View Full Version : The UU-A-Day Countdown


Pages : [1] 2 3

ShaqFu
Aug 24, 2010, 03:51 PM
With 28 days left until Civ5, and 27 unique units in the game*, it seems like a good time to start a one-a-day UU countdown until release. It'll give a thread to discuss each UU in turn, as they're far more interesting than Civ4's (no more "+25% against <type>" Muskets!) and if nothing else, it'll pass the time until release. :D

Unless otherwised noted, all information comes from AriochIV's excellent site (http://well-of-souls.com/civ/), TheMystic, Azazell, and ltarmstrong3.

Today's UU is the French Foreign Legion, an upgraded Modern Infantry. Historically formed in 1831 as a way to bring non-French nationals into the French army, the Foreign Legion is legendary for its tenacity (famously fighting to the literal last three men in the Battle of Camaron) and the rigorousness of its training. Fittingly enough, the Civ5 Foreign Legion gets a bonus to fighting outside of friendly territory, representing their use in non-domestic combat.

Operationally, the use of the Foreign Legion at first appears offensive: declare war, send out your Legionnaires, and enjoy their bonus over other Infantry. If two lines of Infantry/Artillery run into each other, the Foreign Legion could very well give the edge to the French general in breaking through lines. Similarly, if another player declares war on France, a line of Foreign Legion would make for an excellent forward defense. The best kind of enemy invasions are the ones that never make it to your borders, and the Foreign Legion specializes in that. :goodjob: Their pre-requisite tech, Replaceable Parts, only requires Steam Power; if Ancien Regime still ends with Steam Power, going right for Replaceable Parts will certainly make the transition out of free culture easier.

*The reason I'm off by one day (other than "ShaqFu can't count") is because I'll need a day off this coming Saturday for a convention.

The Countdown

Day 28: The Foreign Legion (http://forums.civfanatics.com/showpost.php?p=9522450&postcount=1)
Day 27: The Legion (http://forums.civfanatics.com/showpost.php?p=9525713&postcount=17)
Day 26: The Chu-Ko-Nu (http://forums.civfanatics.com/showpost.php?p=9530328&postcount=48)
Day 25: The Sipahi (http://forums.civfanatics.com/showpost.php?p=9532474&postcount=68)
Day 24: The Minuteman (http://forums.civfanatics.com/showpost.php?p=9537198&postcount=94)
Day 23: Day Off!
Day 22: The Samurai (http://forums.civfanatics.com/showpost.php?p=9544353&postcount=134)
Day 21: The War Chariot (http://forums.civfanatics.com/showpost.php?p=9548083&postcount=176)
Day 20: The Naresuan's Elephant (http://forums.civfanatics.com/showpost.php?p=9551786&postcount=188)
Day 19: The Camel Archer (http://forums.civfanatics.com/showpost.php?p=9556081&postcount=203)
Day 18: The Longbowman (http://forums.civfanatics.com/showpost.php?p=9559925&postcount=243)
Day 17: The Landsknecht (http://forums.civfanatics.com/showpost.php?p=9563133&postcount=258)
Day 16: The Janissary (http://forums.civfanatics.com/showpost.php?p=9566418&postcount=264)
Day 15: The Zero (http://forums.civfanatics.com/showpost.php?p=9569977&postcount=272)
Day 14: The Immortal (http://forums.civfanatics.com/showpost.php?p=9573285&postcount=289)
Day 13: The Companion Cavalry (http://forums.civfanatics.com/showpost.php?p=9576801&postcount=310)
Day 12: The Hoplite (http://forums.civfanatics.com/showpost.php?p=9580298&postcount=332)
Day 11: The Jaguar (http://forums.civfanatics.com/showpost.php?p=9584281&postcount=357)
Day 10: The Musketeer (http://forums.civfanatics.com/showpost.php?p=9588072&postcount=366)
Day 9: The Mohawk Warrior (http://forums.civfanatics.com/showpost.php?p=9591080&postcount=381)
Day 8: The Panzer (http://forums.civfanatics.com/showpost.php?p=9595753&postcount=398)
Day 7: The Ballista (http://forums.civfanatics.com/showpost.php?p=9600327&postcount=462)
Day 6: The War Elephant (http://forums.civfanatics.com/showpost.php?p=9604937&postcount=485)
Day 5: The B-17 (http://forums.civfanatics.com/showpost.php?p=9609783&postcount=499)
Day 4: The Cossack (http://forums.civfanatics.com/showpost.php?p=9614995&postcount=514)
Day 3: The Mandekalu Cavalry (http://forums.civfanatics.com/showpost.php?p=9620340&postcount=518)
Day 2: The Ship of the Line (http://forums.civfanatics.com/showpost.php?p=9625767&postcount=535)

Caeserportugal
Aug 24, 2010, 03:53 PM
The Foreign Legion makes them good for warefare and combines well with Napoelon´s style in terms of the AI.

KrikkitTwo
Aug 24, 2010, 04:03 PM
Seems very useful for the idea of a French Player that gets a mid-sized empire with lots of SP bonuses, and then pushes forward.

I can definitely see a lot of French player having the 'Honor' Tree finished out before Steam power to give them good Foreign Legions.

ShaqFu
Aug 24, 2010, 04:08 PM
I can definitely see a lot of French player having the 'Honor' Tree finished out before Steam power to give them good Foreign Legions.

Steam Power also unlocks the Industrial Era, and with it, Autocracy. An Honor-boosted, Autocracy-driven Foreign Legion formation would be rather fearsome...

Calouste
Aug 24, 2010, 06:53 PM
Steam Power also unlocks the Industrial Era, and with it, Autocracy. An Honor-boosted, Autocracy-driven Foreign Legion formation would be rather fearsome...

Will be interesting to see how that plays out. With the per city bonus that the French get, adopting the Liberty branch would be a natural choice to spam more and better cities, but that branch is incompatible with the Autocracy branch and we still don't know if you can actually switch.

Louis XXIV
Aug 24, 2010, 07:16 PM
Still, we're talking about helping the Foreign Legion.

It's an interesting ability. Assuming all things being equal tech-wise, it gives you an advantage if you are the attacker, but it doesn't necessarily penalize you for being on the defensive (it just makes you generic). Generally, however, you will try to keep the fight out of your territory at all costs. It's also the only Infantry replacement and one of only a couple modern UUs, so it'll keep the French relevant late into the game.

Eagle Pursuit
Aug 24, 2010, 07:43 PM
I could imagine using FFL's as an expeditionary force. land em behind enemy lines and let 'em rip the hell out of the enemy's resources.

KrikkitTwo
Aug 24, 2010, 07:56 PM
It does seriously encourage the French to have large scale Industrial/Modern War(s) for either Conquest win or mass territory acquisition for a Space Race Win.

playshogi
Aug 24, 2010, 08:14 PM
...Operationally, the use of the Foreign Legion at first appears offensive: declare war, send out your Legionnaires, and enjoy their bonus over other Infantry. If two lines of Infantry/Artillery run into each other, the Foreign Legion could very well give the edge to the French general in breaking through lines.

Most, if not all, civs will have picked up the 33% bonus for fighting on their own territory from Tradition, so going straight up against infantry won't be good odds.
Of course, we don't know what the Foreign Legion bonus is.


...Similarly, if another player declares war on France, a line of Foreign Legion would make for an excellent forward defense. The best kind of enemy invasions are the ones that never make it to your borders, and the Foreign Legion specializes in that. :goodjob: Their pre-requisite tech, Replaceable Parts, only requires Steam Power; if Ancien Regime still ends with Steam Power, going right for Replaceable Parts will certainly make the transition out of free culture easier.



On defense then they'll get the Tradition bonus! (Unless the savvy human player skipped it, figuring the AI could not mount a credible attack.)

Schuesseled
Aug 25, 2010, 09:30 AM
I think the french foriegn legion, has a nice ability that will encorage napoleon to be on the offensive, and attack other civs, or if he's on the defensive, to push back as hard as he can.

whipflash
Aug 25, 2010, 11:33 AM
I do not think that the Foreign Legion is gonna be the most powerful unit in the game or even OP but its the only UU that replaces the infantry right? And it comes right after the Musketer with its 4str bonus, which makes any war during that era against france a pain in the ass cause of one UU after another. I to be honest thinks haveing 2 UU's after eachother is better when 2 in the same era.

Imagen starting a war with musketers and end it with Foreign Legion that will be epic and half of the world will probly be yours.

ShaqFu
Aug 25, 2010, 11:50 AM
I do not think that the Foreign Legion is gonna be the most powerful unit in the game or even OP but its the only UU that replaces the infantry right? And it comes right after the Musketer with its 4str bonus, which makes any war during that era against france a pain in the ass cause of one UU after another. I to be honest thinks haveing 2 UU's after eachother is better when 2 in the same era.

Imagen starting a war with musketers and end it with Foreign Legion that will be epic and half of the world will probly be yours.

They're not immediately consecutive; the Rifleman is between them.

Ahriman
Aug 25, 2010, 12:56 PM
I think its odd that the Foreign Legion is an Infantry replacement rather than a Riflemen replacement, if the whole intent was to encourage Napoleonic era conquests. Its very odd for the French UU to be in the 20th century, when historic French power was more medieval->Napoleon.

I would think that superb chivalric knights, or Levee en Masse/Grande Armee Napoleonic riflemen would make more sense as Fren UUs.

It would be very thematic for a rifleman replacement to have a bonus in foreign territory. Less so for an Infantry replacement, since every modern war the French fought was a defensive one: Franco-Prussian, WWI, WW2, Algeria, Vietnam.....

Lord Olleus
Aug 25, 2010, 01:47 PM
I think that the whole napeleonic age is represented as much by musketmen as by riflemen (although that is highly debatable). Anyway, having two UUs which immediately follow each other and which upgrade into each other seems simply too powerful. I guess they also wanted to represent the French Empire (the over seas one, not the one of the Napoleons). It also full-fills the "oooh, I've heard of this before!" criteria.

They also seem to prefer giving the major powers 2 UUs, rather than 1 UU and 1 UB. No idea why though. I would quite like to have seen France with a public school UB (it was one of the first european countries with compulsory education) or a monastery UB.

SuperSmash5
Aug 25, 2010, 02:06 PM
Foreign Legion sounds really intense. Decisive wars are fought on the offensive so it's like having a boost to a mainline unit. I'd guess the main use would be in WWI style combat where massive amounts of infantry and artillery would be used before anyone gets more advanced tanks or planes. Though it might be a short window since Flight and Combustion are only one tech away from Replaceable Parts.

Ahriman
Aug 25, 2010, 02:08 PM
They also seem to prefer giving the major powers 2 UUs
China? Russia? India?

Not sure we can make that much of a blanket claim.

Anyway, having two UUs which immediately follow each other and which upgrade into each other seems simply too powerful
Probably. But the height of French military might is medieval and Napoleonic, not 17th and 20th centuries.

It also full-fills the "oooh, I've heard of this before!" criteria.
This is 95% of the reason for the choice.
And Musketeers are there for Three Musketeer purposes.

But of course, those are early 17th century guys, not Napoleonic. Nearly 200 years difference.

ShaqFu
Aug 25, 2010, 02:58 PM
I would have liked to see Ultimo Ratio Regum make an appearance, a la CivRev, but c'est la vie.

27 days left, and 26 more UUs to go! For today, we'll look to the namesake of the French Foreign Legion and go back 2000 years to the Roman Legion, a Civ favorite. Past Civ games have seen the Legionary (+1 defense) and the Praetorian (+2 strength), and Civ5 continues this tradition with a Swordsman upgrade. The Legion was the backbone of arguably the finest military of antiquity, renown for its effectiveness in combat, organization, and ubiquity across the European frontier. Fittingly, the Civ5 Legion gets +2 strength (13) over Swordsmen (11), giving it a crucial edge in early wars. Furthermore, as the Legions were renown for their engineering prowess (many Roman roads/bridges still being in use today), their in-game version builds Roads and Forts as if it were a Worker.

The strength bonus hearkens back to the Roman UUs of old, where Legionaries/Praetorians ruled ancient combat; while it's unlikely that Civ5 will bring back the dreaded "Praet Rush," the Legion will certainly have the edge in classical warfare. Paired with Rome's other UU, the Legion makes up half of one of the two most fearsome classical formations, and not something a neighboring civ would like to deal with early. A beeline to Iron Working will certainly pay off for the Roman general. Their second bonus, fort/road building, is tougher to judge; it allows for the Roman player to easily establish a guarded frontier, and may allow for Legion/Worker stacking for quick roads. Given the number of techs needed for Engineering after an Iron beeline (6, not counting Mining), it appears to be more useful as a post-invasion ability: take out a neighboring civ, then establish Forts/hook up cities to get your empire online again. Engineering is only 3 techs away from Mathematics+Iron Working, so the Fort-building isn't completely out of the Legion's relevant age.

ilikepies
Aug 25, 2010, 03:07 PM
The European powers tend to have two specific UUs, such as "Foreign Legion" or "Landschnecht", and the other ones have very general UU's and UB's such as "Papermaker" or "War Elephant".

The French will be able to dominate by grabbing land early all the while social policy-ing up for late game domination, and then going crazy with their unique units.

The Foreign Legion seems like an excellent UU. It's a bit weird how the French will be grabbing up Honor and Autocracy for late game bonuses, but whatever. We'll have to see how it measures up to all the other UUs.

EDIT: Looks like you just posted the most recent one, I'll go ahead and comment on it.

The legion looks very good. Obviously not as insane as Praets now that one point is worth less and you have ranged attacks to deal with, but it will still give the romans somewhat of an edge in early combat. I'd argue that beelining isn't a good idea, since you'll need to have quite an economy to support it. You need to connect enough iron to train an army, which takes time and road maintenance, and then build up and maintain that army without much development. And without researching and using other military techs you will be a sitting duck against range. I'd say the legion is a good unit, but will likely be used as part of a Classical Age war machine than a rush. The Romans aren't a crazy pillaging civ like the Mongols in Civ4- they need to support their military with an economy and vice versa. Though their UA will certainly help them do that.

Sneaky Snake
Aug 25, 2010, 03:09 PM
I'm gonna love this UU. Put up some forts with garrisons at a chokepoint with some ranged units behind the forts. That would make a mean defense.

Calouste
Aug 25, 2010, 03:22 PM
Maybe Legoins can build forts even if you don't have Engineering yet, although I don't think we have confirmation one way or the other.

celticfc21
Aug 25, 2010, 04:06 PM
The fort and road building abilities are going to be awesome! I always thought it would be a cool ability for the Legions to have. I wonder if the forts could be used effectively for sieges like at the Battle of Alesia?

Eagle Pursuit
Aug 25, 2010, 04:11 PM
IIRC you can have a military unit share a tile with a civilian unit. You stack your Legion with a worker and build roads really fast.

Avatan
Aug 25, 2010, 05:11 PM
appears to be more useful as a post-invasion ability: take out a neighboring civ, then establish Forts/hook up cities to get your empire online again.

I agree, but since the ranged unit only shoot with a range of two, the ennemy will have to have to come close enough with their melee units in order to use their bowmen. Then your fortified bonused swordsmen will be a real pain to destroy :cooool: . More like a counter attack thing than a rush ability IMHO.

It will depends a lot on how long does it take to actually build a fort though.

KrikkitTwo
Aug 25, 2010, 05:42 PM
Well I think the ability is very good for staged expansion, build Roads to the enemy and set up forts after you take the target cities.

Defend the conquests while you rebuild them.

I think it ties in well to the Roman UA that lends itself to well developed cities.

SuperSmash5
Aug 25, 2010, 07:22 PM
I actually don't think that the Legion as overpowered as people are making out, mainly because of the Iron requirement. Not only do you need Iron but you need A LOT of Iron to make an effective. I'd say at least 6 or more, which involves acquiring at least 2 separate sources. When you consider that the Ballista also needs iron, it can become difficult to field very many legion units. Unlike in Civ4, you can't just spam them and overrun your enemies.

That being said, while the Legion might not be a rush unit, it can certainly help Rome gain a decisive military advantage. It won't clobber your opponents, but it will make a military push at the classical age very possible.

As for the other abilities of the Legion, I don't find that they're very useful. If you can capture workers like in Civ4, then there's really no use for the Legion's worker abilities. Forts aren't useless, but they're very specific in when you would want one. And it's really impractical to waste 6 turns (or however many) setting up a fort if you're in the middle of a war when you could otherwise be attacking. The main use that I see for this, as others have pointed out, is quickly making roads by stacking them with workers, but even this ability is limited.

Louis XXIV
Aug 25, 2010, 07:35 PM
I think the UU is both helped and hurt by its co-worker UU. On the one hand, if you don't have a lot of iron, you'd be limited in both (I realize you'd be limited with just Cats and Swords, but you'd also be more likely to go Archers instead. With two powerful UUs, that's less of the case). On the other hand, you can move into enemy territory, build a line of forts, and park your ballistas behind them. I could see Rome setting up semi-defensive killing zones if they wanted to. If not, they could advance farther (building roads in neutral territory to help facilitate troop movement) and then set up another line. If they don't attack you by then, you can always use your superior strength to attack them. I don't think the strength bonus is as good as in the past, but it can be quite useful. You can also use them to save on workers by doing some basic road building (or speeding road building by stacking with a worker).

Thormodr
Aug 25, 2010, 07:38 PM
A Legendary Start could be very helpful here. Likely Rome would be in an excellent production area with 1 or 2 iron to start.

So, they'll be able to churn out the military units and UUs. Sounds like fun. :D

Calouste
Aug 25, 2010, 08:05 PM
I actually don't think that the Legion as overpowered as people are making out, mainly because of the Iron requirement. Not only do you need Iron but you need A LOT of Iron to make an effective. I'd say at least 6 or more, which involves acquiring at least 2 separate sources. When you consider that the Ballista also needs iron, it can become difficult to field very many legion units. Unlike in Civ4, you can't just spam them and overrun your enemies.

That being said, while the Legion might not be a rush unit, it can certainly help Rome gain a decisive military advantage. It won't clobber your opponents, but it will make a military push at the classical age very possible.

As for the other abilities of the Legion, I don't find that they're very useful. If you can capture workers like in Civ4, then there's really no use for the Legion's worker abilities. Forts aren't useless, but they're very specific in when you would want one. And it's really impractical to waste 6 turns (or however many) setting up a fort if you're in the middle of a war when you could otherwise be attacking. The main use that I see for this, as others have pointed out, is quickly making roads by stacking them with workers, but even this ability is limited.

You can have the Legions build forts and roads while you are not at war. There is a fairly lengthy period between them and when their upgrade becomes available.

KrikkitTwo
Aug 25, 2010, 08:43 PM
The way I see the legion being used is for conquering 1 or 2 enemies (depending on map size) after you have spent the previous portion building up.

So Rome should get several cities, build them up (using the UA) and then build its Legion+Balista (and start pumping out cannon fodder, ie Archers/Spears/Mounted units).

The Cannon Fodder units screen for the Legion which guards the Ballista as it breaks down city walls.

Cannon fodder units continue to come (the Legion can build a road to support this)

Once the Civ is conquered, then the Legions can reinforce the Territory by building roads and Forts.

Then possibly move on to the next Civ... until the Legions are outdated, and are more there for Road Maintenance/Fortifying strong positions.

Lyoncet
Aug 25, 2010, 08:47 PM
A Legendary Start could be very helpful here. Likely Rome would be in an excellent production area with 1 or 2 iron to start.

So, they'll be able to churn out the military units and UUs. Sounds like fun. :D

Too bad there's no option (that we know of) that resembles unrestricted leaders by unpairing abilities from UUs/UBs. Can you imagine Siberian Riches + Legions/Ballistae on Legendary Start? :lol:

KrikkitTwo
Aug 25, 2010, 08:59 PM
Actually what would be better

1. a Random UA
2. a Random UU
3. a Random UB/UU (50/50)

whipflash
Aug 26, 2010, 04:32 AM
i to be honest think you have to be lucky with resources or play legendary start as some people stated for balista and legion to really shine, building roads to get to the enemy faster? remember roads have mantince and only 1 unit per tile, this can get very inefective and expensive (far from useless) but it takes much planing and maybe alittle luck to pull off.

If you ask me it seems that haveing UU's like camel archers that dont need a resources has a little edge against people who gets uu that demands resources.

TM Moot
Aug 26, 2010, 05:25 AM
You can have the Legions build forts and roads while you are not at war. There is a fairly lengthy period between them and when their upgrade becomes available.

This. You are not at war all the time, so whilst creating a sizable force use the first few Legions to ceate some infrastructure, and likewise, whilst taking a breather inbetween wars.

Romans are no.1 on my 'to play list'. I reckon that the 2 UU's will work well together, obviously providing you have enough Iron. But as long as you pick your targets sensibly (i.e not too far away AND with iron deposits) then it becomes a snow balling conquest.

As mentioned, the SA (UA!) will help keep momentum.

Caeserportugal
Aug 26, 2010, 09:55 AM
Rome is gonna be the first civ I will try and I cant wait

Babri
Aug 26, 2010, 01:13 PM
Rome is all about conquer & then rebuild your empire during peace time. With worker-legion stack you'd be able to build roads & forts faster which could be very helpful in connecting cities & defending them. A legion in fort would be really tough for his time since it already has +2 strength. If utilized properly they would be a tough nut to crack.

Me,myself,and,I
Aug 26, 2010, 02:31 PM
I'm willin' to bet that there'll be considerably more iron than in cIV Rome should have no problem crushing her enemies. I just hope the earth map will be big enough for them to have enough Iron in Italy.

Then again if the map is smaller then every one else will also have fewer resources AND everybody will need less units.

Lyoncet
Aug 26, 2010, 03:43 PM
I'm willin' to bet that there'll be considerably more iron than in cIV Rome should be balanced.

Fixed. :p

Rusty Edge
Aug 26, 2010, 03:44 PM
I think the UU is both helped and hurt by its co-worker UU. On the one hand, if you don't have a lot of iron, you'd be limited in both (I realize you'd be limited with just Cats and Swords, but you'd also be more likely to go Archers instead. With two powerful UUs, that's less of the case). On the other hand, you can move into enemy territory, build a line of forts, and park your ballistas behind them. I could see Rome setting up semi-defensive killing zones if they wanted to. If not, they could advance farther (building roads in neutral territory to help facilitate troop movement) and then set up another line. If they don't attack you by then, you can always use your superior strength to attack them. I don't think the strength bonus is as good as in the past, but it can be quite useful. You can also use them to save on workers by doing some basic road building (or speeding road building by stacking with a worker).

:cool:

So you could re-create Hadrian's wall, and Caesar's envelopment of the Celts.

Schuesseled
Aug 26, 2010, 03:58 PM
it would be cool to have a hadrains wall wonder do what the great wall did in civ 4.

Babri
Aug 26, 2010, 05:34 PM
ShaqFu ! One day has passed. Now lets leave Legion & talk about any other UU. :D
Maybe...Musketeer. :hmm:

SuperSmash5
Aug 26, 2010, 05:44 PM
This. You are not at war all the time, so whilst creating a sizable force use the first few Legions to ceate some infrastructure, and likewise, whilst taking a breather inbetween wars.

Romans are no.1 on my 'to play list'. I reckon that the 2 UU's will work well together, obviously providing you have enough Iron. But as long as you pick your targets sensibly (i.e not too far away AND with iron deposits) then it becomes a snow balling conquest.

As mentioned, the SA (UA!) will help keep momentum.
I don't really think that the Legions will be that great at creating infrastructure. You should already have roads to hook up your iron by the time you've started producing your first Legions. Forts can be useful, but they're not the kind of improvement you should just spam all over the place. Not to mention they're useless when you're on the attack, which is what you should be doing with them.

Calouste
Aug 26, 2010, 05:50 PM
I don't really think that the Legions will be that great at creating infrastructure. You should already have roads to hook up your iron by the time you've started producing your first Legions. Forts can be useful, but they're not the kind of improvement you should just spam all over the place. Not to mention they're useless when you're on the attack, which is what you should be doing with them.

You don't need roads to hook up your iron in Civ5.

Civ5 isn't Civ4.

Louis XXIV
Aug 26, 2010, 05:52 PM
:cool:

So you could re-create Hadrian's wall, and Caesar's envelopment of the Celts.

I was specifically thinking of Caesar there, actually. His pursuit of Vercingetorix isn't that far off from what you can do if you wanted to. Now whether it's practical is a different matter and would come down to benefits vs. build times.

Schuesseled
Aug 26, 2010, 05:56 PM
the road building ability makes it easier to build roads upto enemy territory without having to distract your workers from thier busy task of working your lands. Then you can also construct forts in front of enemy territory (assuing they can be built in neutral lands) whilst you await the arrival of the army your building at that very moment to smack monty with. This gives you a defendable position you can zoom your newly built units to, and gives you a staging area into enemy territory.

SuperSmash5
Aug 26, 2010, 06:01 PM
You don't need roads to hook up your iron in Civ5.

Civ5 isn't Civ4.
Whrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr

Where do you find out all this stuff anyway?

Calouste
Aug 26, 2010, 06:05 PM
Whrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr

Where do you find out all this stuff anyway?

http://well-of-souls.com/civ/ is an overview of all that is known about Civ5 at the moment.

Schuesseled
Aug 26, 2010, 06:06 PM
Also by paying atention to all the previews been released. And theres the info on the civ V site too, under community.

ShaqFu
Aug 26, 2010, 06:37 PM
ShaqFu ! One day has passed. Now lets leave Legion & talk about any other UU. :D
Maybe...Musketeer. :hmm:

I've been busy lately, and didn't notice the time. And the Legion's fun to talk about!

For the 26th day until launch, we'll move across the world (and up a few techs) to another Civ classic, the Chinese Chu-Ko-Nu. This Chinese weapon emphasized speed by greatly simplifying the reload process - the marksman simply pushed a lever back, and was prepared to fire again. Thus, the Civ5 Chu-Ko-Nu can fire twice in a turn, reflecting the alacrity of the weapon. To compensate for this, the unit suffers a -2 penalty to ranged attack, firing at 10 strength instead of 12.

We'll have to see more about combat to pass judgment on it, but the Chu-ko-Nu should be a powerful force in medieval combat. With 1upt, the ability to get two uses out of a hex per turn effectively doubles your ranged forces; the 2 strength penalty is more than made up for with the extra attack. Two CKNs are nearly as deadly as four Crossbowmen, require two less supply, and can be more usefully placed as each requires one less hex of space than their weight in Crossbows. The ability to hit an enemy line twice in a round will certainly be the bane of those standing in China's path.

Of course, we should keep in mind that, with Art of War, the 2 strength penalty can be more easily overcome.... :goodjob:

Louis XXIV
Aug 26, 2010, 06:47 PM
Before I comment on the unit, I just want to point out that, on Spike TV's Deadliest Warrior they had an episode that featured this weapon and it was indeed awesome. It faced up against an Iron Crossbow and at first didn't look all that impressive (it was less accurate and had a bit less of a punch). Then I noticed that he made up for it by shooting about 6 or 7 shots right away and just spammed the target (guaranteeing he could hit a neck or some other unarmored place if he wanted to). What really sold me was the reload. Instead of putting the weapon down and cranking it, the operator simply dumped a bunch of arrows in the top and kept firing. I've seen modern rifles with slower reload times than this thing.

As for in game, I agree it'll be useful. Not only will two shots likely more than offset the loss of damage for each, it'll give more flexibility (if you need to hit two targets, you can). Without having played the game, it's hard to comment on the bombard system overall, but I do think this unit will be fun to play as in a support role.

Calouste
Aug 26, 2010, 07:53 PM
Interesting bit about the CKN ability will be if it carries over to the city if you garrison it.

Savoir10
Aug 26, 2010, 08:04 PM
Interesting bit about the CKN ability will be if it carries over to the city if you garrison it.

Do garrisoned troops get to fire back? Or are their HP just added to the defence of the city?

Ahriman
Aug 26, 2010, 08:13 PM
What is most obvious about the CKN is that it excels as a defensive weapon. Firing twice isn't as good on the attack, since you only have 2 moves, so you can't move and then fire twice. So you need to already be in position to fire twice, which is easiest when the enemy is coming to you.

Interesting bit about the CKN ability will be if it carries over to the city if you garrison it.
I doubt any abilities carry over to the city. At most in terms of ability, the unit will act as if its fortified in the city, and will act like itself normally.

KrikkitTwo
Aug 26, 2010, 08:16 PM
What is most obvious about the CKN is that it excels as a defensive weapon. Firing twice isn't as good on the attack, since you only have 2 moves, so you can't move and then fire twice. So you need to already be in position to fire twice, which is easiest when the enemy is coming to you.


I doubt any abilities carry over to the city. At most in terms of ability, the unit will act as if its fortified in the city, and will act like itself normally.

I believe it will probably act separately on the Attack.... but on the defense it won't have any abilities, it will just merge its Str/hp with the City.

So a city Garissoned with a CNK will probably have 3 attacks, 2 from the CNK at Str 10, and 1 from the city at whatever Str the city has.

Ahriman
Aug 26, 2010, 08:21 PM
So a city Garissoned with a CNK will probably have 3 attacks, 2 from the CNK at Str 10, and 1 from the city at whatever Str the city has.
Like I said, the CNK is acting as itself. It isn't the city's action.

KrikkitTwo
Aug 26, 2010, 08:32 PM
Like I said, the CNK is acting as itself. It isn't the city's action.

Yeah, the distinction I was making is in offece/defence.

If a unit has a particular Defensive ability, (+50% v mounted, bonus in open/rough Terrain)I don't think that will affect the garrisoned city at all.

On the other hand, during the players turn, they are probably just separate "units" that happen to be in the same hex.

Sciguy001
Aug 26, 2010, 09:23 PM
I think the civilopedia article did say that the CKN garrisoned gives a city two ranged attacks, which would make China a very formidable defender.

Babri
Aug 27, 2010, 01:50 AM
Garrisoning Chu Ku Nu in a citadel & bombarding enemy would be fun. :D
Their ability would be more useful for defence but can work well for attack too if managed properly.

Lord Olleus
Aug 27, 2010, 04:04 AM
I hope that CKN defended cities dont get two bombard attacks, otherwise it seems worth it to keep a chokonu garrisoned in cities for the rest of the game.

stealth_nsk
Aug 27, 2010, 04:07 AM
I hope that CKN defended cities dont get two bombard attacks, otherwise it seems worth it to keep a chokonu garrisoned in cities for the rest of the game.

Agree. Also I don't know where the info came from. Earlier reports about garrisoned units just increasing city strength lead to conclusion they don't. Otherwise we could suggest other units may gift their abilities to the city as well...

KrikkitTwo
Aug 27, 2010, 07:23 AM
Agree. Also I don't know where the info came from. Earlier reports about garrisoned units just increasing city strength lead to conclusion they don't. Otherwise we could suggest other units may gift their abilities to the city as well...

Well I think that on the Attacking turn, the garrison+the city are treated separately (so the CKN can attack 2x, and the city once). On the defending turn, they act as 1 unit.

Ahriman
Aug 27, 2010, 07:26 AM
Well I think that on the Attacking turn, the garrison+the city are treated separately (so the CKN can attack 2x, and the city once). On the defending turn, they act as 1 unit.
This seems most likely to me.

Churchill's Hat
Aug 27, 2010, 07:54 AM
But if you have Rifleman garrisoned in cities, they won't shoot as much but they'll do more damage when they do shoot. So CKN's will still be useful, but they won't last forever.

stealth_nsk
Aug 27, 2010, 08:19 AM
I think they act as single unit on both attack and defense. The reason why I think so is what you can't attack with garrisoned unit if there are other unit in the city.

Ahriman
Aug 27, 2010, 08:25 AM
I think it would be very weird for units to add abilities to cities, because the balance implications of this would be widely variable.

Some units and UUs have abilities that would synergize strongly with a city (like an extra attack). Some are totally useless (like extra strength in enemy territory, or extra movement points).

whipflash
Aug 27, 2010, 09:00 AM
But if you have Rifleman garrisoned in cities, they won't shoot as much but they'll do more damage when they do shoot. So CKN's will still be useful, but they won't last forever.

Riflemen have no ranged attack, archer, xbow and all forms of seige wepons (such as arty and cata's) are the only units with ranged attack.

Explanation of the pic: http://img22.imageshack.us/img22/5856/examplef.jpg

but i was thinking alittle, if you look on the example turn 1 and turn 2, red player is first in line to do hes move (and yes i know the longsword (ls) should have moved a turn before but i am trying to make a fair example of a very even fight where 4 ckn and 4 xbow (xb) has its chanse to fire away. I read somewhere that units have 10hp and i've seen videos of players useing archers and not to many swordsmen fell to the ground, so XB deals 2dmg50% of the time and 3dmg 50% of the time represnting 12 ranged str, CKN deals 2dmg every shot representing 10ranged str and remember the LS has 2 movement.

thanks to the CKN another green LS is dead and 1 LS has less hp then the china one which means even if china had 1 less LS to start with they won this turn's battle. If you add hills, forests and strategic placements and even a general (with art of war) the green player would be completely crushed.

And before you bash away that my example "isent how ciV" is gona work, well try to make a better example your self without playing the game ;p

Louis XXIV
Aug 27, 2010, 09:53 AM
That seems similar to how it'll work. At worse, it's a simplification. I would also say that, if both sides had 2 ranged units instead of 4, the Chu-ko-nu is even more useful because it could weaken all four units, while the X-Bows can only weaken 2 (leaving four less effective units on one side, but 2 full strength units on the other).

whipflash
Aug 27, 2010, 12:07 PM
That seems similar to how it'll work. At worse, it's a simplification. I would also say that, if both sides had 2 ranged units instead of 4, the Chu-ko-nu is even more useful because it could weaken all four units, while the X-Bows can only weaken 2 (leaving four less effective units on one side, but 2 full strength units on the other).

Exactly, its not gona totaly kill everything it sees but its gona make the enemy weak and gona slow down attacks and you need less units when normal to win also (if you play your cards right.

ShaqFu
Aug 27, 2010, 12:25 PM
If garrisoned cities inherit the abilities of the garrisoned unit, it'll make a certain boring UU that much less boring.

Speaking of defenders, how about a particularly terrible one? The Ottoman Sipahi replaces the Lancer, and serves as the bridge between the medieval Knight and 19th century Cavalry. The most fearsome branch of the Ottoman army, the Sipahi were used to smash an enemy's flank while infantry held the line. Thus, the Civ5 version has +1 sight and movement over Lancers, giving it greater flexibility. The Sipahi were also used in cavalry-cavalry skirmishes, and therefore have a bonus against mounted units in-game. As if this wasn't enough, Firaxis has tacked on the ability to pillage at no additional movement cost. Of course, this all comes with a downside - the Sipahi gets a penalty while defending.

The Sipahi is another two-part UU, as it comes as the same time as the other Ottoman UU. This is a unit that will truly benefit from a capable general; the +1 movement and bonus against mounted will make for a phenomenal flanking unit, winning side skirmishes and punching through behind lines. While you're there, you can also pillage freely, putting your enemy in the unenviable position of falling back or losing his infrastructure. The +1 sight range also makes the Sipahi a fantastic scout, and possibly the best of its era. Its penalty, however, means that any battlefield errors will be catastrophic - an ambush, or poorly-placed Sipahi detachment, will result in greater losses than usual. This is not a unit for the faint of heart or poor commander: when used correctly, the Sipahi is devastating, but one bad turn can destroy your force.

Lyoncet
Aug 27, 2010, 12:35 PM
<snip>

That's a pretty good analysis, except you missed one critical factor: Lancers get a penalty on defense as well, and I don't see anything to suggest that the Sipahi's penalty is any greater than the Lancer's. Plus, the Sipahi isn't listed as having the Lancer's "doesn't receive defense bonuses" trait, so it's actually better on defense assuming that's not an oversight.

whipflash
Aug 27, 2010, 01:53 PM
Dosent the normal lancer have penelty when defending? if so this unit sounds very OP imagen rushing into the enemys land from a flank with 4 of those and just killing alone units and raid improvements at the same time and also scouting at the same time.

Lyoncet
Aug 27, 2010, 02:08 PM
Dosent the normal lancer have penelty when defending?

Yes it does (see, for example, the above post). :p

KrikkitTwo
Aug 27, 2010, 03:13 PM
That's a pretty good analysis, except you missed one critical factor: Lancers get a penalty on defense as well, and I don't see anything to suggest that the Sipahi's penalty is any greater than the Lancer's. Plus, the Sipahi isn't listed as having the Lancer's "doesn't receive defense bonuses" trait, so it's actually better on defense assuming that's not an oversight.

Actually, 'doesn't receive defense bonuses' is both positive and negative.

Rough Terrain gives a positive defense modifier (hills, forest, jungle)
Open Terrain gives a negative defense modifier (everything else)

So if the Siphai gets terrain defense effects, then they will be better in rough terrain +25%, but worse in open terrain -33% (on top of whatever defense penalty they already have)

dodobird
Aug 27, 2010, 04:24 PM
wouldnt a bonus be referring to something positive and a penalty refer to something negative? i read it as they wont get any positive defensive modifiers but they will still get negative

Eagle Pursuit
Aug 27, 2010, 04:25 PM
I agree.

Stefanskantine
Aug 27, 2010, 05:34 PM
I like all the Sipahi's flexibility in a 1 UPT game- mobile, scout, pillager, anit-horse. Probably the best outcome of 1 UPT, flexible units are desirable again, rather than unit effectiveness being reduced to its single best property as in an SOD. It seems that Ottomans will have a very dominant army in the midgame.

12agnar0k
Aug 27, 2010, 06:35 PM
I really like the Cho-Ku-Nu, I thought before I saw the information on this UU that the longbowmen would be classical unit of choice, although the "two attacks" of the fast reloading Cho-Ku-Nu is a really nice unit. However the fact that they have gone with "+1 attack for the fastest reloading "crossbow" type unit", leaves me hopeful for an equally good English UU, the longbow was the "longest range "crossbow" type unit" (its not actually like a cross bow but its what it will replace in the game) and this suggests to me that Civ5 developers may have gone with +1 range for longbows, if this is the case then this equals the cho-ku-nu in awesomeness, so what you can fire twice, I am three tiles away from you and you can't get me.

Lyoncet
Aug 27, 2010, 09:27 PM
I really like the Cho-Ku-Nu, I thought before I saw the information on this UU that the longbowmen would be classical unit of choice, although the "two attacks" of the fast reloading Cho-Ku-Nu is a really nice unit. However the fact that they have gone with "+1 attack for the fastest reloading "crossbow" type unit", leaves me hopeful for an equally good English UU, the longbow was the "longest range "crossbow" type unit" (its not actually like a cross bow but its what it will replace in the game) and this suggests to me that Civ5 developers may have gone with +1 range for longbows, if this is the case then this equals the cho-ku-nu in awesomeness, so what you can fire twice, I am three tiles away from you and you can't get me.

I think +1 range could be an excellent Longbow trait, and the unit IMO really deserves to be phenomenal as UUs go. I mean, I saw the movie version of Henry V; I know what I'm talking about!

No seriously though, the English Longbow is awesome – really have high hopes for the unit. I can even see overpowering it slightly and giving it a moderately higher hammer cost over the Crossbow since along with being developed way later than crossbows, the training was notoriously difficult. Not sure if they'd do that, since I don't know if there are any UUs that actually cost more than the unit they replace, but it would be cool.

And well it's 12:30 or later right now in a good portion of the world, so I guess I don't feel too bad for not talking about today's unit.

12agnar0k
Aug 28, 2010, 08:39 AM
Yeah someone said on these forumns I believe,
Theirs an old saying "if you want to train a longbowman, start with his grandfather"
I.e it's not something easy to pick up, Also the english longbow is not an easy weapon to fire, it takes about 4 times more pulling power than todays hunting bows, so you would need strong (and skilled) archers to fire them. They had the great range&power however and this should be represented in the unit.

So I think I would agree with you, +1 range +2 strength over cross bows (I think I already say this part as confirmed though I might be day dreaming, anyway it matches the CKN -2 strength in modification range, and many other units give like +2 strength too) Also an additional hammer cost because of the awesomeness of the longbow :D.

MisterBarca
Aug 28, 2010, 09:47 AM
Yeah someone said on these forumns I believe,
Theirs an old saying "if you want to train a longbowman, start with his grandfather"
I.e it's not something easy to pick up, Also the english longbow is not an easy weapon to fire, it takes about 4 times more pulling power than todays hunting bows, so you would need strong (and skilled) archers to fire them. They had the great range&power however and this should be represented in the unit.

So I think I would agree with you, +1 range +2 strength over cross bows (I think I already say this part as confirmed though I might be day dreaming, anyway it matches the CKN -2 strength in modification range, and many other units give like +2 strength too) Also an additional hammer cost because of the awesomeness of the longbow :D.

I think an extra range is over-powered. It'd be very difficult for melees to get to them.

Babri
Aug 28, 2010, 10:05 AM
It seems that Ottomans will have a very dominant army in the midgame.Yup ! Thats why they've a medicore UA (atleast it seems so). :(

Babri
Aug 28, 2010, 10:08 AM
The Sipahi is going to be one of the most awesome UU along with Janissary, Legion, Musketeer & the Elephants. :)

Rusty Edge
Aug 28, 2010, 10:19 AM
I think an extra range is over-powered. It'd be very difficult for melees to get to them.

What would be wierd to me is that they would have 3X the range of rifles and tanks.


I suppose if I were designing the game I would have tried for distinctions between range and indirect fire...

A crossbow or musket for example, would have range, but it would hit the 1st unit directly in front of it, unless they were on a hill. Longbows could shoot over, as the game mechanics for V currently exist.

Rifles and canons, and sailing ships would have longer range direct fire. Imperial mortars would have indirect fire.

Anyway, you get the idea. Tanks would be real bad axx's, not shorter range weapons than archers. [/Rant]

Lyoncet
Aug 28, 2010, 10:28 AM
I'd thought of the possibility of distinguishing between indirect fire units (archers, modern artillery, catapults, etc.) and those that can't do indirect fire but do have 2-3 range (muskets, rifles, etc.) that can't bombard a unit if another unit is in the way. But that seems rather confusing and very exploitable, since with roads/railroads you could have your 25 ranged strength 25 melee strength Riflemen run and shoot repeatedly, and still be able to take on any cavalry that managed to catch up without much problem unlike actual indirect fire units.

Still, it's probably moddable.

Polobo
Aug 28, 2010, 01:08 PM
wouldnt a bonus be referring to something positive and a penalty refer to something negative? i read it as they wont get any positive defensive modifiers but they will still get negative

I don't actually see a major problem with cavalry/mounted not receiving the flat-land penalty as the added manoevurability of mounted units should be able to take advantage of the open land to avoid enemy "ranged" attacks - i.e., they can overcome the lack of cover that the flat-land penalty represents.

Polobo
Aug 28, 2010, 01:09 PM
Any chance we can either:
A) get likes in the OP to the initial post for each UU
B) get a mod to split each UU into its own thread

?

Sciguy001
Aug 28, 2010, 01:33 PM
Any chance we can either:
A) get likes in the OP to the initial post for each UU
B) get a mod to split each UU into its own thread

?

I think you mean "links" instead of "likes". This is CFC not Facebook :)

KrikkitTwo
Aug 28, 2010, 01:39 PM
wouldnt a bonus be referring to something positive and a penalty refer to something negative? i read it as they wont get any positive defensive modifiers but they will still get negative

Bonus doesn't necessarily mean positive.. you could have a 'negative bonus' Civ V is the first time Negative Defensive Terrain Bonuses have been intordced in the normal game, but I would see it as just saying mounted units (in general) aren't affected by terrain defense bonuses.

DalekDavros
Aug 28, 2010, 03:56 PM
Bonus doesn't necessarily mean positive..

Actually, it does. (http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/bonus)

KrikkitTwo
Aug 28, 2010, 04:04 PM
Actually, it does. (http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/bonus)

a "negative bonus" would therefore be bad. An example being the Terrain bonus of -33% Strength to defenders in open terrain. The name of the value might imply something good, but it is only good if the number is positive.

Just like if your employer gave you a bonus of -100$, it wouldn't be good, but it would act exactly like a bonus of +100$

r_rolo1
Aug 28, 2010, 04:46 PM
You are talking about a Malus then ;) Bonus literally means "good thing" :p, while Malus is the exact oposite ( "bad thing", not "good non-thing" :D )

KrikkitTwo
Aug 28, 2010, 05:52 PM
You are talking about a Malus then ;) Bonus literally means "good thing" :p, while Malus is the exact oposite ( "bad thing", not "good non-thing" :D )

And do you think that civ developers would reword the phrase when the numbers work just the same (ie ignore this number in calculating strength...but only if the number is positive)

While it is possible that the 'ability' technically ignores positive modifications to defensive strength due to terrain, more likely it technically ignores all modifications to defensive strength due to terrain.

The first option is possible, but it would cause extreme problems with mounted units, and I wouldn't expect the designers to necessarily put in (bonuses or penalties) for the second option.

12agnar0k
Aug 28, 2010, 06:34 PM
Krikk,

A bonus is a positive advantage, like +25% defensive strength in rough terrain.
A pentalty is a negative disadvantage, like -33% defensive strength in open terrain.

Thiers no such thing as a "negative bonus", this by default would be a penatly.

To give a bonus, you must do just that, give something extra for a particular action, e.g +25% defensive strength for being in a rough tile.
To give a penatly, you have to do the opposite,, you have to take something away for a particular action, e.g -33% Defensive Strength for being in an open tile.

Hopefully you understand now. A "Negative Bonus" is incorrect terminology because in the case of a "Negative Bonus" you are giving a reduction, which is not correct English, you take away this reduction, you don't add it on.

The_J
Aug 28, 2010, 06:39 PM
We don't like grammar nazis here, so please stop at this point and proceed with the real topic.

ShaqFu
Aug 28, 2010, 07:48 PM
A malus is a hammer! Hasn't anyone else played Diablo 2...? ;)

I'm really busy today, so no time for big analysis, so I'll do the American Minuteman. Famous for their local advantage during the American Revolution, this unit gets a bonus to combat in friendly territory.

It's a Musketman that's good on defense. No brilliant generalship needed to unlock its potential here. I was at a convention all day, this UU is boring, and we might as well get it over with now.

Louis XXIV
Aug 28, 2010, 08:00 PM
lmao, yeah, that pretty much sums it up. If you were somehow perfectly fine with offense or defense before but are worried about being overrun as soon as gunpowder is invented, it's perfect for you. I suppose if you don't want any wars, it's also great for obsoleting any Longswordsmen you have and ensuring that you're entering the new era with all upgradable units (assuming LS aren't, they could very well be). I suppose it theoretically pairs with the UA in the sense that you can buy more tiles for the defensive bonus, but that's not all that special.

SuperSmash5
Aug 28, 2010, 08:32 PM
Cho-Ko-Nu:
This unit is rather interesting. Since I'm not sure how the combat works, I don't know how effective it will be. Is attacking twice with 10 strength the same as attacking once with 20 strength? Are ranged attacks weaker than melee attacks? Does using a ranged attack count as using a move? The way I see it, they could either be an amazing defensive unit, or a superpower attacking/seige unit like they were in Civ4.

Sipahi:
I don't know about the exact effects that the wording of the Sipahi's description means in terms of its defensive capabilities, but this unit is kinda weird to me. I'm not sure why everyone thinks it's so great. The main draw is it's additional movement point, but I don't really have a good concept in how much that would help in flanking maneuvers. The pillaging effect doesn't sound that attractive. I war to take cities, not to horse around and pillage stuff, pun not intended. And if you're dealing with pillaging the improvements of cities you won't be able to take, then you're going pretty deep into enemy territory where one pikeman could probably kill you. Of course, this could be a very annoying unit to play against if it slips past your line and starts mad pillaging all your hard earned improvements. My guess is that the AI will definitely make use of the pillaging ability.

Minuteman:
I guess if you insist, this unit isn't all that interesting. I'd say it's pretty useless unless you're in multiplayer. The way I see it, if the AI is invading you and you're struggling to the point where you need to rely on the bonus of a UU to fight them off, you've lost the game already. That, and they probably won't be too useful for the AI because with a slight tech lead, you could easily bring out Riflemen against them and tear right through their defense.

Lyoncet
Aug 28, 2010, 08:39 PM
I'm a little ambivalent on the Minuteman. We all saw how loathed Protective became as a trait in CIV since if you're on the defensive (i.e. your cities are being bombarded, which was the main strength of Protective) you're losing. Or at least not winning as much as you should be. :lol:

An defense oriented ability like Protective may be limited, but at least you can plan around having it. A defense oriented UU like the Minuteman (or at least a home-turf-oriented) is something that not only will be of very limited value in terms of leveraging the advantage, but also in terms of length of that advantage. You can't plan on having beefed-up defenses like you can with Protective, since you'll only have them from Gunpowder to Rifling (which, incidentally, are separated by one tech).

HOWEVER (and this is a big however), this may end up having a perfect synergy with America's SA. If Manifest Destiny actually has a marked impact on America's land-grab potential, which would likely result in having some decent holdings by cutting off adversaries' settlers, there's a chance that Minutemen could be instrumental as a holding measure in the perilous mid-game period of "I spent a ton of opportunity to grab this land and now I can't do anything until my cities get better." Of course, expansion doesn't seem to be as huge of an economic drain as it was in CIV, but it does seem like they're still keeping in some penalties for rampant land grabs to keep smaller empires from being totally nonviable. Being able to cheaply hold on to your territory when the neighbors get jealous of your vast holdings is probably exactly what the devs had in mind here. And depending on a few variables (how big is the bonus, how large will Renaissance America be, will the penalties for that expansion necessitate a holdout against other civs, etc.), they may be absolutely perfect for that role.


[edit]Come to think of it, the Protective trait and other defensive specials remind me of complaints a lot of Priests had in Burning Crusade-era arena: our best PvP ability requires us to die first. :lol:

Churchill's Hat
Aug 29, 2010, 07:41 AM
Minutemen aren't that bad. Yes, it has limited leverage, but if you can either attack or pillage like in CIV, than it's unlikely that you'll lose a lot of industry by fighting on the edge of your terrain. So, if you have someone fighting you, you let them come into your territory and beat their army with Minutemen. Then, you push them back into their territory and defeat them.

Then there's the other thing about CiV-- if you take a city, its tiles all become yours. Meaning you can grab a border city while at war, and suddenly the opponent is fighting at a huge disadvantage compared to you. The Minutemen will require a capable general, but they can be leveraged.

Lord Olleus
Aug 29, 2010, 07:56 AM
The problem is that they can be leveraged the most while you are losing the war. This means that they might stop you from losing a city, or make you lose a lot fewer cities, but will be very little help in making you gain cities. Thus, they are hard to leverage as they being in a position to do so generally requires you to be losing a defensive war. For the AI this is a great UU as it might dissuade the player from attacking them for an age or two, but for the human it hard to actively benefit from it by persuing a particularly strategy.

Thus, I rank it as one of the worst UUs.

KrikkitTwo
Aug 29, 2010, 08:20 AM
Well, it also depends on what constitutes "Friendly Territory"

Will the tiles that come with a conquered city constitute "Freindly Territory" if so...then the minuteman could be perfect...once you actualy take an eemy city, it becomes harder for them to take it back... good for beach head reinforcement.

12agnar0k
Aug 29, 2010, 08:26 AM
ofcourse, friendly territory is always any territory you own. (+ allied territory)

Babri
Aug 29, 2010, 08:40 AM
US strategy would be to grab land earlier on & then protect it. Minutemen would be useful for that purpose + these guys would be excellent for counterattacks. Let Napoleon or Monty attack you & once annihilating their main army start attacking their cities & quickly take some of them. Although they look weak as compared to Musketeers but still they'll have their own uses.

Thyrwyn
Aug 29, 2010, 09:03 AM
Well, it also depends on what constitutes "Friendly Territory"

Will the tiles that come with a conquered city constitute "Friendly Territory" if so...then the minuteman could be perfect...once you actually take an enemy city, it becomes harder for them to take it back... good for beach head reinforcement.I was actually just thinking this.

Louis XXIV
Aug 29, 2010, 11:27 AM
The thing is that, in the past, defensive UUs have been very useful. The problem with the Minuteman for me is that it's a fairly late defensive UU. If we were talking about a Spearman with combat bonuses in territory, it could be useful for letting you focus on building and expanding without having to build too many units. Once you've reached this period, you usually have a good sense of how many units you'll need to build to protect against neighbors and whether you need to supplement your current troops. It seems the best it could offer is to allow you to disband other units and scale back on military costs (or maybe launch them all in a final war while your new units protect your home).

Babri
Aug 29, 2010, 02:06 PM
I was comparing Minutemen with Musketeers. If Napoleon attacks you with Musketeers, will your Minutemen be able to hold out ? Is the bonus is going to be enough to beat 20 strength Musketeer with a 16 strength Minuteman in friendly territory ? :hmm:

Avatan
Aug 29, 2010, 02:29 PM
I was comparing Minutemen with Musketeers. If Napoleon attacks you with Musketeers, will your Minutemen be able to hold out ? Is the bonus is going to be enough to beat 20 strength Musketeer with a 16 strength Minuteman in friendly territory ?

The least they can do is a -25% malus :p, else this units would be kind of lame, and since it comes late and the american UA is not breathtaking, it is probable

Snoopaloop
Aug 29, 2010, 02:34 PM
Any chance we can either:
A) get likes in the OP to the initial post for each UU
B) get a mod to split each UU into its own thread

?

Either of these suggestions would help the readability of this thread a lot. I have been waiting for days for the 2nd UU discussion to start, and didn't realize it was on the same thread. (I'm all caught up now).

I think you mean "links" instead of "likes". This is CFC not Facebook :)

Sciguy, Polobo is referring to links like this in the first post of the features thread.

http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=372188

I don't see where you're going with the facebook comparison. CFC is obviously a much better site. :)

Louis XXIV
Aug 29, 2010, 02:40 PM
He was making fun of the typo, that's all. The post said "likes" instead of "links".

Babri
Aug 29, 2010, 03:51 PM
I don't see where you're going with the facebook comparison. CFC is obviously a much better site. :)
I totally agree with you. :thumbsup:

SuperSmash5
Aug 29, 2010, 04:29 PM
I can see the reason they wouldn't count the bonus in such a way, but it certainly makes more sense from a realistic standpoint to count "friendly territory" as territory in which your culture dominates, not based on whose controlling the tile. If the idea of the Minuteman is that he's supposed to be protecting his home turf, then he should certainly get a bonus if it involves retaking a captured city.

12agnar0k
Aug 29, 2010, 05:01 PM
Nope, home is what you own, if an enemy captured your land you no longer own it or have it in your posession, therefore a "friendly territory" bonus won't work.

KrikkitTwo
Aug 29, 2010, 05:04 PM
Nope, home is what you own, if an enemy captured your land you no longer own it or have it in your posession, therefore a "friendly territory" bonus won't work.

That is questionable, since you can control a city (and therefore its tiles) without 'owning' it (ie it always counts as a conquered city.)

Lyoncet
Aug 29, 2010, 06:24 PM
Nope, home is what you own, if an enemy captured your land you no longer own it or have it in your posession, therefore a "friendly territory" bonus won't work.

Source please. I agree that it's likely that "friendly territory" means "hexes with your culture," but what about cities that you just occupied? Is there a difference between liberated cities and conquored cities? Puppet states? I don't think we've seen anything that gives you any grounds to make such broad statements as unquestionable facts.

Stefanskantine
Aug 29, 2010, 06:36 PM
I'll reserve judgment on the minuteman, and trust in the devs and their wisdom to balance the game until I get the chance to play it for myself. Although if I were designing the game I would have gone with something like -50% hammer cost for the minuteman. This is in keeping with its defensive character (allowing you to rush build if you're caught in a surprise war) and fits with its historical namesake- they were able to be "ready in a minute."

As it stands now there are some definite possible uses as others have pointed out, but certainly not one of the UUs that really screams "awesome" just from looking at the stats. We'll have to wait and see.

Babri
Aug 29, 2010, 08:17 PM
I'll reserve judgment on the minuteman, and trust in the devs and their wisdom to balance the game until I get the chance to play it for myself. Although if I were designing the game I would have gone with something like -50% hammer cost for the minuteman. This is in keeping with its defensive character (allowing you to rush build if you're caught in a surprise war) and fits with its historical namesake- they were able to be "ready in a minute."

As it stands now there are some definite possible uses as others have pointed out, but certainly not one of the UUs that really screams "awesome" just from looking at the stats. We'll have to wait and see.
They should loose health in foreign territory then so you don't spam them to attack your enemies. :deal:

12agnar0k
Aug 29, 2010, 08:59 PM
I don't need to prove that a city when conquered is "friendly territory" thats obvious, if you wish to be concerned about the matter then thats your concern.

Kirkk, that won't be the case, plus "conquered cities" or "annexing" won't last forever, building a courthouse will remove the unhappiness penalty, also this annexed citizens anger at you has absolutely nothing to do with ownership and friendly territory, if you conquer a city then you own it, you are not borrowing it off someone else. Therefore all your cities are friendly territory, also allie territory will be firendly too.

KrikkitTwo
Aug 29, 2010, 09:42 PM
I don't need to prove that a city when conquered is "friendly territory" thats obvious, if you wish to be concerned about the matter then thats your concern.

Kirkk, that won't be the case, plus "conquered cities" or "annexing" won't last forever, building a courthouse will remove the unhappiness penalty, also this annexed citizens anger at you has absolutely nothing to do with ownership and friendly territory, if you conquer a city then you own it, you are not borrowing it off someone else. Therefore all your cities are friendly territory, also allie territory will be firendly too.

Conquered cities lasts Forever... a courthouse just reduces the penalty, it doesn't make a conquered city 'unconquered'

And the territory belongs to the city.

I personally would like it if "Conquered Cities" and their territory counted the same as as their civ did for you.. ie no healing if you were at war, etc.

Babri
Aug 30, 2010, 12:26 PM
What is the next UU to be discussed ? :scan:

City Raider
Aug 30, 2010, 01:42 PM
I actually think the Minuteman could be a great tool. Maybe not the best UU, but can certainly be used for conquering b/c once you capture a city your Minutemen now get a defensive bonus in defending your new city and surrounding land. Even if your enemy is sending an army to cut you off, once you flip that city all of a sudden your minutemen get the defensive bonus before they can attack.

I think the Americans are going to excel at expanding and then holding any land they do claim/conquer.

And they might be a good civ for the AI, due to the defensive capabilities. Might be a good rival to rush and try and get rid of early before gunpowder.

Calouste
Aug 30, 2010, 02:04 PM
The problem is that they can be leveraged the most while you are losing the war. This means that they might stop you from losing a city, or make you lose a lot fewer cities, but will be very little help in making you gain cities. Thus, they are hard to leverage as they being in a position to do so generally requires you to be losing a defensive war. For the AI this is a great UU as it might dissuade the player from attacking them for an age or two, but for the human it hard to actively benefit from it by persuing a particularly strategy.

Thus, I rank it as one of the worst UUs.

Fighting a defensive war doesn't mean you are losing. It can be very profitable, even in Civ4, to entice an easily provoked AI to send a stack into your territory and then annihilate it using your local movement advantages.

Ahriman
Aug 30, 2010, 02:09 PM
Will the tiles that come with a conquered city constitute "Freindly Territory"
Of course.

I can't even begin to understand how people would think otherwise.

Even if a city is a conquered city, its tiles that you own/control/can work are still clearly friendly territory (as opposed to neutral territory or enemy territory).

Why would anyone make it more complex than this?

12agnar0k
Aug 30, 2010, 02:57 PM
Yeah I tried to explain that to Krikk but he seems oblivious.

KrikkitTwo
Aug 30, 2010, 03:02 PM
Of course.

I can't even begin to understand how people would think otherwise.

Even if a city is a conquered city, its tiles that you own/control/can work are still clearly friendly territory (as opposed to neutral territory or enemy territory).

Why would anyone make it more complex than this?

Because there is a conquered city status and it would be a way to work in reistance.

If say the territory of a conquered city had the effect of neutral territory (instead of friendly to the conqueror and enemy to the original owner) Then that would
1. make sense from a realism standpoint
2. work to resist the 'snowball' from a gameplay standpoint.

Of course it is possible that something like that will happen while the city is in civil disorder.


I think that you are Probably right in that all tiles you can work are Friendly territory.
But, I'm not sure.

Louis XXIV
Aug 30, 2010, 03:16 PM
Fighting a defensive war doesn't mean you are losing. It can be very profitable, even in Civ4, to entice an easily provoked AI to send a stack into your territory and then annihilate it using your local movement advantages.

The problem with this is that you are dependent on the AI invading you. If you want to annihilate them, they might choose for you to attack them. In other words, the AI has a chance to not be stupid and could instead nerf your ability.

Ahriman
Aug 30, 2010, 03:29 PM
If say the territory of a conquered city had the effect of neutral territory (instead of friendly to the conqueror and enemy to the original owner) Then that would
1. make sense from a realism standpoint
2. work to resist the 'snowball' from a gameplay standpoint.

This would be a giant mess from a UI standpoint.
Your territory is your territory. Why would they make different bits of your territory have different status? That would be a terrible design.

Besides, you could manually reassign many of the tiles to any other cities that were within range.
Why would you want to encourage this kind of micromanagement?

Also, it wouldn't decrease snowballing to any particular extent (the gameplay effects are very minor).
And from a realism perspective; you think its realistic that the territory around a conquered city is *never* friendly territory, even centuries later?

Polobo
Aug 30, 2010, 03:57 PM
The Minuteman will make conquering and hold territory much easier as you will require fewer units to defend the homeland as well as to guard the newly captured territory.

Depending on whether bonuses/promotions apply to cities this will be even moreso.

Calouste
Aug 30, 2010, 04:08 PM
The problem with this is that you are dependent on the AI invading you. If you want to annihilate them, they might choose for you to attack them. In other words, the AI has a chance to not be stupid and could instead nerf your ability.

If they don't invade, that's fine with me, I'll just continue with my science or culture win.

IdiotsOpposite
Aug 30, 2010, 04:17 PM
So... uh... what's the next UU?

So far, I like what they did with the French Musketeers. The ones in Civ4 were kind of useless, TBH... the Musketman wasn't that great a unit in the first place, and although the Janissary and sometimes the Oromo Warrior could gain a great advantage, I never found a really good way to use the Musketeer.

KrikkitTwo
Aug 30, 2010, 04:39 PM
This would be a giant mess from a UI standpoint.
Your territory is your territory. Why would they make different bits of your territory have different status? That would be a terrible design.
Well you would need a clear distinction, and you did have that issue in civ 4 with cultural owners of a tile not necessarily being the actual owner

ANd they do have a UI, cities will have an indication that they are conquered...


Also, it wouldn't decrease snowballing to any particular extent (the gameplay effects are very minor).
And from a realism perspective; you think its realistic that the territory around a conquered city is *never* friendly territory, even centuries later?

Well the city is never 'unconquered' even centuries later.



THIS is important aside from our debate


Besides, you could manually reassign many of the tiles to any other cities that were within range.
Why would you want to encourage this kind of micromanagement?
If reassigning which city Works a tile actually reassignes the tile to that city, then there are problems already...regardless of friendly tiles.
Because then you have the micromanagement of assigning all tiles from a threatened city to other cities in your empire.

Babri
Aug 30, 2010, 05:51 PM
We city is never 'unconquered' even centuries later.
THIS is important aside from our debate

But centuries later it is assimilated. :assimilate:
And I think that in ciV there is no longer going to be a %age ratio of a tile like 70% Aztec 30% America etc & most probably tiles won't be flipping due to culture (except using Great Artist) so your point will become invalid. ;)

KrikkitTwo
Aug 30, 2010, 06:03 PM
But centuries later it is assimilated. :assimilate:
And I think that in ciV there is no longer going to be a %age ratio of a tile like 70% Aztec 30% America etc & most probably tiles won't be flipping due to culture (except using Great Artist) so your point will become invalid. ;)

Cities are NEVER assimilated

And tiles don't flip due to culture. The tile stays with the city, so if you can flip tiles between cities you control, that mechanic leads to annoying micromanagement of reasigning tiles from threatened cities.. so the enemy doesn't get those tiles.

Louis XXIV
Aug 30, 2010, 06:57 PM
Do you have any sources for any of that?

At a very minimum, I'm pretty sure it was mentioned that you can use a Great Artist's Culture Bomb to steal tiles from enemy cities (so tiles do flip due to culture). I'd like to see some confirmation for some of your other assertions, since they have a big impact on the game.

Lyoncet
Aug 30, 2010, 06:58 PM
Yeah I tried to explain that to Krikk but he seems oblivious.

Being oblivious and disagreeing are two entirely different things, no matter how many times you imply otherwise.

That aside, the question of what counts as friendly territory are valid in that there are a few times when a tile may be your color but not friendly. Like when you're systematically annihilating a populace, is that territory friendly? Completely legitimate question, and no saying "Yes I know it is" without having anything to back it up isn't a good answer. Especially if you follow it with "I did the math in my head so I won't show it to you but it's right."

I do agree though that the likely scenario is that if it's your color, it counts as friendly territory.

ShaqFu
Aug 30, 2010, 08:23 PM
What is the next UU to be discussed ? :scan:

Right now :goodjob: Thanks for the patience - these past few days have been utterly chaotic (I've driven ~600 miles, moved into a new place, had a weekend-long convention...) so I had to take a day off, which I thankfully built into the countdown.

Awesome idea on keeping track in the first post! I'll do that while I'm on my laptop right now (albeit tethered to an Android phone...).

Anyway, on to UU #22, for those sick of arguing about the definition of "friendly"! This time, we go from a UU that needs no great generalship to one that demands it....

Today's UU is the Japanese Samurai, another familiar face from Civ3 and Civ4. Previous incarnations have seen raw combat boosts and built-in first strikes; the Civ5 version is possibly stronger, but requires a bit more forethought to fully exploit. The newest Samurai comes with a combat bonus on open terrain on top of its already respectable 18 Longswordsman strength. To sweeten the deal further, Samurai combat victories have an increased chance to generate a Great General.

The Samurai is a UU that requires the Japanese player to plan and maneuver his units carefully. In hills/forests/cities, the unit becomes a generic Longswordsman and removes Japan's combat advantage. If a Japanese warmonger can choose where his battles take place, however, he has a tremendous combat edge - namely, what may be the strongest unit of its era. Granted, we don't know the precise bonus, but I'm certain it'll be at least +20% (for 21.6 strength). That's enough to take on a Lancer (22) with fair odds, steamroll Musketmen, and do horrible things to unprotected Crossbowmen. The only real downside to all this is that it requires open terrain; if your enemy outmaneuvers you and brings the fight to the hills/forests, your fancy UUs turn generic. To get the most out of your Samurai, you'll have to get your opponent to face you on your terms, with a tremendous reward in store.

The second ability? If you can get the enemy to face you in the open, well, one great general deserves another :goodjob:

CleverFool
Aug 30, 2010, 08:36 PM
I think considering that terrain plays such a large role, and most players/AI would probably seek it out as much as possible, the Samurai might be somewhat limited in direct frontal attacks. I suppose you could always ignore these defended areas and force them to attack you on open plains. I could see the Samurai ranging ahead towards the cities while other units mop up the defended areas.

Combined with the UA of Japan I could see this being a very strong unit.

IdiotsOpposite
Aug 30, 2010, 08:38 PM
It sounds like a good unit, provided you aren't playing a map with hills set on HIGH. This would be particularly good in defending floodplains... or attacking grassland... or just about anywhere that isn't a hill or a forest.

In addition, using them gets you great generals faster, and who doesn't like faster great generals?

I can definitely see a use for this unit in my future of CiV. A good unit in my humble and likely about to be destroyed opinion.

bjbrains
Aug 30, 2010, 08:43 PM
The samurai definitely seems like a UU with a lot of potential. The longswordsman is already a very powerful unit for its time period, so giving it a free promotion and an increased Great General spawn rate should make for a good UU.

BTW Shaq, it's not a generic "combat bonus on open terrain", but rather a free Shock 1 promotion, which gives a +20% bonus. What shock 2 does could be a big influence on Samurai power level.

KrikkitTwo
Aug 30, 2010, 08:50 PM
A really significant factor in this is the Penalty for defending in open terrain.

which means
Samurai -> Longsword in open Terrain: Sam+ Longsword- (Samurai wins massively)
Longsword->Sam in open Terrain: Sam+- Longsword (an ~even battle)

So Samurai want to be IN the hills/Forests, and Attacking the open terrain (like everyone)

But Samurai are
1. much better when they catch the enemy in open terrain
2. can survive if they got caught in the open terrain (probably because they just attacked and killed a unit there.

This means that when invading Renaisance/mideval Japan you Must stick to hills/forest as much as possible.

ilikepies
Aug 30, 2010, 08:57 PM
The Samurai looks excellent. Longswordsman are the basic infantry of the medieval era, so I think Japan will really dominate here.

First of all, Japan has Bushido, making its units not suffer as much from ranged bombardments or damage in battle, so you can continue to sweep across the terrain. Second, you get a bonus on open terrain, and your enemy gets a penalty on open terrain, so as long as you maneuver so you don't have to attack hills and such, and try to pull your enemies army around, you can run in and chop them into knight-sushi as soon as they get off their hills or forests.

However, against the Iroquois they will not be effective.

The great general bonus is nice but doesn't have much of a combat effect. Still, the rest of the unit is great.

Polobo
Aug 30, 2010, 08:58 PM
Hard to really how you'd leverage the unit. Its more a matter of just doing the same things you'd do with a normal longsword but better. You'd be able to make some marches more direct than otherwise, since being on flatland would be less of a risk. But, the enemy is likely to be forcing you onto flatland anyway (if you are attacking them) so the difference will be minimal.

On defense, if you can suck the enemy into your own flatland you'd be able to more easily wipe them out.

If it is indeed a Shock I promotion that they get then the other promotions that are opened up are important. The downside to it being the promotion to a middle-ages unit is that you are likely to have a number of warriors/spears already with Shock I and so the promotion would be wasted (whereas a unit bonus would not be).

Since you can move 2 tiles over flatland as well, and can absorb damage better (maybe...), there is a slightly greater opportunity to get behind enemy lines with a raiding force and try to take out key resources.

Lyoncet
Aug 30, 2010, 08:59 PM
Perhaps the default option to generate starts favorable to each particular civ will start Japan's closest neighbors in large, open tracts. :devil:

Polobo
Aug 30, 2010, 09:03 PM
The great general bonus is nice but doesn't have much of a combat effect. Still, the rest of the unit is great.

Really depends on how they implement the "greater chance". Is it going to be independent of the normal (assuming experience based like in Civ4) based method of getting a general or will it simply cause each XP to count double (or some other multiple) towards the generation of a great general?

The combat bonus a general provides is quite good (though whether they stack we have no idea) and the citadel is not bad, especially during the early stages of conquest where you can use the help in defending the newly conquered territory; or just to cover your other flank while you focus on the main front.

Boshi
Aug 30, 2010, 10:24 PM
Another thing that minutemen could be very useful for is defending friendly city states, as long as allied city states count as friendly territory. If you're doing a strategy that depends on the city states then I think that having a good UU for giving them a boost could be useful.

Babri
Aug 31, 2010, 05:22 AM
Cities are NEVER assimilated

Then why do you call Constantinople as Istanbul & why was Istanbul given to Turkey after WW1. According to your logic a Byzantine Empire should have been revived instead of giving those territories to Turkey because Constantinople was never assimilated. :p

KrikkitTwo
Aug 31, 2010, 07:47 AM
Then why do you call Constantinople as Istanbul & why was Istanbul given to Turkey after WW1. According to your logic a Byzantine Empire should have been revived instead of giving those territories to Turkey because Constantinople was never assimilated. :p

I'm talking about in Civ V not in Real life.

Me,myself,and,I
Aug 31, 2010, 09:26 AM
No, because eventually culture becomes 100% that of the conquerer.

Louis XXIV
Aug 31, 2010, 09:49 AM
I'm talking about in Civ V not in Real life.

Well, think about previous Civ games. I don't see the need for a change the concept of assimilation this time around.

Snoopaloop
Aug 31, 2010, 10:09 AM
Thanks for the links on the first page ShaqFu!

Do we know the game mechanics on how the great general spawns? If its like Civ4, would the Samurai basically have its own Imperialistic trait, just giving it a certian % extra toward the GG pool?

KrikkitTwo
Aug 31, 2010, 12:55 PM
No, because eventually culture becomes 100% that of the conquerer.

That's in Civ IV

in Civ 5 the city identity never changes.

The culture produced by London will take unoccupied tiles and give them to the city of London. (which makes the tiles part of whatever empire controls London)

The culture produced by London also goes to spend on Social Policies of whoever controls London.

But unless the English control London, London is a conquered city.. and whoever controls London gets extra unhappiness... this does not change with time. (buildings can change the unhappiness, but they can't change the fact that London belongs to the English.)

DalekDavros
Aug 31, 2010, 01:59 PM
The amount of deforestation will be a significant factor. If the Civ IV "no more trees on the planet" style is still a good strategy, there should be lots of flatland available.

Polobo: Why would we give all/many of our units a Shock I promotion if we knew it'd be wasteful when Samurai come around? Especially if the majority of combat will be taking place at strategic locations, I'm guessing that upgrades mitigating/enhancing the defense bonuses of hills/forests will be more useful for the earlier units anyway.

ShaqFu
Aug 31, 2010, 02:10 PM
BTW Shaq, it's not a generic "combat bonus on open terrain", but rather a free Shock 1 promotion, which gives a +20% bonus. What shock 2 does could be a big influence on Samurai power level.

Good point. If the Samurai has a good upgrade path (although I can't think of what, as it's the last Iron infantry) then the upgraded units keeps Shock I. It could be a UU ability that keeps on giving, all the way up to the GDR :D

KrikkitTwo
Aug 31, 2010, 02:14 PM
Good point. If the Samurai has a good upgrade path (although I can't think of what, as it's the last Iron infantry) then the upgraded units keeps Shock I. It could be a UU ability that keeps on giving, all the way up to the GDR :D

Well I'd imagine the Iron Infantry, 'spears' and bows will all upgrade to Riflemen->->Mechanized Infantry

Xoatl_169
Aug 31, 2010, 02:43 PM
I usually go to these forums when i play a civ game/mods but a few months ago i stopped and preordered civ 5 in order to not make the wait agonizing, but its 20ish days away and i can't help myself but to come back, oh and i favorited this thread i love shaqfu's analysis on the UUs, shouldn't there be one today?!?1

Well I'd imagine the Iron Infantry, 'spears' and bows will all upgrade to Riflemen->->Mechanized Infantry

Yeah this is a good point, especially the units one or two upgrade jumps away from the samurai. Remember the Japanese had people called gun samurai`s, or atleast im pretty sure, the extra buff during the transition could reflect this, however i don`t see your units lasting that long to get to mechanized infantry without dieing. But i don`t think that anything can upgrade to the GDR.

Calouste
Aug 31, 2010, 02:43 PM
I'm talking about in Civ V not in Real life.

Well, the Scots lost their independence 300 years ago and they still haven't come to terms with that ;)

KrikkitTwo
Aug 31, 2010, 02:56 PM
Yeah this is a good point, especially the units one or two upgrade jumps away from the samurai. Remember the Japanese had people called gun samurai`s, or atleast im pretty sure, the extra buff during the transition could reflect this, however i don`t see your units lasting that long to get to mechanized infantry without dieing. But i don`t think that anything can upgrade to the GDR.

I don't see why... since units don't automatically die in combat anymore, it is possible your initial Warrior will survive the whole game (with appropriate upgrades.)

They have stated they want you to Identify with the unit's better, so they should survive better.

Xoatl_169
Aug 31, 2010, 03:07 PM
I don't see why... since units don't automatically die in combat anymore, it is possible your initial Warrior will survive the whole game (with appropriate upgrades.)

They have stated they want you to Identify with the unit's better, so they should survive better.

I guess its just me, id rather see my warriors fight and die for me. I feel good pushing on without healing,having many casualities but being victorious. Saves turns and makes it seem like they died for a good cause, more gold for me :evil:

Lyoncet
Aug 31, 2010, 03:24 PM
The amount of deforestation will be a significant factor. If the Civ IV "no more trees on the planet" style is still a good strategy, there should be lots of flatland available.

A few different devs have commented on how they didn't like the "deforest EVERYTHING" approach that CIV encouraged, so chopping bonuses have been cut down drastically (but still exist IIRC), lumber mills are available earlier (machinery), and you get +2 research from working forest tiles if the city has a University (cause… students study harder if the campus has an arboretum?) So it looks like mass early deforestation isn't going to be the be-all-end-all strategy it was in almost every case in CIV, and a few previewers have confirmed that.

KrikkitTwo
Aug 31, 2010, 03:29 PM
A few different devs have commented on how they didn't like the "deforest EVERYTHING" approach that CIV encouraged, so chopping bonuses have been cut down drastically (but still exist IIRC), lumber mills are available earlier (machinery), and you get +2 research from working forest tiles if the city has a University (cause… students study harder if the campus has an arboretum?) So it looks like mass early deforestation isn't going to be the be-all-end-all strategy it was in almost every case in CIV, and a few previewers have confirmed that.

The +2 research is just Jungle.

I'd imagine that deforestation is only worthwhile in the first few cities, and in cities that you want to be food/gold focused.

Lyoncet
Aug 31, 2010, 03:34 PM
The +2 research is just Jungle.

Oh right, my bad on that. Still, I agree in that it looks like the first few cities could benefit from limited chopping, but it really seems to me that the hammers you get from chopping are more of a condolence of "hey, you had to spend 5 precious turns on your worker (since they can't stack now) just getting rid of that forest so you could put a farm there. Here's a few hammers for your troubles" than anything else, but, like always, we'll have to see.

Schalke 04
Aug 31, 2010, 03:46 PM
Especially if the majority of combat will be taking place at strategic locations, I'm guessing that upgrades mitigating/enhancing the defense bonuses of hills/forests will be more useful for the earlier units anyway.

That's a good point.

Moreover I'm wondering what happens to a japanese Swordsmen when it gets a Gold-Upgrade to a Samurai. What if this Swordsmen Unit already has won a lot of battles and gained a lot experience. Maybe this Unit already got a Shock promotion...?

Would the unique ability of a Samurai be wasted in this case? :confused:

KrikkitTwo
Aug 31, 2010, 04:05 PM
That's a good point.

Moreover I'm wondering what happens to a japanese Swordsmen when it gets a Gold-Upgrade to a Samurai. What if this Swordsmen Unit already has won a lot of battles and gained a lot experience. Maybe this Unit already got a Shock promotion...?

Would the unique ability of a Samurai be wasted in this case? :confused:

It'll still get the extra Great General generation, but I would tend to think the "Free Shock" would be wasted".

MisterBarca
Aug 31, 2010, 04:08 PM
That's a good point.

Moreover I'm wondering what happens to a japanese Swordsmen when it gets a Gold-Upgrade to a Samurai. What if this Swordsmen Unit already has won a lot of battles and gained a lot experience. Maybe this Unit already got a Shock promotion...?

Would the unique ability of a Samurai be wasted in this case? :confused:

Then don't give them a Shock promotion? :)

Lord Olleus
Aug 31, 2010, 04:17 PM
In all probability, yes. This is what happens in civ 4 and it would be strange to make it work another way.

Note: It would still get the fast Great General Generation bonus.

Schalke 04
Aug 31, 2010, 04:50 PM
Then don't give them a Shock promotion? :)

Well, that's obviously true... :lol:

However, this somehow is a limitation for a player who chooses Japan at a civ and deserves at least to be mentioned in a discussion about strategic implications of UUs.

However, I hope that the free promotion counts not just for produced units, but for updated as well.

Louis XXIV
Aug 31, 2010, 04:54 PM
But unless the English control London, London is a conquered city.. and whoever controls London gets extra unhappiness... this does not change with time. (buildings can change the unhappiness, but they can't change the fact that London belongs to the English.)

Once again, what's your source for this?

KrikkitTwo
Aug 31, 2010, 04:56 PM
Once again, what's your source for this?

Data on the courthouse. and its function, and the unhappiness from conquered cities.

12agnar0k
Aug 31, 2010, 05:14 PM
Krikk, thats not true, London belongs to whoever owns it, its the original population, the English living thier that are creating unhappiness and longing to be back with their country, unitl a courthouse threatens them with jail if they dont abide by law and order, London is not under ownership of England unless England controls London.

KrikkitTwo
Aug 31, 2010, 05:46 PM
Krikk, thats not true, London belongs to whoever owns it, its the original population, the English living thier that are creating unhappiness and longing to be back with their country, unitl a courthouse threatens them with jail if they dont abide by law and order, London is not under ownership of England unless England controls London.

Well I was using belongs in a different sense

Your way works better for explanation.

The Citizens of London are Always English... and if London doesn't belong to England, they will be unhappy. Unless a courthouse is there.

Louis XXIV
Aug 31, 2010, 06:22 PM
Data on the courthouse. and its function, and the unhappiness from conquered cities.

As I understand it, the information we have is that the courthouse reduces conquered city unhappiness. This doesn't say that this unhappiness doesn't reduce naturally. To assume that is a logical leap based on information we don't have (so there's no reason to act so confidently as if this is confirmed).

KrikkitTwo
Aug 31, 2010, 06:54 PM
As I understand it, the information we have is that the courthouse reduces conquered city unhappiness. This doesn't say that this unhappiness doesn't reduce naturally. To assume that is a logical leap based on information we don't have (so there's no reason to act so confidently as if this is confirmed).

It was indicated somewhere else that you can't 'assimilate' cities

Louis XXIV
Aug 31, 2010, 07:01 PM
That's what I'm trying to remember. I usually have a good memory for these kinds of things and I simply don't remember this outside of people's comments in threads. If you can remember where you read it, it would be awesome. If not, don't worry about it, the game's coming out fairly soon either way.

Schalke 04
Aug 31, 2010, 07:16 PM
It was indicated somewhere else that you can't 'assimilate' cities

Really? I don't like this concept.

First point (Realism): Many cities have been assimilated in history. One has mentioned the example of Byzantium/Constantinople/Istanbul. I am sure we could find many more examples. However, we have good examples even in younger history: the complex nature of european history for example, has defined some cities in regions like Silesia or Pomerania as "german", ie "Gdansk" (German: "Danzig"). No citizens of Gdansk, of Poland or Germany would define this City as German. This process took place in only a couple of decades.

Second Point (Gameplay): At least in Civ III (I don't know Civ IV enough) there was a "conversion" of citizens over time. I think it is a good concept. Why should the citizens of London remain british over (lets say) 2000 years, if the city was annexed by another Civ?

Eagle Pursuit
Aug 31, 2010, 07:18 PM
I think he's right though. I remember seeing somewhere that you can't "flip" cities through culture.

Louis XXIV
Aug 31, 2010, 07:20 PM
You can't culture flip in the sense that cities won't revolt and join your side. That doesn't mean a conquered city won't stop being unhappy because they were conquered at some point.

Eagle Pursuit
Aug 31, 2010, 07:25 PM
I think we'll have to chalk that little nuance up as "currently unknown" and move on then

ShaqFu
Aug 31, 2010, 07:48 PM
Sorry for the late post - again, moving in, busy day, no real Internet, etc.

I really like the jungle bonus from the University, since it makes Jungle worthwhile for once. It was easily the most obnoxious terrain type in Civ4 because it did nothing before chopping, required Iron Working and a lot of turns to clear, and was usually on otherwise awesome land. Nothing was worse than settling a river tile with 3 gems and 2 banana nearby, then watching it do nothing for 400 years as your workers cleared jungle.

21 days left! Or, three weeks, so for today we'll do a UU that only takes three techs: the Egyptian War Chariot. An excellent ancient UU in Civ3 and Civ4, the tradition continues with Civ5 - the War Chariot gets one extra movement point per turn over Chariot Archers, tying it for the swiftest ancient unit. Granted, a UU is worthless if you don't have its required resource; thankfully, the War Chariot does not require a Horse to build.

(Don't ask how they move - slaves, sphinxes, wood horses, magic, fear of the Pharaoh....)

The War Chariot will be the master of the early maneuvers. With a staggering 5 movement, this UU can dance around any non-Greek army, striking out of seemingly nowhere with its 6-strength arrows. The Egyptian player can beeline The Wheel (don't see that line every day...), produce War Chariots, and show up on a rival capital's doorstep before they can produce meaningful defenses. If a rival civ doesn't have frontier units to establish ZoC, Egypt can fire at his capital or pillage early improvements one or two turns after declaring war. Three War Chariots should suffice to take down any one unit (with 2 fires and an attack), and the ability to do so, so rapidly, will make a difference in rushes. The lack of resource requirements is a tremendous help to the Egyptian rusher, as there is no constraint on number or availability of their UUs. Get The Wheel, pick your target, and start charging!

The main downside of the War Chariot is how soon it obsoletes; it's still a mounted unit, so Spearmen will give it headaches, and it's only one or two tech advances from far stronger units. Since The Wheel is such a direct beeline (Agriculture->Animal Husbandry->The Wheel), a rush will have to forgo the luxury of Barracks/Stables, and non-flat territory will give the War Chariot pause (literally). Still, this UU, in capable hands, should be the main force behind more than a few 3000 BC conquests.

Eagle Pursuit
Aug 31, 2010, 07:55 PM
The War Chariot really excites me. I hope there's a promotion that allows it to move after its ranged attack. That would be so badass.

Stefanskantine
Aug 31, 2010, 08:48 PM
Is it known for certain whether a ranged attack ends your turn or not? If it does end your turn, the war chariot is still a very good unit. If it does not end your turn, then kiting with war chariots would be powerful in the extreme.

I think it will still be useful even after better units are available. Declare war, and rush your chariots in to take hills deep into enemy territory on the same turn you declare war. Since your opponents won't have roads spammed everywhere, you will have a few turns of covering fire from hilltops for your advancing ground troops, and then plenty of manuevarability to get your chariots out of harm's way when spearmen show up.

Not much synergy with the UA, but that can be viewed as either a good or a bad thing. As an egyptian player you can look at your starting area and then have the flexibility to pursue one of two strategies: peaceful monument builder, or early offensive rusher.

Snoopaloop
Aug 31, 2010, 09:42 PM
Maybe with Egypts UA bonus to wonder production, an early wheel bee-line war-chariot expansion, will still leave them with time to re-group and catch back up wonder techs. Then using the increased wonder build % to snatch an early wonder (or a few depending on difficulty level). Maybe not though, just a quick thought.

12agnar0k
Sep 01, 2010, 04:42 AM
As I understand it, the information we have is that the courthouse reduces conquered city unhappiness. This doesn't say that this unhappiness doesn't reduce naturally. To assume that is a logical leap based on information we don't have (so there's no reason to act so confidently as if this is confirmed).

This is not the case, "Unhappiness will not decrease over time" is the correct statement, it was confirmed by some interview, that the only way to get rid of the unhappiness caused by annexing was to build a courthouse.

Is it known for certain whether a ranged attack ends your turn or not?

Yes this is the case, when a unit makes it's attack it will consume all movement points that remain, in the case of the mounted unit, it has a special ability that allows it to move one hex after attacking, will this apply to chariots?, unknown, but I wouldn't think so, chariots aren't as mobile as a horseman, the question would be for the Unique Unit that is a ranged horseback unit, I think it might even be a camel archer as apposed to a horse, will this unit be able to ranged shoot and move 1 hex afterwards, if this is the case then this will be a powerful unit :D.

Lyoncet
Sep 01, 2010, 11:57 AM
The War Chariot really excites me. I hope there's a promotion that allows it to move after its ranged attack. That would be so badass.

I don't think we've seen any such promotion, but that's not to say it doesn't exist of course.

From how it looks to me, the War Chariot is going to be the new Quechua, although that honor may end up going to the Jaguar. Still, be-lining Wheel (lol :crazyeye:) isn't going to be too hard, and having a 5-move resourceless Chariot (:eek:) at that early in the game could be devastating. And since they're ranged, they take a little of the oomph out of spearmen, since they can get in their first vollies without reprisal.

Also of note: it looks like the Greeks will be pretty impervious to Egypt, more or less. Having an extra 2 strength on their spearman will help them make quick work of the Chariots unless they manage to swarm all the Hoplites down with sufficient numbers (which will be tough at a 3 strength disadvantage). Plus, unlike normal Horsemen, Companion Cavalry can keep pace with them and have an enormous strength advantage (3 melee 6 ranged vs 14 melee :eek:) and only require one more tech to get.

Plus, Monument Builders isn't going to help much if someone comes by, counters your advantages, and crushes you in the ancient age. So if I were an Egyptian player and ran into an early Alexander, I'd be nervous.

I wonder if that was intentional. :lol:

Schuesseled
Sep 01, 2010, 12:09 PM
I don't think we've seen any such promotion, but that's not to say it doesn't exist of course.

From how it looks to me, the War Chariot is going to be the new Quechua, although that honor may end up going to the Jaguar. Still, be-lining Wheel (lol :crazyeye:) isn't going to be too hard, and having a 5-move resourceless Chariot (:eek:) at that early in the game could be devastating. And since they're ranged, they take a little of the oomph out of spearmen, since they can get in their first vollies without reprisal.

Also of note: it looks like the Greeks will be pretty impervious to Egypt, more or less. Having an extra 2 strength on their spearman will help them make quick work of the Chariots unless they manage to swarm all the Hoplites down with sufficient numbers (which will be tough at a 3 strength disadvantage). Plus, unlike normal Horsemen, Companion Cavalry can keep pace with them and have an enormous strength advantage (3 melee 6 ranged vs 14 melee :eek:) and only require one more tech to get.

Plus, Monument Builders isn't going to help much if someone comes by, counters your advantages, and crushes you in the ancient age. So if I were an Egyptian player and ran into an early Alexander, I'd be nervous.

I wonder if that was intentional. :lol:

There's a ranged promotion called mobility.

Babri
Sep 01, 2010, 03:18 PM
There's a ranged promotion called mobility.
Then that would be must for War Chariots especially when facing Alexander the Warmonger. :p

Eagle Pursuit
Sep 01, 2010, 03:29 PM
The War Chariots won't be obsoleted by Horsemen like Chariot Archers are. They have a ranged attack instead of melee and they don't compete for a resource that will still be fairly hard to come by when you only have a handful of cities in the beginning. There will actually be a bit of synergy there.

Think of a Horseman/War Chariot high speed task force. Brutal.

Ahriman
Sep 01, 2010, 03:32 PM
They have a ranged attack instead of melee
Chariot archers also have a ranged attack.

But yes, it would be much easier to create a war chariot/horseman force, since they don't compete for a resource.

Eagle Pursuit
Sep 01, 2010, 03:42 PM
Chariot archers also have a ranged attack.

But yes, it would be much easier to create a war chariot/horseman force, since they don't compete for a resource.

Right, I meant in contrast to the horseman not Chariot archer in that detail. A mixed bag of attacks that can reach distant places in a hurry is very cool.

KrikkitTwo
Sep 01, 2010, 04:29 PM
The point is that Horsemen don't necessarily obsolete Chariot Archers either.

But the 'no competition for a resource' is important.

ShaqFu
Sep 01, 2010, 07:34 PM
Excellent points on combining War Chariots with Horsemen; I hadn't considered using them as a very fast two-line formation, moving at twice the speed and a bit more power than a traditional Swordsman/Archer front. You can try to do that without the War Chariot, but resource competition's going to be a huge crunch in the ancient era, when you'll only really have one or two resource tiles. A 4/4 line will hurt approximately twice as much as a 2/2 line, or it may push you over their defense threshold and hurt infinitely more. :goodjob:

For the 20th day left, we'll go from a a unit that embraces maneuverability to one that sacrifices it: the Siamaese Naresuan's Elephant. This unit asks the Siam player a simple question: at what price power? This unit has some truly impressive bonuses, starting with 4 (!) extra strength (22) over Knights (18), a bonus against mounted units, the ability to move after attacking, and to top it off, requires no resource.

So, it's the best comparative UU in the game, right? So far, so good, but it comes with a hefty penalty: one less movement point than Knights.

This might be the most interesting UU to discuss because of its penalty to movement. Whereas other UUs open new combat strategies (Legions and frontier expansion, Foreign Legion and forward defenses, etc), Naresuan's Elephant closes them in exchange for sheer strength. Each pre-industrial age's units follow a pattern: one weak ranged infantry, one strong heavy infantry, and one swift mounted unit. The medieval Siamese instead lose their swift cavalry in exchange for a second heavy infantry. Thus, while the Elephant may be incredibly powerful in combat, the loss of one movement point robs the Siamese general of his quick mounted troops. Naresuan's Elephants will tear through Knights...but the Knights can outmaneuver them all era long. No flanking, no behind-the-lines pillaging, no emergency support...the Siam leader will have to seriously adjust his operations around the limitations of the Elephant. The general that can do so, however, will be richly rewarded: in terms of sheer strength, nothing beats Elephants until Riflemen*, three tech levels away. Chivalry is a really bad tech to beeline (lots of two-requirement techs), but a rush towards it can make Siam the lord of the battlefield for centuries. If your combat plans don't require swift Knights, you can rule with Siam. If they do...you're in for a rough time, as entire strategies become non-viable.

Father Governs Children is nice, but with this UU, it becomes Elephants Govern You :goodjob:

(Does anyone else feel taunted by the "move after attacking" ability? Unless it's an invitation to promote the UU with Mobility...)

*Lancers have the same strength, but Lancers are mounted, so the Elephant's bonus kicks in.

Eagle Pursuit
Sep 01, 2010, 07:40 PM
I think the elephants will do nicely in a pinch. Literally. If you have something to back your enemy against, like say a mountain range, a penninsula, one of your cities, or some of your troops fortified in hills or forests, it negates their movement advantage. The elephants will be great on snakey continents and islands where manueverability is limited.

CleverFool
Sep 01, 2010, 07:45 PM
Egyptian Chariot: This is an extremely interesting unit for the Egyptians, imho more than anything becase of the potential shoot and retreat thing they have going on there. That and you can get them out extremely early, which means that you can build a decent empire from the start, clear out some rivals, etc. What you can then do is sit back and start to pump out those wonders they're so renowned for in the following bunch of years. Yes, that might include the Pyramids, but the early gains made with the chariot should really help in the long run.

As a result I see the Egyptians taking advantage of one of the best units towards the beginning only to play fairly peacefully the rest of the game. Real interesting mechanic there, so much so that I'm getting tempted to play the Egyptians right off the bat!

Naresuan's Elephant: Seems like less of a finesse units compared to many others we've covered. I see it as throw them towards your enemy who then proceeds to get trampled into the mud (literally :lol:). I think too that with the option to attack and then retreat you can save them when injured and allow your army to maintain a number of veteran units. Perhaps the most dangerous thing is that they require no resources; you can just keep pumping them out until as someone else said riflemen enter the game. And I'll gladly let the horsemen gain the flanks, with a 25% bonus (plus strength to boot!) the elephant can take on all comers. Just point them at what you want to die, and, well, they should.

Eagle Pursuit
Sep 01, 2010, 07:51 PM
Hmm, I never thought of the vs. mounted bonus being used for defense.

Put em on the flanks and among your melees and go slowly over anything in your path. Its a Juggarnaut unit.

Wacky_Warrior
Sep 01, 2010, 11:51 PM
First, a brief trip back in time...I really like the minuteman. With one unit per tile, decent terrain and the right promotions, a pair of minutemen can stop a major army at a good choke point. That could be fun and useful. Especially if you're rebuilding your economy after a bout of pointy-stick expansion.

Regarding Naresuan's elephant, just wow. :goodjob: I expect they will do a wonderful job against a city, and will double nicely as retribution for any units stupid enough to get too close. Haven't thought up any really good specialty cases for this one yet, but you never know.

Stefanskantine
Sep 02, 2010, 12:10 AM
Put em on the flanks and among your melees and go slowly over anything in your path. Its a Juggarnaut unit.

This is it I think. Instead of a main force of longswords and pikes, you can do longswords and elephants. Really more of an uber, city-assaulting pikeman replacement than a knight replacement.

Lyoncet
Sep 02, 2010, 12:44 AM
Egyptian Chariot: This is an extremely interesting unit for the Egyptians, imho more than anything becase of the potential shoot and retreat thing they have going on there.

Know we're technically off the War Chariot now, but figured I'd point out that, at least according to Arioch's site, War Chariots cannot attack after moving. The only ranged unit listed as being able to do so is the Camel Archer. It's possible that a promotion exists that allows movement after attacking, but the War Chariot wouldn't get that much more benefit from this than a normal chariot (apart from being more of them, and being able to get one tile further away).

Babri
Sep 02, 2010, 04:32 AM
Naresuan's Elephants are going to be great. They would crush everybody with their sheer strength. I like that. :) It would be an interesting scenario when Siam & Arabia would be at war with each other. Both have resource less units & are going to be great. Naresuan's Elephants will form the front line while Camel Archers will fire from behind.

12agnar0k
Sep 02, 2010, 04:45 AM
The elephant will basically be just another infantry yup, just have your line of infantry and archers move slowly against your enemies, the line will not crumble, all enemy units will crumple beneath the Elephants 2 movement charge, and then you can after attacking move another hex, which is cool :D.

Schuesseled
Sep 02, 2010, 06:55 AM
I think that the best thing about this unit is that its basically a super pikeman, except its also weak against regular pikeman. But this unit will completley replace pikeman, for some reallly good anti-horse units, but you only have regular horsemen as fast moving mounted units.

Semmel
Sep 02, 2010, 08:00 AM
That moove after attack is really really strong. If you have a line of 2 elephants, you can let the first line attack, swap with the second line and let the second line attack again. This makes it the ideal choke point buster. If you have open terrain, you can just build a lot of them, with no extra resource required. Strongest unit by far, unflankable, unattackable, unstoppable. I think its a great UU. And it requires the enemy to put his pikes in the frontline which can be used as a great trap if Siam has some mixed in.

MisterBarca
Sep 02, 2010, 08:14 AM
That moove after attack is really really strong. If you have a line of 2 elephants, you can let the first line attack, swap with the second line and let the second line attack again. This makes it the ideal choke point buster. If you have open terrain, you can just build a lot of them, with no extra resource required. Strongest unit by far, unflankable, unattackable, unstoppable. I think its a great UU. And it requires the enemy to put his pikes in the frontline which can be used as a great trap if Siam has some mixed in.

Even if it is "weaker" against Pikemen, it still has greater strength than a Pikeman, even with the modified strength v. mounted (22 v. 20, I assume). It appears to be a very strong union at least on paper. But we don't know how central mobility will be with the new hex-based 1 UPT system.

KrikkitTwo
Sep 02, 2010, 10:59 AM
The Elephants seem interesting because instead of replacing the Knight, they are effectively replacing the Longsword+Pike (because they are better than both of those).

Siam may be able to use them as a Juggernaut.

The vulnerability will be to Crossbows/Trebuchets. Since Siam loses its Flankers, the Elephant will have to go Straight through the frontline instead of trying to go around it. The Strength and the Move after attacking helps with that (2 lines of Elephants sounds like a good idea)

Ahriman
Sep 02, 2010, 11:53 AM
Overall this sounds cool (high strength, vulnerable to bombardment), except that it would be very weird if elephants became the military core of any civ.

Eagle Pursuit
Sep 02, 2010, 04:14 PM
I think it would also make a good spearhead or linebreaker unit. They are the most powerful unit of their age. Put them up against the front line of enemy longswords. They can move after attacking. Use this to drive a little farther into your enemy's ZoC. They are likely to get overwhelmed eventually, but cover them with ranged fire and follow them with your longswords, and you'll punch a hole in the enemy formation.

ShaqFu
Sep 02, 2010, 07:41 PM
I'm surprised at the lack of discussion on the Elephant. I figured it'd pick up a lot of talk, but in terms of post counts it got clobbered by the Minuteman, which I thought was the least interesting UU. Shows how much I know, this many days in. ;)

For the 19th day 'til Civ5, we'll cover yet another Knight replacement (hey, not my fault it's the tied-for-first most replaced unit), the Arabian Camel Archer. This unit is the antithesis of the Naresuan's Elephant: whereas the former trades mobility for sheer Siam-smash might, the latter sacrifices power in exchange for some awesome maneuverability. The Camel Archer gets a penalty of 8 less strength, giving it a paltry 10 strength. For the sake of comparison, an unpromoted Spearman will best the Camel Archer in straight combat (10.5 vs 10) - rather dismal for a late Medieval/early Renaissance unit. Of course, it wouldn't be much fun if the Arabian UU was just terrible: the Camel Archer picks up movement after combat and a ranged attack at 15 strength. Not a bad trade. :goodjob:

Historically, mounted archers were the most devastating force on the pre-gunpowder battlefield; the Camel Archer looks to be no different. By combining move-after-combat and a very strong ranged attack (best non-siege in the game), this UU can pelt an army with powerful arrows, skirt away, and repeat ad infinitum. Ultra-mobile extra-strength Crossbowmen are exactly as useful as they sound. :D Much like Naresuan's Elephant, however, the Camel Archer forces the Arabian general to rethink his operations. Knights are great for smashing through flanks, but if you try that with this weaker-than-Horseman UU, it'll go very poorly for you, and for the love of God don't charge Pikemen. Similarly, don't expect to swing around a line and ravage their Crossbowmen, as you'll only have a very marginal edge in combat. Once again, you'll have to seriously rethink how you use your medieval mounted units as Arabia - while you may have an incredibly powerful unit, it will take some very non-Knight tactics to use effectively.

MisterBarca
Sep 02, 2010, 07:47 PM
The Camel Archer gets a penalty of 8 less strength, giving it a paltry 10 strength. For the sake of comparison, an unpromoted Spearman will best the Camel Archer in straight combat (10.5 vs 10) - rather dismal for a late Medieval/early Renaissance unit.

I thought spearman bonus v. mounted units was 100 percent, not 50 percent?

Stefanskantine
Sep 02, 2010, 08:16 PM
It will remain to be seen how Camel Archers play out. My first take is that they will be the MVP unique unit of the game. Critically, they don't require a resource so are therefore spammable. Your knights might be able to beat my camel archers charging in 1 on 1 combat, but how will your 2 knights do against my 15 camel archers?

Then consider the possibilities of a mobile ranged attack force. The Arabian general will be able to react to the battle and move his troops quickly to focus fire wherever it is needed. And I think focus fire is critical in 1 UPT as a "force multiplier."

Granted, you lose that hard charging flanker. But I think you gain much more.

Eagle Pursuit
Sep 02, 2010, 08:30 PM
This is the ultimate kiter. Shoot. back up out of movement range. Shoot. back up out of movement range. ad nauseum. When the baddie is weak enough, charge in and finish it. The can work against formations and against ranged. You can use several Camel humpers... er archers against a wall of longswords. It will just take a while to bring them down.

This is a pretty good representation of the guerilla tactics used by Arabian nomads for centuries. I like this unit a lot.

Ahriman
Sep 02, 2010, 08:32 PM
Honestly, I think the camel archer promises to be one of the most fun units in the game. Has the potential to totally transform warfare and how you do it.

I just *really* hope the AI can use it well.

ShaqFu
Sep 02, 2010, 08:33 PM
I thought spearman bonus v. mounted units was 100 percent, not 50 percent?

Arioch's says it's "possibly +50%." Either way, it's a losing proposition for your camels.

Lyoncet
Sep 02, 2010, 08:55 PM
I think the reason the Minutemen got so much talk compared to Naresuan's Elephant is because the latter is very straightforward and the former… isn't so much (especially since there's a couple big holes in our knowledge about it). Not necessarily because we don't think it's cool. Cause it definitely is.

Onto the Camel Archer, let's just say I'm very happy to see the number of people who share my opinion on how devastatingly powerful it could be. One thing to remember, however, is that I don't think they'll be able to kite that well simply because they'll run out of room (or rather run behind your cities, which would then be defenseless, or hit an ocean) if they try to fall back ad infinitum. Rather, I think their strength is going to come from the ability to rotate them in and out of formation behind your front-line troops. So sort of like the Chu-ko-nu getting an extra attack, except with 50% greater strength and the ability to pound the same unit until it dies rather than spreading out your damage. Meanwhile, those units that did survive (probably with some really heavy damage) will have to try to break through your comparatively healthy front line to deal with the CAs, who can easily attack/retreat if there's a breach.

And after having to suffer through Saladin's Warlords/BtS Arabia, I'm really, really looking forward to this. ;)

KrikkitTwo
Sep 02, 2010, 09:15 PM
Something I could see them doing is moving into gap in the front line, taking a potshot at enemy archers, and moving back. (and have the hole refilled by melee units)

Lyoncet
Sep 02, 2010, 09:29 PM
That's a good point too, but you'd have to punch out two adjacent enemy melee troops to do that (not impossible with one Longswordsman and a few CAs, probably) since otherwise your CA will get into the hole and have its turn (and life, probably) cut short by Zones of Control.

Boshi
Sep 02, 2010, 10:17 PM
As other people have said, kiting is very very powerful. In the face of stupid AI, I don't think that there's any tactic that is as good. I see camel archers as being simply devastating in the hands of players against AI, but the AI probably having trouble with them and human players being able to deal with them, reducing them from being a killer to a big pain in the butt in multi-player games.

TheGreatAnthony
Sep 02, 2010, 10:27 PM
First off, great thread ShaqFu! I really like how you introduce each unit and the background history/possible gameplay tactics that go along with it.

Also, with the camel archer and the war chariot, you could back them up with heavy cavalry to make a normal-ish army that could move a ~2X speed. As long as the enemy doesnt have too many pikes, you could surprise the enemy and get deep into their territory the turn you DOW. With a formation of cavalry taking the place of melee and CA's/WC's being the ranged, you could blitzcrieg your way through and enemy. Even pikes might not be a problem if you can bombard them quick enough before they reach your lines.

ShaqFu
Sep 02, 2010, 10:56 PM
First off, great thread ShaqFu! I really like how you introduce each unit and the background history/possible gameplay tactics that go along with it.

Also, with the camel archer and the war chariot, you could back them up with heavy cavalry to make a normal-ish army that could move a ~2X speed. As long as the enemy doesnt have too many pikes, you could surprise the enemy and get deep into their territory the turn you DOW. With a formation of cavalry taking the place of melee and CA's/WC's being the ranged, you could blitzcrieg your way through and enemy. Even pikes might not be a problem if you can bombard them quick enough before they reach your lines.

Thanks! :D

Unfortunately, your combination of heavy cavalry and Camel Archers won't work, since the Camel Archer replaces the Knight. If you want to use a combined cavalry force, you'll either have to put up with the Horseman (at a meager 12 strength), or wait a very long time for Metallurgy and Lancers. Sadly, Metallurgy isn't anywhere near Chivalry on the tech tree (3 tiers and a totally different branch), so while an all-mounted army sounds awesome, it won't really work.

Schuesseled
Sep 03, 2010, 02:58 AM
a Camel Archer offer a unique way of playing with some mounted archers in the medieval era, for some cool flanking and shoot and scooot moves.

But lets talk about longbowman now:

+1 Range!

How bloomin awesome

TheGreatAnthony
Sep 03, 2010, 09:09 AM
Thanks! :D

Unfortunately, your combination of heavy cavalry and Camel Archers won't work, since the Camel Archer replaces the Knight. If you want to use a combined cavalry force, you'll either have to put up with the Horseman (at a meager 12 strength), or wait a very long time for Metallurgy and Lancers. Sadly, Metallurgy isn't anywhere near Chivalry on the tech tree (3 tiers and a totally different branch), so while an all-mounted army sounds awesome, it won't really work.

Oops, forgot about that... one might still combine CA's and lancers maybe, if you have lots left over and need to bombard the enemy, but it probably wont be a very good strategy then.

P.S. i'm not sure if the longbowman's extra range has been verified.

Edit: nvm, just checked Arioch's site

MisterBarca
Sep 03, 2010, 09:11 AM
P.S. i'm not sure if the longbowman's extra range has been verified.

It has been.

TheGreatAnthony
Sep 03, 2010, 09:16 AM
yea, I edited that in to my post

Louis XXIV
Sep 03, 2010, 09:50 AM
Camel Archer looks to be simply fun. Not a game changer in itself, but can certainly irritate an opponent quite well.

The extra range for the Longbow strikes me as quite useful. At a minimum, it makes a viable strategy of two rows of ranged units before the protective line, which can be quite devastating.

MisterBarca
Sep 03, 2010, 10:11 AM
Camel Archer looks to be simply fun. Not a game changer in itself, but can certainly irritate an opponent quite well.

The extra range for the Longbow strikes me as quite useful. At a minimum, it makes a viable strategy of two rows of ranged units before the protective line, which can be quite devastating.

I just don't see how it can be balanced in multi-player.

On the same token, I also don't see how Longbows can have a longer range than siege weapons like Catapults from a realism perspective. Yes, it's a game, but it's a historical game that needs to track reality to some degree unless doing so breaks the game.

Ahriman
Sep 03, 2010, 10:19 AM
well simply because they'll run out of room (or rather run behind your cities, which would then be defenseless, or hit an ocean) if they try to fall back ad infinitum
Thats the joy of this; it makes terrain really matter, and it makes "space" important. You can give up land for actual strategic advantage.

Particularly effective as a defensive weapon; whittling down incoming enemy armies.

Louis XXIV
Sep 03, 2010, 10:30 AM
I just don't see how it can be balanced in multi-player.

On the same token, I also don't see how Longbows can have a longer range than siege weapons like Catapults from a realism perspective. Yes, it's a game, but it's a historical game that needs to track reality to some degree unless doing so breaks the game.

The problem is this. Longbows should have a longer range than Crossbows (which had a pitiful range). Crossbows, realistically, should have a range of one. But that would make them useless, so they need to have two. This means that, in order to represent the superior range, a Longbow has to have a range of three. It doesn't work logically for the game as a whole, but, as far as bows and arrows go, it makes perfect sense.

As for balance, you can either focus on getting a land force that can break through the English melee units in order to attack the Longbow where they're vulnerable or you can focus on getting better techs in order to make the Longbow basically obsolete.

MisterBarca
Sep 03, 2010, 10:39 AM
The problem is this. Longbows should have a longer range than Crossbows (which had a pitiful range). Crossbows, realistically, should have a range of one. But that would make them useless, so they need to have two. This means that, in order to represent the superior range, a Longbow has to have a range of three. It doesn't work logically for the game as a whole, but, as far as bows and arrows go, it makes perfect sense.


I do not believe longbows had 50 percent greater range than crossbows. In fact, from a recollection of earlier readings, I believe the heavier crossbows out-ranged longbows.

Longbows have been greatly over-rated, in particular as a result of Crecy and Agincourt. But the French and their allies at those battles employed earlier, shorter-ranged crossbows (whereas longbow developed remained relatively static from thereon), and few of the Knights that fell to the longbows had Renaissance-style full plates that were invulnerable to longbow ejected bodkins as well.

Ahriman
Sep 03, 2010, 01:50 PM
Remember that you still have to have a direct line of site to the target tile.
You can only shoot over forests/jugnles if you're on a hill, and you can't shoot over hills at all (I think?).

And units only have 2 sight range, so you still need to have a spotter unit in front to be able to get 3 range.

So you're only really going to be able to use to their fullest with lots of flat land.

Gives interesting incentives to England to clearcut their forests, to maximize use of the Longbows defensively.

Polobo
Sep 03, 2010, 02:03 PM
Is "spotting" a confirmed feature for ranged attacks?

On a hill you should be able to see across other hills.

On a hill I'm thinking it maybe adds +1 to sight-range (maybe just over flatland - forest or otherwise) and thus a hill Longbow can cover 3 hexes all by itself.

I don't necessarily think it that odd that a longbow can have greater range than an ancient siege weapon given the difference in weight of the projectile. One possible abstract is that the longbows are more mobile so that can get closer, shoot, then retreat (all within the same tile); compared to a siege engine that has setup and then shoot from wherever it is located. This also means it is easier for the enemy to evade a siege engine compared to longbow (thus the longbow gets better "effective range").

With longbows the English will be able to more effectively defend their own territory with fewer units and prepared defenses. On the offense their advantaged will probably be lessened generally but if you can capture some favorable gound the additional cover they can provide is great - leaving more troops to continue the assault - and in no case should be worse than the unit they replace (which cannot be said for all UU).

Polobo
Sep 03, 2010, 02:05 PM
@ShaqFu - you should maybe consider making the English Longbow the next UU on your list....

Ahriman
Sep 03, 2010, 02:11 PM
Is "spotting" a confirmed feature for ranged attacks?
Yes.

Hence the Indirect Fire ability on the Battleship - it can fire on units that are seen by other units, but not the battleship itself (eg because there is forest/hill between the target and the battleship).

On a hill you should be able to see across other hills.
To see units on other hills, sure, but why should you be able to see units on the plains on the other side of the hill, seeing *over* the hill? I'm not sure that would make sense.

But its unclear what the implementation is: being on a hill will let you shoot over forest, I don't think we know if it will let you shoot over a hill.

ShaqFu
Sep 03, 2010, 02:22 PM
@ShaqFu - you should maybe consider making the English Longbow the next UU on your list....

Read my mind :D. I wanted to do it earlier, but I want to have confirmed stats before posting. Now that we have it.... :goodjob:

MisterBarca
Sep 03, 2010, 02:42 PM
I think it makes the most sense if siege weapons have a minimum 3 range. They would still not be trained en masse, since they are resource-dependent.

Ahriman
Sep 03, 2010, 02:45 PM
They would still not be trained en masse, since they are resource-dependent.
Cannon - no resource requirement. Artillery - no resource requirement.

I think that would risk being game-breaking.
Its very deliberate that the max range of a all land bombardment units (except the longbowmen) is the same as the distance an infantry can move in one turn.

MisterBarca
Sep 03, 2010, 02:50 PM
Cannon - no resource requirement. Artillery - no resource requirement.

I think that would risk being game-breaking.
Its very deliberate that the max range of a all land bombardment units (except the longbowmen) is the same as the distance an infantry can move in one turn.

Yeah, I concede that it could be game-breaking. There will be a lot of stats-modding when I get hold of the game, I guess :)

Polobo
Sep 03, 2010, 02:55 PM
Yes.

Hence the Indirect Fire ability on the Battleship - it can fire on units that are seen by other units, but not the battleship itself (eg because there is forest/hill between the target and the battleship).


To see units on other hills, sure, but why should you be able to see units on the plains on the other side of the hill, seeing *over* the hill? I'm not sure that would make sense.

But its unclear what the implementation is: being on a hill will let you shoot over forest, I don't think we know if it will let you shoot over a hill.

If a battleship has indirect fire capability then in the absecence of further information I am thinking the others do not have indirect fire unless specified and so a longbow would need to have its own line-of-sight. Now, we know they have a range of 3 so their usefulness depends on sight mechanics.

As for hills; its a game mechanic that I honestly don't know how they would decide to implement. I guess I am (maybe incorrectly) recalling how hill-vision mechanics work in Civ4 and would assume they'd work the same in 5 absent information to the contrary.

Babri
Sep 03, 2010, 03:26 PM
It is going to be a great UU. It will need some practice & tactics to use them most effectively. They would fill the hole which is left by Arabia UA which only comes into play in modern era (+1 gold is pretty weak). It would allow the Arabs to compete well against other early strong civs like Rome. However Longbows can be a threat to CAs due to their longer ranges.

Babri
Sep 03, 2010, 03:29 PM
Cannon - no resource requirement.
What ? :eek: That is lame. :sad:

PawelS
Sep 03, 2010, 03:32 PM
It's really strange that Catapult requires iron, and Cannon doesn't.

Ogrelord
Sep 03, 2010, 04:01 PM
how about the Longbow able to shoot over a forest/jungle tile no matter what tile the Longbow unit is on?

Eagle Pursuit
Sep 03, 2010, 05:20 PM
I believe that most cannon in the renessiance were made of bronze, right? Also, There's plenty of iron in a Mech inf, but that doesn't require it either. The reason is that the resource is no longer strategic.

Lord Olleus
Sep 03, 2010, 05:29 PM
Cannons stopped being made out of bronze when iron casting technology became much improved, which I recall is around the time of the spanish armada so circa 1550.

KrikkitTwo
Sep 03, 2010, 06:08 PM
Cannon - no resource requirement. Artillery - no resource requirement.

I think that would risk being game-breaking.
Its very deliberate that the max range of a all land bombardment units (except the longbowmen) is the same as the distance an infantry can move in one turn.

only preIndustrial bombardment units, the Artillery (probably) and Rocket Artillery (almost certainly) have ranges of 3

Basically... all Preindustrial bombardment=2 (except Longbow)
Industrial=3 (except aircraft)

of course by the Modern Era most unit move 3 or 4 (except the Paratrooper)... but in the Industrial Era, you have Artillery shooting farther than almost any land unit can move (besides the Tank)

Babri
Sep 03, 2010, 06:14 PM
Cannons stopped being made out of bronze when iron casting technology became much improved, which I recall is around the time of the spanish armada so circa 1550.
:yup: Only the earlier cannons used bronze. Later on it was changed to iron.
And metals were strategic at that time too. If I remember it right Peter of Russia ordered to melt even church bells to make new cannons because the Swedish had stolen them in a battle. :hmm:

Louis XXIV
Sep 03, 2010, 09:36 PM
It is going to be a great UU. It will need some practice & tactics to use them most effectively. They would fill the hole which is left by Arabia UA which only comes into play in modern era (+1 gold is pretty weak). It would allow the Arabs to compete well against other early strong civs like Rome. However Longbows can be a threat to CAs due to their longer ranges.

BTW, about Arabia's UA. Let's not forget that trade routes are a factor. It's not like they only get double oil. If you're on wide open pangea, you can probably Arabia more effectively than England (both with the UAs and because you might be able to run around the Longbow).

Boshi
Sep 03, 2010, 10:39 PM
Cannons stopped being made out of bronze when iron casting technology became much improved, which I recall is around the time of the spanish armada so circa 1550.

Only the earlier cannons used bronze. Later on it was changed to iron.
And metals were strategic at that time too. If I remember it right Peter of Russia ordered to melt even church bells to make new cannons because the Swedish had stolen them in a battle.

Um, this is just not true. Bronze is better for making cannons out of than iron since, when subjected to the sort of pressures that you get when you get lots of exploding gun powder, bronze tends to be more flexible than iron, which has a tendency to burst and do things like kill gun crews. Iron cannons were also heavier and thus harder to move around and rusted while bronze cannons didn't. Because of this, bronze was preferred but if they didn't have bronze on hand they'd used iron as a substitute. Countries with big iron industries or ones that needed a lot of cannons in a hurry used iron, but everyone preferred bronze if they could get it.

Bronze was still preferred by most armies as late as the Franco-Prussian war, in which the French army got pounded to pieces by the Prussian military which had STEEL artillery, which help up to pressure a lot better than iron.

Source: The Arms of Krupp by William Manchester

ShaqFu
Sep 03, 2010, 10:44 PM
I'm half an hour late; sorry! Blame the fratboys near my house that insist on taking all the parking, making me waste said half hour driving a mile away to park. May they spend their eternities between an angry Tokugawa and Rashid with nothing but flat plains around them.

Today's (okay, fine, yesterday's) UU is a fan favorite, the English Longbow. This unit gets a single bonus over the garden variety Crossbowman: the ability to use ranged attack at range 3. One point to a stat added - how modest, compared to some of the battlefield titans we've seen before - but it's the most game-changing UU bonus we've seen yet. Instead of the usual operational analysis, I'll run a list:


The ability to get two shots in on approaching infantry, over the usual one
The ability to fire upon an enemy's archers over an infantry front
The ability to have a two-deep line of archers behind your infantry line
The ability to cover a lot of ground with only one archer, allowing for less frontier
The ability to use a two-deep line of infantry (or, one infantry, one mixed) in front of your archers
The ability to almost always focus fire on one unit with enough ranged attacks
The ability to worry less about fleeing units
The possiblility that the city's attack will inherit the properties of a garrisoned Longbow


And that's just a warm-up. I'm sure the clever Englishman will be able to devise all sorts of effective ways to get the most out of their Longbows; the only limit, it seems, is military creativity.

Eagle Pursuit
Sep 03, 2010, 10:56 PM
Make the French longswords run uphill on a muddy, recently plowed field in really heavy armor into a hail of arrow fire on the feast day of St. Crispin and St. Crispinian? Sounds good to me.

Kilroywashere
Sep 03, 2010, 10:56 PM
The ability to get two shots in on approaching infantry, over the usual one
The ability to fire upon an enemy's archers over an infantry front
The ability to have a two-deep line of archers behind your infantry line
The ability to cover a lot of ground with only one archer, allowing for less frontier
The ability to use a two-deep line of infantry (or, one infantry, one mixed) in front of your archers
The ability to almost always focus fire on one unit with enough ranged attacks
The ability to worry less about fleeing units
The possiblility that the city's attack will inherit the properties of a garrisoned Longbow




I think you're missing the most important one:
The ability to hit cities at a range where the cities can't hit you back!

CleverFool
Sep 03, 2010, 11:52 PM
I think one potential weakness the longbow might have is flanking. It's true you can create an uber wall of melee then long bowmen, but how long would it take to create and maintain? One must remember that units are more expensive and not as numerous in CiV, which means creating a wall of units that long may be simply impractical.

That and one could imagine an England player overdoing it a little with all the long bowmen, and not having enough defence against cavalry. They should be able to (in theory), skirt around the line of melee units and deliver a quick blow against the archers in the back. We'll see how it works when the game is actually released, and I still see them as strong, but more of a complement to melee units than an entire army in their own right.

Stefanskantine
Sep 04, 2010, 01:40 AM
I think you're missing the most important one:
The ability to hit cities at a range where the cities can't hit you back!

Yeah you can just hang back with longbows and pummel the city, have some cavalry ready to charge in once it's softened up. This will force the defensive player to come out to try to lift the siege by facing you on terrain of your choosing, not his...

Lord Olleus
Sep 04, 2010, 03:21 AM
Um, this is just not true. Bronze is better for making cannons out of than iron since, when subjected to the sort of pressures that you get when you get lots of exploding gun powder, bronze tends to be more flexible than iron, which has a tendency to burst and do things like kill gun crews. Iron cannons were also heavier and thus harder to move around and rusted while bronze cannons didn't. Because of this, bronze was preferred but if they didn't have bronze on hand they'd used iron as a substitute. Countries with big iron industries or ones that needed a lot of cannons in a hurry used iron, but everyone preferred bronze if they could get it.

Bronze was still preferred by most armies as late as the Franco-Prussian war, in which the French army got pounded to pieces by the Prussian military which had STEEL artillery, which help up to pressure a lot better than iron.

Source: The Arms of Krupp by William Manchester

Might have been better, but it was also a hell of a lot more expensive. So much so that the vast majority of guns were made from iron and not bronze far before the franco-prussian war.

Lord Olleus
Sep 04, 2010, 03:27 AM
The ability to almost always focus fire on one unit with enough ranged attacks


This is almost certainly the most powerful thing about them. Rather than having a choice of 3 targets (assuming that the longbows are behind a melee wall) they'll have a choice of 9. Its the possibility to fire further back which is great as much as the possibility to fire further along the front. Its almost a given that 3-4 longbows close to each other will bea able to hit the same nearby target - allowing the english to rack up kills rather than just injuries.

Schuesseled
Sep 04, 2010, 06:11 AM
I think you're missing the most important one:
The ability to hit cities at a range where the cities can't hit you back!

Umm no, city range has never ben confirmed, latest impression is that cities can target any units within there radius (which is up to 3 hexes, so i suppose yes they could if the city wasn't properly developed.)

I think one potential weakness the longbow might have is flanking. It's true you can create an uber wall of melee then long bowmen, but how long would it take to create and maintain? One must remember that units are more expensive and not as numerous in CiV, which means creating a wall of units that long may be simply impractical.

That and one could imagine an England player overdoing it a little with all the long bowmen, and not having enough defence against cavalry. They should be able to (in theory), skirt around the line of melee units and deliver a quick blow against the archers in the back. We'll see how it works when the game is actually released, and I still see them as strong, but more of a complement to melee units than an entire army in their own right.


Knights move 3 hexes in one turn, which means that they will be in range of the longbows for one turn,. which means they die horibly.