

And every other infantry unit it takes 2 hits. Ow.

[mrniceguy]

thats just insane.

[boorules60]

We'll see how that army stands against the wrath of an eagle runner and jaguar prowl combo. Eagles are undeniably the most effetive ranged calv unit in the game per pop even without attack dance which would give them an extra 25% attack with 10 warrior priest alone. Oh yeah, and NO Lancer bonus against those guys. Then the jaguars almost stand up to Lancers 1v1 (kinda like jans only a little less HP and a 3X attack bonus rather than 2) only that they are 1 pop rather than two. So two of them own a Lancer without problem. Moreover, as you start to lose your army and missionaries, its effectiveness drops exponentially where as mine is more constant because I'm not losing my warrior priests. Wanna test it with 100 pop a pieace and all upgrades? Be my guest!

I'm not denying that the Spanish can't be a good NR civ when used correctly, but I'm not yet convinced that they are better than the Ports or the Russians for the Type of game we're playing. What we've realized in Age II and III is that RANGED units become much more effective as the number of units you have increases... which is why 20 range dragoons and cassadors and 50 ranged mortars and super walls OR fort hopping, fast building/cost effective units, and orps would probably do our team much more good than Lancers and Missioraries which don't solve our problem of seige, fortification, and map control (which is one of our weaknesses as the British, French, and Aztecs.

I think the Spanish's effectiveness, as we've always known, comes in 1v1 games where civs are much more vulnerable to the Spanish's powerful melee, good unit shipments, and the ability to get 15 shipments before the treaty rather than your oppenent's 10. However, in team NR, they lose their effective because melee is less important, they have no REALLY good team cards, and the difference between 40 team shipments and 45 team shipments is minimal. Just food for thought...

[allbinx]

P-cups is not factoring in trample damage u nub

[boorules60]

Good thought Josh, maybe he should put them on trample so that my units do twice as much damage to him and makes them slower. Putting cav on melee is stupid against good melee units like jaguars, AND it makes him take more damage from my eagles too. It's only worthwhile against vills and weak ranged infantry units like strelets and skirms once you get up on them. I will fucking slice though that shit. I'm glad you had an equally intelligant response to the rest of the post too.

[pcups]

I love how ben always compares what i do to HIS civ. SOrry ben, forgot that everyone plays the aztecs.

And josh even if you put them in trample, it only does 1/3 of the damage to two other units, thats still less then what a lancer does.

Nub.

Ben has a problem with Light infantry. 10 missionaries behind 100 skirms = good bye ben's army

[boorules60]

"It seems when you do the math, the 60% attack bonus the 10 missionaries, lancers become the most effective unit for attack per pop/per cost/ per anything."

***IRONY! PCups tends to give me and D shit when we attempt to define the best unit in the game... what does it look like he's doing here. Nub.

"i dont fucking know if the attack bonus works against the aztec infrantry, im sure it does so pretty much all of their units"

I was answering to this part of your post using the example of the Aztecs... not because it was my civ but because you specifically mentioned it and I provided a counter example using Aztec infantry. And no, not "all" of their units are vulnerable to Lancers. In fact, most of them are decent agaisnt them.

"Ben has a problem with Light infantry. 10 missionaries behind 100 skirms = good bye ben's army"

My main problem with skirms comes when they are hiding behind walls and shooting at me well I seige them. This problem has since been solved with two new cards that I've added to my NR giving my coyotes 20 attack and HP as well as 10% speed. Now that I've gotten better at microing my fire pit, skirms have become less of a problem when they attack me because they are vulnerable to coyotes. It's only when they are behind a wall that it is a problem.

The Spanish are good 1v1 but they really just don't contribute as much to our team as a Port or Russian would.

[pcups]

Actually im not saying the lancers are the best unit in the game, im saying that all of the spanish untis now beat ALL other units cost effectively. So its kinda irony, although im calling all of the spanish units the best unit in the game.

Tim and jake seemed pretty convinced as well. I did a test today during c6. a lancer with out any upgrades and 10 missionaries leaves a lancer with 200 hp left. So i figure With upgrades, the cuir still wins but probably only has 75-100 hp left. But the cuir cost 300 resources and the lancer only cost 200, maybe 210. So not only are they cheaper, but build a lot faster.

And this is just a lancer, I'm pretty sure two rods will do a lot better. Rods being nerfed really wont effect their imperial status.

And ben, im just confused on what classifies as infantry for the Aztecs. Do arrow knights count?
Lancers now beat dopples 1 on 1 and jans. The only thing i fear is ranged calvary/eagle knights. But that is the rodeleros come in.

Im just trying to prove you guys that the spanish are viable in a No Rush. Yea ports have mortars that have 50 range. But can you imagine a mortar with 60% more attack, or a horse gun with 60% more attack, or a musketeer or a dragoon. All of the spanish units now become BETTER than royal guard units, even if the RG have upgrades.

[boorules60]

I think what it has boiled down to is the fact that we need to do more testing before we can draw a conclusion to see which of these civs is more effective for the team on the whole. What other cards do the Spanish have that might contribute to the team late game?

Arrow Knight: Archer, Infantry, RangedInfantry, SiegeTrooper
*Coyote: LightInfantry, HandInfantry
*+Eagle Knight: Archer, LightInfantry, RangedInfantry
+Puma: Infantry, HeavyInfantry, HandInfantry
+Jaguar: Infantry, HeavyInfantry, HandInfantry
+Skull: Infantry, HeavyInfantry, HandInfantry, MercType1
Mach: Archer, Infantry, RangedInfantry

* No Lancer Bonus :/
+ Bonus VS Lancer

I'm not going to rule out the Spanish yet at all until I see the really effect of these missionaries. Maybe the team needs unit killing power more than seige... I dunno. Does the missionary increase the fertility of your vills when it emits its aura around them?

[pcups]

I wish it did for villes. But spain would probably be OP if that were true

Anyway, back to siege, i as the ports use mortars with more range, with the spanish i use mortars with more damage. A lot more damage. AND the missionaries heal my team.

I mean i know spain isnt the BEST civ, but i think if used properly they are just as good as the others

[boorules60]

lol, the fertility/missionary comment was a sexual inuendo not a ligit question... had to lighten the mood a lil bit. I take it the missionaries help seige and seige damage too then? Before you know it they'll be making Lancers into dog soldiers and we know how much I love those little guys. -_-

[pcups]

Haha, i think lancers should have small cannons mounted to the front of their horses. AND a guy that sits the opposite way with a rifle and the lancer guy still lhas a lancer.

[pcups]

But thats just my opinion

[punkybruster]

"Rods being nerfed really wont effect their imperial status."
Sorry Pat, they nerfed the base value. The upgrades are then off of this new base value; the imperial value is nerfed proportionately.

The missionaries are effective combined with units that have high attack, sit back and pick off guys, and idle sometimes (missionaries only heal idle units). The most effective thing then seems to be a missionary/skirm or missionary/artillery combo. The missionaries would need to be too close to the main battle for them to efficiently bonus lancers/rods but the missionaries could be behind some 20 range skirms or 26 range artillery.
For NR the art. wouldnt be good because they dont have engineering school, but skirms, a few mortars, and an ally with good light cav (azetc/dutch/port) would make a formidable combo.

[allbinx]

pat u are retarded, 20 lancers will NEVER EVER EVER beat 20 ponies, the spanish eco will NEVER EVER EVER beat the french eco. and french skirms are arguably the best in the game second to the the only to the germans depending on the cards sent