Taking a look at the balance between Infantry and Cavalry

[Stormfather]

I'm hoping to get a discussion started on the balance of power between swordsmen/longswordsmen/riflemen and horsemen/knights/cavalry. It's just I noticed some trends in the game, and some inconsistencies with these trends, and wanted to see what other people think.

I understand no unit operates in a vacuum, that horsemen in general have an advantage vs. ranged units and a disadvantage vs. spears/pikes, etc. Muskets aren't in the upgrade path and don't have a clear cavalry analogue, so were omitted. But still, some interesting trends (and deviations from the trend) are readily apparent:




1. Swordsman vs. Horseman
The Horseman requires 285 beakers of science to unlock. Horses become visible and harvestable about halfway in; this in combination with their abundance means that strategic resources are not a major inhibiting factor for the Horseman. A single horseman costs 120 hammers and one horse, and has a Strength of 12, moves 4, and has 'no defensive bonuses' and 'move after combat.'

The Swordsman requires 359 beakers of science to unlock. Iron becomes visible and harvestable at the very end, meaning that after all that research, you still (likely) need to found a city and then build a mine to get these guys on the field. A single swordsman costs 120 hammers and one iron, and has a strength of 11, moves 2, and can gain defensive bonuses.

Seems like a no-brainer to me. Horsemen require less technology and an easier-to-secure resource (generally speaking), cost the same, have a higher strength, and move twice as fast as swordsmen. They can move after combat, and their only penalty (and it's not insignificant) is that they don't gain defensive bonuses and have a hard time with spearmen.





2. Longswordsman vs. Knight
The Knight requires 2961 beakers of science to unlock. By the time you get steel, you should have some iron and horses to spare. A single knight costs 225 hammers, one horse, and one iron, and has a strength of 18, moves 3, suffers from 'no defensive bonuses' but gains 'move after combat'.

The Longswordsman requires 1424 beakers of science to unlock. By the time you get steel, you should have some iron to spare. A single longswordsman costs 225 hammers and one iron, and has a strength of 18, moves 2, and can gain defensive bonuses.

Here the two seem more balanced. Longswordsmen are potentially available much earlier than Knights, cost the same, and require less resources (1 iron, 0 horses). They gain defensive bonuses. Knights (generally) come later, require an additional resource, and trade defensive bonuses and effectiveness vs. Pikes for a single movement point and the ability to move after combat. The Knight is only going to really shine if you can make the most of that movement point- otherwise, he's a longswordsman who has a penalty to defense and gets hung up on pikemen. They seem to be pretty well balanced; they fill a similar role but each has their own perks to distinguish them.




3. Rifleman vs. Cavalry
In a bit less detail here because I'm rapidly losing interest in the subject...

They both come two techs after gunpowder, but down different trees. The Cavalry requires economics, whereas the Rifleman is a direct descendant of Gunpowder. Tech costs are likely similar, the Rifleman would be a bit easier to 'rush' than the Cavalry unless you already have Economics. Cavalry require horses, Riflemen have no requirements. Cavalry cost 390 vs the Rifleman's 300, Cavalry move 3 vs. the Rifleman's 2, both are Strength 25 and the Cavalry cannot gain defensive bonuses but can shoot and scoot thanks to their 'move after combat' ability. Once again, it's a pretty close call. Cavalry have an advantage against cannons due to their mobility, but are countered by Lancers- countered hard if their caught on the defensive by their swifter nemesis. They seem pretty well balanced, each having their own uses.




My Question

Why does the horseman move 4, when later cavalry (except the Lancer) moves 3?
Why does the horseman have a +1 strength, in comparison to the infantry of the era?
Am I the only one who finds Horsemen to be a bit overpowered for their time (or, for that matter, swordsmen underpowered?


Is it because the spearman is a better counter to the horseman (14 vs 12) than the Pikeman is to the knight (20 vs 18)? The Cavalry's penalty vs. mounted (aka lancer) is not listed, and I'm too lazy to open the XML and search, but personal experience tells me that attacking Lancers slaughter defending cavalry, and attacking cavalry struggle against defending Lancers... but I'm quite uncertain in this, since the AI doesn't like to build Lancers.

Anyway, what are your thoughts?

 

[TheMeInTeam]

Spears are available very early on, cost no resources, and hard counter horses. Swords have no hard counters at all.

With great general support, a couple of either can tear down a city in no time.

Properly supported with the right policies and tactics, it is hard for the AI to stop infantry.

 

[Tomice]

TMIT, congrats to 15.000 post!

Very nice analysis, OP. I guess the relative strenght of normal horsemen is what makes the greek CC so popular. It's a very powerful version of an already powerful unit.

I only have the demo yet, and I'm very curious which other units need multiple SRess. First time I've ever heard of it!

 

[Jimbo30]

Horses I can live with but Naresuan's elephants are too much. 22 strength, requires no resources, 50% bonus vs horse units.

So even pikes are 20v22, swords and muskets just lose, and cavalry need not apply.

 

[pi-r8]

I feel like the single best feature of mounted units is their ability to attack and then run away. With infantry, after you kill a unit you're often stuck in a bad spot, wounded and exposed, blocking your own units. With mounted units you can move in, attack, run away and heal, forever. Even if mounted units were a lot weaker than infantry, that one feature would make them useful.

horsemen really need to be tuned down a little though. They're faster than anything until the industrial age, strong enough to kill PIKES let alone spears, and fairly cheap (even more so with a stables). I almost prefer having horseman over knights, because the low cost and 4 moves is so great. Then of course there's Alex's little friends, who just make a mockery out of early game balance.

 

[Tarkeel]

Spears are available very early on, cost no resources, and hard counter horses. Swords have no hard counters at all.

Except that they don't really counter horses. If you can lure the spears out into the open ground, the odds are on your side (especiallt if you are promoted). Spears will kill your horses if you let them counterattack, but that's what 4 moves and move after attack is for. You can also use your mobility to just go around then and strike their cities; 2-3 horsemen will take a normal-civ city in one round, and a citystate in 2.

Actually, even pikemen aren't a problem if you can get them out in the open.

On a related note, it's sad that they abandoned the rock-paper-scissor approach of CivIV's early warfare.

 

[Guardian_PL]

Except that they don't really counter horses. If you can lure the spears out into the open ground, the odds are on your side (especiallt if you are promoted). Spears will kill your horses if you let them counterattack, but that's what 4 moves and move after attack is for. You can also use your mobility to just go around then and strike their cities; 2-3 horsemen will take a normal-civ city in one round, and a citystate in 2.

Actually, even pikemen aren't a problem if you can get them out in the open.

On a related note, it's sad that they abandoned the rock-paper-scissor approach of CivIV's early warfare.

Exaclty what he said. Spears have a chance with mounted units, but that's it. Get yourself 5-6 Horsemen early and regarding of difficulty you'll steamroll the entire continent...

 

[Cyberian]

I realized quickly that I can't win with only spamming lots of horses against a Deity AI.

For once the game favors defense.
1UPT, City Ranged Attacks and deploying siege all state that.
You really need strong melee units to withstand the onslaught in defensive positions. You also need cavalry right but it seems you can't make it with only Horses.

Also the AI builds Pikemen really fast. This could be also true with human enemies in MP as beelining for Civil Service is a valid strategy for growth. And beware of those 50% cost Landsknechts.

 

[pi-r8]

I realized quickly that I can't win with only spamming lots of horses against a Deity AI.

For once the game favors defense.
1UPT, City Ranged Attacks and deploying siege all state that.
You really need strong melee units to withstand the onslought in defensive positions. You also need cavalry right but it seems you can't make it with only Horses.

Also the AI builds Pikemen really fast. This could be also true with human enemies in SP as beelining for Civil Service is a valid strategy for growth. And beware of those 50% cost Landsknechts.

The worst is Nobunaga's Pikes, which still do huge damage even at 1HP. So far the only time I've failed with horsemen is when Nobunaga (on deity) expanded very quickly while beelining Civil Service, and spammed mass pikemen. I still killed about 5 pikemen for every horse I lost, but he was building them so fast that I just didn't have time to heal.

 

[dannythefool]

2. Longswordsman vs. Knight

I agree that they are balanced against each other, but my impression is that the longswordsman is the best defensive unit for a very long time. If that's accurate then it's probably noteworthy, and a point in favour of getting longswords.

Why does the horseman move 4, when later cavalry (except the Lancer) moves 3?

Maybe he's not carrying as much stuff. I do think they are fairly powerful for their time, but on the other hand, the AI always seems to have tons of spearmen. (That it has problems using them efficiently is a different matter. Of course my promoted bonused horsemen on a hill will still kill them easily.)

 

[Johan de Witt]

Maybe the reason you can steamroll the AI with cavalry is because he doesn't build a lot of cavalry himself? In a few games, I have only encountered a few chariots and never a horseman. I play at King difficulty. Cavalry is great at countering cavalry, a unit he just attacked with that just retreated back is damaged and doesn't recieve defensive bonusses. A fresh attacking cavalry is always at an advantage then. If your enemy fails at returning them back behind his line of infantry (a tactic that greatly reduces it's operational range) he is leaving them open to attack.

Historically, cavalry dominated until firearms. Since domestication of horses puts a massive strain on food production (the beasts eat food, but usually arent eaten) ancient armies didn't field a lot of these, but with the collapse of the Roman empire, the Scythians and the Mongols as examples, it's clear that cavalry was king.

 

[MadRat]

Historically, cavalry dominated until firearms. Since domestication of horses puts a massive strain on food production (the beasts eat food, but usually arent eaten) ancient armies didn't field a lot of these, but with the collapse of the Roman empire, the Scythians and the Mongols as examples, it's clear that cavalry was king.

I tend to disagree with this on several levels.
1) Rome didn't field a LOT of cavalry more because of military doctrine and social hierachy (equites), but they DID hire quite a lot of germanic, gallic and other auxilliary cavalry. Indeed, after the beginning of the third century under the reign of the Severans the army began to emphasize a greater role in cav than infantry. Hence rome favoured infantry early on as most of its opponents and potential opponents largely had infantry armies and used hoplite tactics. Once the barbarian invasions began the empire shifted to a more cavalry force. It was also very hard to train a cavalier vs a infantry solider, especially if there was little riding tradition and a general lack of stirrups!

Indeed some roman contemporaries (Gauls, Germans, Parthians, later Huns, Goths , Sassanid persians) as well as Han China fielded considerable mounted forces.

2) While a knight was expensive to maintain horses do NOT put a huge strain on food economies. Horses and people don't eat the same food. Indeed nomadic cultures with little or no agriculture could maintain significant herds just using grazing. In the West the horse was more a symbol of prestige and it has become associated with nobility and wealth. It was is more the accoutrements such as board, grooming, training as knights), barding, racing/breeding that make them expensive today.

Despite the image of cavalry as king the bulk of medieval armies were still largely infantry forces; with some exceptions like the mongols. It was the KNIGHT that was expensive to upkeep not his horse lol

Rat

 

[Schuesseled]

TMIT, congrats to 15.000 post!

Very nice analysis, OP. I guess the relative strenght of normal horsemen is what makes the greek CC so popular. It's a very powerful version of an already powerful unit.

I only have the demo yet, and I'm very curious which other units need multiple SRess. First time I've ever heard of it!

Knights don't require iron only horses.

 

[Senethro]

Indeed nomadic cultures with little or no agriculture could maintain significant herds just using grazing. In the West the horse was more a symbol of prestige and it has become associated with nobility and wealth. It was is more the accoutrements such as board, grooming, training as knights), barding, racing/breeding that make them expensive today.

Are you sure about this? Why is it the nomadic horsemen that periodically boiled out of the steppes were restricted to these areas in the long term and unable to permanently maintain their herds in lands they conquered? Why did the Mongols give consideration to depopulation China and converting it into pasture land? Horses are expensive and difficult to maintain in some areas and you too easily dismiss the ability and effort required of nomads to maintain and control large herds and the grazing lands themselves. These were societies in environments that didn't require or even benefit significantly from agriculture (pre-fertilizer anyway), so to imply that breeding horses is easy because even these non-farmers could do it is a depressingly smug attitude that lacks insight.

 

[MadRat]

. These were societies in environments that didn't require or even benefit significantly from agriculture (pre-fertilizer anyway), so to imply that breeding horses is easy because even these non-farmers could do it is a depressingly smug attitude that lacks insight.

I never said this. And I do not appreciate your trollish comment there. I was merely refuting the assertion that maintaining cavalry put a "huge strain" on food production and that is why it was limited. I never said it was 'easy'. Could you actually point out where I allegedly said that? I merely pointed out that an agricultural society was not required to raise large volumes of horses and a cavalry (WITH WHICH YOU APPEAR TO AGREE). Simply put, horses and people don't eat the same food. Pasture lands in the ancient times were a bit more readily available. Indeed herding/shepherding was very common. Hence, I suspect the decision on whether or not to develop mounted armies was likely more factor of doctrine and training upkeep rather than food pressure.

As to why nomad were contained.. Well that is based on the notion that they were 'contained' at all. They roamed quite freely and indeed raided deep into china quite regularly, not just as the "mongols".Check out the Song dynasty period where they overran most of north china. It was in response to this why (as I pointed out earlier) that Han china developed significant mounted forces, as did many powers that were adjacent to the steppes.


Also I would point out your "non-farmer" comment drips with contempt. Are you telling me that non-farmers cant raises horses??

Rat

 

[Melchizedek]

The balancing here is a little bit more intricate than "Horseman vs. Swordsman" followed by "Knight vs. Longswordsman." The Longswordsman appears quite a lot sooner than the Knight does. So, while I agree that the Horseman is more valuable than the Swordsman, I think this is balanced (especially on larger maps / higher difficulties) by the fact that Swordsmen get upgraded to Longswordsmen maybe a little more than half way through the lifetime of the Horsemen. During a significant portion of the game, the choice is between Longswordsmen and Horsemen, and the Longswordsmen win that one (though perhaps narrowly).

In Civ V, it seems cheaper to upgrade units than to buy them. So a choice to concentrate on Horsemen early is going to leave you with somewhat fewer Longswordsmen in the middle game.

 

[Senethro]

I never said this. And I do not appreciate your trollish comment there. I was merely refuting the assertion that maintaining cavalry put a "huge strain" on food production and that is why it was limited. I never said it was 'easy'. Could you actually point out where I allegedly said that? I merely pointed out that an agricultural society was not required to raise large volumes of horses and a cavalry (WITH WHICH YOU APPEAR TO AGREE). Simply put, horses and people don't eat the same food. Pasture lands in the ancient times were a bit more readily available. Indeed herding/shepherding was very common. Hence, I suspect the decision on whether or not to develop mounted armies was likely more factor of doctrine and training upkeep rather than food pressure.

Right here

2) While a knight was expensive to maintain horses do NOT put a huge strain on food economies. Horses and people don't eat the same food. Indeed nomadic cultures with little or no agriculture could maintain significant herds just using grazing. In the West the horse was more a symbol of prestige and it has become associated with nobility and wealth. It was is more the accoutrements such as board, grooming, training as knights), barding, racing/breeding that make them expensive today.

You say that feeding horses is easy because it doesn't put a huge strain, and even nomadic cultures can do it with JUST grazing. Using "just" there to disparage what these non-agricultural societies could achieve, and stating that the actual cost in owning horses is the social frippery associated with them in Western culture (read: the only culture worth talking about).


There are food constraints on ability to use horses, or land usage constraints at least. Agriculture competes with pastureland (which contrary to your belief, was not more readily available at the quality required). A Mongol horseman with his 3-6 personal horses and family herds was staggeringly rich as viewed by his contemporaries in other cultures. This is not something achieved easily and could not have been done in Europe even if, as you say they did, they chose not to through social conventions regarding horsemanship and military doctrines.

The expense of horses in terms of food and land use and also that Roman era horses were smaller and the invention of the stirrup took a while to disperse were why many BCE militaries had less use of cavalry that we might expect.

As to why nomad were contained.. Well that is based on the notion that they were 'contained' at all. They roamed quite freely and indeed raided deep into china quite regularly, not just as the "mongols".Check out the Song dynasty period where they overran most of north china. It was in response to this why (as I pointed out earlier) that Han china developed significant mounted forces, as did many powers that were adjacent to the steppes.

It depends what you call contained. They sometimes massacred their neighbours but didn't really displace them. Everywhere the horse nomads go that is not the steppes, they must either overgraze the lands and move quickly on (the Mongols often), stop being nomads and drastically reduce the size of their herds usually resulting in their absorption into the local culture (the Turks and the Mongols in China) or return to the steppes. Thats been the way since before horses were large enough to ride to war and there were only chariots.


TLDR: The environment shapes the society. Every society thinks its own environment is best and what others do on theirs is rubbish.

 

[Johan de Witt]

I applaud a history discussion

I tend to disagree with this on several levels.
1) Rome didn't field a LOT of cavalry more because of military doctrine and social hierachy (equites), but they DID hire quite a lot of germanic, gallic and other auxilliary cavalry. Indeed, after the beginning of the third century under the reign of the Severans the army began to emphasize a greater role in cav than infantry. Hence rome favoured infantry early on as most of its opponents and potential opponents largely had infantry armies and used hoplite tactics. Once the barbarian invasions began the empire shifted to a more cavalry force. It was also very hard to train a cavalier vs a infantry solider, especially if there was little riding tradition and a general lack of stirrups!

While I never said that Rome never fielded cavalry, I do see what you mean. Still, part of the success the "barbarians" had when they closed in on the Roman borders, was that they used horses more extensively. The fact that the Romans employed these "barbarians" to protect themselves, only supports that fact. Btw, Romans didn't use stirrups because they thought it was a backwards barbaric invention

2) While a knight was expensive to maintain horses do NOT put a huge strain on food economies. Horses and people don't eat the same food. Indeed nomadic cultures with little or no agriculture could maintain significant herds just using grazing. In the West the horse was more a symbol of prestige and it has become associated with nobility and wealth. It was is more the accoutrements such as board, grooming, training as knights), barding, racing/breeding that make them expensive today.

Sorry if I wasn't clear... I was talking about ancient cultures. In ancient cultures, the availability of arable land was the prime boundary for population growth. The reason nomadic people did not have this limitation has more to do with the fact that most of them did actually eat horses. Next to that, horses tend to react much more heavily to famine than human populations.

Despite the image of cavalry as king the bulk of medieval armies were still largely infantry forces; with some exceptions like the mongols. It was the KNIGHT that was expensive to upkeep not his horse lol

You are absolutely true in this. But the knight did reign supreme on the medieval battlefield. This perhaps had more to do with their better equipment, their better training (in most european courts, knight were noblemen with nothing on their hands other than waging war) and their social status (which has a profound influence on morale) but infantry usually didn't really stand a chance against a sizable force of knights.

The mongols (and most nomadic tribes) are a complete different story altogether. Throughout time, organization and leadership have had a much larger impact on warfare than equipment or technology (although a lot of that organisation and leadership came from technology). Because nomadic horsemen live their lives operating in groups and learning to work together in herding animals, their organization is much better than that of anything they encountered. Most European armies at that time were composed of levied farmers and townsmen, mecenaries and knights. Knights are noblemen, who think highly of themselves and tend to be horrible at following orders. There are many battles known where a charge by knights destroys a commander's plans and sometimes even make them lose a battle.

Then again, I applaud the history discussion. I still think cavalry is supposed to be stronger than infantry historically, but not for game balance issues.

 

[duxup]

For me the odds and such mean I keep a few horseman around for open area combat / defense, but since they have a vulnerability (and the AI seems to like to protect against them) I tend to just go with your usual infantry forces. That seems pretty historical accurate, a few horsemen for good measure / maneuvering ability but mostly ground forces.


Knights are weird. In Civ IV and so far in V I tend to be big enough at that point that they're sort of a flash in the pan technology wise, and usually I have enough units to cover my nation without needing a lot of fast units. I find them mostly of little use to me.

 

[Johan de Witt]

Did anyone else notice the AI not building much cavalry?