7.2.2 Longbowmen

[Questdog]

I did choose a poor first example, since CKNs and Longbows are close in value.

A better example is the second one, Keshiks. Here's my thoughts:

• Keshiks are better than longbows in every way but the resource requirement.
• Genghis was ranked at the bottom, #21 out of 22 on the first Favorite Leaders poll. I have not buffed Keshiks since then, and I haven't seen commentary in the strategy forums that Mongolia is overpowered.
• It's therefore very likely that Longbows are balanced.

One big difference is that the Keshik replaces the Knight.

I agree if Keshik's replaced Crossbowman that the Keshik would be a better unit, even with the resource limitation.

By the way, a bit off topic here, but I just have to tell this to someone. Just started a new game with the English to wipe the world clean with my new super-powered long bowmen and I have just built my second city and it is the best location for a city that I think I have ever had in any game of civ (even going back to Civ 3 when Cows ruled the world). The city is built the perfect distance from London as to not overlap and not leave any spaces and is also perfectly placed in relation to Moscow, which will be a fine English town before too long. The City radius (when expanded) will include 4 Gold, 3 sheep, 2 wheat, 1 deer, 1 marble, and the city is built on a river. London has no gold or marble so they are both brand new luxury aquisitions. The only negatives are 1) one square of city radius falls on a coastal square (very minor) and 2) it's ideal proximity to Moscow means I'll be attacked pretty hard and pretty soon.

Anyway, sorry to bore you with that, but I am blown away. The map is a large Pefect World 3 map (which, to me, seems to usually be tougher at having ideal city placement locations). It is also very rare on a Perfect World map for a city close to your capital to have even one new luxury resource, much less two.

Edit: just finished Animal Husbandry and York (my perfect 2nd city) also has a horse in its radius....

 

[Thalassicus]

I agree the replacement unit is important in army composition. From my experience playing these leaders, I'd rank medieval-era land army power in this order:

1. Mongolian pikes+keshiks
2. Chinese ckn+treb+knights
3. English longbow+treb+knights
4. Japanese samurai+treb+crossbows

Japanese strength is more in the classical era, along with some other leaders, but does overlap somewhat to the medieval period. I don't have enough experience with these other medieval armies to rate them:

• Songhai
• Spain

 

[Ian7]

Spain is more of an early rensissance power, I also don't know about Songhai.

 

[Questdog]

1. Mongolian pikes+keshiks
2. Chinese ckn+treb+knights
3. English longbow+treb+knights
4. Japanese samurai+treb+crossbows

I don't know about the Mongols, since horses don't usually fit into my combat style except as flank protectors, and I don't play them, but I am absolutely convinced that the English are much better than the Chinese.

I was born in Japan (though I am not Japanese) and I play them quite a bit, but they are clearly inferior to the English for this time period.

And in my opinion, during this period, the English, if not the most dominant power on earth, are at least the civ most suited to my playstyle and therefore ARE the best civ in my machine (even without the indirect fire). I love setting up enfilading fire zones, which are impossible to do with the 2-hex ranged units. Without the indirect fire, this took some thinking on my part to figure out the best locations to position my archers, but with indirect fire, you have taken away any need for terrain considerations.

 

[Thalassicus]

Keshiks are not used to flank, they're archers with the same role as longbows.

Can you be certain England's ranking is #1 instead of #3 if you haven't played Mongolia or China?

 

[Questdog]

If you don't play China or Mongolia, how can you be sure these army compositions are not ranked in the order I've described?

I said I don't know about Mongolia, but I don't have to play the Chinese to know that they are worse in this period. The only difference is the CNK vs. Longbowmen and I've given you my full opinion on that issue....

 

[Questdog]

Without indirect fire for the Longbowmen, I could not argue that they are CLEARLY superior to the CKN. Both have strengths in different areas, the LB's perks being stronger, but not as consistently applicable as the CKN's. But WITH indirect fire, the LBs stronger perk is 100% applicable and therefore much better.

Even without indirect fire I would choose Longbowman, just because they are fun for me, but they wouldn't be demonstrably superior to the CKNs.

Whichever unit you took there would always be times that you wished you had the other one.....

Edit: Except in a firefight between the two, when I would be glad I had the LBs who could mow down the CKN's before they even got close enough to look at me....

 

[Ahriman]

I did choose a poor first example, since CKNs and Longbows are close in value. A better example is the second one, Keshiks. I haven't seen commentary in the strategy forums that Keshiks are overpowered, and since Longbows are weaker or equal to Keshiks in every statistic...

Here is my problem with this comparison. The Longbow and CKN are only moderate parts of Chinese and English power. But the Keshik is really the key to Mongol power. Balance is at a faction level, not an individual UU level.
I think there is a reasonable argument that the Keshik is too strong, and could have its ranged attack strength reduced. But that doesn't seem like a reason to make Longbows stronger.

 

[Txurce]

I think there is a reasonable argument that the Keshik is too strong, and could have its ranged attack strength reduced. But that doesn't seem like a reason to make Longbows stronger.

Elizabeth has been consistently rated low on the "fun leader" polls. This is why I've been experimenting with ways to improve England over the past half year. This change finally makes England enjoyable to play for me, with Elizabeth's defining characteristic as "early artillery."

For me, Thal answers Ahriman here. England had a huge problem - they were weak and no fun. This is no longer true... they're now one of many civs I look forward to playing. As long as the buff doesn't set them a level above every other civ in the game, I won't worry about its relative strength.

This is also why I'm more liberal about buffing China - its nerfing has cost it all its popularity. However, China is still a strong civ, so it's definitely less of an issue than England was.

 

[Ahriman]

I am playing 7.4 as Japan. It is incredibly difficult to make any headway at all against the AI England player with Longbows. There is really nothing you can do against the solid wall of longbows. The AI builds nothing but longbows. I have Samurai... 2 of them, because the 2 iron deposits near my capital gave one each, and none of the nearby citystates have any.

Knights don't really help. You can use a knight to kill one longbow easily, but it can't possibly back off enough to get out of range. So if you actually want to go on the offensive, you will be trading units almost 1:1, which you can't possibly manage against the AI on a high difficulty level.

This is no fun to play against.

I am also finding Spoils of War too strong, it really gives just too much gold for an early stage social policy. And unlike most of the policies from the early trees, it seems to scale incredibly well into the late-game.

I think this mechanic probably fits better in Autocracy than Honor, or the values need to be toned way down.

I strongly recommend taking away indirect fire. It is crazy.

 

[Txurce]

I am playing 7.4 as Japan. It is incredibly difficult to make any headway at all against the AI England player with Longbows. There is really nothing you can do against the solid wall of longbows. The AI builds nothing but longbows. I have Samurai... 2 of them, because the 2 iron deposits near my capital gave one each, and none of the nearby citystates have any.

Knights don't really help. You can use a knight to kill one longbow easily, but it can't possibly back off enough to get out of range. So if you actually want to go on the offensive, you will be trading units almost 1:1, which you can't possibly manage against the AI on a high difficulty level.

This is no fun to play against.

I am also finding Spoils of War too strong, it really gives just too much gold for an early stage social policy. And unlike most of the policies from the early trees, it seems to scale incredibly well into the late-game.

I think this mechanic probably fits better in Autocracy than Honor, or the values need to be toned way down.

I strongly recommend taking away indirect fire. It is crazy.

I just fought a war against England using America, and had to accept major losses in order to win. To do so required killing as many LB's as possible on the first turn, and being ready to follow up once their deadly first turn was over. Horsemen help here, in that they should be cheaper to build by then, and have more range than knights. Chariots are also effective en masse.

Japan is similarly tough to bring down unless you're ahead in tech, due to Bushido. I try to roll these civs either before or after the Medieval period. Taking them on at their peak will not lead to an enjoyable war.

Regarding SOW, I think the appropriate balance would be one that allows you to sustain a war machine, and no more.

 

[Thalassicus]

Any leader with a strong military presence in one era necessitates battling them at times when their military is not dominant.

It's very similar to Rome, whose only military advantage is a short period in the early game. No advantages of Ballistae, Legions, or Longbows upgrade to later eras, so just defeat leaders like these before and after their peak.

 

[Ahriman]

It's very similar to Rome, whose only military advantage is a short period in the early game.

Not really. Legions are pathetically weak compared to longbows, they're not that much better than swordsmen. Longbows totally change warfare; legions don't. Longbows can be spammed (they are resourceless); legions can't.

And I found before that longbows upgraded received +1 movement; has this been removed?

I also just fine the indirect fire totally immersion breaking on archery units. Shooting over hills?
They are fantastic with just the 3-range. There's no need for indirect fire.

 

[Thalassicus]

And I found before that longbows upgraded received +1 movement; has this been removed?

England has no land military advantages before or after longbows - none of the promotions upgrade. I find longbows frustrating to use without indirect fire, and feel England is much more fun to play now. I'm not concerned Elizabeth is overpowered since her only land military advantage is in a short timeframe, and she's been consistently rated low on favorite leader polls.

 

[Beelzibub]

I think the changes to the English are fine as they are. England are now a really fun civ to play. Longbowmen are immensely powerful now, but as has already been said, they aren't too powerful for all that long. I've just finished a game with them and only got to use longbows is one real war (appropriately enough against the french) where they were devastating. But after riflemen and infantry start appearing then the playing field is levelled again.

I just love the getting great lighthouse, merchant navy and scouting perks for my ships to add to the english +2 movement perk. Movement 13 destroyers are awesome fun to shift about the map patrolling the worlds oceans