Cavalry: The new threat

[os79]

I didn't say you were a cry baby, I said you sound like one.
My apologies for serious insult given. No serious injury was intended .

Afforess, by the way, I read recently from a book about chariot warfare. It seemed that chariots were primarily aristocratic and only worked well in flat lands and on places where wheels can roll over with comparative ease. Only later will mounted horsemen be able to go through any terrain except for thick forest/jungle, desert and bogs. But as always they will be only aristocratic warfare, due to money and time invested that peasants couldn't invest in.

Just final thoughts to think about before slamming closed doors on horse units.

 

[Dancing Hoskuld]

I didn't say you were a cry baby, I said you sound like one.
My apologies for serious insult given. No serious injury was intended .

Afforess, by the way, I read recently from a book about chariot warfare. It seemed that chariots were primarily aristocratic and only worked well in flat lands and on places where wheels can roll over with comparative ease. Only later will mounted horsemen be able to go through any terrain except for thick forest/jungle, desert and bogs. But as always they will be only aristocratic warfare, due to money and time invested that peasants couldn't invest in.

Just final thoughts to think about before slamming closed doors on horse units.

Seems that book forgot the Egyptians had a large chariot contingent that they used to reclaim their lands with. Multiple chariot barracks have been found and if I remember correctly at least one had room for 100 chariots.! Not all desert contains sand dunes and many are flat even with sand.

 

[os79]

Yeah.

But my point about it being aristocratic form of warfare remains relevant. But yeah that is extremely hard to show in Civ4 engine, so not that important gameplay-wise.

 

[youmakemefart]

I think the changes to cavalry are both historically realistic and interessting from a gameplay perspective.

Cavalry were useless attacking cities - narrow streets, walls etc...

So I fully agree with the attack penalty.
A great historical example was the campaign of Roman Emperor Trajan against the Parthian Empire 113-117:
The Parthian Cavalry was way to strong for the Roman counterpart in the open field so the Romans avoided open battles, and focused on sieges, heavily fortiflying every position they took in order to render the Parthian Cavalry useless. Instead of openly challenging the Parthian Army they just took city after city and relied on the city walls. Only in the End, they fought open battles.

So please please please Affo.
DO NOT alter the proposed changes to cavalry! They are good, fun and historically accurate! Cavalry was historically very strong, mobile and profited from roads, but was weak attacking forts and cities!

Oh yeah:
The higher importance of forts is also great. please implement as described.

 

[Arkatakor]

DO NOT alter the proposed changes to cavalry! They are good, fun and historically accurate! Cavalry was historically very strong, mobile and profited from roads, but was weak attacking forts and cities![/B]

Historically accurate? Yes. Realistic? Definitely. Balanced in the context of gameplay? Thats yet to be seen. Remember its a game, not a reality simulator;

That said I will still give this change a try.

 

[Cykur]

So please please please Affo.
DO NOT alter the proposed changes to cavalry! They are good, fun and historically accurate! Cavalry was historically very strong, mobile and profited from roads, but was weak attacking forts and cities!

Any army profits by roads, even infantry -- cavalry just moves faster. The built in commando promotion makes cavalry more mobile on roads than late game wheeled units without commando -- it isn't really consistent behavior with how the rest of the game is balanced.

Cavalry already wasn't that great at taking cities, especially for the cost of the cavalry units, unless you were a more advanced civ and the enemy didn't have strong defending units. When attacking cities, the only cavalry tactic I find useful is using highly promoted cavalry with a very high withdraw chance to wear down defenders in conjunction with siege units before sending in infantry / bows. Cavalry is already very powerful at smashing "out of position" elements of the enemy army.

This is a game, as Arkatakor points out, some stuff has to be approximated for gameplay balance. On one hand the commando change is described as being more "realistic" behavior, and then forts are applauded as the counter, but realistically a cavalry army can just ride around a forts and castles and go straight to pillaging the heartland of an empire.

 

[Dark Force]

I think the changes to cavalry are both historically realistic and interessting from a gameplay perspective.

Cavalry were useless attacking cities - narrow streets, walls etc...

So I fully agree with the attack penalty.
[...]

I would agree but I would imagine that while using weapons from horseback in a city would be difficult, the trample damage of the horse itself would compensate for it yes? If units were not in formation on organized this could be a gread advantage of cavalry

Why not increase the fortification bonus of units 20-25% against cavalry instead? That way if a unit is in the city and not fortified it would reflect the advantage cav have on unorganized units.

Make walls, etc could increase the defensive bonus against cavalry as well? That could be another building actually, a spiked barricade (wall of spikes set in the ground at an angle?) that provides a defensive 20-50% bonus against cav

 

[Cykur]

Many of the cavalry units have some city penalties. Some don't, often the type of cavalry where the rider is adequately equipped to fight without his horse. Of course, you wouldn't want to suicide these expensive units into a city when using cheaper infantry would do. Cavalry does have some advantages if it can get past the walls.

 

[youmakemefart]

The built in commando promotion makes cavalry more mobile on roads than late game wheeled units without commando

This of course is completely correct.

But playing the game I found that cavalry indeed has become an interesting new part of the game...

 

[os79]

Can you explain what you mean more mobile? More moves? Or better survivial odds? Because of horse units have more moves than modern units, then Afforess should know about this.

 

[Cykur]

Can you explain what you mean more mobile? More moves? Or better survivial odds? Because of horse units have more moves than modern units, then Afforess should know about this.

The point being made was that giving cavalry commando makes them effectively more mobile than modern units without commando.

 

[Afforess]

The point being made was that giving cavalry commando makes them effectively more mobile than modern units without commando.

Modern tanks will also have commando as of the next beta.

 

[youmakemefart]

Modern tanks will also have commando as of the next beta.

great

 

[Arkatakor]

Modern tanks will also have commando as of the next beta.

If so please make sure that any future era units in the same upgrade chain as modern tanks also get the commando promotion.

I am writing this coz know you dont like future era and might be inclined to forget to make this change

 

[Gomer_Pyle]

Is it me or is horses really rare in this mod now? 1.76 betas? I hardly see any horse at all.

 

[BlueTemplar]

Wait, I thought horse availability was greatly improved in 1.76?

 

[Dark Force]

Wait, I thought horse availability was greatly improved in 1.76?

It is. My current game I control 2 or 3 sources of horses on my home continent and another 2 on the continent I am currently invading. Could have been a bad starting location for Gomer_Pile

 

[youmakemefart]

I also have the impression horses are more frequent...

 

[Afforess]

Wait, I thought horse availability was greatly improved in 1.76?

I believe Koshing tweaked the resource placement algorithm to avoid having too few of critical resources.

 

[VladDaImpaler]

OFF TOPIC POST

It seemed that chariots were primarily aristocratic ... due to money and time invested that peasants couldn't invest in.

I'd just like to add, many things were aristocratic, for example hoplites, calvary, people that used heavy armory, and in today's terms tanks and airplanes.
They all required money and time invested (special training) that peasants couldn't invest in, this is when hoplites came around (armored warrior AKA elite warriors) you can find the rise of the first archaic states, where the elites ruled the peasantry.
When you see the use of easier\cheaper RANGED weapons (you can project threat from a distance) like the atlatl, bow and in modern day the gun, is when the peasantry, we the people, begin to govern ourselves. Just some food for thought, and a reason to appreciate the 2nd amendment and education