Armies

[Thalassicus]

It really all boils down to what the AI can handle. Like units with 5 or 6 movement speed, I'm hesitant to make a unit into a 'glass cannon' the AI would likely not be able to understand. Lancers themselves might not have been used as recon, but light cavalry did exist, right? It's not represented in the game right now... and lancers are a miscellaneous cavalry unit, so it seems logical to make them light cavalry.

In comparison to movement speed or glass cannons, I know for certain the AI handles flanking well and is quite skilled at it. This is basically what it all boils down to for me: how can we give the unit a unique role the AI can also understand?

 

[Sneaks]

Actually, I would rather add a light cavalry unit than alter the lancers if it came down to it.

When viewing the need for a recon unit at that era, I see 3 solutions:
Extend the Horseman through Renaissance
Allow cavalry to operate as recon (of the options available, probably the most sensible)
Create a new light cavalry unit to play the role.

 

[Thalassicus]

Do you mean change Cavalry to Recon classification?

If it's just a matter of realism I could change the name from "Lancers" to "Light Cavalry"... what I'm mainly concerned about is gameplay and the AI's capability to handle the unit.

Something like...

18 3 Knights, mounted
18 4 Light Cavalry, recon with +100% vs Mounted and Siege units
25 3 Heavy Cavalry, mounted

With a typical 40% cumulative combat bonus from a promotion, terrain, GG, flanking or other sources the light cavalry would be weaker in most combat (since the recon promotion set is mainly non-combat), but very good at specialized roles.

25 Knights
22 Light Cavalry (39.6 vs mounted units)
35 Heavy Cavalry

Light cavalry would excel at:

• Countering mounted/siege
• Flanking
• Scouting
• Pillaging

 

[Txurce]

I don't think the game particularly needs light cavalry as opposed to something else. I think we're just trying to further differentiate the lancer. If horsemen were kept around - with which I have no problem - would they step on the lancer?

 

[Sneaks]

I am really really hesitant to give the Recon tag to anything that is not purely designed for recon because the AI does not handle mixed purpose units well.

When it comes down to it, I would say creating an explorer unit is the smartest and safest approach.

 

[Txurce]

I am really really hesitant to give the Recon tag to anything that is not purely designed for recon because the AI does not handle mixed purpose units well.

When it comes down to it, I would say creating an explorer unit is the smartest and safest approach.

If that's correct, then recon makes as much sense as an added move.

I'm not sure we need a recon unit anyway - again this is all about differentiating the lancer.

 

[Joneill]

As already said, recon doesn't really make too much sense for lancers. If knights are kept at 3 speed (to somehow show their heavy cavalry role, for which they should also receive an appropriate advantage), then lancers could just be turned into a generic horseman-like unit (with a bit less strength than cavalry) that is an alternative to the usual mounted unit tech line (this assumes the vanilla tech tree setup for military science). So while you're teching along the melee-rifleman line, you also get one mounted unit.
As for cavalry, there's really no "flavor" reason for them to have only 3 moves (the civilopedia even states their greater mobility as an advantage over heavy cavalry units like knights). Could even increase their cost again to make up for the fact that there would be no counter unit in the renaissance era anymore (so rifleman would "counter" them because of cost-efficiency).

 

[Thalassicus]

I'll just add a 25% attack bonus then... though personally I do think it'd be rather fun to have light cavalry for scouting and flanking.

 

[Txurce]

I'll just add a 25% attack bonus then... though personally I do think it'd be rather fun to have light cavalry for scouting and flanking.

How would you have made them flanking - with recon or terrain? What is your feeling about Sneaks' objection regarding mixed use?

 

[SSgtDuke]

I'll just add a 25% attack bonus then...

Can the attack bonus only be on open terrain? An attack bonus everywhere doesn't seem very interesting and I wouldn't expect a lancer charge to be especially effective going through a forest or up a hill.

though personally I do think it'd be rather fun to have light cavalry for scouting and flanking.

This is already what I'm using lancers for.

 

[rhammer640]

I like the idea of the change to light cavalry, but they dont need to be recon class if that would mess up stuff.

 

[Sneaks]

Can the attack bonus only be on open terrain? An attack bonus everywhere doesn't seem very interesting and I wouldn't expect a lancer charge to be especially effective going through a forest or up a hill.


This is already what I'm using lancers for.

Same. I use them for flanking bonuses and softening up units.

 

[Thalassicus]

Since they tend to be on the flanks when flanking and have low defense, they often get clobbered on counter-attacks, so they're not ideally-suited for the job. The AI handles flanking well and understands to use weaker units. It's why I proposed lowering their strength and giving them access to promotions specialized for flanking like:

• +100% defensive strength
• +1 movement speed
• +2 sight range
• etc...

It seems this is just more of a personal preference of my own though, which is okay. That's why I asked for feedback.

 

[Dunkah]

I don't think I have ever built Cavalry or a Lancer in any game I have played. Usually they come as gifts from the CS's. I use them to go forward and scout for my artillery and usually die horrible deaths. I like to use them for medics if they can survive long enough to get the first aid trait. I also use them to scout those long ranged routes to the corners of the map.

I would much rather see a recon unit than yet another horse unit.

 

[Sneaks]

Since they tend to be on the flanks when flanking and have low defense, they often get clobbered on counter-attacks, so they're not ideally-suited for the job. The AI handles flanking well and understands to use weaker units. It's why I proposed lowering their strength and giving them access to promotions specialized for flanking like:

• +100% defensive strength
• +1 movement speed
• +2 sight range
• etc...

It seems this is just more of a personal preference of my own though, which is okay. That's why I asked for feedback.

I pretty much disagree with the idea that flankers should be high defense. They exist to make very risky moves, thus SHOULD be very very susceptible to counterattacks. The idea with light armored flankers in terms of Civ V is to move them into position, then move them out. I think that with an attack buff, lancers should pretty much be lovely as is.

 

[Thalassicus]

I do like that concept, my point is just the AI doesn't understand it. It moves units in to flank and leaves them there as easy kills. Still, the AI doesn't guide all my decisions - some parts of gameplay are there simply to be fun for the human player, like resource bonuses on buildings. If it's more fun to have the unit built this way I'm all for it.

 

[Txurce]

Since they tend to be on the flanks when flanking and have low defense, they often get clobbered on counter-attacks, so they're not ideally-suited for the job. The AI handles flanking well and understands to use weaker units. It's why I proposed lowering their strength and giving them access to promotions specialized for flanking like:

• +100% defensive strength
• +1 movement speed
• +2 sight range
• etc...

It seems this is just more of a personal preference of my own though, which is okay. That's why I asked for feedback.

I thought +1 movement was off the table. That's my clear first choice, because it fits what i think a lancer is supposed to be (if we also make them super-fragile). Does this favor the human player? Definitely. If that's not much of a concern, going this way is fine. Just keep in mind that some players don't use mounted period units at all, while others already use lancers. It doesn't require a big buff.

 

[Thalassicus]

Sorry for the confusion, what I'm trying to say is... would lancers have a more interesting role with flanking-focused promotions available:

• +1/2 sight range
• +1 movement speed
• +1 self-healing
• +50%/100% defense

Instead of general combat promotions:

• +20%/40%/60% on terrain
• +30% vs cities
• Blitz

This is different from the unit having a base +1 movement speed, since the speed bonus is a tier 2 promotion.

 

[LamaGT]

imho the recon class fits more into their role but the defence bonus doesn't, but is there a possibility to keep the -50% penalty with the recon so that survivalism II eliminates it?
Anyway, i beg you, remove the insta-heal. The AI is simply over using it since the first promotion comes so early.
Also i don't like the current XP system, there's no difference between a terrible fight with horrible conditions and a decisive victory with 1 hp loss and, speaking of the devil, is it possible to remove it? a mech can be killed by 4 well positioned archers

 

[rhammer640]

Anyway, i beg you, remove the insta-heal. The AI is simply over using it since the first promotion comes so early.
Also i don't like the current XP system, there's no difference between a terrible fight with horrible conditions and a decisive victory with 1 hp loss and, speaking of the devil, is it possible to remove it? a mech can be killed by 4 well positioned archers

I would agree that the XP system is rather dull, not sure you can do anything about it now, but i would have a system where you get more experience the more damage you take in relation to how much you deal. So if you dealt 10 damage and took 9 that would be a lot of exp, but if your destroying a unit 10 damage to 1 its not really teaching you much so it would give less exp.

Or maybe instead or in addition to that you could take into account the strength of the unit if your attacking a stronger unit you get more xp, etc.

Sort of off topic but the above post sparked the idea and i wanted to expound upon it