I don't think I agree with the "Longbows are better than CKNs in small groups" comment. Try a thought experiment with 100 LBS vs 100CKNs on plains, and you will see that LBs will win. However, 1LB vs 1CKN favours the CKN slightly.
Longbows vs. Chu-Ko-Nus?
- Thread starter Vajrajina
- Start date
I don't think I agree with the "Longbows are better than CKNs in small groups" comment. Try a thought experiment with 100 LBS vs 100CKNs on plains, and you will see that LBs will win. However, 1LB vs 1CKN favours the CKN slightly.
1. In normal maps, 80 of those 100lbs will not be able to fire 3 hexes, of which 50 will not be able to fire even 2 hexes. In a direct confrontation
2. We are not comparing longbow vs CKN in a direct fight. We are comparing longbow/ckn vs cities and other units.
I agree with what you just said above.
However, I still maintain that, as a general rule, range vs firepower asymmetrical conflicts tend to tip the scales in favour of range the greater the numbers of both sides. To make this point, I would like to present the analogy of a zealots vs marines engagement in starcraft, if you are familiar with that game.
I'd like to see a reasonable number of trials of attempting to get a deity pangaea domination victory with the following two separate conditions:
1. You play as england and the only military units you're allowed to use are the the warrior line up to longswordsmen, the archer line up to longbowmen, the spear line up to pikemen, and the horse line up to knight.
2. You play as china and ditto except replace longbowmen with chukonu. And great generals are obviously okay too.
I can pretty damn well guarantee england will outperform china under these conditions. China is probably somewhat better at initiating a medieval era war that only intends to take a few cities before building up to artillery to finish the rest of the map, and they're probably somewhat better at winning a domination victory post industrial, with their logistics machine guns and bonused GG, but the CKN is a major bummer to attempt to win a sub 180 DV with.
1. You play as england and the only military units you're allowed to use are the the warrior line up to longswordsmen, the archer line up to longbowmen, the spear line up to pikemen, and the horse line up to knight.
2. You play as china and ditto except replace longbowmen with chukonu. And great generals are obviously okay too.
I can pretty damn well guarantee england will outperform china under these conditions. China is probably somewhat better at initiating a medieval era war that only intends to take a few cities before building up to artillery to finish the rest of the map, and they're probably somewhat better at winning a domination victory post industrial, with their logistics machine guns and bonused GG, but the CKN is a major bummer to attempt to win a sub 180 DV with.
I thought the initial question was to ignore all other differences between China and England. Since China does have the general advantage, shouldn't generals be removed to stick to the question?
59saintdane
Warlord
- Joined
- Jul 14, 2014
- Messages
- 230
The OP asked which unit was better, disregarding the other bonuses from the civs. So if you're a generic civ and you somehow get your hands on those units, which would you prefer.
GGs tip the balance in favour of CKNs. In reality though, they're not a component of the UU, they're a component of the civ that has the UU. And this thread is for comparing the units, not the civs.
GGs tip the balance in favour of CKNs. In reality though, they're not a component of the UU, they're a component of the civ that has the UU. And this thread is for comparing the units, not the civs.
The point was, with UU is superior. Not which Civ is superior.
It may not have any practical uses, but it is what was asked.
What is to be gained from having that discussion? It's simply a fact that when a unit fights, some significant percentage of the time it will be bonused by a great general. Let's state that percentage to be 60% for the sake of this example. This means on average that the LBM has an average attack bonus of 0.6*0.15 which is a 9 percent bonus, and the CKN gets a 0.6*0.3 = 18 percent bonus. This serves to slightly mitigate CKN's disadvantages over the LBM, but its a very minor point. But not comparing the civs is just silly because it ignores context and you rarely have the UU outside of the context of the civ, so again, why even have this debate in such a vacuum?
Because that is the terms of the debate. If you don't like the debate, don't join in.
Ryoga
King
- Joined
- Oct 12, 2010
- Messages
- 993
Well the CS argument still stands. Anyway it's a discussion, it doesn't need to have a practical purpose strategy-wise
kc123
Chieftain
It sort of depends on the situation, but I'm definitely a longbow guy. It's really unfortunate that longbows don't have indirect fire, but they're amazing. On the defense especially, longbows can shred through an army very quickly. Cut down forests on hills, and longbows on high terrain can fire three tiles away. It's their ability to attack at such a range that makes then so deadly.
This is not to say that CKNs are bad. Logistics is a great promotion, but I don't think it's as good as range. Although CKNs can do double damage, they can also get mauled by knights - something that longbows generally do not have to worry about.
This is not to say that CKNs are bad. Logistics is a great promotion, but I don't think it's as good as range. Although CKNs can do double damage, they can also get mauled by knights - something that longbows generally do not have to worry about.
Do you prefer strong defense or attack?
If you are defending, I prefer the CKN because they do tons of raw damage to units right away as green recruits. Heavy DPS (err.. DPTurn) and near-immediate promotion stacking is exactly what you need when there's a unit in every tile and walls are crumbling. Also, the city is tanking the hits, you can always double shoot within the garrison, and forts & fortified pike formations synergize well with CKN's "stand and deliver" double attack. Meanwhile, longbows have devastating focus fire and unparallelled safety. But Longbow's advantage in range heckling with partial retreat/advance isn't especially meaningful on defense, since cities will tank hits more or less either way & abandoning forts/citadels/cities is rarely worth the modest positional advantage. If only the city would back up and stay in formation...
Attacking, however, I would definitely take longbow. You outrange city bombard by default. That advantage can't be overstated. You can chase and shoot routed foes while attacking at full strength. With enough ranks deep of longbow, decent terrain, and a cavalry task force having pillaged their horse tiles, you are completely untouchable.
If you are defending, I prefer the CKN because they do tons of raw damage to units right away as green recruits. Heavy DPS (err.. DPTurn) and near-immediate promotion stacking is exactly what you need when there's a unit in every tile and walls are crumbling. Also, the city is tanking the hits, you can always double shoot within the garrison, and forts & fortified pike formations synergize well with CKN's "stand and deliver" double attack. Meanwhile, longbows have devastating focus fire and unparallelled safety. But Longbow's advantage in range heckling with partial retreat/advance isn't especially meaningful on defense, since cities will tank hits more or less either way & abandoning forts/citadels/cities is rarely worth the modest positional advantage. If only the city would back up and stay in formation...
Attacking, however, I would definitely take longbow. You outrange city bombard by default. That advantage can't be overstated. You can chase and shoot routed foes while attacking at full strength. With enough ranks deep of longbow, decent terrain, and a cavalry task force having pillaged their horse tiles, you are completely untouchable.
Both are fantastic units, but I prefer the longbowman. I always take workers along with me when invading another civ, and I have them chop down forests that are on a hill (while being guarded by a melee unit, of course - flat terrain with forests can be shot over if your unit is on a hill), allowing my longbowmen to have perfect shots at cities when standing on a hill. I've simply had way more success with longbowmen than with CKN, and more moments where I would pause and roll my eyes at the "over-poweredness". Even though, in my opinion, the longbowman is better, it's only by a slim margin.
azzaman333
meh
I slightly prefer CKNs because the extra promotions give them greater versatility. Can't go wrong with either unit though.
So Longbows can or can't get to range 4? I know CKN's can fire 3 times upon receiving the logistics promotion.
In my experience in conquest games at Emperor or higher, LB's tend to wound units, which can move off and heal, whereas CKN's tend to kill units. A wall of CKN's with GG's is a wall of death.
LB's are probably better for defense in cultural or science games.
Illianor123
Warlord
- Joined
- Aug 26, 2014
- Messages
- 293
Max is 3. They start with the normal range promotion and cannot select it again.
CKNs start with a second attack promotion different to logistics. So they could also select logistics, but unless they have 3 move they can't use the three attacks. (A scout can get three moves then get a ruin and become an archer then get upgraded to a CKN to do this.)
reddishrecue
Some dude on civfans
- Joined
- Nov 16, 2009
- Messages
- 6,212
Ckns don't shoot 3 times because they online move twice. Only exception is when a city state gifts you a ckn and you're Persia and have the golden age unique attribute that allows your units that move 2 times move 3 times. Longbows already start with range.
Similar threads
