Thalassicus
Bytes and Nibblers
Do you think Knights should be light & fast (as in G&K), or slower & stronger (like in vanilla)?
Knights
- Thread starter Thalassicus
- Start date
Tomice
Passionate Smart-Ass
They already come so late in the tech tree that their dominant role for the era is hardly represented in an adequate way, so the slow speed would make them even less of a "must-have". Ingame, there's just a few short techs between gunpowder and knights, while in reality it was many centuries. It was not only an european phenomenon by the way (from wikipedia):
So while in reality they might not have marched much faster than infantry over long distances, IMO the game unit needs the faster movement to be as important as it should be.
Strong but slow knights would result in an unit that's just the bigger&better version of longswords, one very much replacable by each other and filling more/less the same role.
I also saw a calculation by yourself where you concluded that horsemen are relatively stronger in their era than knights, which immediately seemed wrong to me. The ancient times were dominated by heavy infantry, while heavy cavalry wasn't as feasible before the stirrup (but not impossible).
IMO, pikemen and knights should shift the order in which they appear. Pikes often enough even make swordmen seem pointless considering how early they appear on the main economic tech route. But since this would be a fundamental balance change, they should at least be really powerful and surely not slower than their predecessors.
So while in reality they might not have marched much faster than infantry over long distances, IMO the game unit needs the faster movement to be as important as it should be.
Strong but slow knights would result in an unit that's just the bigger&better version of longswords, one very much replacable by each other and filling more/less the same role.
I also saw a calculation by yourself where you concluded that horsemen are relatively stronger in their era than knights, which immediately seemed wrong to me. The ancient times were dominated by heavy infantry, while heavy cavalry wasn't as feasible before the stirrup (but not impossible).
IMO, pikemen and knights should shift the order in which they appear. Pikes often enough even make swordmen seem pointless considering how early they appear on the main economic tech route. But since this would be a fundamental balance change, they should at least be really powerful and surely not slower than their predecessors.
Thalassicus
Bytes and Nibblers
Technically horses are classical units, not ancient, but I understand what you mean. Swords are stronger than pikes in GEM, and swords appear 2 tech levels earlier than pikes. I could buff swords more if you feel it's needed.
G&K
14
swords
16 pikes
GEM
16 swords +25% vs cities
15 pikes +25% defense
G&K
14
swords16
pikesGEM
16
swords +25% vs cities15
pikes +25% defense
Tomice
Passionate Smart-Ass
Suggesting specific stats for units would overestimate my strategic experience with the latest patches, especially GEM, so I'll refrain from it. I do have the latest GEM installed, however, so I'm not completely guessing.
Flavourwise/historically pikes were a very late medieval counter for knights, and the game badly represents this circumstance. Heavy Cavalry took over the battlefield dominance maybe around 500AD during the last days of the (west) roman empire (cataphracts!) but I haven't found evidence of massive pikemen deployment before the time of William Wallace (~1300AD). To me, Knights should come close after Swordmen/Legions, while Pikes seem like they should be where knights are now, late medieval era and on the more civilian part of the tech tree (since their arms were really nothing special, it was more of a social revolution). Longswordmen are fine as they are IMO, since they could represent the various infantry weapons developed as answer to heavily armored knights (like flails, morning stars,...) and also as answer to pikemen (two-handed swords). Crossbows/Longbows are fine, too.
While I don't suggest you should open the box of pandora and rearrange the tech tree, at least knights should be allowed to be a really important unit, which IMO wouldn't be achieved if they'd be only questionably stronger than horsemen (due to a lack of speed).
EDIT: When suggesting to swap Knights and pikes on the TT, I was in doubt first because Pikes would come close after Levys. But it might fit just fine. During early medieval time commoners only served as auxillary troops, while later they developed tactics to become more dominant and to pose a threat to the more elite knights. Not sure how largely seperating defensive and offensive troops would affect balance, however?
Flavourwise/historically pikes were a very late medieval counter for knights, and the game badly represents this circumstance. Heavy Cavalry took over the battlefield dominance maybe around 500AD during the last days of the (west) roman empire (cataphracts!) but I haven't found evidence of massive pikemen deployment before the time of William Wallace (~1300AD). To me, Knights should come close after Swordmen/Legions, while Pikes seem like they should be where knights are now, late medieval era and on the more civilian part of the tech tree (since their arms were really nothing special, it was more of a social revolution). Longswordmen are fine as they are IMO, since they could represent the various infantry weapons developed as answer to heavily armored knights (like flails, morning stars,...) and also as answer to pikemen (two-handed swords). Crossbows/Longbows are fine, too.
While I don't suggest you should open the box of pandora and rearrange the tech tree, at least knights should be allowed to be a really important unit, which IMO wouldn't be achieved if they'd be only questionably stronger than horsemen (due to a lack of speed).
EDIT: When suggesting to swap Knights and pikes on the TT, I was in doubt first because Pikes would come close after Levys. But it might fit just fine. During early medieval time commoners only served as auxillary troops, while later they developed tactics to become more dominant and to pose a threat to the more elite knights. Not sure how largely seperating defensive and offensive troops would affect balance, however?
Thalassicus
Bytes and Nibblers
It's historically logical for counters (spears, AT guns) to appear after units they counter (horses, tanks)... but I think gameplay is better in reverse order. It helps players who fall behind have some chance of survival against more-advanced units.
Hmmm this makes me think of Light Cavalry and Heavy Cavalry.
Light Cavalry to hunt down units far from my army attacking the city and pillage important tiles and destroy road networks. They get a flanking bonus.
Heavy Cavalry to swing around the other side of the city to setup shop.
If this isn't a good idea then I go with High strength low speed choice but you could get a +1 speed upgrade.
Light Cavalry to hunt down units far from my army attacking the city and pillage important tiles and destroy road networks. They get a flanking bonus.
Heavy Cavalry to swing around the other side of the city to setup shop.
If this isn't a good idea then I go with High strength low speed choice but you could get a +1 speed upgrade.
Fusilliban
Chieftain
- Joined
- Dec 13, 2011
- Messages
- 41
Light and fast, kinda, except that in GEM I never build horses.
I find that promoted vanguard units have enough move and base strength that they fill the role of "flank and destroy archers and catapults", only better - they're cheaper, resourceless, and ignore terrain costs. In vanilla, I build horsemen for this, and then delay upgrading them to knights for as long as I can, because the move is more important than the strength.
I find that promoted vanguard units have enough move and base strength that they fill the role of "flank and destroy archers and catapults", only better - they're cheaper, resourceless, and ignore terrain costs. In vanilla, I build horsemen for this, and then delay upgrading them to knights for as long as I can, because the move is more important than the strength.
Thalassicus
Bytes and Nibblers
Cataphracts are +25% strength -25% speed, a balance which makes them one of the weaker UUs. If we change Knights, I'd make them stronger, more like +33% -25%.
Ahriman
Tyrant
This, precisely this. Cataphracts are less useful than regular knights.
The point of mounted units is that they are mobile. That is what makes them different from other units. I think it is a mistake to reduce the aspect that makes them different.
2 move Siamese elephants were boring; they were just spammable longswords.
3 moves can still be very useful. The point of using cavalry is that they can attack & move back unlike infantry which is stuck in very dangerous situation sometimes.
Knights were never a very mobile striking force. Small changes throughout the era are more fun.
Currently knights are more like re-skinned horsemen with higher strength.
If we can have xbows to gattling guns with slightly differnet role then why not knights being different from their predecessor?
Also we already have mobile variants of knights like Keshliks (If Mandaluke cav & Camel Archers retain 4 moves, that would be nice.). So tweaking knights would also make such UUs more flavourful especially Mandaluke.
Knights were never a very mobile striking force. Small changes throughout the era are more fun.
Currently knights are more like re-skinned horsemen with higher strength.
If we can have xbows to gattling guns with slightly differnet role then why not knights being different from their predecessor?
Also we already have mobile variants of knights like Keshliks (If Mandaluke cav & Camel Archers retain 4 moves, that would be nice.). So tweaking knights would also make such UUs more flavourful especially Mandaluke.
Ahriman
Tyrant
Knights represent any heavy cavalry unit, not just full plate high gothic lance guys. Tactical mobility of even heavy cavalry is important.
Good. Horsemen are useful. 3 moves just isn't enough mobility to make knights that different from infantry units; move after attack is much more valuable on a 4-move than a 3-move. And we already have 3 move vanguards, so it is even more important that mounted units are 4 moves to make sure they have a unique role.
G&K specifically changed knights from 3 to 4 moves, and this increased their value significantly. I don't think we should overturn vanilla changes unless we have a strong reason to.
The key aspect of keshiks and camel archers is that they are ranged, not that they are more mobile.
Dunkah
Emperor
You are all thinking strictly military here.
The problem with 4 move units is that during peace time they are way too powerfull as far as being able to scout vast distances, take out camps and find those wandering barb workers etc.
An army should move at one pace. Yes on the battlefield knights were highly mobilefor short bursts, but off the field they rarely raced across the continent to meet the enemy on some foreign shore.
4 is too much movement for anyone in the early eras. Perhaps we could give them some sort of, if you are adjacent to a freind you get a second or third move or something.
Same problem is amplified in the industrial/modern era with tanks. I use them in roles they never would have been used for in real life.
Ultimately to me... there should be a 1 or 2 hex off road move for all non motorized units and only non-attacking scouts could move more. After all in real life armies traveled by road or by river or by sea, they never marched across hundreds of miles of uninhabited land to meet the enemy. They would all be starved and all of the horses would be dead.
The problem with 4 move units is that during peace time they are way too powerfull as far as being able to scout vast distances, take out camps and find those wandering barb workers etc.
An army should move at one pace. Yes on the battlefield knights were highly mobilefor short bursts, but off the field they rarely raced across the continent to meet the enemy on some foreign shore.
4 is too much movement for anyone in the early eras. Perhaps we could give them some sort of, if you are adjacent to a freind you get a second or third move or something.
Same problem is amplified in the industrial/modern era with tanks. I use them in roles they never would have been used for in real life.
Ultimately to me... there should be a 1 or 2 hex off road move for all non motorized units and only non-attacking scouts could move more. After all in real life armies traveled by road or by river or by sea, they never marched across hundreds of miles of uninhabited land to meet the enemy. They would all be starved and all of the horses would be dead.
Ahriman
Tyrant
Uhh, yeah, war is most of what military units do in this game.
I don't find this to be a very important part of the game once you get to the medieval era and have knights.
Why?
Movement rates in Civ5 represent a hybrid of tactical and strategic movement. Without differing movement rates you have no ability of using mounted units to flank, for example.
It's more fun to have armies move at different rates; it is an interesting way of distinguishing units and giving them different roles. If all armies just move the same speed, then you get to a point where all units are basically the same.
That sounds like a really not-fun game.
mitsho
Deity
But that's the problem of the 1 Unit-per-tile system that is a core part of civ5. It transforms the world map into a battlefield which of course is not the most historical simulation-like. But in the end, it's a game and within the game rules, fast knights do make sense to differentiate them from other unit classes. The other way would be to rename units into things like "big army", "scouting group", "mixed levies", "elite interventionists" etc. ... You know, because no army that occupied large swathes of land consisted entirely of Swordmen... 
If we make the general speed of units 1 tile, we run into congestion problems, especially the AI.
If we make the general speed of units 1 tile, we run into congestion problems, especially the AI.
Dunkah
Emperor
All fine points but 4 is still too much.
I fear when you start to compare units from one to another that you lose track of the big picture.
Yes 4 moves makes them stand out from the other units of the time but big picture they can now go from coast to coast in a couple of turns. (Just Crazy!)
I fear when you start to compare units from one to another that you lose track of the big picture.
Yes 4 moves makes them stand out from the other units of the time but big picture they can now go from coast to coast in a couple of turns. (Just Crazy!)
Thalassicus
Bytes and Nibblers
I'm going to prioritize chariot balance, further bugfixes, and adding artwork for the new world wonders. I plan to leave knights at their current speed since the results here were not as lopsided as polls involving chariots. 
That is why they have +1 move & move after attack compared to infantry. Heavy cavalry is supposed to be heavy, shock cavalry. Also u may allow knights to get +1 move promo then if that is too much of a problem.
Not sure about that. Last time when I played 3 moves knights/camels etc, I used them to great effectiveness. Higher strength would make them more like a shock cav & keep in mind that even though they might take more hits than a 4 move cav, they'll also become more resilent to them if they take any. In the end it adds a unique feeling to medieval combat which would be much appreciated by most gamers I believe.
My main gripe about 4 moves knight is that it sounds too gamey & unrealistic. We have better ways to make them more useful. Giving 4 moves just sounds like a cheap way-around of increasing their usefulness. That doesn't go well with the rest of the philosophy of the mod.
What makes Keshliks superior is mobility+ranged.
Similar threads
