MadDjinn
Deity
- Joined
- Jan 28, 2011
- Messages
- 4,554
ranged units counter melee units, since you take no damage when you fire. Enough shots and the melee unit dies without being able to do any damage. (bombardment kills melee nicely)
list of units neding buff
- Thread starter The A.K.T
- Start date
ranged units counter melee units, since you take no damage when you fire. Enough shots and the melee unit dies without being able to do any damage. (bombardment kills melee nicely)
I probably haven't mastered them but to me the fact they can't attack after dropping makes their special ability largely useless other than a means of redeploying infantry from one side of my empire to the other faster.
The ironclad seems useless.
Kevin J
Hewer of Wood
Yeah, the no-ocean limitation severely limits the usefulness of the ironclad. I'd much prefer something along the lines of 2 movement cost per ocean tile, and still let them cross oceans. They'd be very slow and unwieldy on ocean - ocean tiles would be the water equivalent of rough terrain to them, instead of mountains. I think this would make the unit more useful, while still retaining an ocean-going handicap.
EDIT: I just read through the rest of the thread and saw Krikkitone suggested the same thing before me - but also suggested one more base movement to the Ironclad. I support his suggestion
svett89
Chieftain
With a small army of Paratroopers, coupled with some Bombers, you can dish out a LOT of damage to a well-fortified enemy. Often I find cities that have few tiles from which you can attack from or are nearly completely surrounded by mountains. In these cases, Paratroopers are excellent. However, they are actually slightly worse these days due to the buffs to tanks in a recent patch (the only other unit that is good at "sniping" cities in the Modern Era) but are still excellent when it comes to finishing off cities that are already ravaged by your aircraft.
turtlefang
Warlord
- Joined
- May 9, 2011
- Messages
- 155
Paratroopers are simply a terror after the arrival of bombers. Build three or four, especially if you have the Brandenburg Gate, take Shock 1, Cover, Medic promotion right off the production line.
The Medic promotion lets them heal quickly. Cover promotion protects them from the city's defensive fire and artillery if its around. Shock gives them a defensive bonus on rough terrain.
Then drop them beside a city, let three bombers hit the city on the turn Paras drop, then hit the city the next turn, have the para attack, dead city. Rinse, repeat, keep going.
Unless someone has artillery or tanks to kill them, they just keep taking cities one after another as long as the planes are within range. And it doesn't have to be a city - any hardpoint that's within their drop distance. That combination is simply a killer.
Use them early in a turn, open up a city and capture the road network. Next thing you know, your tanks and mech infantry have an unprotected pathway to the heart of the enemy's territory.
As far as ironclads go, don't know it the 2 pts per ocean tile and increased mvt would get me to build them. It certainly makes them better than now and might make me consider it. Right now, I wouldn't consider it.
The Medic promotion lets them heal quickly. Cover promotion protects them from the city's defensive fire and artillery if its around. Shock gives them a defensive bonus on rough terrain.
Then drop them beside a city, let three bombers hit the city on the turn Paras drop, then hit the city the next turn, have the para attack, dead city. Rinse, repeat, keep going.
Unless someone has artillery or tanks to kill them, they just keep taking cities one after another as long as the planes are within range. And it doesn't have to be a city - any hardpoint that's within their drop distance. That combination is simply a killer.
Use them early in a turn, open up a city and capture the road network. Next thing you know, your tanks and mech infantry have an unprotected pathway to the heart of the enemy's territory.
As far as ironclads go, don't know it the 2 pts per ocean tile and increased mvt would get me to build them. It certainly makes them better than now and might make me consider it. Right now, I wouldn't consider it.
Units getting varied bonus from adjacent units perhaps. Muskets will get both melee & mounted bonus for nearby pikes.
I like these ideas, except for the mounted bonus for musketman (Pikes and Muskets at the frontline would make cavalry and Lancers even weaker then they are now).
Rinnero
Chieftain
- Joined
- May 30, 2011
- Messages
- 89
What do you think about such balance with clear roles of units?
My explanation to unit types and their role: (from the gameplay point of view, not as it is in real life)
5 main types that should exist through all eras and have specific role each.
- Melee (swordsman - mech infantry). Right now they are too overpowered. They can do anything: attack, defend, capture cities, but they do not have counter-unit.
Should be weaker than now by at least 20%. That will emphases their role of defenders, that they should really be. (because their CS will be as now only if in rough terrain/fortified=defence)
- Ranged (archer - crossbowman, but add some more). Good units, but must have Melee or Mount units nearby for protection. So they are not self-sufficient as Melee or Mount/Armor.
Changes to do: make this units really anti-melee to buff Ranged and create a counterunit for Melee. That will completely balance out Melee units. CS bonus against Melee should be +33%, but CS penalty against cities and Mount/Armor should be -33%.
As to new units:
This choice of units is pretty discussable, so I propose this version:
The main idea is actually balancing unit types and specializing it so that Melee wouldnt be that versatile and self-sufficient units for any situations.
You better look at gameplay possibilities you get. That you will have some unit to take out Rifleman and Mech infantry pretty effictively.
I just know that there must be 3 new units to extend Ranged unit type to modern era.
And what's important is parameters of these units, not names.
Field gun Range 2, CS 12, ranged attack 20
Mortar stay as it is. Range 2, CS 18, ranged attack 28
Than Rocket Artillery will be moved into Ranged type and will have all bonuses and penalties of Ranged. That makes sense as MLRs are really much more effective against manpower, but weaker against armored units and highly fortified buildings.
Range 3, CS 22, ranged attack 40
Instead of Rocket Artillery there will be something like vertical launched single rocket unit or wheeled tomahawk launcher (like in C&C generals, I know it sounds a bit Sci-fiishly but why not? similar things exist) to penetrate bunker defences. That better represents weapon that is used against fortified defences (bunkers and fortresses) in cities. Range 3, CS 18, ranged attack 48
- Mount/Armor (horseman - modern armor). Interesting units that are usually ignored due to overpowered Melee.
If changes to Melee and Ranged will be applied, this type will be good balanced. It already has counterunit, requires strategic res, and usually further in tech tree.
- Anti-Mount/Armor (spearman - helicopter) This units change significantly through ages (pikeman is slow, but than lancer is fast but weak in defence, than again slow, than fast and versatile), but their main task is the same. They are rarely built now because Mount/Armor is rarely built, but if Melee will be weaker and more specialized in defence, more Mount/Armor units will be built.
Upgrade path should be linked with all this 5 units.
- Siege (catapult - rocket artillery (change RA to really siege unit, capable of destroying fortified structures(read ranged upgrade path))). Obviously anti-city unit, even though in modern era they are historically Soft-attack units. But lets leave them anti-city task. We should add this units +33% CS against cities. But do not add a penalty against units. Instead of this set up should require 2 move points, and thats why it will take a lot of time to set up siege. That will further distinct Siege from Range.
And some additional and special types that appear only in industrial era:
- Antiair (should have -50% CS against any land unit when they attack and when they defend, except for ranged fire)
- Fighter (should have innate bonus to CS against Mount-Armor type, probably 33-50%)
- Bomber (should stay as it is)
So the roles are:
Melee - easy to get, perfect in defence unit.
Ranged - mobile, ranged and anti-melee unit.
Mount/Armor - very mobile, strong unit.
Anti-Mount/Armor - counter to strongest unit, has some extra uses as lancers and helicopters.
Siege - take out cities, very immobile unit.
Anti-air - landed anti-air defence.
Fighter - multi-role, air anti-air defence, support in land and naval battles.
Bomber - viable alternative to Siege against cities, good against land units.
THAT is balance.
My explanation to unit types and their role: (from the gameplay point of view, not as it is in real life)
5 main types that should exist through all eras and have specific role each.
- Melee (swordsman - mech infantry). Right now they are too overpowered. They can do anything: attack, defend, capture cities, but they do not have counter-unit.
Should be weaker than now by at least 20%. That will emphases their role of defenders, that they should really be. (because their CS will be as now only if in rough terrain/fortified=defence)
- Ranged (archer - crossbowman, but add some more). Good units, but must have Melee or Mount units nearby for protection. So they are not self-sufficient as Melee or Mount/Armor.
Changes to do: make this units really anti-melee to buff Ranged and create a counterunit for Melee. That will completely balance out Melee units. CS bonus against Melee should be +33%, but CS penalty against cities and Mount/Armor should be -33%.
As to new units:
This choice of units is pretty discussable, so I propose this version:
The main idea is actually balancing unit types and specializing it so that Melee wouldnt be that versatile and self-sufficient units for any situations.
You better look at gameplay possibilities you get. That you will have some unit to take out Rifleman and Mech infantry pretty effictively.
I just know that there must be 3 new units to extend Ranged unit type to modern era.
And what's important is parameters of these units, not names.
Field gun Range 2, CS 12, ranged attack 20
Mortar stay as it is. Range 2, CS 18, ranged attack 28
Than Rocket Artillery will be moved into Ranged type and will have all bonuses and penalties of Ranged. That makes sense as MLRs are really much more effective against manpower, but weaker against armored units and highly fortified buildings.
Range 3, CS 22, ranged attack 40
Instead of Rocket Artillery there will be something like vertical launched single rocket unit or wheeled tomahawk launcher (like in C&C generals, I know it sounds a bit Sci-fiishly but why not? similar things exist) to penetrate bunker defences. That better represents weapon that is used against fortified defences (bunkers and fortresses) in cities. Range 3, CS 18, ranged attack 48
- Mount/Armor (horseman - modern armor). Interesting units that are usually ignored due to overpowered Melee.
If changes to Melee and Ranged will be applied, this type will be good balanced. It already has counterunit, requires strategic res, and usually further in tech tree.
- Anti-Mount/Armor (spearman - helicopter) This units change significantly through ages (pikeman is slow, but than lancer is fast but weak in defence, than again slow, than fast and versatile), but their main task is the same. They are rarely built now because Mount/Armor is rarely built, but if Melee will be weaker and more specialized in defence, more Mount/Armor units will be built.
Upgrade path should be linked with all this 5 units.
- Siege (catapult - rocket artillery (change RA to really siege unit, capable of destroying fortified structures(read ranged upgrade path))). Obviously anti-city unit, even though in modern era they are historically Soft-attack units. But lets leave them anti-city task. We should add this units +33% CS against cities. But do not add a penalty against units. Instead of this set up should require 2 move points, and thats why it will take a lot of time to set up siege. That will further distinct Siege from Range.
And some additional and special types that appear only in industrial era:
- Antiair (should have -50% CS against any land unit when they attack and when they defend, except for ranged fire)
- Fighter (should have innate bonus to CS against Mount-Armor type, probably 33-50%)
- Bomber (should stay as it is)
So the roles are:
Melee - easy to get, perfect in defence unit.
Ranged - mobile, ranged and anti-melee unit.
Mount/Armor - very mobile, strong unit.
Anti-Mount/Armor - counter to strongest unit, has some extra uses as lancers and helicopters.
Siege - take out cities, very immobile unit.
Anti-air - landed anti-air defence.
Fighter - multi-role, air anti-air defence, support in land and naval battles.
Bomber - viable alternative to Siege against cities, good against land units.
THAT is balance.
They should be cheaper not stronger. That what was made them popular initially. Early gunpowder weapons weren't inherently stronger than (cross)bows.
Thanks for the pro-tip.
How do you do that?
Build the barracks, armory and arsenal in your military-production city and select these promotions when the unit pops.
KrikkitTwo
Immortal
- Joined
- Apr 3, 2004
- Messages
- 12,418
With LS getting nerfed, that has indirectly buffed... Knights, Muskets, and Pikes.
Maybe giving Muskets a +25% or so v. Melee would tilt the odds
Tanks were buffed, the only remaining units who have a Role that needs it are Cavalry (and the related Lancers).. make Cavs ~27 cs and remove their -50% mounted (give Lancers a +50% mounted).. That would make Cavalry Better v. Rifles/Muskets, and Knights for that matter. And it would make Lancers better (indirectly because there are more Cavalry) and directly v. Knights.
I don't think a "ranged upgrade path" is needed, just making the promotions convert properly (just Open 1-3, and Rough 1-3 for both Melee+Ranged)
Paratroopers could be buffed, perhaps by increasing their range (specializing them more... give them a range of 8 or so)
Ironclads must be ocean movable to be significant
GDR probably needs a buff, (not a significant game balance issue, but they are nearly worthless) because they are competing with Nukes... so either
1. Nerf nukes (SDI project, Interceptable Atomic Bombs)
OR
2. Make GDR not require Uranium (maybe it requires a Nuclear Plant at the city it will be built at instead.)
Having a super resourceless unit would be very nice for Domination
Maybe giving Muskets a +25% or so v. Melee would tilt the odds
Tanks were buffed, the only remaining units who have a Role that needs it are Cavalry (and the related Lancers).. make Cavs ~27 cs and remove their -50% mounted (give Lancers a +50% mounted).. That would make Cavalry Better v. Rifles/Muskets, and Knights for that matter. And it would make Lancers better (indirectly because there are more Cavalry) and directly v. Knights.
I don't think a "ranged upgrade path" is needed, just making the promotions convert properly (just Open 1-3, and Rough 1-3 for both Melee+Ranged)
Paratroopers could be buffed, perhaps by increasing their range (specializing them more... give them a range of 8 or so)
Ironclads must be ocean movable to be significant
GDR probably needs a buff, (not a significant game balance issue, but they are nearly worthless) because they are competing with Nukes... so either
1. Nerf nukes (SDI project, Interceptable Atomic Bombs)
OR
2. Make GDR not require Uranium (maybe it requires a Nuclear Plant at the city it will be built at instead.)
Having a super resourceless unit would be very nice for Domination
Swords & LS can be countered by archers. However rifles seem to be too dominant because they need no resource & cavalry & lancers are pretty useless.
I thought the arsenal was just a defensive building.
He certainly mean the military Academy. Since the patch, i always try to build the branden gate, cause with it and your 3*15 xp building, you can get 3 free promotion when unit are created.
OK, that is what I thought. Unless you have the three buildings AND the BG you will not be getting three promos "off the production line". That is not often possible.
The thing with Paratroopers is that whilst they can be useful at times, they aren't regularly powerful, more often being fairly useless. When they are useful, they aren't overly useful. For instance, to keep an attack rolling with quick attacks on cities, the same can often be achieved with other units. And even if you have to wait for other units to catch up, the damage to the city is still done by your bombers.
- Joined
- Mar 31, 2008
- Messages
- 14,926
GASP!
Paratroopers are extremely useful with Bombers and Stealth Bombers for taking cities not in one-turn blitz range of your units. The only unit more useful for the task is Modern Armor, which is more expensive and requires aluminum. So, if you're playing something like an Industrial or Modern start, you can't go wrong with spamming paras and bombers until you can snag key resources.
But the unit that requires the largest buff is the Ironclad. It requires coal, can't move across ocean, and is outclassed by the next naval unit. It exists in its own world and isn't even useful on marathon speed. If anything, they should replace the Ironclad with Dreadnoughts or expand the entire Industrial era. One is clearly easier than the other.
Maybe it is realistic. I don't think ironclads were very useful for long, if ever. They were slow, marginally sea worthy vessels whose main glories were in pulverizing wooden hulled vessels in ports and rivers. Maybe what is needed is navigable rivers.
Dreadnoughts would be doubling up battleships.
- Joined
- Mar 31, 2008
- Messages
- 14,926
Well, if rivers were navigable, ironclads would be useful.
But what's easier? Making rivers navigable and balancing bridge building and the like or simply replacing Ironclads with Dreadnoughts which can stay competitive longer and upgrade to Battleships later.
It seems like a lot of people posting here either haven't played for long or don't remember a few patches ago. Iron units used to be almost worthless. Horsemen had strength 12 and horse units didn't get a city attack penalty, meaning with move-attack-move you could pretty much win with nothing but horses. If someone got stuck with Iron iron and no horse, they would think "well at least I can build some Trebuchets and defend my cities, but I'll never be able to conquest because I can't build knights."
All that happened was that the dial got turned too far back. I think the balance would be pretty much fine if the city attack penalty were lessened, Knights and Cavalry were brought up to 4 movement, and we lost the atrocious "if a Mech Infantry used to be a Spearman 3000 years ago it still has +100% vs. mounted" mechanic (with the exception of unique promotions from UUs).
Counter units aren't that big of a deal because of how % modifiers work. Yeah, a level 1 pike will do well against a level 1 knight with no other modifiers (20 strength vs. 16 strength), but once you add promotions, generals, and more modifiers the matchup swings in favor of the knight. Say each side has:
Shock 3 and in open terrain (+65%)
A Great General nearby (+25%, or is it 20% now)
1 flanking bonus (+15%, I think, or maybe 10%)
1 discipline bonus (+15%)
Heroic Epic (+15%)
I may be off with some of those; I haven't played much recently. Either way, it works since each side has the same % bonuses. I'm going to ignore open terrain defense because that could go whichever way, but it's more likely to come down on the side of the more mobile unit, so take that into account.
Anyways, here's how their strengths end up. They're additive, not multiplicative, so they don't modify each other. They just all add a % of the base strength:
Pikeman:
10 Base
+10 (vs. mounted) = 20
+6.5 (Shock 3) = 26.5
+2.5 (Great General) = 29
+1.5 (flanking bonus) = 30.5
+1.5 (discipline) = 32
+1.5 (Heroic Epic) = 33.5
Knight:
16 Base
+10.4 (Shock 3) = 26.4
+4 (Great General) = 30.4
+2.4 (flanking bonus) = 32.8
+2.4 (discipline) = 34.2
+2.4 (Heroic Epic) = 36.6
Yeah, that's some counter unit. That's not even taking into account the knight's move-attack-move or greater mobility.
Anyways, this just goes to show the problem isn't counter units. I'd also say that adding a bunch of unit categories to complicate the counter system isn't necessary. This is because, IMO, the problems are as follows:
1) Horses were over-nerfed in general
2) Because of the scale, Knights and Cavalry are too slow to make up for their weaknesses
3) Strategic Resources are too easy to come by
Item 1 I've already explained, but 2 and 3 will take some elaboration. I understand why mounted units have the speeds they have; that doesn't mean I agree with it. The reasoning, I'm sure, is that light cavalry (horsemen/lancers) should be faster than heavy cavalry (knights). Cavalry should also be slower because the point of the Lancer is to be able to counter cavalry and the occasional odd knight. Plus, having horsemen/lancers be faster than tanks wouldn't make sense (excluding Companion Cavalry; who knows what those crazy Greeks are feeding their horses?) So the scale of the game dictates that knights and cavalry be movement 3. Which kills their utility, which is the one thing they have going for them. Also, if you retool unit speed, cavalry soft counter ranged units better than they do now, so you have balance there without having to add hard counters. You could even buff ranged non-siege units a bit.
As for point 3, the scale of strategic resources further destabilizes the game. It's not necessarily that there are too many on any given map (although IMO 6-yield iron should be reduced to 4 or even eliminated; call me crazy), but rather that if you want 20 iron units, you can get 20 iron units. If you want 20 knights, you can get your 20 knights. Either through trades, settling, or city-states, but most likely through all three. That pushes all other units out to the margins in all but a few extreme examples. Plus, it kills realism. Warfare would have looked quite a bit different if every man in every army in history could have had full plate mail on his back, 5 feet of steel in his hands, and a horse.
Now how does this tie into my main point? In two ways. First, the game can't both be balanced and realistic like that. Either the units are mediocre and it's unrealistic, or the game is realistic but strategic resources dominate – assuming the longswordsmen are supposed to represent the later renaissance when they figured out how to angle plate mail to deflect blows. Second, the whole game has been balanced (albeit perhaps not that well) around this abundance of iron and horse; the less-than-stellar state of mounted units right now is a direct result of them running amok earlier and being brought down. If they could balance the game around expecting a renaissance army to have a combination of 6-10 horse/iron units, they could make those units stand out but still need support. That is, if combat against the AI weren't so easy, but that's an entirely different subject.
On an entirely different note, muskets are fine as they are. Well, at least in combat strength. People often seem to get this impression that someone fired the first portable firearm and everything changed. That's not true at all. Early firearms were garbage. They often complimented other armaments (as with tercios, dragoons, etc.), but they sucked. The reason they caught on was because you didn't have to spend your life (and fortune) figuring out how to use them. You could take a bunch of townsmen, hand them muskets, and tell them to pull the trigger. You now have an army.
Civ V tries to emulate that by giving them the same strength as longswords (less, until recently, and IMO it should stay less) but without a strategic resource and at a hammer discount. And that's fine. You can argue the fine points, but the musketmen are obviously supposed to represent the weapon/formation's early days, and it does a fine job of that.
Now for a really misrepresented unit, try the Pikeman. Pikes were fearsome in their time, and not just against horses. A pike formation could hold its own against just about any other melee formation for centuries. The problem was that they were slow, they were cumbersome, and they couldn't adapt to advancements in ranged weapons, against which they were completely exposed. So if you really want to find a unit that is poor in gameplay (especially with the problems I pointed out in not countering units) and lacks realism, take that one up. You could easily make it a strength 12-14 unit with a 100% bonus against mounted and a 50% defense penalty against bombardment and call it a day. If you wanted to get really ambitious, you could even weaken them per unit flanking them. You'd have to rebalance the other period units around them, but that's no problem.
But muskets? Muskets are fine.
All that happened was that the dial got turned too far back. I think the balance would be pretty much fine if the city attack penalty were lessened, Knights and Cavalry were brought up to 4 movement, and we lost the atrocious "if a Mech Infantry used to be a Spearman 3000 years ago it still has +100% vs. mounted" mechanic (with the exception of unique promotions from UUs).
Counter units aren't that big of a deal because of how % modifiers work. Yeah, a level 1 pike will do well against a level 1 knight with no other modifiers (20 strength vs. 16 strength), but once you add promotions, generals, and more modifiers the matchup swings in favor of the knight. Say each side has:
Shock 3 and in open terrain (+65%)
A Great General nearby (+25%, or is it 20% now)
1 flanking bonus (+15%, I think, or maybe 10%)
1 discipline bonus (+15%)
Heroic Epic (+15%)
I may be off with some of those; I haven't played much recently. Either way, it works since each side has the same % bonuses. I'm going to ignore open terrain defense because that could go whichever way, but it's more likely to come down on the side of the more mobile unit, so take that into account.
Anyways, here's how their strengths end up. They're additive, not multiplicative, so they don't modify each other. They just all add a % of the base strength:
Pikeman:
10 Base
+10 (vs. mounted) = 20
+6.5 (Shock 3) = 26.5
+2.5 (Great General) = 29
+1.5 (flanking bonus) = 30.5
+1.5 (discipline) = 32
+1.5 (Heroic Epic) = 33.5
Knight:
16 Base
+10.4 (Shock 3) = 26.4
+4 (Great General) = 30.4
+2.4 (flanking bonus) = 32.8
+2.4 (discipline) = 34.2
+2.4 (Heroic Epic) = 36.6
Yeah, that's some counter unit. That's not even taking into account the knight's move-attack-move or greater mobility.
Anyways, this just goes to show the problem isn't counter units. I'd also say that adding a bunch of unit categories to complicate the counter system isn't necessary. This is because, IMO, the problems are as follows:
1) Horses were over-nerfed in general
2) Because of the scale, Knights and Cavalry are too slow to make up for their weaknesses
3) Strategic Resources are too easy to come by
Item 1 I've already explained, but 2 and 3 will take some elaboration. I understand why mounted units have the speeds they have; that doesn't mean I agree with it. The reasoning, I'm sure, is that light cavalry (horsemen/lancers) should be faster than heavy cavalry (knights). Cavalry should also be slower because the point of the Lancer is to be able to counter cavalry and the occasional odd knight. Plus, having horsemen/lancers be faster than tanks wouldn't make sense (excluding Companion Cavalry; who knows what those crazy Greeks are feeding their horses?) So the scale of the game dictates that knights and cavalry be movement 3. Which kills their utility, which is the one thing they have going for them. Also, if you retool unit speed, cavalry soft counter ranged units better than they do now, so you have balance there without having to add hard counters. You could even buff ranged non-siege units a bit.
As for point 3, the scale of strategic resources further destabilizes the game. It's not necessarily that there are too many on any given map (although IMO 6-yield iron should be reduced to 4 or even eliminated; call me crazy), but rather that if you want 20 iron units, you can get 20 iron units. If you want 20 knights, you can get your 20 knights. Either through trades, settling, or city-states, but most likely through all three. That pushes all other units out to the margins in all but a few extreme examples. Plus, it kills realism. Warfare would have looked quite a bit different if every man in every army in history could have had full plate mail on his back, 5 feet of steel in his hands, and a horse.
Now how does this tie into my main point? In two ways. First, the game can't both be balanced and realistic like that. Either the units are mediocre and it's unrealistic, or the game is realistic but strategic resources dominate – assuming the longswordsmen are supposed to represent the later renaissance when they figured out how to angle plate mail to deflect blows. Second, the whole game has been balanced (albeit perhaps not that well) around this abundance of iron and horse; the less-than-stellar state of mounted units right now is a direct result of them running amok earlier and being brought down. If they could balance the game around expecting a renaissance army to have a combination of 6-10 horse/iron units, they could make those units stand out but still need support. That is, if combat against the AI weren't so easy, but that's an entirely different subject.
On an entirely different note, muskets are fine as they are. Well, at least in combat strength. People often seem to get this impression that someone fired the first portable firearm and everything changed. That's not true at all. Early firearms were garbage. They often complimented other armaments (as with tercios, dragoons, etc.), but they sucked. The reason they caught on was because you didn't have to spend your life (and fortune) figuring out how to use them. You could take a bunch of townsmen, hand them muskets, and tell them to pull the trigger. You now have an army.
Civ V tries to emulate that by giving them the same strength as longswords (less, until recently, and IMO it should stay less) but without a strategic resource and at a hammer discount. And that's fine. You can argue the fine points, but the musketmen are obviously supposed to represent the weapon/formation's early days, and it does a fine job of that.
Now for a really misrepresented unit, try the Pikeman. Pikes were fearsome in their time, and not just against horses. A pike formation could hold its own against just about any other melee formation for centuries. The problem was that they were slow, they were cumbersome, and they couldn't adapt to advancements in ranged weapons, against which they were completely exposed. So if you really want to find a unit that is poor in gameplay (especially with the problems I pointed out in not countering units) and lacks realism, take that one up. You could easily make it a strength 12-14 unit with a 100% bonus against mounted and a 50% defense penalty against bombardment and call it a day. If you wanted to get really ambitious, you could even weaken them per unit flanking them. You'd have to rebalance the other period units around them, but that's no problem.
But muskets? Muskets are fine.
That's a limited situation, though, which relies upon not only reducing the city to rubble with bombers, but then ensuring that your Paratrooper doesn't get destroyed whilst it waits to take the city. This requires more air support. I mean, sure, it can be used for that purpose, and that's what it is best at, but that doesn't make it a very useful unit, especially if you're facing a fairly equally matched opponent.
Similar threads
