Ashdod is worthless now

[Squirrelloid]

Originally Posted by triqui

Those are Berserkers, and also fatigue while they are berserking.

I don't think Ashdod is "worthless". They aren't the worse nation in the roster, not by a long shot. However, the OP is right in one thing: that 2 extra encumbrance is hurting them, badly.

They are incredibly outnumbered in any fight. With fatigue, they have a tough time fighting almost any chaff. For a unit that is worth 100+ gold and 40-80 resources, they aren't that good.

Not only that, but even more important, in my opinion. With encumbrance 7, they are FORCED to have a high earth bless. There's no option, no other chance, no way to play them in a original way. 7 encumbrance per round means they'll autodeafeat themselves by fatigue, unless they have E9+ bless.

That, imho, is horrible. There should not be any "mandatory" bless for a nation.

Just my 0,02

Lets be clear on a few things:
(1) Fatigue neutral giant sacreds from turn 1 are too good. There's abundant evidence of this before CBM started fixing the problem. Ashdod was so ridiculously overpowered before CBM decided to reign it in that the changes had to make it 'hurt' relative to before. That just brought it down from 'so much better than other nations it wasn't funny' to 'reasonably balanced'.
(2) Building up 2 encumbrance every round is not the end of the world. Its better than most units, especially with the kind of armor Anakim pack.
(3) Berserk is an advantage - it means you don't run away.
(4) No one is forcing you to take a bless at all or use the sacreds troops
(5) You're going to take an E+N bless anyway if you're going to use the sacreds, they're giants. They were never played with other blesses before the encumbrance changes. Acting offended that the only logical bless is E+N is ridiculous. So yes, its assumed if you're going to invest in Ashdod's sacreds you have an E9-10 bless, probably E10. Because that's what everyone was playing them with.

And none of this changes the fact that he got clobbered by *MA Ulm* while trying to use a pure sacred army of size 5 giants. Anyone with half a brain would realize that size 2 guardians are going to clobber size 5 sacreds. Even vanilla MA Ulm would trash vanilla Ashdod. Its the single worst matchup in the game for them. Take one of the only MA sacreds that can get outnumbered 3:1 locally, realize that you're going to be outnumbered more than 3:1 overall from a gold standpoint (ie, Ulm can afford losses without losing tactical numerical superiority), and then add in a unit which specifically hoses sacreds. Only a fool would think they can win that combat.

It may well have been the only 1 on 1 early game matchup MA Ulm would expect to win in vanilla.

[triqui]

Originally Posted by Squirrelloid

Lets be clear on a few things:
(1) Fatigue neutral giant sacreds from turn 1 are too good. There's abundant evidence of this before CBM started fixing the problem. Ashdod was so ridiculously overpowered before CBM decided to reign it in that the changes had to make it 'hurt' relative to before. That just brought it down from 'so much better than other nations it wasn't funny' to 'reasonably balanced'.

I might agree with Ashdod beeing to powerful. It doesnt change my stance that they got really really hurt now.

(2) Building up 2 encumbrance every round is not the end of the world. Its better than most units, especially with the kind of armor Anakim pack.

The rest of the units do not cost 150g and 88 resources, so they actually have a chance to kill their oponents in less than two hundred years. An army of 300g 176r worth sacreds from Ashdod do *four* attacks per turn.

(3) Berserk is an advantage - it means you don't run away.

but still invalidates the point I was quoting, which was saying their other sacred unit was encumbrance neutral. It is not, becouse Berserker makes you to fatigue.

(4) No one is forcing you to take a bless at all or use the sacreds troops

Nop, they give you two options: that one, or losing incredibly fast.
Good luck trying to beat anything but indies with 150g88r troops that get 7 encumbrance per turn.

(5) You're going to take an E+N bless anyway if you're going to use the sacreds, they're giants. They were never played with other blesses before the encumbrance changes. Acting offended that the only logical bless is E+N is ridiculous. So yes, its assumed if you're going to invest in Ashdod's sacreds you have an E9-10 bless, probably E10. Because that's what everyone was playing them with.

There are guides in the web about playing Hinnom with high scales, I'm sure I'd try it with Ashdod as well... if it would be viable. It's not, with 7 encumbrance per turn.

However, you are just agreeing with my. They are now a "play like this, period" nation after CBM. I thought CBM was a mod to make more options viable, not the other way around.

And none of this changes the fact that he got clobbered by *MA Ulm* while trying to use a pure sacred army of size 5 giants.

I haven't mentioned Ulm in my post, so this is useless rant. I just mentioned that the CBM "balance" approach might be wrong.

I'll elaborate:

Encumbrance neutral Ashdod giants are too powerful.
150g88r units with 7 encumbrance are too weak.

CBM 1,92 balanced the first issue, but did nothing about the second. Now Ashdod have sacreds that are not worth they cost, by a *far* margin. If they aren't encumbrance neutral, they aren't worth 150g88r.

[rdonj]

Originally Posted by triqui

Nop, they give you two options: that one, or losing incredibly fast.
Good luck trying to beat anything but indies with 150g88r troops that get 7 encumbrance per turn.

If you're not taking a bless, there is absolutely no reason to recruit the sacred giant troops. Instead you rely on the non-sacreds in your roster. If there's no bless, it encourages you to build more early mages and you'll be able to hit higher levels of construction faster. It's hard to make them fatigue neutral without at least some level of earth bless though. And ashdod's sacreds/sacred commanders are very probably overpriced now, which could be fixed in a later version. I think they'd work better at 6 encumbrance as well, but this is really the first version of Ashdod that's not insane from turn 1.

[Valerius]

Yeah, I was going to mention the Sheshai Anakites since they also have half the resource cost. Usually gold will be the limiting factor here but resources could sometimes come into play.

The only thing is, with 14 prot they will likely take some damage and go berserk even with an E9 bless so you may end up with a similar fatigue situation as with the nonberserking Ahiman Anakites. But if you can reach Alt. 3 for BE you could delay them going berserk.

But I think rdonj is right in that you have to look at other options in your lineup or even indie units like archers. In this case I think ghoul was facing a 3 vs 1 so he may not have had the gold to switch up his troop composition much anymore but generally speaking you have to tailor your approach to the opponent and can't rely on one unit to handle all situations (if a unit can do that it's almost a sure sign that it's OP).

[P3D]

The main problem of Ashdod is that all giants are owerwhelmed easily now, and the human slave troops are worse than chaff. There is no researcher that is marginally affordable, either. The Rephaite sage should cost ~160gp instead of 200, the 140gp units with Augury are better

Giving all the size-4 Ashdod units a gore attack would solve that problem. It's even thematic.

[kianduatha]

I think the point is that while yes, specifically Ahiman Anakites are less powerful, Sheshai Anakites are the same fatigue-wise and most of their non-sacred options are both cheaper and have less encumbrance. So it might behoove you to experiment with their actual troops.

[Squirrelloid]

Triqui, I'd be happy to duel you, and I'll play Ashdod without an E9+ bless. We'll see how weak Ashdod really is. Hop on IRC to arrange it.

[triqui]

Originally Posted by Squirrelloid

Triqui, I'd be happy to duel you, and I'll play Ashdod without an E9+ bless. We'll see how weak Ashdod really is. Hop on IRC to arrange it.

See, that's your second fallacious (and eepeen) post in a row.


Let's suppose (as hypothesis )you manage to win me with Ashdod. Would that show that Ashdod is fine? Not really, just show that you are (in hypothesis) a better player than me (or at the very least, that you think you are). That would proof absolutelly nothing. I'm sure Baalz could beat me with any nation, even if I use pre 1.92 Ashdod. That shows absolutelly nothing about Ashdod (or any other nation) balance.

Just like your post proofs nothing, but that people in internet argument fall to e-peen show-offs when they have no other point to argue, or the points they made before have been refuted in a way they cannot answer back.(IE: the stupid remark about Berserk unbreakable morale, which had nothing to do with what I was replying to: the fatigue)

Do you want to prove something about Ashdod balance? Fine, let's take a look in the next couple of months to every middle age game there is, that is played under CBM 1,92. Let's see if they win they fair share of victories. I doubt it.

@rdonj

If you're not taking a bless, there is absolutely no reason to recruit the sacred giant troops. Instead you rely on the non-sacreds in your roster. If there's no bless, it encourages you to build more early mages and you'll be able to hit higher levels of construction faster. It's hard to make them fatigue neutral without at least some level of earth bless though. And ashdod's sacreds/sacred commanders are very probably overpriced now, which could be fixed in a later version. I think they'd work better at 6 encumbrance as well, but this is really the first version of Ashdod that's not insane from turn 1

Fair enough, I change my stance from "ashdod is horribly overpriced" to "ashdod sacreds and sacred commanders are horribly overpriced". Which is kind of similar though, as the nation strength is their sacreds and sacred commanders. It's like if you remove Vans from helheim, or Jarls and sacreds from Niefelheim, and you say "hey, but they still can use everything else"

For example: you say that, without sacreds, they'll be compelled to buy extra mages for extra research. Sure. Except those are 200g non-sacred (for unkeep) mages with research 6. It's not like they are Bogarus or something, you know.

I'm not sure if they need to go down to encumbrance 6, or whatever. What I'm sure, though, is that 7 encumbrance for 150g and 88r is NOT a good deal. For that price, they suck. They suck hard. Sure, you can use the other troops in the roster. Bassically, the ones that don't suck. This doesn't change the fact they suck. Hard.

To repeat myself:
Yes, Ashdod with encumbrance neutral where way too powerful. Even if they were very expensive, they were very powerful. They needed a nerf. However, they nerfed them hard, but kept their insane cost. Most of the nations have *commanders* that are cheaper than Annakites. If you want to keep them with encumbrance 7, then they need a (serious) reduction in cost.

[Squirrelloid]

Originally Posted by triqui

See, that's your second fallacious (and eepeen) post in a row.

Let's suppose (as hypothesis )you manage to win me with Ashdod. Would that show that Ashdod is fine? Not really, just show that you are (in hypothesis) a better player than me (or at the very least, that you think you are). That would proof absolutelly nothing. I'm sure Baalz could beat me with any nation, even if I use pre 1.92 Ashdod. That shows absolutelly nothing about Ashdod (or any other nation) balance.

Just like your post proofs nothing, but that people in internet argument fall to e-peen show-offs when they have no other point to argue, or the points they made before have been refuted in a way they cannot answer back.(IE: the stupid remark about Berserk unbreakable morale, which had nothing to do with what I was replying to: the fatigue)

Do you want to prove something about Ashdod balance? Fine, let's take a look in the next couple of months to every middle age game there is, that is played under CBM 1,92. Let's see if they win they fair share of victories. I doubt it.

EA Agartha was virtually unplayable for years until CBM finally got around to buffing it. It still managed to win at least one game. And Ashdod is in better shape than EA Agartha ever was.

What's frustrating is you don't seem to actually want to play Ashdod to see if it still works. (I'd be willign to bet E10N4 still works, too, but it was never the sacred *troops* that really mattered). Which is why i offered to blitz. You specifically said:

Nop, they give you two options: that one, or losing incredibly fast.

Ok, so prove to me its lose incredibly fast if you don't use the sacreds. My offer was not an epeen argument, you literally said 'anyone who doesn't use the sacreds is going to lose'. Prove it. Put your money where your mouth is.

If instead you'd rather attack me then prove your claim, you're conceeding that you were wrong before. I wouldn't have even offered a blitz if you hadn't argued that doing anything but using sacreds was an autoloss.

Otherwise, there are other options, and thus Ashdod is probably fine. If a single one of their sacred options is not optimal in all situations, that's only a good thing. If its optimal in none, well, it'll get tweaked eventually. CBM balancing is an iterative process. But its clear to me at least this is solely a unit issue, not a nation balance issue.

---------------

You seem convinced that enc 7 is too much without being willing to play them. Considering net enc 2 is better than enc 5 for most troops, including Ashdod's nonsacreds (which work just fine!), this implies you don't actually understand the issues.

And berserk is an advantage. Those troops are fatigue neutral *until* they berserk, and then they don't run away once they do berserk. Horrors, they build up a little fatigue every round they attack *after* they berzerk. Its still less than the other sacred overall, because they have enough protection (18 with E9+) that putting some damage through that in the early game is hard.

The fact that you automatically dismiss them because they *eventually* become not-fatigue-neutral sort of demonstrates that you won't be happy until you have fatigue neutral broken giant troops. Since we know that's a bad idea, of course we're skeptical of your position.

----------------

And the real point you seem to be missing is that Ashdod was never about armies of *troops*. It was about armies of thugs and SCs. Being non-neutral on fatigue is only going to really matter in large battles, at which point you'll be thanking your enemies for killing off your cash-guzzling sacreds so you can recruit more SCs.

The only impact of non-neutral fatigue via bless is that Ashdod needs to do some research before it tries to crush someone now, as opposed to just rushing people. This is a good thing

Zazzumite: excellent thug/light SC, self-blessing, frequently with good buffing paths (Summon Earth Power, ironskin/stoneskin/invulnerability, soul drain, potentially personal luck/body ethereal, etc...)

Adon: Excellent SC, self blessing, good buffing path. (E2 ones are the best, but S2 isn't much worse and F2 is ok eventually). 3 misc slots. Typical E9-10 bless with bracers of protection doubles up the +4 protection bonus from the bless, and the third misc slot lets you pack a pendant and AMA in addition to the bracer.

Base enc 7 can be cut with lower fatigue armor or shield (or both), and mitigated away with boots, summon earth power, and of course bless.

Even without a big E bless you can still drop them to fatigue neutral pretty easily.

And no, Adons are not overpriced. They're a recruitable SC chassis - how bad the armor is or isn't is irrelevant, you're just going to slap something better on them anyway.

When every commander you recruit all game except Talmai Elders is a viable SC, its time to start wondering why you bother with recruitable troops after turn ~12 at all.

[triqui]

Originally Posted by Squirrelloid

You seem convinced that enc 7 is too much without being willing to play them. Considering net enc 2 is better than enc 5 for most troops, including Ashdod's nonsacreds (which work just fine!), this implies you don't actually understand the issues.

Actually is you the one that do not understand the issues. First, having encumbrance 7 is not really a problem. Having encumbrance 7 in a unit that cost 150g 88r, and thus is going to be horribly outnumbered in any situation, is.
Ashdod giants often are incredibly low number armies. To beat chaff (specially, but not only, undead chaff), they need a TON of turns.

There are other high encumbrance units in the game. Centaur Cataphracts have encumbrance 7 as well. However, for the price you have 1 single Annakite that 2 two attacks, Centaurs do *eight* attacks. So the amount of rounds both armies are going to be fighting is not even close. In a combat where Centaurs get say, 30 fatigue, the Annakite get one hundred and twenty.

I don't know what else can I do. I'll reiterate:

The problem is not having encumbrance 7. The problem is the combination of encumbrance 7, with being absolutelly unable to kill opposing armie in less than a gazzillion fighting rounds, becouse of the incredibly high cost per attack ratio. They cost 150g88r.

And berserk is an advantage. Those troops are fatigue neutral *until* they berserk, and then they don't run away once they do berserk. Horrors, they build up a little fatigue every round they attack *after* they berzerk. Its still less than the other sacred overall, because they have enough protection (18 with E9+) that putting some damage through that in the early game is hard.

It's an adventage. It's an adventage absolutelly unrelated to what we were discussing, though. You made a remark about "they have encumbrance 5". I quoted you and said that they were berserkers. I suppossed that you understood that I was talking about the fatigue. Obviously you didn't. My fault, I guess.

The fact that you automatically dismiss them because they *eventually* become not-fatigue-neutral sort of demonstrates that you won't be happy until you have fatigue neutral broken giant troops. Since we know that's a bad idea, of course we're skeptical of your position.

see, yet another fallacy (strawman's). I understand it's much easier for you to argue a point that I *did not* say, than the ones I actually said, but it's not really very usefull.

I already said that the nerf was needed. The problem is that CBM forgot to change the cost of the giants proportionally to the nerf. Pre-nerf, they were an incredibly expensive (as in: twice everything else) unit with an incredibly power. Now they are just incredibly expensive.