Why do people say that Germany and Japan perform badly?

Most of the examples I listed (ocean, mountain, another civ's territory) aren't about poor maneuverability, they're about NO maneuverability. It's just very hard with 1 unit per tile to move an army that large. As I mentioned before, the only terrain that benefits melee more than range is a very dense (> 80%) forest/jungle with no hills. If the terrain is swampy (admittedly rare) or hilly (quite common), your landsknecht are toast as their movement will be reduced to 1 while the composites still have a range of 2. Machiavelli already discussed other types of terrain in great detail. What other kinds of terrain do you believe benefits melee more than ranged, and why?

My point about logistics was just to make the minimum assumptions. I don't actually want to make that point, because as I said, we'll go on in circles forever making assumptions.

Yeah. The trouble is it's impossible not to make assumptions. In hills is where I thought the sknekts would have most advantage, really, not the least. Sure they have to charge two turns to reach you, but your archers have to pick between moving and shooting.

If your archers had melee mixed in with them on flat ground, then your melee could use ZOC to force my sknekts to move only one tile per turn, while your archers are free to move + shoot.

In the hills, ZOC doesn't mean much, but flanking bonuses still help quite a lot. A knight hits your triple flanked X-bow and probably he would one-shot it.


(If you built Alhambra, then I built 6 more crossbows during that time. See how that works?)

Holding off to build Alhambra is a good game long investment.

However I may also be spending gold to build them. And the incredible cheapness of sknekts means it's practical to build one in even my smallest cities. Really the upward limit on how many sknekts you can get fielded has more to do with maintenance costs and less to do with the hammers.

After I'm done with Alhambra, I'll be almost thanking you for killing my cheaper Sknekts (from the small cities with no barracks), so I can get the higher quality Alhambra sknekts out without dying a financial death.
 
Yeah. The trouble is it's impossible not to make assumptions. In hills is where I thought the sknekts would have most advantage, really, not the least. Sure they have to charge two turns to reach you, but your archers have to pick between moving and shooting.

If your archers had melee mixed in with them on flat ground, then your melee could use ZOC to force my sknekts to move only one tile per turn, while your archers are free to move + shoot.

In the hills, ZOC doesn't mean much, but flanking bonuses still help quite a lot. A knight hits your triple flanked X-bow and probably he would one-shot it.

The composites don't even have to move on hilly terrain.
Turn 1: Pikes are 2 tiles away, the front line of composites open fire.
Turn 2: Pikes are adjacent to the front line of composites, but are also in range of the second line.
Turn 3: Er... pikes didn't live to see turn 3. Repeat with the next line of pikes.
This all happens before they can inflict a single blow. If you get a complete surround, then you'll get some shots in. But how long is it going to take you to position yourself for that surround in hilly terrain?

I like Alhambra a lot too, but I'm just going to ignore the Alhambra argument because, again, I don't feel like adding more and more what-ifs and counter what-ifs. The 500 hammers you spent on Alhambra are 500 hammers that I could spend in any number of ways. Same with Medic. Let's be real, those landsknecht are fresh out of the oven with no additional experience other than maybe the +15 from the barracks. It's a zergling rush after all... as you keep saying, you're just sending them off to their deaths, so where'd they find the time to level up?

The one advantage that I accept is that landsknecht are on the natural path to universities. That's why I compare them with composites, since that's only a slight detour from universities, as opposed to crossbows. But if you tech to knights, then all bets are off.
 
The composites don't even have to move on hilly terrain.
Turn 1: Pikes are 2 tiles away, the front line of composites open fire.
Turn 2: Pikes are adjacent to the front line of composites, but are also in range of the second line.
Turn 3: Er... pikes didn't live to see turn 3. Repeat with the next line of pikes.
This all happens before they can inflict a single blow. If you get a complete surround, then you'll get some shots in. But how long is it going to take you to position yourself for that surround in hilly terrain?

Who says I have to charge your archers right away? Maybe I wait until the flankers are in place and then charge. If your archers move in on me, then you're giving up the entire advantage.

If I do charge, then the first group of pikes dies at the feet of your front line, and then the second group moves to the front line fresh, and digs in. Though I'm somewhat skeptical that a comp can kill a pike in three hits if the pike doesn't actually attack them.

If they're fresh unpromoted pikes, and they survive three hits, I might as well recharge them instead of promoting.

Another option would be to just continually move within two tiles, take a hit, and move back to get exp. What's the hurry? Maybe you'll build reinforcements if I wait, but I'm building them faster.

You're the one with the most incentive to charge.

I like Alhambra a lot too, but I'm just going to ignore the Alhambra argument because, again, I don't feel like adding more and more what-ifs and counter what-ifs. The 500 hammers you spent on Alhambra are 500 hammers that I could spend in any number of ways. Same with Medic. Let's be real, those landsknecht are fresh out of the oven with no additional experience other than maybe the +15 from the barracks. It's a zergling rush after all... as you keep saying, you're just sending them off to their deaths, so where'd they find the time to level up?

In a Zergling rush not all of them die. My abusive attitude toward my poor sknekts means that the few who do survive are battle hardened.

Medic is the smart promotion because you can move a medic, and the bonus still applies so long as they end their turn adjacent to the unit that's trying to heal itself.

Of course sknekts are useless alone with no other kinds of armies with them. Assuming a mixed or pure army are both assumptions. If you prefer a pure bow army, then I may assume you'll send a pure bow army. However I certainly don't prefer a pure sknekt army, so assuming I would use one becomes a failed assumption (probably anyone looking for a pure army would hate sknekts.)

The fact sknekts are cheap, means I can apply the hammers I save elsewhere. Maybe instead of a zerg rush, I build a few sknekts and focus on comps just like you, except my comps have melee to block for them.

Kind of like how if gasoline became cheaper, a lot of consumers would spend their money elsewhere.

The one advantage that I accept is that landsknecht are on the natural path to universities. That's why I compare them with composites, since that's only a slight detour from universities, as opposed to crossbows. But if you tech to knights, then all bets are off.

Yeah. I'm a sucker for Alhambra. I'll burn an engineer for Alhambra. I'll even save him for 20 or so turns if I have to. I like having one city that builds super elite soldiers.

But after it's done the age of the sknekt is already beginning to come to a close, so I guess I can't really use that as a sknekt strategy. At that point, if I'm honest, I would probably only build as many sknekts as I plan to promote to Lancers later on.
 
Well I don't feel like going back and forth on this forever. You'll say that you'll outflank me, I'll say that I'm not going to just let you just roam around unmolested until I'm outflanked. We're just repeating the same things. I'm 100% sure that ranged units will murder equal-era melee units on hills. It sounds like you're 100% sure of the opposite.
 
I went ahead and gathered the stats, for what it's worth.

A pike is 90 hammers. A sknekt is 45 hammers.

A composite bowman is 75 hammers - the ratio would be 1.66 to 1 for equal effort building them

A crossbow is 120 hammers, so the ratio would be 2.66 to 1.



One other advantage of a horde of pikes over a smaller number of bows is that the AI will consider you a bigger threat, and therefore will be more reluctant to attack.

We may simply have very different playstyles. If you're playing on Immortal, then sknekts are just about useless to you, since they only barely help to bring you into production parity with the computer AI. (You need to conserve all the hammers you can, so best not to take casualties in wartime.) It might be that the immortal players are the ones who don't like Germany.

If you're playing on Prince, with a huge map and 22 other civs, it's nice to make yourself into the power nobody wants to go to war with, then go to war with just one of them and crush them.
 
I went ahead and gathered the stats, for what it's worth.

A pike is 90 hammers. A sknekt is 45 hammers.

A composite bowman is 75 hammers - the ratio would be 1.66 to 1 for equal effort building them

A crossbow is 120 hammers, so the ratio would be 2.66 to 1.



One other advantage of a horde of pikes over a smaller number of bows is that the AI will consider you a bigger threat, and therefore will be more reluctant to attack.

We may simply have very different playstyles. If you're playing on Immortal, then sknekts are just about useless to you, since they only barely help to bring you into production parity with the computer AI. (You need to conserve all the hammers you can, so best not to take casualties in wartime.) It might be that the immortal players are the ones who don't like Germany.

If you're playing on Prince, with a huge map and 22 other civs, it's nice to make yourself into the power nobody wants to go to war with, then go to war with just one of them and crush them.


for me the only interesting set up is a MP game with two equal strong parties. the rest is useless since the AI will always play subpar. and beating deity has nothing to do if a civ is good or bad but more if you know how to exploit the game.
 
Well I don't know if you're directing this at me... you did quote me and then call it my argument, even though I was just complementing another poster. So I don't really get why you started antagonizing me. That being said, you also don't win an argument just by calling the opposing argument "long winded".

If you want my opinions (not necessarily those of Macchiavelli whom I was complementing), yes there are terrains which benefit melee more than ranged, specifically dense jungle/forest without hills. Do you have another terrain type in mind? Every other terrain type that I can think of, including hilly or not-so-dense (less than 80%) jungle/forest, benefits ranged more, for the reasons Macchiavelli mentioned above. Obviously, "every other terrain type" is the more common scenario.

Clearly Macchiavelli never said that archers could beat mechanized infantry, you're just using an extreme example to detract from the comparison he was obviously making between units of similar eras. Did you really need him to reiterate "Landsknecht have greater strength than composites" when we all already know that? I'm sure he's aware of that fact, and I believe that he did account for it.

Let's say that a pike can kill a composite in 2 hits, whereas a composite needs 4 shots to kill a pike. Macchiavelli made the point that 6 composites will be able to shoot down a single target more easily than 2 pikemen can attack a single tile. So an army of composites should be able to get those shots in and snipe him without taking any damage during their attack. On the other hand, a pike might be able to get in there for a single hit, and if he has a buddy maybe even kill a composite. Then you say they can heal up, but the other 6 composites within range say otherwise. Since those pikes are already damaged, 3 more shots on each might be enough to take them out. They're gone before they can retreat. Meanwhile, all those other pikes behind them are trying to maneuver their way to the front but don't play a role for the turn in question.

Now, does every scenario play out exactly like this? Of course not. But as an average-case scenario, I do think it's as likely as any other. More concisely, the comparative discrepancy in unit strength (say a factor of 2 in favor of pikes) is negated by the sheer number of composites who can get shots in (a factor of 3 I would say). The 2-to-1 numerical advantage of Landsknecht is somewhat negated by their maneuverability. Obviously the game changes if the Landsknecht, with their numbers, are able to get a complete surround on the so-called "range ball" but that pretty much never happens in practice. If the battleground is along a more typical linear border (or even worse for the pikes, through a narrow pass), the Landsknechts' numbers advantage is neutralized.

Not sure if your last question was an honest question or a rhetorical one, but yes, I've played as Germany. I lost to an Industrial Era invasion because I couldn't afford the prohibitive upgrade cost on all my suddenly obsolete Landsknecht, but I'm not basing my opinion on a sample size of one game.

No I was not directing my comment at you. But, I'm not sure why you would support such an obviously inaccurate claim as composites own landsknechts. landsknechts are simply too strong with too low a hammer cost. Composites have only 7 strength with 11 ranged combat and cost 75 hammers. Landsknechts have a whopping 16 strength(more than double) and cost only 45 hammers!! Yes that is not a mistake, almost half the hammers of composite bowmen. Double the strength at half the cost. Seriously, can we be realistic with the arguments?

Because of this massive discrepancy in power/hammer ratio .093 compared to 0.35 the numbers are so out of whack that you are both arguing the absurd. We are talking about equal hammer cost armies being 20 landsknechts vs 12 composites. 320 strength vs 84.

I have no idea why your scenario would assume that the composites would outnumber the landsknechts when landsknechts are nearly half the hammers to field.
 
The composites don't even have to move on hilly terrain.
Turn 1: Pikes are 2 tiles away, the front line of composites open fire.
Turn 2: Pikes are adjacent to the front line of composites, but are also in range of the second line.
Turn 3: Er... pikes didn't live to see turn 3. Repeat with the next line of pikes.
This all happens before they can inflict a single blow.

LMAO this does not happen. Every single composite will need to focus down a single pike to kill it. The rest of the front line survives, the one they focused on might even get a heal off . This absurd scenario doesn't even occur when it's xbows instead of comps. landsknechts are more than double the strength of composites and cost nearly half the hammers. We are talking 5 landsknechts for 3 composites 10 to 6 or 20 to 12.

The composites are horribly out classed and horribly outnumbered. Does anyone on this forum know basic math or have real game experience? The AI randomly meandering it's units around during a fire fight does not count.
 
Guys, there is no need for all the over-analyzing.

1. Yes, range units generally dominate the game.

2. Yes, there is a small window of opportunity where you can get a lot of 16 str Landsknechts out and will overwhelm enemy forces.

Landsknechts themselves are not that bad--it is outside factors that put them on the "lacking in power" list, which is no special promotions that carry over, upgrade into lancers, and while you can get a ton of half-cost melee you still generally want a good amount of range units to back them up still.
 
No I was not directing my comment at you. But, I'm not sure why you would support such an obviously inaccurate claim as composites own landsknechts. landsknechts are simply too strong with too low a hammer cost. Composites have only 7 strength with 11 ranged combat and cost 75 hammers. Landsknechts have a whopping 16 strength(more than double) and cost only 45 hammers!! Yes that is not a mistake, almost half the hammers of composite bowmen. Double the strength at half the cost. Seriously, can we be realistic with the arguments?

Because of this massive discrepancy in power/hammer ratio .093 compared to 0.35 the numbers are so out of whack that you are both arguing the absurd. We are talking about equal hammer cost armies being 20 landsknechts vs 12 composites. 320 strength vs 84.

I have no idea why your scenario would assume that the composites would outnumber the landsknechts when landsknechts are nearly half the hammers to field.

Fine, I'll bite at least for you since we haven't gone back and forth yet. Neither my argument nor Machiavelli's ever counted on a strength/hammer ratio, but I believe we both took it into account. Later on I made an argument against the numbers advantage. I'll lay them out again here, and feel free to criticize both arguments in a reasonable manor, but if your argument is "this is too long winded" or "LMAO" I won't bother responding.

1. The raw strength advantage (2-to-1 in favor of landsknecht) is counteracted by the range advantage (in terms of number of units in range for attack, 3-to-1 in favor of composites), because as Machiavelli described in great detail (in case you couldn't be bothered to read), it's just as easy for 6 composites to get in range for an attack as it is for 2 pikes. Another factor is that pikes will take damage when they attack, whereas composites do not. So let's say that 2 pikes each inflict 60 damage each, but receive 20. Then 6 composites inflict 30 damage each without retribution. The pikes have inflicted 60*2 = 120 damage, the composites 20*2 + 30*6 = 220 damage, enough to kill both pikes before they can heal. If you insist on adding a 3rd pike to the calculations, then that would activate another 2-3 composites who would be in range to counterattack that 3rd pike.

2. The numbers advantage (5-to-3 in favor of landsknecht) is significantly (not entirely, but largely) weakened by 1 unit per tile. Even if you send in 10 landsknecht, only a few will be able to get their shots in anyway. Meanwhile, I may only have 6 composites, but if they form a 2-tile line all of them will be able to assault the front line of landsknecht. As I've stated repeatedly, the caveat is if the landsknecht are able to get a surround. That would take many turns of foresight, reconnaissance, planning, and stealth on your part. If you can do that, then I would congratulate you for having bested me strategically. But doing so is not that easy, and can only get harder with rough terrain, let alone if there are oceans, mountains, or other civs' territories in the way as there very often are.
 
Landsknechts themselves are not that bad--it is outside factors that put them on the "lacking in power" list, which is no special promotions that carry over, upgrade into lancers, and while you can get a ton of half-cost melee you still generally want a good amount of range units to back them up still.

This is a solid, succinct statement. There are definitely worse UUs than landsknecht, but the outside factors you mention are all true. I wouldn't even upgrade them into lancers at all... because of their low production cost, the upgrade cost (which is related to the hammer-difference between the upgraded unit and the older unit) is prohibitive, almost as much as buying a brand new lancer, which I never do.

If landsknecht were so powerful that a landsknecht spam would overwhelm the entire Medieval Era, then it'd certainly make up for those other outside factors you've mentioned. I'm obviously arguing against that.
 
Germany is pathetic after BNW. Why not play the zulu? They have 50% less uppkeep and 25% cheaper promotions vs. 25% less uppkeep and a situatinoal random chance to steal barbs.
 
I have no idea why your scenario would assume that the composites would outnumber the landsknechts when landsknechts are nearly half the hammers to field.
The tech which unlocks composites comes much earlier than pikes. In addition archers built during the early game can be upgraded into composites. Spearmen are not commonly built en mass (or at all) because teching to them delays National College and Universities. There is also only a small window of time between when you can build pikes and when you can build Universities. Building pikes instead of universities is not efficient.
-------------
[On Landshnechts vs composites]Double the strength at half the cost.
A pike is 90 hammers. A sknekt is 45 hammers. A composite bowman is 75 hammers...
A unit's effectiveness is more than its strength divided by its production cost. The fact that composites have ranged 2 is worth quite a bit. The concepts of "frontage and spacing", "victor's curse and counter attacking", "rotating wounded", "terrain" and "timing attacks" do not show up in the tooltip for composites, but that doesn't mean they aren't important.
------------
I'll burn an engineer for Alhambra.
As you move up in difficulty levels you'll learn to avoid going for Alhambra. The only way to get a Great Engineer at that stage is by going Liberty (getting workshops before education slows down education way too much) and Liberty is slightly less efficient than Tradition. Even with a Great Engineer Alhambra will often be gone before Chivalry is finished. Education is always going to come before Chivalry and once education is done getting into the Renaissance through Observatory or Music-guild tech to open Rationalism is a higher priority than Alhambra.
 
Germany is pathetic after BNW. Why not play the zulu? They have 50% less uppkeep and 25% cheaper promotions vs. 25% less uppkeep and a situatinoal random chance to steal barbs.

oh god, you compare totally different thing.

zulus get 50% less maintenace on melee, MELEE UNITS! (does anyone know this counts for blackpowder melee too or ends with longswords/impis?)

germany gets 25% on all LAND units, inclusive your said overpowered range units. also the random gamble about camps is easy to come by if u max your chances by spamming enough units until the snowball systems starts!

ottomans btw get 66% on all SHIPs nothing to forget....
 
oh god, you compare totally different thing.

zulus get 50% less maintenace on melee, MELEE UNITS! (does anyone know this counts for blackpowder melee too or ends with longswords/impis?)

germany gets 25% on all LAND units, inclusive your said overpowered range units. also the random gamble about camps is easy to come by if u max your chances by spamming enough units until the snowball systems starts!

ottomans btw get 66% on all SHIPs nothing to forget....

Melee only counts up to longswords, gunpowder units are considered gunpowder units. The only exception that I know of is the Tercio, which still counts as melee.
 
Germany and Japan might be ''boring'' to play, but definitively strong warmonger civs. If players don't know how to spam units then they aren't good for them. Landsneckts are probably top 5 UU no doubt about it.
 
I'm not sure why Germany's getting lumped in with Japan here. Japan's pretty much a civ with no bonuses. Bushido doesn't do much, and unique units based on longswords and fighters are not exciting at all.

Germany - on the other hand - gets a bonus that works the entire game from turn 1 for any play style (-25% maintenance for land units), gets the Landsknecht, which you can absolutely drown your opponents in due to its low cost, requires no resources, and is excellent at taking cities once you combine it with a few siege weapons. Perfect for a bit of a mid-game rush.

Panzers I haven't used. Normally once I'm up that high in the tech tree Combustion gets left behind as I go for Internet and space techs. So basically it's the equivalent of the Zero.

Gaining units from barbarian camps I could take or leave. It's nice, I suppose.

I'd say all that makes them a mid-tier civ. But Japan's a candidate for worst civ in the game, so they don't belong in the same thread at all.
 
I always thought the complaint about Germany was the barbarian portion of their UA. It sounds like that will get changed though. Maybe keep the unit bonus they have since it works nicely with their UU, and give them some industry bonus as well.
 
The tech which unlocks composites comes much earlier than pikes. In addition archers built during the early game can be upgraded into composites. Spearmen are not commonly built en mass (or at all) because teching to them delays National College and Universities. There is also only a small window of time between when you can build pikes and when you can build Universities. Building pikes instead of universities is not efficient.
-------------

And also building spears and upgrading them almost completely negates the benefit of sknekts being cheap to make.

A unit's effectiveness is more than its strength divided by its production cost. The fact that composites have ranged 2 is worth quite a bit. The concepts of "frontage and spacing", "victor's curse and counter attacking", "rotating wounded", "terrain" and "timing attacks" do not show up in the tooltip for composites, but that doesn't mean they aren't important.
------------

You've got to divide your military units into different roles. Like in Chess, you usually don't use a bishop for a job that belongs to a rook or a knight. And even pawns have their purpose. Sknekts is like starting out with a lot of extra pawns.

The value of sknekts is in what they add to your overall army. It's not in what they can to alone. If I have twice as much melee as my opponent, then I've got twice as much control over the battle.

I don't have twice as much destructive force. (It's rarely a good idea to use melee to attack anything.) But I have twice as much maneuverability, and maneuverability is key to a ranged strategy.

Sknekts are actually more valuable to a ranged strategy than they are to a melee strategy. It just means you can spare a few more hammers for your blockers.




As you move up in difficulty levels you'll learn to avoid going for Alhambra. The only way to get a Great Engineer at that stage is by going Liberty (getting workshops before education slows down education way too much) and Liberty is slightly less efficient than Tradition. Even with a Great Engineer Alhambra will often be gone before Chivalry is finished. Education is always going to come before Chivalry and once education is done getting into the Renaissance through Observatory or Music-guild tech to open Rationalism is a higher priority than Alhambra.

Yeah. I get the impression that Germany's effectiveness falls off with difficulty level.

The only advantage that would survive would be the cheaper maintenance you can amass a larger military and thereby lose fewer troops on your wars. (Or have more money left over to buy production.)

I always thought the complaint about Germany was the barbarian portion of their UA. It sounds like that will get changed though. Maybe keep the unit bonus they have since it works nicely with their UU, and give them some industry bonus as well.

The usefulness of the barbarian thing is very situational, but can be useful if you don't mind being a big jerk. You build up an early army of expendable barbarian units, and then - instead of actually trying to take cities you can harass the opponents nearest you. (Realistically you can't take cities very well before catapults.)

Kill their units, pillage all their improvements, walk off with their workers and any settlers you see spawning - all without fear of retaliation (militarily, at least.) Once they fall behind, the other civs will gang up on them because they're easy prey.

It's cruel, but it puts you in a good place.
 
Germany is great civ, and it doesn't perform badly at all.

barbarian Conversion and 25% permanent discount on unit maintenance for the whole game.
Then their landsknecht allow you to hold onto your territory.
And their panzers can turn whole AI lands into pillaged wasteland without use of nukes.

I have a tendency to be the world's biggest military. if I'm not the biggest, I declare war on the biggest and take his stuff so that I'm the biggest.

The whole melee vs ranged argument is simply ridiculous. There's no 100% guarantee military strategy in real life.

Humans will adapt to that wall of composite bowmen depending on countless various factors.
Ais will see that wall of bowmen and suicide onto your blockers as the bowmen do the job.

Wars between humans can actually stalemate for a long time as both parties attempt to win positional control and etc.
And if it go on long enough then it'll turn into something like you see in dynasty warriors like both sides have millions of soldiers just staring at each other.
 
Top Bottom