Advertisement
Civilization Fanatics' Center  

Go Back   Civilization Fanatics' Forums > CIVILIZATION V > Civ5 - General Discussions

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old Aug 31, 2011, 12:35 PM   #1
The A.K.T
Warlord
 
The A.K.T's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2011
Posts: 237
list of units neding buff

I think that specialy Cavalry needs a buff becouse then lancers would be more used.
My list of buff neding units

Lancer
Cavalry
ironclad
__________________
Those who do not remember in the past are condemned to repeat it.

Impossible isent a conclusion. its a theory.
The A.K.T is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Aug 31, 2011, 01:41 PM   #2
sstger
Chieftain
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Posts: 22
List of unit needed to be buff

1. boat in general (boat are suppose to be powerfull for siege)
2. Lancer : I dont understand where is the utility of this unit
3. Archer/crossbowmen vs canon : am I the only one who think that its strange to see an archer able to shoot as far as a canon or that the english longbowmen shoot as far as an art?
4. knight and cavalry : IMO they arent ruling battlefield as they did historically
sstger is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Aug 31, 2011, 03:31 PM   #3
Ex.plode
Warlord
 
Join Date: Jul 2011
Posts: 138
Mounted units seem to have a hard time, alot of +% vs cavalry units, and terrain costs make them pretty weak.
Ex.plode is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Aug 31, 2011, 03:40 PM   #4
qemist
Prince
 
qemist's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2011
Posts: 411
Quote:
Originally Posted by sstger View Post
List of unit needed to be buff

1. boat in general (boat are suppose to be powerfull for siege)
2. Lancer : I dont understand where is the utility of this unit
Run around fast and kill stuff. Can also be used as scouts.

Quote:
Originally Posted by sstger View Post
3. Archer/crossbowmen vs canon : am I the only one who think that its strange to see an archer able to shoot as far as a canon or that the english longbowmen shoot as far as an art?
True there's a considerable suspension of belief required there. Why can bows shoot further than rifles? Removing that peculiarity would require completely changing the game.

Quote:
Originally Posted by sstger View Post
4. knight and cavalry : IMO they arent ruling battlefield as they did historically
Not really, no. Do you have any evidence for your assertion?

I don't think any of your suggestions would improve the game play.
qemist is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Aug 31, 2011, 05:26 PM   #5
sstger
Chieftain
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Posts: 22
The fact that you get both knight and cavalry at the end of the era (knight come at the end of dark age and cavalry at the end of ren) make them not very useful (and a 3 mvt point for knight and caval isnt so fast if you considerer that the basic movement for every unit is 2)
sstger is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Aug 31, 2011, 07:18 PM   #6
Rinnero
Chieftain
 
Rinnero's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2011
Posts: 89
Overall, all mounted units/tanks are worse than melees. They are harder to get, they all require strat res, they are weaker against cities, and the worst is that they do not recieve rough terrain bonus and cant be fortified. What we get in exchange? +1-2 move and ability to move after attack... Not that cool actually, compared to +75%CS of fortified in hills melee... Sophisticated combat plans are harder in MP because of double turn and click fest (you need to click fast to retreat after attack, and you need to be careful watching over your mounts, because they are less reliable in defence)

EDIT: I forgot that melees also dont have a counter unit...
Rinnero is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Aug 31, 2011, 07:27 PM   #7
dexters
Gods & Emperors
 
dexters's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: Canada
Posts: 3,130
This is in part due to the strength of tanks/cavalry in previous Civs, handing human players decisive advantage.
Give a unit with strong attack potential , give it a lot of movement, throw in ranged superiority and you have an unbeatable combination.

There are still elements of this left behind in the apache unit, but essentially for most of the game, city siege is a set piece maneuver of moving your melee into position supported by ranged/fodder units/defensive melee units to take out enemy defenders outside the city, then taking the city.
dexters is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Sep 01, 2011, 12:05 AM   #8
Camikaze
Deity
 
Camikaze's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: Munich
Posts: 22,732
I think Paratroopers could do with a buff. Of course, you don't want them to end up being the most important unit, but it would be nice if they were a little more usable.
__________________
CivFanatics on Facebook >>> /civfanatics
CivFanatics on Twitter >>> @civfanatics
Camikaze is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Sep 01, 2011, 12:10 AM   #9
wobuffet
King
 
wobuffet's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Posts: 706
What do you guys mean by the Apache unit? If you mean the helicopter gunship, I've always found it a bit underwhelming.
wobuffet is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Sep 01, 2011, 12:22 AM   #10
MadDjinn
Deity
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Posts: 3,383
Quote:
Originally Posted by wobuffet View Post
What do you guys mean by the Apache unit? If you mean the helicopter gunship, I've always found it a bit underwhelming.
it's underwhelming until you get to logistics for the ability to hit twice and move after attacking. Then it's deadly.

Lancers in MP work just fine. (don't stop beside people though) Hit and runs on the flanks are a great way to remove the front melee units and get to the softer seige units.

Of course, sometimes you trade one lancer to kill 2 rifles (if they follow it back to your ranged units) but that's a good trade.
__________________
Visit my YouTube Channel
Now On Twitter: @MadDjinn
Blog Musings
MadDjinn is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Sep 01, 2011, 03:06 AM   #11
apocalypse105
Deity
 
Join Date: May 2011
Posts: 2,461
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rinnero View Post
EDIT: I forgot that melees also dont have a counter unit...
A good strategy game should allways use the rock paper scissor system that makes game balanced and fun to play Especially in turn based strategy games!!!

Turn based strategy games who dont have this system have a bad gameplay ..

I didn't see this system in civ 5


Infantry doesn't have real counter mechanised infantry can beat tanks and tanks have have a counter unit?
The balance should be: mechanised can't beat tanks but can beat anti tank weapons tanks can't beat anti tanks units balanced...

Cavalry gets bonus against infantry but penalty against mounted lancer gets bonus against mounted.


I can found much more unblanced items in civ 5....
apocalypse105 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Sep 01, 2011, 03:42 AM   #12
Montov
King
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Posts: 688
Lancer and Cavalry could use a 25% bonus versus ranged units, to make sure they can onekill those units.
Musketman needs a 10% bonus against melee units, so it really is an improvement over the Longswordsman, but stay the same against other unittypes.
Ships need to be able to do more damage to land units and cities.
Montov is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Sep 01, 2011, 05:41 AM   #13
Becomedeath
The Destroyer
 
Becomedeath's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Location: Channel Islands
Posts: 423
Quote:
Originally Posted by apocalypse105 View Post
Infantry doesn't have real counter mechanised infantry can beat tanks and tanks have have a counter unit?
The balance should be: mechanised can't beat tanks but can beat anti tank weapons tanks can't beat anti tanks units balanced...
Balance balance balance...what is the obsession with things being balanced? I like the disbalance in unit ability as you're forced to think how to deal with something. I play Civ to give my brain a work out and chill, not to follow cookie cutter processes.

If you "balance" the game then it becomes a simple case of A+B=C.

What you'd end up with are borders smothered in anti-tank guns with artillery camped out behind them. Standard, solid, boring.

When people talk of balance, what they mean is "I want an 'I win they loose' button" in my view.
__________________
We live in a world where one of the real problems we face is that atoms aren't small enough. Still, so long as we can split them...

I am become Death, the destroyer of worlds...starting with...Disneyworld...
Becomedeath is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Sep 01, 2011, 06:08 AM   #14
fmlizard2
Prince
 
fmlizard2's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Posts: 424
To me, musketmen should be stronger. I agree with the OP's take, especially on Ironclads and Lancers (both relatively useless), but musketmen stand out to me as mediocre. It was particularly egregious pre-patch.

Muskets were the evolution of eons of melee combat. Crude, sure, but up until very recently they were actually worse (16 vs. 18) than the earlier tech longswords. They still are no better, and you almost always are better off building Knights or Crossbows. This is one of the aspects that makes my home Civ (America) arguably the game's worst. I want to like Washington, but any type of musket unit except the Janissary or Musketeer is just too weak. The stock version is totally uncompelling.

Last edited by fmlizard2; Sep 01, 2011 at 06:12 AM.
fmlizard2 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Sep 01, 2011, 06:09 AM   #15
turtlefang
Warlord
 
Join Date: May 2011
Posts: 155
I haven't found a real use for ironclads so I would agree that they need something just to encourage building a few.

Lancers - I always build three or four to upgrade to helis - the move - attack - move combo a real killer and lancers keep it without waiting for logistics. And MadJinn has the lancer tactic down pad - eat around the edges and they can cause a lot of pain by slash and run. Use them like a tank and they die.

Cavalry - Again, I find them fairly useful for rapid response and potential upgrades to tanks. I like to build a half a dozen or so to start building promotions. Cavalry never really dominated the battlefield, especially after the invention of the bayonet and infantry square. It could help win battles but didn't just overrun things. As it is, it will overrun art or missile units. And it provides that extra bit of killing power on the flanks or to finish off a wounded enemy so you don't see him again. Which was its role for much of history in battle (beyond scouting & raiding).

Boats - naval war in general is just underwhelming. Overall, it could use a major boost. Its gotten better but it really doesn't have much of a naval feel or, usually, much impact on the game.
turtlefang is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Sep 01, 2011, 06:34 AM   #16
apocalypse105
Deity
 
Join Date: May 2011
Posts: 2,461
Quote:
Originally Posted by fmlizard2 View Post
To me, musketmen should be stronger. I agree with the OP's take, especially on Ironclads and Lancers (both relatively useless), but musketmen stand out to me as mediocre. It was particularly egregious pre-patch.

Muskets were the evolution of eons of melee combat. Crude, sure, but up until very recently they were actually worse (16 vs. 18) than the earlier tech longswords. They still are no better, and you almost always are better off building Knights or Crossbows. This is one of the aspects that makes my home Civ (America) arguably the game's worst. I want to like Washington, but any type of musket unit except the Janissary or Musketeer is just too weak. The stock version is totally uncompelling.
Knight have a hard time atacking city's and can be killed by pikeman
crosbowman can only perform range and is weak in melee

So they have there uses those musketman
apocalypse105 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Sep 01, 2011, 06:40 AM   #17
apocalypse105
Deity
 
Join Date: May 2011
Posts: 2,461
Quote:
Originally Posted by turtlefang View Post
I haven't found a real use for ironclads so I would agree that they need something just to encourage building a few.

Lancers - I always build three or four to upgrade to helis - the move - attack - move combo a real killer and lancers keep it without waiting for logistics. And MadJinn has the lancer tactic down pad - eat around the edges and they can cause a lot of pain by slash and run. Use them like a tank and they die.

Cavalry - Again, I find them fairly useful for rapid response and potential upgrades to tanks. I like to build a half a dozen or so to start building promotions. Cavalry never really dominated the battlefield, especially after the invention of the bayonet and infantry square. It could help win battles but didn't just overrun things. As it is, it will overrun art or missile units. And it provides that extra bit of killing power on the flanks or to finish off a wounded enemy so you don't see him again. Which was its role for much of history in battle (beyond scouting & raiding).

Boats - naval war in general is just underwhelming. Overall, it could use a major boost. Its gotten better but it really doesn't have much of a naval feel or, usually, much impact on the game.

Cavalry Where support units But a army could not stand without it..


Without cavalry, battles are without result"
- Napoleon Bonaparte

You can't win a war without cavalry in the time of renaissance and industrial...


But in civilization 5 I dont feel the same I can win wars without them There is someting that is missing...
apocalypse105 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Sep 01, 2011, 09:17 AM   #18
Krikkitone
Deity
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Posts: 6,891
Ironclad should have their "can't travel in Ocean" replaced with a "requires 2 movement points to cross Ocean", and +1 movement. So they are still better on the Coast, but are viable ships.
__________________
Improvement Ideas
City States:http://forums.civfanatics.com/showth...5#post11296685
Miscelaneous Ideas:http://forums.civfanatics.com/showpo...&postcount=403
Krikkitone is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Sep 01, 2011, 09:55 AM   #19
jbevermore
Warmongering Menace
 
jbevermore's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Southeastern US
Posts: 145
The problem in no small part is that there wasn't this moment of brilliance where people stopped using swords and halberds and started using rifles. Transitional formations like the tercio are completely neglected in the Civ series despite being dominant on European battlefields in their time.

So in terms of historical accuracy Civ is getting it right, early firearms were not that dominant over melee weapons. But in a mixed formation they were a terror, and that's not really represented. I'm not totally sure how to fix Musketmen in that light, but a bonus against melee might be the best way to go about it.
jbevermore is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Sep 01, 2011, 12:43 PM   #20
Babri
Emperor
 
Babri's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: Pakistan
Posts: 2,266
Quote:
Originally Posted by jbevermore View Post
The problem in no small part is that there wasn't this moment of brilliance where people stopped using swords and halberds and started using rifles. Transitional formations like the tercio are completely neglected in the Civ series despite being dominant on European battlefields in their time.

So in terms of historical accuracy Civ is getting it right, early firearms were not that dominant over melee weapons. But in a mixed formation they were a terror, and that's not really represented. I'm not totally sure how to fix Musketmen in that light, but a bonus against melee might be the best way to go about it.
Units getting varied bonus from adjacent units perhaps. Muskets will get both melee & mounted bonus for nearby pikes.
__________________
The ultimate balance mod for ciV : GEM. Try it.
Babri is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Bookmarks

Go Back Civilization Fanatics' Forums > CIVILIZATION V > Civ5 - General Discussions > list of units neding buff

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off



Advertisement

All times are GMT -6. The time now is 12:09 PM.


Powered by vBulletin®
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
This site is copyright Civilization Fanatics' Center.
Support CFC: Amazon.com | Amazon UK | Amazon DE | Amazon CA | Amazon FR