When are mounted units most usefull

Ok so I notice in many of my games AI focus on making mounted units which have high moving range and i know thats a huge bonus. However I find them useless during sieges. Is there a point in making mounted army while sieging? Well last time i made 2 of those so i can quickly move to enemy tiles and spot his units, also to revel city so i can attack it from safe distance. Is that the only good use for them or im missing something

You can attack archer units with them, because of the extra movement they can bypass the Zone of Control, and in some situations attack units that are behind blocker units. But the AI doesn't really protect it's archers so the mounted units become less important. You can still take shots at units that are in dangerous areas (in archer range and/or city range), and retreat to safety.

great for mobility,flanking,pillaging,they shred archers and siege units.can also be kept at a distance for city conquer once your ranged units have wittled the city down.

pillaging and ruining their production and economy not only hampers their war effort but helps to get better peace deals

hmmm never knew pillaging mattered that much when negotiating peace. I always kept pillaging to minimum so i can use it to heal my units when needed and because i didnt want to deal with repairing those tiles once i get the city

Generally I use mounted units to wipe out a civ's units to open up a city invasion

So generally its a good idea to send few horsmen ahead of my catapults never really seen any benefit from them on chieftain difficulty, however now im trying my luck on prince

Mounted units are not much good, except for the ranged ones, which are ridiculously good.

Melee mounted units aren't much better than same-tier melee units (which aren't much good either compared to a mob of ranged) AND they get specific units which counter them (EG: spears and pikes) AND you need a strategic resource to build them in most cases.

You can make a case for having one or two melee mounted units for the purpose of attacking cities your ranged units have reduced to 0 HP (since a 0 HP city can be taken by any strength of melee unit) but outside of that it's not really worth it.

Sure ranged mounted units are a given. Not only those though.

Mounted units aren't great until you hit Cavalry, but are always ok for taking cities and general harassment. Once you tech Military Science, however, it all changes, and they're very worth building.

When I war in the Industrial Era, I typically have an army composition of 60% cav, 40% artillery (muskets/rifles if I'm lacking horses). Cav are excellent at killing units, as they quickly pick up charge and are up against muskets/cannons if you get them early enough. Rifles are slightly more annoying, but have 34 combat strength too and go down just fine. Well-promoted cav with charge and the correct terrain bonus also do ok against great war infantry, so they are relevant for a good 40-50 turns. Once you start upgrading high level ones to Landships+, you shouldn't have conquest problems if you have a bit of anti air too.

Your ratios are very interesting Bimblecrumbs...and I take note because you've more than proven yourself on the DCL. I actually go for more like the reverse, and concentrate on spamming the Cavs and not caring if they die. If I get to Combustion, there will still be enough money left to spam those too! But I might try it your way and see if it's any easier for me.

In general, critiquing units depends on difficulty level, as Diety AI through sheer numbers and ease of replaceablity alters the debate.

I find mounted units Immensely useful because they can move after attacking. You can cycle these guys if you've built invasion roads, and you can of course attack from many tiles away.

In general, you're fighting one of 2 wars against the AI: 1) Smash and grab invasion, or 2) Kill Zone defense. If it's on Diety, then there's the heightened scenario of war of survival.

In option 2, a Kill Zone defense, Mounted units are fantastic. Again, a well-roaded defensive spot means the AI moves in and promptly gets assaulted by range (Composites, XBows) and also horses. You just want to be sure the horses are not finishing off the unit, so it doesn't end a turn in the wrong spot. You want a holding melee as terrain depends, but roads, range, and mounted are the ideal tactical units to kill enemies at speed once they've entered the area you want them to enter.

In option 1, AI smash invasion, the key is to move hard and fast and take the AI cities you want. In that scenario, you generally overwhelm with range, put a few cheap melee as shields to take city shots and die, and then have horses fly and take a city or take out an AI blocking unit. Knights and xbows are the invasion combo of choice for speed and ferocity of attack. Now, if you can't take a city quickly, then the units required are different... but frankly, if you're invading the AI rather than defending, and you can't take the cities, then you're probably in the wrong tactics.

Some specific scenarios:

Byzantine Cataphracts are stunning city killers. Less city penalty, higher strength, and again, they move after attack. You can do serious work with these guys as Byzantines. Songhai Knight upgrade, the Mandalaku, is similar but less era-dominant. Still, quite helpful. And a UU with 5 movement helps cycling more.

I've said this before, but the critiques of Byzantines tends to focus on religion, but rarely do you see it mentioned as a very smooth expansion civ. Ideal for Tall 3-city opening and then swallowing up a neighboring AI.

Game is about overloading damage on a tile. Mounted units are good hybrid between a meat shield and damage dealer. They can take a hit better than a ranged unit, but can also move up, attack, and retreat again to get them out of fire, which helps stack damage on a target tile while keeping them safe.

They aren't great for taking the city itself, but if the target has a bunch of units stacked around a high defense city, they help for picking off those units so when you finally move in, it is just the city and garrison.

Their movement also helps getting around surrounding territory to help cut off reinforcements or distract them. Not that important on lower difficulties since when you wipe out an AI's army, it stays dead. On higher difficulties when AI's start replacing units as quickly as they are losing them, it becomes more important to break up that flow, else it ends up being a standstill around the city and it constantly being reconquered back and forth.

^^Thats what puppeting is for.
Mounted units are like most people here said good at many things, but most important thing for mounted is movement. Having enough land to get mounteds to move can give mounteds a better advantage over melees which have better attack and defense. Technologies for mobile units are sometimes better than having the ideologies that give mobile units their bonuses because most ideology social policies that give mobile units a boost only happens when mobile units are armored which requires technology.

Gort said:

Mounted units are not much good, except for the ranged ones, which are ridiculously good.

Click to expand...

Isn't this a self-contradictory claim? The major downfall to mounted ranged units is that they upgrade to non-ranged units.

Dushku said:

Isn't this a self-contradictory claim? The major downfall to mounted ranged units is that they upgrade to non-ranged units.

Click to expand...

Mounted ranged units such as camel archers and keshiks are good up to industrial era even on deity. That should clear pangea maps and at least the first continent without help from other melee/siege/ranged class units. All you need is a single horseman for capturing cities. Also they aren't classified as mounted unit so they don't have weakness to pikes class. If you get the march/logistic promotion, those carry over when you upgrade, logistic is same as blitz. If you need to push it into modern era, upgrade them to landships, get some air defense and with the autocracy lighting warfare, that army is unstoppable.

Sclb said:

Mounted ranged units such as camel archers and keshiks are good up to industrial era even on deity.

Click to expand...

Would you agree that unique units (read: exceptional) could be exceptions to rules but not sufficient as the basis for a rule? Camel Archers and Keshiks upgrade to non-ranged units, which was my claim.

Sclb said:

If you get the march/logistic promotion

Click to expand...

Receiving the March or Logistics promotion will not prevent a mounted ranged unit from upgrading to a non-ranged unit, which was my claim. Side note: A mounted ranged unit cannot achieve March or Logistics without first taking multiple promotions that specify ranged damage, which will not translate once the unit upgrades to a non-ranged unit.

If you'll look again, what you quoted me saying was NOT that mounted archers are anything in particular. What I said was that the claims that "Mounted units are not much good" and "ranged [mounted units] are ridiculously good" are competing claims. I base this on the fact that ranged mounted units becomes mounted units. Do you find this observation to be inaccurate?

Dushku said:

Would you agree that unique units (read: exceptional) could be exceptions to rules but not sufficient as the basis for a rule? Camel Archers and Keshiks upgrade to non-ranged units, which was my claim.


Receiving the March or Logistics promotion will not prevent a mounted ranged unit from upgrading to a non-ranged unit, which was my claim. Side note: A mounted ranged unit cannot achieve March or Logistics without first taking multiple promotions that specify ranged damage, which will not translate once the unit upgrades to a non-ranged unit.

If you'll look again, what you quoted me saying was NOT that mounted archers are anything in particular. What I said was that the claims that "Mounted units are not much good" and "ranged [mounted units] are ridiculously good" are competing claims. I base this on the fact that ranged mounted units becomes mounted units. Do you find this observation to be inaccurate?

Click to expand...

I would agree with your assessment of the UUs

I would propose that how the base units upgrade is irrelevant to the question.

We can agree that "mounted units" and "ranged mounted units" are different things yes?

If this is indeed the case then we can assume the OPs claims are not competing at all.Since upon upgrading the unit ceases to be one thing and becomes another.so we are still comparing different units

The claims could only be competing if we agree that "mounted units" and "ranged mounted units" ARE the same thing.Again rendering how they upgrade irrelevant to the question

Well met, Phukit!

Phukit said:

I would propose that how the base units upgrade is irrelevant to the question.

Click to expand...

We do not recognize babies as eligible to enter into contracts. They lack the capacity for reason and therefore cannot be assigned personhood. At the same time, we would refer to somebody that killed a baby as a murderer even though we would not if instead the person had killed a mosquito. Similarly, a trustee is the custodian of a trust fund, but he is not authorized to take from the money as he sees fit. Even though he was entrusted with the funds, we do not regard them as his because we know it will become somebody else's. I submit that what something will become is a feature of its identity.

Keep in mind that the competing claim in question referred to mounted archers as "ridiculously good." The denotes a pronounced step up from just "good." I would agree that mounted units are not as good as mounted archers. I would even go so far as to agree that mounted archers are good. However, the fact that they upgraded into non-archer units, thus wasting promotions, precludes them from being described as ridiculously good.

I've always been curious as to WHY they'd make it so that these units forget how to shoot.

The main strength of mounted units is its mobility and hit/run tactics. Something melee units can't do. They also make good city takers.

Mounted melee units 101:
-Horsemen are terrible
-Knights are okayish to help your XB army
-Cavalry are good
-Tanks are good

Reasons:
-Horsemen have a rather weak strength for a classical unit at 12 (same as the way cheaper and earlier spearman)
-Knights are decent in strength but come at the time where the AI loves to spam pikes
-Cavalry is the first mobile unit to have a decent strength and not be too threatened by a unit the AI likes to spam.

The other problem mounted units face is that they can't touch cities.

Acken said:

The other problem mounted units face is that they can't touch cities.

Click to expand...

Already noticed that one... well till now i was just ignoring them while going straight to long swordsman and then used mainly infantry and tanks on later stage
However now i feel the need for something that move a bit more because my siege army is getting rekt at the city im trying to take

Early siege units are usually composite/crossbows. Both strong and mobile.

Most common used armies are:
Composite + spears
Xbows + Pikes/Knights/Muskets
Artilleries + Cavalry
Artilleries + bombers + cavalry/tank