Chariot Archer is NOT a mounted unit.

[Knut_Are_M]

Pikes used to have bonus damage vs chariot Archers and elefhant Archers, and Camel Archers and kesiks.
this was changed back in Vanilla. ranged units were hopeless then.
I Guess they never thought about readding it again.

PS the counter offer trade bug was added in BNW. as in a programmer had to change 2 lines of code in order to create the bug. That code change made it to Retail.

PS since small maps were so popular but some People lagged they changed the map size for small map to be slightly smaller.
That is why you have more Space per player at tiny maps and standard maps and duels.
And even more at large and huge.

 

[Karmah]

So ToA gives bonus for the production of keshiks ?

Anyway , the same problem with Civ , Not enough patches , not enough maintenance. A very very good game , with the best expansions and a lot of vision from the devs, but the only little annoyance . They should be little patchs every 3 months or so .... when you think about civilopedia inacurrate infos or the science overflow exploit to name a few ....

 

[shaglio]

I guess it all boils down to WHY the Spearman/Pikeman gets a bonus against mounted. Is it because they use their long spears/pikes to dislodge the rider from his horse? If so, with a Chariot Archer, the archer isn't on the horse's back, rather he's in the chariot behind the horse, where he can duck behind the chariot's sidewall. So maybe that's why they don't get the bonus vs. mounted. I don't know; I'm grasping at straws here, looking for some way to explain it.

 

[beetle]

I'm grasping at straws here, looking for some way to explain it.

Are there any units which are both ranged and mounted? I think the explanation is that the code limits units to having one attribute or the other, and that these two attributes are mutually exclusive. Not a great excuse, but I think that is better than trying to rationalize the game behavior as being logical.

 

[theemaster]

this. I feel that ppl that defend poor design like this usually don't understand how easy it would be to solve problems like this with some thorough testing and development. Anything that comes out with a bunch of non-intuitive bugs these days did not spend a reasonable amount of time testing or with fan-feedback. That said, it still hasn't broken my faith in civ bc it is still an awesome game. I just feel they are abusing their loyal fan base when they refuse to address fundamental problems.

Case in Point: how long has it been that they've known about certain annoying bugs like:

1. If you build a city meaning to sell it and don't specify production before trading it your game is forever stuck trying to get you to set production for a city you no longer own. This has been known for like 3 years and still hasn't been fixed.
2. The tile yields on tribute city squares producing +0 for the city. I almost hate to take cities in tribute because I know they will be worse then if I conquered them. This coupled with the fact that conquering is such a huge warmonger hit is a major design flaw.

Yah, they do seem lazy.. I reported this bug 1-2 years ago.. I thought it was to do with AMD cards.. but I have a NVidia now.. and it still happens

And also I now think this bug is caused by multiple reloads of civ at some point.. that is what causes it to crash.. on average in my game I crash every 3-4 hours sometimes.. sometimes not

 

[shaglio]

Are there any units which are both ranged and mounted? I think the explanation is that the code limits units to having one attribute or the other, and that these two attributes are mutually exclusive. Not a great excuse, but I think that is better than trying to rationalize the game behavior as being logical.

Yeah, that's usually my problem: I think logically instead of in computer code. When I get home from work, if I remember, I'll check the Units file to see how the computer classifies the Keshik, Camel Archer, and Horse Archer. Those are the only units I can think of that would have the Ranged/Mounted conflict (maybe the Chariot Archer too, but that would depend on the programmers' intent).

 

[Yzman]

Yeah, that's usually my problem: I think logically instead of in computer code. When I get home from work, if I remember, I'll check the Units file to see how the computer classifies the Keshik, Camel Archer, and Horse Archer. Those are the only units I can think of that would have the Ranged/Mounted conflict (maybe the Chariot Archer too, but that would depend on the programmers' intent).

Those are considered archery units. It makes sense to me honestly.

http://www.dndjunkie.com/civilopedia/UNIT_HUN_HORSE_ARCHER.aspx

 

[beetle]

Those are considered archery units. It makes sense to me honestly.

It makes sense to me that spear/pikes/lancers would not get any special defense against mounted archery units.

It makes no sense to me that spear/pikes/lancers don’t get their usual bonus when attacking mounted archery units.

I cannot fathom that this would be deliberately by design. The rationalizations to that end just seem bizarre to me. The only explanation that I find credible is that its a mistake.

 

[DemonMaster]

It makes sense to me that spear/pikes/lancers would not get any special defense against mounted archery units.

It makes no sense to me that spear/pikes/lancers don’t get their usual bonus when attacking mounted archery units.

I cannot fathom that this would be deliberately by design. The rationalizations to that end just seem bizarre to me. The only explanation that I find credible is that its a mistake.

Why should they get a bonus to attack a horse archer (or variants of). The horse archer is not a melee, they do not charge, they will ride forward (try to) and shot their arrows and then ride back in a circle and do that again or they could if they are many, circle the wagon. Either way, they have a horse and have no benefit of staying close to a melee unit, sword or spear.
I see a battlefield with a spearman unit and a horse archer unit. After the horse archer have did their hit and run, the spearman started to ran after them shouting "come back here your cheating horseF."

 

[beetle]

The whole thing is an abstraction anyway, but what logic applies to spear/pike/lancer having a bonus when attacking horseman/knight/lancer/calvary? Why is that logic not applicable when they attack chariot (et al.)?

 

[DemonMaster]

The whole thing is an abstraction anyway, but what logic applies to spear/pike/lancer having a bonus when attacking horseman/knight/lancer/cavalry? Why is that logic not applicable when they attack chariot (et al.)?

Because when a typical cavalry unit attacks he charges. He uses the strength and speed of the horse when he attacks. This is extra powerful when the cavalry clashes with its enemy (cavalry shock).
A spearman or pikeman can use this strength and speed (see braveheart) against the itself. By set his spear against the ground so the cavalry run into them. Due to the cavalry units speed, this is extremely dangerous.

Since a horse archer don't do cavalry shocks, the spearman can't set his spear and if he do, the horse archer will simply sit on their horses at a comfortable distance and shoot arrows. So Any type of melee between a horse archer and a spearman is probably the result of some spearman charging the horse archers. A "spearman shock" doesn't have the same ring to it and definitely not the same strength and speed as when a cavalryman do it.

 

[shaglio]

By set his spear against the ground so the cavalry run into them. Due to the cavalry units speed, this is extremely dangerous.

Ah yes, like in The Thirteenth Warrior.

 

[ToothedBomb]

Because when a typical cavalry unit attacks he charges.

When a large number of spear- or pikemen charge towards them, wouldn't cavalry just retreat? They have greater mobility anyway, so it doesn't make sense they'd just stand there, or charge their horses into a wall of spears.

It's just for gameplay balance. There's some reasoning behind it, but it doesn't make a whole lot of sense.

 

[DemonMaster]

When a large number of spear- or pikemen charge towards them, wouldn't cavalry just retreat? They have greater mobility anyway, so it doesn't make sense they'd just stand there, or charge their horses into a wall of spears.

It's just for gameplay balance. There's some reasoning behind it, but it doesn't make a whole lot of sense.

So we need to compare units with other in order to give them pros and cons. A horse unit has such a high strength because it is on a horse (horse units are normally less in number compared to footmen unit) and he needs to charge and use his horse to get that strength. An horse archers little perk is its mobility. He doesn't need to charge to attack and if something scary comes near, he can try to use his horse to re-position himself.
In a melee attack, the horse unit has no other choice than to try to charge. If they don't they will be attacked by the spearman and their only bonus, being mounted with speed and strength is not there, the spearman has the upper hand. If the horse unit is attacking, it has the bonus of speed and strength (of the horse) but the spearman can set their spears. So the conclusion is that, in this tactical game, you shouldn't position your horse unit so a spearman can reach it. You have the move, use it.
For a horse archer, they will (regardless if they are attacked or if they are attacking) try to position themselves with a secure distance from the spearman.
Civ 5 is a strategic game with a tactical level combat system. Civ 5 tries to give you the feeling of a battlefield. In order to do that it needs to be a little abstract. This is such a case. There are a number of this small things in Civ 5 and all of them is there to give that battlefield feeling. If we take away the pros and cons of certain units, then placement and tactics would be pointless.

 

[beetle]

Because when a typical cavalry unit attacks he charges. He uses the strength and speed of the horse when he attacks. This is extra powerful when the cavalry clashes with its enemy (cavalry shock). A spearman or pikeman can use this strength and speed (see braveheart) against the itself. By set his spear against the ground so the cavalry run into them. Due to the cavalry units speed, this is extremely dangerous.

Despite the emphasis in my previous reply, you have explained only why spears/pikes get a defensive bonus against mounted melee units, not the reason why spears/pikes get a bonus when they are the ones attacking mounted units.

An horse archers little perk is its mobility. He doesn't need to charge to attack and if something scary comes near, he can try to use his horse to re-position himself. In a melee attack, the horse unit has no other choice than to try to charge.

To attack, yes. To defend, no. The mounted melee unit also try to run away. Why is horse archer better at defending than a horseman when the latter has the same re-positioning ability?

If they don't they will be attacked by the spearman and their only bonus, being mounted with speed and strength is not there, the spearman has the upper hand.

This applies equally well to the chariot archer (et al.) as it does the horseman/knight. Plus, why doesn’t the lancer get their attack bonus against mounted archery units? The whole spear reach/set-into-ground rational falls apart.

So the conclusion is that, in this tactical game, you shouldn't position your horse unit so a spearman can reach it. You have the move, use it.

Agreed. Part of the reason spears/pikes/lancers get their bonus when attacking mounted is that the target has left themselves vulnerable.

For a horse archer, they will (regardless if they are attacked or if they are attacking) try to position themselves with a secure distance from the spearman.

Again, anything you argue for the horse archer applies to other mounted units.

This particular quirk really doesn’t bother me much, but it’s plainly a bug. I appreciate your strident efforts to defend the game mechanic. The incorrect Civlopedia entry provides evidence that its just a mistake.

 

[DemonMaster]

Despite the emphasis in my previous reply, you have explained only why spears/pikes get a defensive bonus against mounted melee units, not the reason why spears/pikes get a bonus when they are the ones attacking mounted units.

The Attacker is moving into the Defenders hex and then BOTH are fighting. This means the the poor knight will not just stand their and look good. Nor will they runaway (civ has no rout/flee system), they will attack the pikeman. We can assume that if a pikeman attacks (moves into the defending knights hex, days of battles occur. The defender is simply the one that defends the hex, with bonus sometimes since he could have been prepared. But when it comes to how units fight. The knight still have a horse that is strong and that can trample.

To attack, yes. To defend, no. The mounted melee unit also try to run away. Why is horse archer better at defending than a horseman when the latter has the same re-positioning ability?

Both the knight and the camel archer for example, will probably re-group. The difference is that, a camel archer has nothing to gain to ride back to the pikemen. The knight can do nothing from 100m distance, except to wave with their hands.

This applies equally well to the chariot archer (et al.) as it does the horseman/knight. Plus, why doesn’t the lancer get their attack bonus against mounted archery units? The whole spear reach/set-into-ground rational falls apart.

Still, the camel archer (or whatever) has nothing to gain to be in melee and if it ends up with a spear nearby and get hurts, they will try to getaway from there. They will defend themselves with a handweapon of some sort but their big thing is archery so they will not stay. The lancer, I don't personally get, why they get a bonus since the strength and speed of the horse is already (or should be) calculated with the strength of the unit. They should make the lancer a knight replacement and have pikemen upgrade to musketman (and loosing the +50% vs. mounted).

Civ 5 is a tactical game when it comes to combat. But since it is not a complete tactical game (we do not have minigames with battles and turns that are hours or days) so if we see this from a civ 5 tactical and strategic point of view, they should let the +50% be applied to any horse. If not for simplicity.
Bonus issue: When something upgrades, let the thing upgrades to what it does. A horse archer is an archer. It is a man that is good with his bow. He rides a horse, yes, but still he shoots arrows. His outfit has probably trained archery for many years (and riding). Soldiers has come and go over the years. When the times comes, let this outfit become what it do best, shoot arrows. In this case, let he be a crossbowman or at least switch promotions (if not for clarity).

Edit: So, yes I do understand the critique for this rule, but also I do understand where it comes from and since this is a turn-based semi-tactical game, they should do what the civilopedia says, because if a horse archer don't want to be hit by a spear he has his increased move to get away.

 

[beetle]

The way I rationalize it is that archery units are already weak against melee attacks, so giving certain melee attackers an additional bonus would be OP. (Still, it seems unfair to those certain melee attackers since they are relatively weak compared to other melee units.) Real-world wise, I can see that, when overrun, bows would have better synergy with defensive mobility than a lance. The game mechanic should probably be a defensive penalty for mounted melee, but an offensive bonus works out just about the same.

 

[shaglio]

Bonus issue: When something upgrades, let the thing upgrades to what it does. A horse archer is an archer. It is a man that is good with his bow. He rides a horse, yes, but still he shoots arrows. His outfit has probably trained archery for many years (and riding). Soldiers has come and go over the years. When the times comes, let this outfit become what it do best, shoot arrows. In this case, let he be a crossbowman or at least switch promotions (if not for clarity).

I wouldn't mind if Mounted Ranged units had the choice to upgrade along the Mounted line or the Ranged line. There was a unit in Civ 4 (my memory is a little foggy as to which one) that could upgrade to either a Rifleman or a Granadier. A Chariot Archer should be able to choose to upgrade to either a Horseman (or maybe Knight) or Composite Bowman (or maybe Crossbowman). I haven't given though yet to other Mounted Ranged units like the Keshik, Camel Archer, Battle Elephant, but I'm sure they could work too.

This way, if you give the unit Ranged promotions, you won't lose them upon upgrade if you choose the Ranged line. Similarly, if the unit has yet to be promoted, you can choose either line to upgrade into. I don't believe you can get any Mounted line promotions (if they can get them at all) without taking the Ranged promotions first.

 

[beetle]

I had forgotten how much I missed not having multiple upgrade paths for at least some units...

 

[Gamewizard]

I think it is funny arguing about what would happen on the battlefield between a knight and pikeman.

The knight would obviously throw it's molotov cocktails from a distance!