Calvary...is there any point to melee units?

[lamaros]

I get the impression looking at the unit promotion upgrades that they did some of their balance based on the promotions. For instance anti-cav gets an upgrade for double power when sharing a tile with a support unit. So spearmen are unimpressive right up until you get them two level ups and a battering ram.

Aye.

I think the upgrade trees for a few units are a bit off though. I think it would be more interesting if the first choice was between three, the second two, and the final just one. And no pre-requisites. As it is the upgrades can either be super powerful or a bit 'whatever'.

 

[Ryika]

Note that at the complaining and subsequent nerfing of both iron and horse melee is one of the reasons why people kind of gave up on them in Civ V. Personally, I find the idea that an elite, resource-dependent unit should be hands-down countered by a ubiquitous unit to not be all that desirable, design-wise. If all you need to do against a cav-heavy army is make spears,, then sticking a guy on a horse will become pretty unattractive.

That's why you wouldn't stick to horses at that point and instead start spamming regular melee units to counter the sticky guys of the guy who would then start building Cavalry to counter your Melee units.

It makes no sense to have a unit that can't be countered - the bonus of having strategic resources should be that you can counter everything the opponent does and build an army that is extremely well balanced, not units that are stronger than everything else.

 

[Promethian]

Aye.

I think the upgrade trees for a few units are a bit off though. I think it would be more interesting if the first choice was between three, the second two, and the final just one. And no pre-requisites. As it is the upgrades can either be super powerful or a bit 'whatever'.

My only problem is the Encampment experience bonuses are pretty much needed to level units at a decent rate and I haven't seen a way to give the bonus to units made before you could even make the encampment and improvements. I'd like an option to move units to the encampment tile (or maybe within one tile of it) and pay to "train" them with the Encampment upgrades.

 

[stealth_nsk]

It looks balanced to me. While Horsemen are equal in fight to spears, spears are earlier, cheaper to build and don't have maintenance. I found myself building all types of units and using them.

Also, AI tends to have many horses and attack ranged units from the back, so ranged units themselves aren't that great.

 

[Stalker0]

While Horsemen are equal in fight to spears, spears are earlier, cheaper to build and don't have maintenance.

Actually with the 100% bonus to calvary units policy, horsemen are cheaper than spears.

 

[Jewman]

The problem is with the production card for light cavalry, should not be 100% and maybe cost more maintenance (unless it already does?)
Getting an early horse rush is too easy right now. Better if they make it riskier.

 

[stealth_nsk]

The problem is with the production card for light cavalry, should not be 100% and maybe cost more maintenance (unless it already does?)
Getting an early horse rush is too easy right now. Better if they make it riskier.

Horsemen are Classic unit and have maintenance 2. Spearmen are ancient with maintenance 1. And speaking about policies - there's an early policy for -1 maintenance. So Spearmen spam could be a solid answer.

 

[Promethian]

Horsemen are Classic unit and have maintenance 2. Spearmen are ancient with maintenance 1. And speaking about policies - there's an early policy for -1 maintenance. So Spearmen spam could be a solid answer.

I'll gladly pay more maintenance for a unit with the same strength as my opponent but I can make more of them and they move twice as fast. In fact maintenance is such a tiny consideration in this equation that bringing it up actually reduces your credibility.

 

[stealth_nsk]

I'll gladly pay more maintenance for a unit with the same strength as my opponent but I can make more of them and they move twice as fast. In fact maintenance is such a tiny consideration in this equation that bringing it up actually reduces your credibility.

I'm not saying they are equal. Spearmen rush is defensive answer to offensive Horsemen rush. Movement is not that critical to defend small early civ, while maintenance on weak early economy is actually significant.

 

[KmDubya]

Early in the game maintenance cost was a big concern for me with Rome after I conquered England and Spain.

There is definitely a reason to make Legions, they rock. Resourceless and with a cheap upgrade from warriors they are monsters. They can even repair pillaged tiles and build forts two eras earlier than anyone else. Three of them were grabbing walled capitols without losses. What is the tactic for stopping Legions? Swords require a resource, two without an encampment and are at a strength disadvantage. Horseman have the same disadvantage of requiring two resources and are weaker. Archers can be countered with the turtle promo and will need meatshields in front to keep the legions away for a round or two. Massed legions are just going to be a juggernaut, even people are going to be challenged in stopping them.

 

[Nefelia]

I'll gladly pay more maintenance for a unit with the same strength as my opponent but I can make more of them and they move twice as fast. In fact maintenance is such a tiny consideration in this equation that bringing it up actually reduces your credibility.

The policy card that reduces maintenance is one of the ones I use most frequently. Some games might afford the luxury to prioritize Commercial districts and markets/banks/etc over a large standing army. Other games do not give you that luxury. In those games, having a larger force of older units (including the preference for Horsemen over Knights) alongside that particular policy card are essential for defence and economic sustainability.

 

[Agent327]

So ranged units are getting all of the glory right now....and I agree, they are generally OP compared to other types just as they were in Civ 5.

That said, another key imbalance I am seeing is between calvary and melee units. So far, I have had zero trouble finding 2 horses in my starting areas, and horseman with that 100% production policy seem to trounce any melee unit....and have better mobility to go against ranged ones. They are as strong as swordsman, with the same strength, and better mobility. What's not to love?

I've had no trouble beating barb horsemen with simple melee/ballistic units. It's a matter of handling. If you want to go all 'Calvary', trust in Jesus - or pick Scythia/Russia.

 

[Proteus]

Oh, you're totally right that spearmen and pikemen did not fulfill some anti-cavalry niche historically. A pointy stick can be effective at keeping a horse away (if the guy holding it is brave enough to keep still), but it has plenty of utility against infantrymen, too. But Civ games have always pigeonholed spears as anti-cavalry units. That was clearly the intent this time around, too... they're just not quite good enough.

Funny enough in ancient times it was even the other way round:
Horsemen were a danger to the greek phalanx, due to their high mobility and therefore their ability to flank the greek phalanx formations (and attack where their spears didn't point to

Proven by Phillips of Macedons wars against the greek city states, where King Phillip would keep the greek phalanx busy with his own phalanxes, whereas Alexander with his horsemen would do a flanking attack and devastate the greek phalanxes from the side and rear

Only in late medieval times there was a formation of pikemen that was well protected against cavalry from all sides: The Tercio

 

[killmeplease]

swords and horsemen are attacking units, you typically use one or another. swords are better vs spears and archers (with the turtle promotion) than horses, while horses move faster. i think its kinda balanced. the horses card applies only to them, while the +50% card applies to both melee and ranged so quite balanced too imho.
and finally its pretty historically accurate. spear was a poor mans' weapon and mass spearmen were used for tribal militias or those who lacked iron (think of egypt or greece). they couldnt stop swordsmen if not outnumber them. and pike formations were on par with swordsmen or slightly weaker (think of spanish rodeleros which were used as a counter-pikemen unit). and thanks god theres no longswordsman/maceman nonsence anymore.

 

[Proteus]

...
and finally its pretty historically accurate. spear was a poor mans' weapon and mass spearmen were used for tribal militias or those who lacked iron (think of egypt or greece). they couldnt stop swordsmen if not outnumber them. ...

I definitely disagree.

What a spear (opr rather long spear, with regards to the Phalanx) is capable of totally depends on training and strategy.

The greek Phalanx dominated the known world in ancient times, so much that most states (including egypt and persia) would hire greek phalanx units as mercenaries.
Why?
Because the greek combined the long spear with superior tactics (i.e. letting them fight as coherent units with a wall of spears facing the enemy) with the necessary training (to keep the units together during maneuvres)

The importance of strategies with the long spear can also be seen in 2 things:
1. Pillip II and Alexander of Macedon dominated over the greek phalanx. Why? Because they combined their own Phalanxes with flanking attacks by horsemen (which would attack the Phalanx from ttheir vulnerable sides and back)
2. Under Alexander however, the Phalanx again dominated against the persian king Darius, despite the persian king having numerical total superiority and a huge mix of different unit types (and also the choice of the battlefield, ideal for his chariots). Again this was due to superior tactics and training, that Alexander dominated.

Also, at this time the phalanx was a rather offensive unit, not a defensive one.

All only changed when the romans appeared ... also not because of superior weapons, but because of superior strategies, by combining more tactically flexible units with good training (and thereby being able to exploit gaps in the greek phalanx formations to, again, get behind the spear walls and attack their sides)


You are right, however, that the spear may be a poor mans weapon during medieval times ... and that also is not because of the weapon, but because of the lack of training those spear units received. The ancient strategies at this time remained largely forgotten.

When the swiss Pikeniers appeared (and surprisingly claimed repeated victories against seemingly superior knights forces) this was just the rediscovery of the ancient greek phalanx system (and therefore again just a superiority in tactics and training) anjd atz this time (inj ncontrast to ancient times), yes, it was primarily used as an Anti-Horseman/knight-Weapon


Hypothetically, if one would actually want to implement this in Civ, strategies/tactics (and formation training) would have to be superior in contrast to the weapons used by the units (with seemingly inferior troops (due to their weapon) claiming superiority over a little bit more advanced troops due to their training/tactics

 

[killmeplease]

I definitely disagree.

What a spear (opr rather long spear, with regards to the Phalanx) is capable of totally depends on training and strategy.

The greek Phalanx dominated the known world in ancient times, so much that most states (including egypt and persia) would hire greek phalanx units as mercenaries.
Why?
Because the greek combined the long spear with superior tactics (i.e. letting them fight as coherent units with a wall of spears facing the enemy) with the necessary training (to keep the units together during maneuvres)

The importance of strategies with the long spear can also be seen in 2 things:
1. Pillip II and Alexander of Macedon dominated over the greek phalanx. Why? Because they combined their own Phalanxes with flanking attacks by horsemen (which would attack the Phalanx from ttheir vulnerable sides and back)
2. Under Alexander however, the Phalanx again dominated against the persian king Darius, despite the persian king having numerical total superiority and a huge mix of different unit types (and also the choice of the battlefield, ideal for his chariots). Again this was due to superior tactics and training, that Alexander dominated.

Also, at this time the phalanx was a rather offensive unit, not a defensive one.

All only changed when the romans appeared ... also not because of superior weapons, but because of superior strategies, by combining more tactically flexible units with good training (and thereby being able to exploit gaps in the greek phalanx formations to, again, get behind the spear walls and attack their sides)


You are right, however, that the spear may be a poor mans weapon during medieval times ... and that also is not because of the weapon, but because of the lack of training those spear units received. The ancient strategies at this time remained largely forgotten.

When the swiss Pikeniers appeared (and surprisingly claimed repeated victories against seemingly superior knights forces) this was just the rediscovery of the ancient greek phalanx system (and therefore again just a superiority in tactics and training) anjd atz this time (inj ncontrast to ancient times), yes, it was primarily used as an Anti-Horseman/knight-Weapon


Hypothetically, if one would actually want to implement this in Civ, strategies/tactics (and formation training) would have to be superior in contrast to the weapons used by the units (with seemingly inferior troops (due to their weapon) claiming superiority over a little bit more advanced troops due to their training/tactics

As I've read in the description of the Xerxes' army by Herodotus, the best Persian unit was Immortals, and they were just spearmen/archers with some armouring. Heck their shields were made of wicker, iirc. And the rest - allied forces - was pretty worthless. Its like one spearman/archer UU, a couple of archers and horsemen and lots of warriors and slingers. No surprise Greeks could easily beat them. Greek phalanx was a perfect counter against an eastern army. Typically republics can field better infantry than monarchies. Monarchies rely on noble cavalry and peasant levy which is typically a poorly organized mass of spearmen contrary to highly organized Greek/Macedonian/Renaissance formations, where, what is more, first row soldiers wore cuirases. Why pikemen are superior to phalanx - because their weapons were made of steel, and included polearms. Also organization could be slightly better imho because of different social factors.

But for Romans the phalanx was not a big deal. You say they used superior tactics, but its their weapons which allowed for that. Wall of spears to be effective requires there to be no gaps. So as terrain cant be perfectly flat the formation inevitably loosens when the phalanx advances.
Beside Romans, there were Sea Peoples who raided levantine city states, they were swordsmen too. Nothing could stop them.
And the Legion was a spearman formation at first too, but then they had switched to swords, i think because they realized how effective gaul swordsmen are.

In the medieval times Europe was rural so there was no good infantry. Late medieval / early modern saw the rise of cities so infantry became effective again. I think its more social conditions that make good infantry not sophisticated tactics. I doubt swiss leaders were studying classical treatises.

 

[greygamer]

The problem with the phalanx is that it cannot easily change it's facing and it is that which more mobile formations could exploit.

 

[Jewman]

Horsemen are Classic unit and have maintenance 2. Spearmen are ancient with maintenance 1. And speaking about policies - there's an early policy for -1 maintenance. So Spearmen spam could be a solid answer.

sure, but horseman are still cheaper with policy card and have 2 more mobility. Also archers break down spears, while horseman kill archers. So if an opponent has horseman and you don't, they can kill your archers easily while peppering your spearman with their own archers.

Overall I think horsemen are undoubtedly vastly superior to their counters and all contemporary units, it's just a matter of whether we accept this as the reward for having a "rare" strategic resource or whether we think it needs to be evened out more. The policy card getting reduced is 100% going to happened, and that may be enough.

 

[steveg700]

That's why you wouldn't stick to horses at that point and instead start spamming regular melee units to counter the sticky guys of the guy who would then start building Cavalry to counter your Melee units.

The spearmen *are* the regular melee units, both in the game and historically. In your pro-kryptonite scenario, you'd be better off just to skip the mounted units.

The roshambo approach to pre-industrial combat is a poor, dog-eared creature. Units should have their own assets, not have to justify their existence by the presence of an opposing unit. That they can potentially counter another unit should be one benefit of those assets.

 

[steveg700]

sure, but horseman are still cheaper with policy card and have 2 more mobility. Also archers break down spears, while horseman kill archers. So if an opponent has horseman and you don't, they can kill your archers easily while peppering your spearman with their own archers.

Overall I think horsemen are undoubtedly vastly superior to their counters and all contemporary units, it's just a matter of whether we accept this as the reward for having a "rare" strategic resource or whether we think it needs to be evened out more. The policy card getting reduced is 100% going to happened, and that may be enough.

On paper, you should have no doubts.

In practice, horsemen do not kill archers easily. The two extra movement can be countered by both screening units and the virtually omnipresent difficult terrain, not to mention 1UPT will result in them blocking each other. Run in, by all means, and whack one unit real good. Your horses will take some retaliatory damage in the course of those attacks, and then face the fury of focused fire from the rest of the archers in the follow-up.

As for strategic resources, their value been almost utterly deprecated as far as I can tell. If you have access to one strategic, you can then produce infinite units for that resource at any city with an encampment. Two gets you infinite everywhere.

A weird and ill-conceived development IMHO.