Mounted units! What are they good for? aka why mounted units have been sidelined

A recent foray to the Unique Unit elimination thread made me realize the scant amounts respect I have for most mounted units in Civ V.

Maybe it's me, and I'm just using them wrong...or perhaps it's just that I stubbornly refuse to get Gods and Kings?

Anyhow, from what I can observe, the strengths of Civ V mounted units are that they get more movement points than their foot counterparts AND they have the ability to move after attacking, provided they still have unspent movement points left. They also tend to have more Combat Strength than foot equivalents in the same era.

The obvious disadvantages of Civ V mounted units is that they don't get defensive terrain bonuses and they have penalties to attack cities. Moreover, mounted units tend to cost more hammers than their rough foot equivalents.

I find that the disadvantages of Civ V mounted units far outweigh the advantages. Their lack of survivability means that I'm loathe to put mounted units in real combat environments, which seriously cripples their experience growth and makes the comparative weaknesses of mounted units even more apparent as their foot counterparts rack up experience assaulting cities and such. That means that I mostly use mounted units in situations where hectic combat is unlikely, like mopping up enemy remnants or hunting down lone barbarians that pillage my luxuries while my main army is far away alooting. It seems like such a...waste of hammers for so trivial a duty.

Now, of course I realize that there are exceptions to these statements...for example, the Keshik and the Camel Archer. Still, I feel like mounted units need...something more.

One possible characteristic I suggested in the Unique Unit elimination thread was allowing mounted units the ability to ignore ZOC. Another possible characteristic might be to allow them to use enemy roads/rails and gain the bonus to movement...similar to how the Commando promotion worked in Civ IV.

Do you guys have any suggestion as to how mounted units can be made more useful? Am I completely misusing them? Do you think that the changes I'm suggesting would make mounted units too powerful?

I'm also not the biggest fan of mounted units, but Byzantium and Carthage (both from GnK, though) changed my mind. With cataphracts I started to build them more and use it as a faster swordsman (as they get bonuses from terrain, have +3 strenght, etc), and with african forest elephants... I did the same

I mean, they aren't supposed to take cities. I usually build 2-4 horses in the game, most of them to pick off those ranged and siege units before my infantry + ranged + siege units come. I now like them a little more. Still, I preffer to use my hammers in something else, but it is always useful to have some knights ready to cut through those nasty defenses.

Petiscator said:

I mean, they aren't supposed to take cities. I usually build 2-4 horses in the game, most of them to pick off those ranged and siege units before my infantry + ranged + siege units come. I now like them a little more. Still, I preffer to use my hammers in something else, but it is always useful to have some knights ready to cut through those nasty defenses.

Click to expand...

So, if I understand you correctly, the best way to use mounted melee units is to clear out enemy units impeding your foot and siege units' advance on enemy cities?

I typically use my ranged units to clear out enemy units in the way. It's worth a try, though.

I think it's one of those things where because the AI is so poor at combat, you can normally get away without mounted units, but you're really missing out on a whole dimension of warfare if you do that.

Mounted units are versatile, good both for haranguing the enemy and protecting your own troops. You don't want them to form the body of your army, but having two or three around is very useful.

With their high mobility and sight promotions, they are perfect for skirmishing roles: spotting, pillaging, going to take a chunk out of an approaching siege or ranged unit before it can hit your melee units then retreating to avoid damage next turn, or just running around the place providing flanking bonuses to support your melee attacks.

They make excellent medics, quickly able to move around between different wounded units. And again the speed makes it easy to reposition them at crucial moments to protect another unit by establishing ZOC.

The extra movement speed is also a significant advantage if you need to mobilize an army quickly in response to a surprise attack or a newly-opened second front.

Weakness to Pikes and other anti-mounted units is obviously a negative, but on the other hand if your opponent is spending his hammers and positioning his units to counter your horses, that in itself is restricting his options.

Yeah, I usually use them with ranged units, but they are good for hit n run attacks, specially versus wounded units, so you don't take any hit. I mean, keep your infantry + siege close, and with the ranged units, damage the opponent's meelee units and pick off the ranged/siege with mounted. That's the best use I found for them =/

I think mounted units are pointless because you can just use melee with the cover promotion to shield your ranged units while they slaughter everything. Using melee to attack is very risky because they easily get exposed to concentrated attacks, and you have to wait several turns for them to heal up.

jango76 said:

With their high mobility and sight promotions, they are perfect for skirmishing roles: spotting, pillaging, going to take a chunk out of an approaching siege or ranged unit before it can hit your melee units then retreating to avoid damage next turn, or just running around the place providing flanking bonuses to support your melee attacks.

Click to expand...

Pillaging is something I really should do more of, especially if I'm anything like the warmonger I claim to be.

Actually, that gives me an idea...what about granting mounted units the exclusive characteristic to gain experience from pillaging? It should be minimal at best...something like 1 experience per pillage.

jango76 said:

They make excellent medics, quickly able to move around between different wounded units.

Click to expand...

I've got to question the practicality of this role, especially if the Civ Fanatics promotion requirements for Medic are still valid. According to that thread, Shock I AND Drill I are necessary for Medic. If that's true, how is a mounted melee unit going to get that experience aside from engaging non barbarian enemies?

I mean, yes, I can see mounted units would be useful in that role, but I fail to see how a mounted melee unit could reliably get the experience necessary to have that Medic promotion in the first place.

Training it in a city with barracks + armory would be enough, but using barracks + picking of some ranged units could get them there quite fast.

Petiscator said:

Training it in a city with barracks + armory would be enough, but using barracks + picking of some ranged units could get them there quite fast.

Click to expand...

Unless things have changed in Gods and Kings, Barracks and an Armory gives 30 experience...and thirty experience is needed to get both Drill I and Shock I.

If my assumption is correct, the lowest amount of experience to get Medic is 60 experience, which can't be obtained through barbarian hunting.

Hmmm...I think the Civ Fanatics promotion thread might be a little misleading and inaccurate...I'm pretty sure Cover I doesn't require Drill/Shock II...

What? But I though Medic only required Drill I OR Shock I?

I might be wrong, but I don't remember having to get both shock and drill, actually, I'm right sure I got some horses with medic not so long ago, I think even with GnK. About the cover, I'm really not sure =/

Petiscator said:

What? But I though Medic only required Drill I OR Shock I?

I might be wrong, but I don't remember having to get both shock and drill, actually, I'm right sure I got some horses with medic not so long ago, I think even with GnK. About the cover, I'm really not sure =/

Click to expand...

I think you're right...Medic might only require Drill I OR Shock I...in which case, Medic is within the realm of possibility to acquire through barb hunting OR through the Barracks/Armory combo.

I've usually got my hands full pumping out promoted Scouts and units that actually serve in the line of battle that I've never actually tried producing a mounted melee unit from a city that has both a Barracks and an Armory.

Once Mounted units get up to March they become very dangerous. But the XP curve to that is also harder to get due to the lack of defences.

March+Medic I/II+Charge = very strong unit (on the chosen terrain - drill/shock choice). The left side of Honour is somewhat required to hit that XP curve though (or a vast amount of time/easy units to kill).

MadDjinn said:

Once Mounted units get up to March they become very dangerous. But the XP curve to that is also harder to get due to the lack of defences.

March+Medic I/II+Charge = very strong unit (on the chosen terrain - drill/shock choice). The left side of Honour is somewhat required to hit that XP curve though (or a vast amount of time/easy units to kill).

Click to expand...

Medic II? Is that a recent Gods and Kings addition?

mintcandy said:

Medic II? Is that a recent Gods and Kings addition?

Click to expand...

among other things, yeah it's G&K (can't remember it in vanilla). It provides the unit +5 HP when healing outside of your territory and other adjacent units +5 when healing (so massed march/medic I/II units heal ~25 HP/turn outside of your territory).

I also use my mounted units as medics, only requires a second promotion. If you are playing as the Huns you can give your horse archers the cover promotion with 10 exp (they start with the ranged shock I), so when they upgrade to knights they become highly mobile meat shields, allowing them to pillage up to 2 tiles per turn, shield your siege units, and retreat to healing distance.

I like to envelop cities with gatlings to take the damage and dish it back to the city while I sneak in a cavalry to take over the city when it has 1 hp. While I'm weakening cities I like to harass them by pillaging and taking/selling workers by using mounted units. Another thing that I like to do with them is to use them as scouts especially near rivers. You can block a lot of the movement and view their movements...if they attack you, you won't have a defensive bonus. But they'll have an attack penalty. I do agree with not creating too many of the horse units in most cases. But certain civ's benefit from them too much to not spam them (Mongolia, Russia, Huns, Spanish).

Yeah the mounted/armoured line is not for the front line (excepting the strong slow UU's) and standard mounted should not be spammed. Their role is to make fighting more efficient for your core army.

See a vulnerable unit that you could reach but would leave yourself exposed? That's for mounted.
Had most of your attacks for the turn but see a couple of units with low health that will instaheal and you don't want to waste a strong x-bow attack on them? Mounted.
Say you need a couple more flanking bonuses to stick it to a strong baddie but don't want to waste movement from other melee. Mounted.
Got halfway through a campaign and realise you need a scout but your nearset annexed city is a trek away? Mounted.
Perhaps the AI is being its stupid self and is running a settler with just one longsword fairly close to your army. Why, your two mounted units could probably take care of that!
Now you've left a ranged/siege over exposed and need a unit to exert ZOC to stop a melee attack but no melee can reach the best spot? Mounted.
Man, you're in the middle of taking a strong city but really need to pillage some farms cos your unhapiness can't take much more. If you leave it any more turns a load of your units will get crunched. If only you had.......... mounted.
What if, for some reason, the AI actually does something right and puts a melee in front of a ranged unit, stopping you from getting at said ranged unit? You're gonna need something to go round their meatshield right? Guess what?

becuase of their increased movement and after attack movement they almost never die when used correctly. They are effective cos the increased movement means they can pick and choose their battles, you don't need to fight a fair fight if you have mounted. I'd probably give a balanced army a composition with 10-15% mounted.

For promotions, because of the nature of what they do I find the bonus vs. wounded to be strong. As mentioned they also work well with the medic promotions, and if you army is light on this line, march can be very useful too. Increased movement means it finds blitz more effective than standard melee. However, these take lots of time to get for this line, and only the older units will get them. I rarely build that many barracks/armouries before air units, but for cities which will be building mounted it may be worth it.

For UU's, I really like - keshik, camel archer, companion cavalry, horsearcher. I quite like - hussar, cossack, conquistador - the bonuses aid standard equestrian activity. I see the use of cataphract and siamese/carthage elephant, though lament the lack of the standard mounted. Not sold on - M cav, Egypt and India's chariot archer UU's, sipahi and hakkapetilla.
Did I miss any (Oh, and the panzer I think comes too late ).

Crafty Bison said:

becuase of their increased movement and after attack movement they almost never die when used correctly. They are effective cos the increased movement means they can pick and choose their battles, you don't need to fight a fair fight if you have mounted. I'd probably give a balanced army a composition with 10-15% mounted.

Click to expand...

Hmm...I'll give that a try.

I think my problem with Civ V mounted units has more to do with how I've used them in previous Civs than any functional weakness of Civ V mounted units.

I primarily used mounted units in previous Civilizations in the urban assault role because of how high the attack value was of mounted units. It was a rare occasion when I exploited their high movement rate at a tactical level, although I did appreciate how quickly mounted units could reinforce distant garrisons at the strategic level...and it was even rarer for me to pillage, because I just didn't want the hassle of delegating my Workers to repair stuff.

Thus, for me, mounted units in previous Civ games were functionally identical to foot units specialized for urban assault, such as the Civ IV Swordsmen and Grenadier. I could get away with doing this because I could stack units in previous Civs, masking the weakness of mounted units.

So it goes, I guess.

I believe they are mostly for the quick mobilization in defense of a larger empire whose infrastructure may be far apart. Or even to attack a large civilization that fits that description and can't quickly take them out.

In the beginning they also have a small amount of more strength than say a swordsmen/longswordsmen.

The mongols mounted archer is VERY good in my opinion. Being able to attack the enemy without any threat of damage! (besides certain situations of course)

They're useful for grinding down a huge AI carpet of doom by sniping a city over and over again.