A use for Longswordsman and medieval era Iron

[BenchBreaker]

Right now Longswordsmen are the only units that cost Iron until cannons/frigates
but they are really not good at much:

• Weaker and less mobile than knights, no attack after move means they are often left exposed after making a kill, even at the things they are supposed to be better at than knights, they are in reality not:
  
• Weaker than knights even at defending in rough terrain
  
  Knight with shock 2 in forest: 25*1.2 = 30CS
  lsm with shock 2 in forest: 20*(1.2+0.25) = 29CS
  -
• Not much better than knights even at attacking cities
  
  Knight with drill 2 attacking city: 25*(1.4-0.33) = 26.75CS
  lsm with drill 2 attacking city: 20*1.4 = 28CS
  With more combat bonuses such as faith/policy/wonder promotions and GG knights become better and better due to higher base CS
  -
• Not much better than swordsman which are on par with horseman, especially unique swordsman replacements
  -
• Worse than pikeman against knights which are the main threats
  -
• Lack mobility to engage ranged units, even on rare occasions that can engage the lsm is left exposed afterwards
  -
• Not even decisive advantage when fighting ranged units 20CS+promotions vs13CS+terrain bonuses means cant even kill crossbow 1v1 since it's 2 attacks vs 1 attack per round and xbow gets first shot
  -
• Awkward upgrade to Tercio, not much cheaper than Pikeman to upgrade and gains much less from it, especially for UUs like Samurai

So basically for an unit that has a monopoly on a strategic resource cost for quite a long period they are really not good at anything

Sugguestions:
1. Make lsm upgrade to fusiliers
2. Give some free promotions that carries over on upgrades so you can get better promoted fusiliers without increasing exp cost, but limited by Iron
3. (possibily) +5CS at gunpowder

free promotions can be something simple like shock 1/cover 1 or something like 25% bonus on attack or 25% bonus on cities

 

[Funak]

Right now Longswordsmen are the only units that cost Iron until cannons/frigates
but they are really not good at much:

• Weaker and less mobile than knights, no attack after move means they are often left exposed after making a kill, even at the things they are supposed to be better at than knights, they are in reality not:
  
• Weaker than knights even at defending in rough terrain
  
  Knight with shock 2 in forest: 25*1.2 = 30CS
  lsm with shock 2 in forest: 20*(1.2+0.25) = 29CS
  -
• Not much better than knights even at attacking cities
  
  Knight with drill 2 attacking city: 25*(1.4-0.33) = 26.75CS
  lsm with drill 2 attacking city: 20*1.4 = 28CS
  With more combat bonuses such as faith/policy/wonder promotions and GG knights become better and better due to higher base CS
  -
• Not much better than swordsman which are on par with horseman, especially unique swordsman replacements
  -
• Worse than pikeman against knights which are the main threats
  -
• Lack mobility to engage ranged units, even on rare occasions that can engage the lsm is left exposed afterwards
  -
• Not even decisive advantage when fighting ranged units 20CS+promotions vs13CS+terrain bonuses means cant even kill crossbow 1v1 since it's 2 attacks vs 1 attack per round and xbow gets first shot
  -
• Awkward upgrade to Tercio, not much cheaper than Pikeman to upgrade and gains much less from it, especially for UUs like Samurai

So basically for an unit that has a monopoly on a strategic resource cost for quite a long period they are really not good at anything

Longswords are totally fine. They have plenty of advantages over knights, chief among them being the fact that they can fortify and that they have access to better promotions including Cover.

And honestly even if they were inferior to knights I really don't see the problem with that at all, cavalry pretty much crushed everything in landbased warfare before the introduction of the Tercio (which honestly doesn't show up that much later). In fact another advantage of Longswords over Knights is that fact that the knight is off on the wrong side of the tech-tree, while Longswords are in the bottom war-cluster with crossbows and and trebuchets leading directly towards gunpowder.

Sugguestions:
1. Make lsm upgrade to fusiliers
2. Give some free promotions that carries over on upgrades so you can get better promoted fusiliers without increasing exp cost, but limited by Iron
3. (possibily) +5CS at gunpowder

free promotions can be something simple like shock 1/cover 1 or something like 25% bonus on attack or 25% bonus on cities

The whole point behind gunpowder is that you upgrade your longswords into Tercios so you free up iron to upgrade your trebuchets into cannons. If longswords couldn't be upgraded to Tercios you would probably have to disband them all at gunpowder to clear up iron for your cannons

 

[Forsti]

And honestly even if they were inferior to knights I really don't see the problem with that at all, cavalry pretty much crushed everything in landbased warfare before the introduction of the Tercio (which honestly doesn't show up that much later).

Immersion is a poor excuse for overlooking balance.

In fact another advantage of Longswords over Knights is that fact that the knight is off on the wrong side of the tech-tree, while Longswords are in the bottom war-cluster with crossbows and and trebuchets leading directly towards gunpowder.

Chivalry also leads directly towards gunpowder and trebuchet unlocks at physics, which is between steel and chivalry. Chivalry is also needed to unlock both compass and guilds, which give you naval units. Of the latter classical era techs, only philosophy and engineering unlock any war based buildings or units (courthouse and composite bowman). Both of those techs are needed to unlock chivalry and neither unlocks steel. All in all, I really don't see your point here.

 

[Deadstarre]

this isnt really about longswords, the underlying issue is how ridiculously OP knights are in the hands of human players. this has been going on a long time and the core issue is the 4 movement points; its too much for an owner that knows how to use them.

 

[BenchBreaker]

this isnt really about longswords, the underlying issue is how ridiculously OP knights are in the hands of human players. this has been going on a long time and the core issue is the 4 movement points; its too much for an owner that knows how to use them.

I think it's not a problem as long as there is a significant role for longswords in which it excels and is much better than knights, but currently there isn't really one

 

[Deadstarre]

I dont think there can be one. nothing is gonna compare to positioning for flank, pillaging, attacking, pillaging... in 1 turn? come on already lol

 

[BenchBreaker]

I dont think there can be one. nothing is gonna compare to positioning for flank, pillaging, attacking, pillaging... in 1 turn? come on already lol

well if longswords had for example a substantial city attack bonus then they would have a role to play

 

[Gothic_Empire]

I dont think there can be one. nothing is gonna compare to positioning for flank, pillaging, attacking, pillaging... in 1 turn? come on already lol

I think that it would be interesting to try an iteration where units must choose between pillaging or attacking. This would also make the blitz promotion more meaningful to slower units.

Edit: In general, I think cavalry and foot troops are fine as-is.

 

[jacktannery]

I agree with BenchBreaker that the horse/knight line is far superior to the swordsman/longsword line, for all the reasons specified in the OP.

Poss fixes: either -1 CS to horseman/knights, or else (better but more complicated) city bombardment does +100% damage to mounted units.

 

[tu_79]

There was a release where swordsmen were very useful taking cities, they could even do that on their own, but then cities were considered defenseless.
Now I only train them to be cover for my other units and just produce 1 or 2 of them to help me take cities. That's what they are good for. Cover, health and march promotions. Maybe the bonus against cities. Without promotions they're not very good. But then, if I attack a human managed city, it'll probably go after my siege units, making it useless to bring swordsman for cover.

I agree they don't deserve the iron requirement right now.
They could have a garrison bonus: to improve city defence when garrisoned and to increase damage against garrisoned units (not the city itself). That will make them worthy of the iron without turning them into killing machines. This bonus won't carry to tercios.

 

[Funak]

There was a release where swordsmen were very useful taking cities, they could even do that on their own, but then cities were considered defenseless.
Now I only train them to be cover for my other units and just produce 1 or 2 of them to help me take cities. That's what they are good for. Cover, health and march promotions. Maybe the bonus against cities. Without promotions they're not very good. But then, if I attack a human managed city, it'll probably go after my siege units, making it useless to bring swordsman for cover.

Don't they still have access to the Siege promotion? And if that isn't enough to make them efficient at bashing their heads against cities, maybe it's that promotion that needs to be adjusted?

 

[tu_79]

Don't they still have access to the Siege promotion? And if that isn't enough to make them efficient at bashing their heads against cities, maybe it's that promotion that needs to be adjusted?

Yes, they have the promotion, the problem is how to get the promotions. Their use is very limited before promotions, so they don't get much experience.

Consider that I need at least three promotions to get Siege I, and that you may have only barracks built. Add this to the fact that it is your mounted units and archers who earn experience, sword people arrive too late.

And I may pick Cover or Heal before Siege, just to allow the unit to live more and have bigger chances of surviving and keeping the promotions.

 

[Funak]

Yes, they have the promotion, the problem is how to get the promotions. Their use is very limited before promotions, so they don't get much experience.

Consider that I need at least three promotions to get Siege I, and that you may have only barracks built. Add this to the fact that it is your mounted units and archers who earn experience, sword people arrive too late.

And I may pick Cover or Heal before Siege, just to allow the unit to live more and have bigger chances of surviving and keeping the promotions.

I don't have a problem with Siege being requiring 2 prereqs assuming it is good enough to make throwing longswords at the wall a valid strategy. Promotions are there for specialization, not to make a unit good at everything.

 

[tu_79]

I don't have a problem with Siege being requiring 2 prereqs assuming it is good enough to make throwing longswords at the wall a valid strategy. Promotions are there for specialization, not to make a unit good at everything.

My point is that I can't get those promotions for my sword units because their role is too limited to make use of them and let them earn experience.

Archers and early siege units I can produce a lot and let the ones that survive be promoted and upgraded. Sword units have to compete against mounted units in my production queue, and mounted are far more flexible, I can use them for almost everything that I'd use the sword unit for. Even when sword units are produced, they don't get much action. Maybe your play style is different and you manage to have very well promoted sword units. I can't, and I believe I am not alone.

 

[Funak]

My point is that I can't get those promotions for my sword units because their role is too limited to make use of them and let them earn experience.

Archers and early siege units I can produce a lot and let the ones that survive be promoted and upgraded. Sword units have to compete against mounted units in my production queue, and mounted are far more flexible, I can use them for almost everything that I'd use the sword unit for. Even when sword units are produced, they don't get much action. Maybe your play style is different and you manage to have very well promoted sword units. I can't, and I believe I am not alone.

Just to be clear I only use my longswords as meatshields, I'm just saying the option to throw them at walls should still exist. They do really well as meatshields from my experience, and they seem to survive a lot more than knights do.
Not that knights are bad, by any means, but they are certainly not straight up better than longswords for my playstyle. I know this because I pretty much used knights the way I use Longswords now before trebuchets lost their Iron requirement.

Still, you are of course welcome to disagree with me.

 

[tu_79]

We could do a poll and check if this is a real issue:

Which specialized melee units do you use (up to medieval, supposing you have the resources)?
a) Mostly mounted
b) Balanced
c) Mostly sword units
d) None of the above

 

[Funak]

We could do a poll and check if this is a real issue:

Which specialized melee units do you use (up to medieval, supposing you have the resources)?
a) Mostly mounted
b) Balanced
c) Mostly sword units
d) None of the above

Honestly, what kind of poll would that be? The only real reason why you wouldn't be using all your available strategic resources is because you're saving iron to build a fleet, or if you really need to gold from trading the resources away.

 

[grmagne]

If knights are too powerful, we could change the resources needed for knights to 1 Horse + 1 Iron. This would be realistic and it would make knights a more exclusive unit rather than easily mass-produced.

 

[Sendaf]

If knights are too powerful, we could change the resources needed for knights to 1 Horse + 1 Iron. This would be realistic and it would make knights a more exclusive unit rather than easily mass-produced.

I like this idea for balance+immersion reasons. I don't know if it is possible for a unit to require 2 different resources though? If so then would only the Knight require extra resources?

If anything we could just increase the penalty mounted units receive vs cities

I just don't want warfare to become glorified rock paper scissors.

 

[tu_79]

I think the opening post hits the key. Mounted units are fast and strong, and they feel good to be units that require resources. It's swords units who don't seem to deserve the iron they need.

Let's put it this way: Most advices I've read in the forum says to look after horses first when settling. They don't advice neglecting iron, though it may happen. Something is happening when a strategic resource may be completely neglected early game.
Moreover, let's assume you have horses and iron, what would you produce first? The mounted unit is versatile, the sword unit is very niche. I'd probably produce some horses and leave swords for last, if even. I'd produce even some siege units first, for I only think seriously in swords if I am going for conquest in hard terrain and every turn counts.
My mounted units will gain some experience chasing barbs, but my sword units may have to wait until I knock someone's city doors.
Further, there is a cheap replacement for sword units: the spearmen/pikemen. Weaker, yes, but it means I can do without iron for a while. It means I don't need to rush swordsmen, even when I want to produce some. Spears die easier, but are replaced easier too. Maybe not the best option, but there it is. Horses, on the other hand, don't have such a high mobility replacement.

I think sword units can be nice urban units. If we make them stronger, lacking iron will be too punishing and the unit may feel unbalanced. But if we make them more specialized, like a siege unit is, we'll have a better reason to train them, and use them even when they arrive so late. Siege units excel at hitting city defences. Sword units may excel at hitting city garrisons (so they might complement siege units) and provide best defence to a city when garrisoned (so we may wish to produce them even when playing peacefully).

Once those sword units get some experience, they may upgrade to tercios and lose this garrison bonus, it's not needed anymore.