.

[member66170]

.

 

[T.rex]

It's realistic that spearmen, and later pikemen receive a +100% bonus vs mounted units. However, what is also realistic is that these units should also receive the +100% bonus against war elephant units -- or at least a +50% bonus. Furthermore, spearmen and pikemen should not receive bonuses against mounted horse archers because the latter never engages the enemy from close range or otherwise charges enemy mellee based units such as spearmen and pikemen.

The axemen, and later macemen represent the crushing power of heavy melee weaponry and gain their hefty +50% bonus vs all melee foot based units as they should. Though, I think a +100% bonus a bit much, even with a reduced strength as you proposed. Swordsmen are more of a "jack of all trades" unit in that they have an all round effectiveness and a city attack bonus to boot. Also, sinse neither possess a shield (and in the axemans' case little armour) I think archers and longbowmen should have a bonus against axemen, but not swordsmen.

What is missing from ancient warfare in the game is mounted units like light and heavy cavalry (CIV II had cavalry). These should have been added IMO.

 

[Diamondeye]

I like the ideas, but maybe +100% against melee is a bit whack.
Cats should be more like in previous civ, making them dangerous attackers, but not as good defenders. I agree that axemen are used a bit too much, especially according to history. Organized armes used either spears or swords/shields. I see the point of the idea of removing the bonus against horsearchers from spears, but this would simply create another superunit, the horsearcher. This could, however, be changed by the introduction of the melee cavalry - call it equites, raider, whatever... A suggestion could be something like this:

Raider
Mounted unit
Recieves +50% against horsearchers.
Recieves -25% against War elephants.
Recieves no terrain defend bonuses.
6 , 2 , same as horsearcher.

 

[Infantry#14]

how about for axeman, double its production cost, making them quite expensive to build

 

[thenooblet22]

The ancient age might be the most balanced in the game, but there are still a few things that bother me. Firstly, why are axemen so important and spearmen so useless? Wasn't the spear the most common weapon in ancient warfare, and the axe a more elitist weapon?
This is my solution:

Axeman str 4 +100% versus melee
Spearman str 5 +50% versus mounted


This would basicaly swap around the roles of axeman and spearman. Spearman would become the standard all-purpose unit, while axeman would become the specialised melee killer. This would mean that axes would probably be a little rare, and so swordsmen would become more usefull.

The second thing that annoys me is the way classical combat is handled in multiplayer. The only thing that anyone ever buidls (once they ahve construction) are elephants and catapults. This is even more true in teamer games where you share resources. My solution is to make the elephant strength 7 instead of 8, so it can actualy be countered by spears. The other thing is to give horse archers +50% vs catapults in both attack and defence (instead of just attack), because, as it is, cats are always defended by elephants making any attacks by horse archers suicidal. This would mean that there is a real counter to cats (other than elephants or more cats).

(if you choose option 4 in the poll above, please don't say that the game needs a lot more units)

You can mod these units to these stats. Can you try some test games and tell us the results. I'm still iffy on this.

 

[bds]

Axeman str 4 +100% versus melee
Spearman str 5 +50% versus mounted

That would make things much worse... axemen would be a strength 8 when fighting any other melee unit which would make them on par with the hugely imbalanced preatorian.

 

[GeneralX]

I’m not particularly keen on the combat system in its entirety, not just with Ancient units. (I know that this has been fought over many times but I still think it is relevant in this instance). I know that a lot of effort has gone into trying to (and failing to) end the “Spearman defeats tank” debacle but surely there must be a better combat system that Civilization could have. The main limiter appears to be the single score for both defence and attack. Even with a bonus/penalty for actions against specific units the system you propose, whilst an improvement, would not encompass the full gambit of combat. I would like to see a pop-up screen that allows you to select which units in your stack attack units in your enemies stack (then press “go” and wait for them to all go through the action to see who wins overall and which units are left). You could then use a stack of diverse units according to their strengths and not let the computer decide what is best (and yes that will probable mean getting rid of some unit promotion options i.e. first strike).

 

[T.rex]

I would like to bring back both attack and defence ratings which would add more tactical/strategic options for the game.

Furthermore, I think all mounted units should have some advantage in open plains and grassland tiles, although their option to withdraw may cover this adaquatly.

 

[Diamondeye]

I’m not particularly keen on the combat system in its entirety, not just with Ancient units. (I know that this has been fought over many times but I still think it is relevant in this instance). I know that a lot of effort has gone into trying to (and failing to) end the “Spearman defeats tank” debacle but surely there must be a better combat system that Civilization could have. The main limiter appears to be the single score for both defence and attack. Even with a bonus/penalty for actions against specific units the system you propose, whilst an improvement, would not encompass the full gambit of combat. I would like to see a pop-up screen that allows you to select which units in your stack attack units in your enemies stack (then press “go” and wait for them to all go through the action to see who wins overall and which units are left). You could then use a stack of diverse units according to their strengths and not let the computer decide what is best (and yes that will probable mean getting rid of some unit promotion options i.e. first strike).

The way I read you here is that the attacker should choose who to attack... That is a bad idea! I thin k the system works kinda alrite now, althought the single -factor is a bit annoying sometimes.

 

[GeneralX]

The way I read you here is that the attacker should choose who to attack...

That is generally the idea. In any combat the initiative usually rests with the attacker. Attackers generally are able to chose the time, direction and strength of an attack. Those playing a defensive role usually sit and wait for the opposing army to move. There is no reason though why the AI couldn’t be set so that units fight according to their strengths (e.g. using all the cavalry to fight against attacking unit’s artillery). This would compel the attacker to have good intelligence on opposing stacks and then use the appropriate units to negate any threats. The AI would also have to do the same. Here is a simple scenario. You have a stack with Cavalry, Rifleman and Cannon. Your opponent has the same. You direct the cavalry to attack your opponent’s cannon. You know your enemy will use cavalry to attack your cannon so you order your riflemen to attack the enemy’s cavalry. The AI will do the same (again playing to the unit’s strength). How will you win? By superior numbers, AND/OR being “overweight” in a particular unit AND/OR having more experienced units AND/OR terrain modifiers, AND/OR unique units, AND/OR any other of the many combat variables in the game. You could even take a strategic view and use some cavalry units as an independent stack to screen your forces, inflict minor damage on the enemy and conduct reconnaissance. This then allows for mobile warfare. I think the system above would also allow for that.

 

[ViterboKnight]

Axeman str 4 +100% versus melee
Spearman str 5 +50% versus mounted

I agree. Maybe +100% for Axeman is too much, let's give us about a 75% bonus.
However, this way, if spearmen become the most common units, horses risk to become too underpowered. It requires a careful reflection.


Besides, I'd like to give the Flanking promotion some tactical purpose. For example, some units, like spearmen, have their best defense against attacks from only one direction, so if someone makes a flanking attack, the unit is more vulnerable. As a result, some units (like spearmen, pikemen) should be vulnerable to flanking attacks.

 

[Moon Pine]

War Elephant needs the rarest strategy resource in civ4 and much more hammers than Spearman. And Spearmen can easily destroy War Elephants + Catapults with the same hammers. Just expend some of them weakening the catapults.
If Hwacha..... just damn your bad luck.

 

[King Flevance]

I like the 2nd idea although something seems wrong with it somewhere.

As to the first idea, I nerfed axes to a 4 already in my game and they still only recieve a 50% bonus. Shock takes them up to a 75%. (Actually 85% since it requires combat 1 for shock)
Spears I have left at 4 with the +100%. That still gives them an 8 vs. an elephant. and it goes up even more with combat 1 and the anti-cav promo.

I have used this system for a while and the nerf to axes is definatly noticable. Axe rushes are simply no longer a wise move for one. However, they are still very crucial for protecting your own borders and work great for military support on campaigns.
Personally, I plan on seperating War Elephants from Construction. I still don't know what that's about. Do they construct elephants? Or do they construct the little box on their back or what? Doesn't make any sense to me other than just giving them a home on the tech tree. But in fairness I am expanding the Classical Era more and adding in a more diverse Classical Era section of the tech tree.

Although, again I will say I agree with the 2nd idea, but not entirely. Soemthing seems to be missing. I like the Horse Raider idea for early warfare though. I also agree that Horse archers sould gain their advantage defensively as well as offensively.

 

[Rusty Edge]

While ancient/classical combat is pretty low on my list of things I'd change without adding units, I agree that arm ies were more spears and less axes.
You're proposal is almost acceptable , I'd make the ax bonus 75 or 80% instead of 100.

I don't have personal experience with multi-player but agree that maybe elephants/ivory are too common as a resource, and that horse archers should start with a flanking abillity. I'd rather give spears and pikes an elephant bonus than nerf elephants