list of units neding buff

[The A.K.T]

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

Lancer
Cavalry
ironclad

[sstger]

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

[Ex.plode]

Mounted units seem to have a hard time, alot of +% vs cavalry units, and terrain costs make them pretty weak.

[qemist]

Originally Posted by sstger

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.

Originally Posted by sstger

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.

Originally Posted by sstger

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.

[sstger]

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)

[Rinnero]

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...

[dexters]

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.

[Camikaze]

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.

[wobuffet]

What do you guys mean by the Apache unit? If you mean the helicopter gunship, I've always found it a bit underwhelming.

[MadDjinn]

Originally Posted by wobuffet

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.

[apocalypse105]

Originally Posted by Rinnero

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....

[Montov]

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.

[Becomedeath]

Originally Posted by apocalypse105

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.

[fmlizard2]

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.

[turtlefang]

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.

[apocalypse105]

Originally Posted by fmlizard2

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]

Originally Posted by turtlefang

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...

[Krikkitone]

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.

[jbevermore]

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.

[Babri]

Originally Posted by jbevermore

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.