[Vote] (2-37) Allow Mounted/Armor Units To Take The Amphibious Promotion

[Voremonger]

Voting Instructions
Players, please cast your votes in the poll above. Vote "Yea" if you'd be okay if this proposal was implemented. Vote "Nay" if you'd be okay if this proposal wasn't implemented.

You can vote for both options, which is equivalent to saying "I'm fine either way", but adds to the required quorum of 10 votes in favor.

All votes are public. If you wish, you can discuss your choice(s) in the thread below. You can change your vote as many times as you want until the poll closes.

VP Congress: Session 2, Proposal 37
Proposal: Currently only melee/gunpowder units can take the amphibious promotion. I propose also allowing mounted/armor units to take the amphibious promotion. To clarify, by "mounted units" I specifically mean mounted melee units.

Rationale: I think right now mounted units are in a weak spot in terms of offensive use. On the maps that I typically play there simply isn't enough open terrain without forests and/or rivers to make them useful: there is no point in being able to move after attacking if the attack expends all of your movement due to terrain. Rivers in particular are a problem since attacking over a river always expends all movement and they also trap your mounted units. Mounted units are however still useful defensively in conjunction with roads: roads negate the terrain movement penalties and frequently allow you to retreat back to safety after an attack. If mounted units were allowed to take the amphibious promotion this would make them more effective in the absence of roads. Unlike mounted units I don't believe that armor units are in a bad spot right now. But for consistency I think they should also be allowed to take the amphibious promotion, especially since the giant death robot receives the amphibious promotion for free.

 

[Tekamthi]

 

[Stalker0]

Historically rivers and deep water was one of the main issues with tanks, they don’t fare as well in complex terrain and certainly don’t perform amphibious operations.

Also i think the new skirmisher model has revitalized mounted melee. A shock horse with his skirmisher buddy can dish out a lot of damage with great mobility

 

[Voremonger]

Historically rivers and deep water was one of the main issues with tanks, they don’t fare as well in complex terrain and certainly don’t perform amphibious operations.

That's true but historically tanks also had more range than archers and roads didn't care who owns them. I'm arguing purely from the perspective that without roads to support them mounted units just aren't worthwhile in my games.

 

[Stalker0]

That's true but historically tanks also had more range than archers and roads didn't care who owns them. I'm arguing purely from the perspective that without roads to support them mounted units just aren't worthwhile in my games.

And that's fair, i also think gameplay must trump realism.

But my experience does not match yours. mounted units are very useful, and tanks are freakin amazing. I do think the new skirmisher change really helped them out.

 

[Tekamthi]

There is some historical basis for OP proposal, though I don't feel strongly for or against this change specifically.

I think there's been a tendency to generalize availability or applicability of certain abilities thus far in VP congress. Civ 5 combat is not that complex, really, the more overlapping we have in the few unique abilities that do exist in the game, the more samey-units we have with less distinct roles. If something like this were to go ahead, I would prefer an amphibious promotion that does not confer the full benefit that infantry units get; maybe just the ability to attack w/o penalty, or just the no-movement-penalty, but not both. Or maybe the bonus works in ocean but not over rivers, etc. Overall I don't know that its really necessary, could be a modmod made in 15 mins really.

 

[ma_kuh]

I like to see forests and rivers as the equalizer between mounted and unmounted units. With woodsman and amphibious at T2/T3 for melee, there's a very good reason to pick foot soldiers over mounted, even if you have the resources, if your terrain is just bad for them. I think it's good design. And mounted units have access to open-terrain promos more than unmounted (Charge, e.g.), so I think it's fine.

 

[rkkn]

this would make rivers useless for setting up a defensive line

 

[pineappledan]

This hurts Songhai's UA's specialness, because it's currently the only way to get amphibious on mounted units. Similar to how Iroquois' free woodsman is the only way to get forest movement on mounted.

 

[Legen]

I can sponsor this.

 

[pineappledan]

I don’t even think you need to talk gameplay trumping realism here, horses and tanks fording rivers was always hard, bordering on impossible.

I also don’t think mounted melee is in a bad spot in the least. I’ll be voting against this for sure.

 

[Recursive]

Proposal sponsored by Legen.

 

[Recursive]

Timestamp post to arrange all the threads in a neat order.