horse archers should be considered "archers", not "mounted"

minger · Nov 03, 2005, 12:56 PM

subject line self-explanatory -- do you agree?

This isn't that big a deal --- I was facing a ton of horse archers so i gave my people the "cover" promotion, then discovered that it doesn't apply to horse archers -- so I had to build pikemen who have a bonus against "mounted" units..

This doesn't make any intuitive sense to me -- what was the balance reason behind this decision?

noosh · Nov 03, 2005, 01:03 PM

Definitly agree.

Myartar · Nov 03, 2005, 01:06 PM

I disagree. The horse archers are supposed to be quick attack units, like all cavlary, and are basically a replacement to the horsemen of old Civs. Archer units are primarily defensive in Civ IV. If they were treated as archer units they would recieve a defensive bonus and be able to get the city garrison promotion, which would make less sense to me.

thedaian · Nov 03, 2005, 01:07 PM

umm, well, they ARE on horses, afterall. I suppose if it would be possible, they should be given a combined attribute of archers AND mounted.

Myartar · Nov 03, 2005, 01:13 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by thedaian

umm, well, they ARE on horses, afterall. I suppose if it would be possible, they should be given a combined attribute of archers AND mounted.

That would make a bit more sense.

noosh · Nov 03, 2005, 01:14 PM

Horse arches are fundamentaly different from any other horse unit though. They dont charge other units, so giving pikemen a bonus against htem is just ridiculous.

I suppose the way to fix this problem would to give horse arches + 100% attack Vs infantry that is on non-mountain-non-woodland terrain.

Lord Olleus · Nov 03, 2005, 01:23 PM

they are called horse archers but realy represent ancient cavalry. They called them horse archers because horseman is very vague and generaly lame.

Gustomucho81 · Nov 03, 2005, 01:32 PM

Yeah, this is a bad choice of classification, sure the guy is on a horse, but if you played "Total war : Rome" you would KNOW a pikeman has NO chance in hell to hit a mounted archer..

I heard gunship were not considered "flying unit", this is pretty weak too if you ask me.

I can't confirm it tho.

So, what came first?
The egg or the Chicken?

Gorillagorilla · Nov 03, 2005, 02:39 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by minger

subject line self-explanatory -- do you agree?

This isn't that big a deal --- I was facing a ton of horse archers so i gave my people the "cover" promotion, then discovered that it doesn't apply to horse archers -- so I had to build pikemen who have a bonus against "mounted" units..

This doesn't make any intuitive sense to me -- what was the balance reason behind this decision?

I disagree, to be on a horse you must have a smaller bow than a foot archer and there for less powerful, thus not good defensive units. I do think that it is dumb for them to be mounted since they wouldn't come into contact with the enemy. I think they should be in a class bu themselves.

claxer · Nov 03, 2005, 02:40 PM

I agree (in part), I dont think they should be classed as archers they should just be a unique type of mounted unit.

Horse archers should be given immunity to an attacking units '+% vs mounted units bonus' since they don't engage in melee and wouldnt be at the same disadvantage that other mounted units would be verus units with spears or elephants (the only units which have a bonus against mounted that i can think of).

The same is true for the later cavarly which is basically riflement on horses, why would a spearman have any advantage against that type of unit? I dont think they should.

Lord Olleus · Nov 03, 2005, 03:11 PM

if this bothers you so much then just its name to ancient cavalry and voila everyone is happy.

dh_epic · Nov 03, 2005, 03:16 PM

The mounted units are a 2 movement unit, like most other mounted units.

And the game is balanced in such a way that not only are pikes good defence... but spears are great defence against horse archers. Horse archers are both very powerful and very defendable.

The unit balance in the game is great.

Mujadaddy · Nov 03, 2005, 04:15 PM

Q: Cavalry count as Mounted, not Gunpowder? That seems wrong, if so...

"Mounted" doesn't actually seem like a valid type ... it just lets Spearmen have a function ... "Archers" and "Melee" are valid ... They should just tweak the early game a little ... I think Axemen are WAY too powerful...hmmm, but then mounted units can take them on .... umm... nevermind, i guess

claxer · Nov 03, 2005, 04:24 PM

in civilopedia it says (mounted unit) on the military tradition tech icon which allows them to be built

Nov 03, 2005, 12:56 PM	#1
minger Warlord Join Date: Jun 2005 Posts: 169	horse archers should be considered "archers", not "mounted" subject line self-explanatory -- do you agree? This isn't that big a deal --- I was facing a ton of horse archers so i gave my people the "cover" promotion, then discovered that it doesn't apply to horse archers -- so I had to build pikemen who have a bonus against "mounted" units.. This doesn't make any intuitive sense to me -- what was the balance reason behind this decision?

Nov 03, 2005, 01:06 PM	#3
Myartar Yeah, I'm back Join Date: May 2002 Location: Springfield, Missouri Posts: 257	I disagree. The horse archers are supposed to be quick attack units, like all cavlary, and are basically a replacement to the horsemen of old Civs. Archer units are primarily defensive in Civ IV. If they were treated as archer units they would recieve a defensive bonus and be able to get the city garrison promotion, which would make less sense to me. __________________ Now with the war I can tell they're a little shook up 'Cause just a few mother's sons will never really be enough Not 'til half of our names are etched out in a wall And the other half ruined from the things we saw

Nov 03, 2005, 01:23 PM	#7
Lord Olleus Deity Join Date: Oct 2005 Location: England Posts: 4,997	they are called horse archers but realy represent ancient cavalry. They called them horse archers because horseman is very vague and generaly lame. __________________ Most zealously I seek for erudition. Much do I know, but to know all is my ambition. -Faust

Nov 03, 2005, 02:40 PM	#10
claxer Chieftain Join Date: Oct 2005 Posts: 17	I agree (in part), I dont think they should be classed as archers they should just be a unique type of mounted unit. Horse archers should be given immunity to an attacking units '+% vs mounted units bonus' since they don't engage in melee and wouldnt be at the same disadvantage that other mounted units would be verus units with spears or elephants (the only units which have a bonus against mounted that i can think of). The same is true for the later cavarly which is basically riflement on horses, why would a spearman have any advantage against that type of unit? I dont think they should. Last edited by claxer; Nov 03, 2005 at 02:45 PM.

Nov 03, 2005, 03:11 PM	#11
Lord Olleus Deity Join Date: Oct 2005 Location: England Posts: 4,997	if this bothers you so much then just its name to ancient cavalry and voila everyone is happy. __________________ Most zealously I seek for erudition. Much do I know, but to know all is my ambition. -Faust

Nov 03, 2005, 01:03 PM	#2
noosh Chieftain Join Date: Nov 2005 Posts: 20	Definitly agree.

Nov 03, 2005, 01:07 PM	#4
thedaian Chieftain Join Date: Oct 2005 Location: Ohio, USA Posts: 95 Images: 1	umm, well, they ARE on horses, afterall. I suppose if it would be possible, they should be given a combined attribute of archers AND mounted.

Nov 03, 2005, 01:14 PM	#6
noosh Chieftain Join Date: Nov 2005 Posts: 20	Horse arches are fundamentaly different from any other horse unit though. They dont charge other units, so giving pikemen a bonus against htem is just ridiculous. I suppose the way to fix this problem would to give horse arches + 100% attack Vs infantry that is on non-mountain-non-woodland terrain.

Nov 03, 2005, 01:32 PM	#8
Gustomucho81 Chieftain Join Date: Nov 2005 Posts: 50	Yeah, this is a bad choice of classification, sure the guy is on a horse, but if you played "Total war : Rome" you would KNOW a pikeman has NO chance in hell to hit a mounted archer.. I heard gunship were not considered "flying unit", this is pretty weak too if you ask me. I can't confirm it tho. So, what came first? The egg or the Chicken?

Nov 03, 2005, 03:16 PM	#12
dh_epic Cold War Veteran Join Date: Feb 2002 Location: Seasonal Residences Posts: 4,627	The mounted units are a 2 movement unit, like most other mounted units. And the game is balanced in such a way that not only are pikes good defence... but spears are great defence against horse archers. Horse archers are both very powerful and very defendable. The unit balance in the game is great.

Nov 03, 2005, 04:15 PM	#13
Mujadaddy Geheim Grammar Polizei Join Date: Oct 2005 Posts: 1,082	Q: Cavalry count as Mounted, not Gunpowder? That seems wrong, if so... "Mounted" doesn't actually seem like a valid type ... it just lets Spearmen have a function ... "Archers" and "Melee" are valid ... They should just tweak the early game a little ... I think Axemen are WAY too powerful...hmmm, but then mounted units can take them on .... umm... nevermind, i guess __________________ Populus vult decipi, ergo decipiatur... Back at launch, I started a "Thank you" thread for Firaxis & Sid. Please bump it to show love!

Nov 03, 2005, 04:24 PM	#14
claxer Chieftain Join Date: Oct 2005 Posts: 17	in civilopedia it says (mounted unit) on the military tradition tech icon which allows them to be built

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
Real 'Near Future': "Mechs","Super Tanks","Super Soldiers","Space Elevator",Etcetera	Wade.	Civ4 - General Discussions	89	Jul 15, 2009 08:20 PM
A treatise on the advantages of proactive defending, or "why archers suck".	Yashkaf	Fall from Heaven Strategy & Tips	31	Feb 15, 2009 01:43 AM
Whats is considered a "Team" in the SDK.. as compared to a "Player"	Kailric	Civ4 - SDK/Python	1	May 14, 2008 03:02 AM
PolyCast Episode 30 with "Impaler[WrG]", "GarretSidzaka" and "Elhoim"	DanQ	Civ4 - General Discussions	1	Nov 04, 2007 07:23 PM

Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2013, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd. This site is copyright © Civilization Fanatics' Center.
Support CFC: Amazon.com \| Amazon UK \| Amazon DE \| Amazon CA \| Amazon FR