Cavalry Upgrade to Tanks? No Thanks

[7thsamurai]

Before the patch last week, I would have all these cavalry units running around into the modern era and they seemed out of place. I understand why they made them upgradable.

The mistake is in making them obsolete once you have the combustion technology. The situation I ran into was in having a ton of horses(over 20) as my early strategy was to corner the market on them. I didn't end up using them really, because my samurai remained effective since no one else really had any mounted units, and I liked using the samurai to produce more generals. I had a limited number of knights which I upgraded to cavalry. As everyone else caught up, it was time to start making cavalry in earnest and going away from my medieval warriors, except then I discovered combustion through a research agreement, but was a few steps away from biology. No oil, no tanks. But because I know how to make a tank, I can't use any of my biggest military asset anymore? All those horses became worthless.

The simple fix is to allow both tanks and cavalry, keep the upgrade option, but make it more expensive than it is now, because it's kind of a stretch to turn horses into armor anyway.

 

[Camikaze]

Your suggestion seems to make quite a lot of sense. The only reason I can see for actually making units obsolete in the first place is because it clutters up the city screen. I don't really see why it would be bad for gameplay if you were still allowed to build whatever units you liked.

As for the realistic stretch; well, Civ4 went from Cavalry to Gunships, so at least there's a precedent in that department.

 

[Tee Kay]

As for the realistic stretch; well, Civ4 went from Cavalry to Gunships, so at least there's a precedent in that department.

It's air cavalry.

 

[Camikaze]

I guess the theory behind it in Civ4 was that both were units with multiple movement points. Such justification would seem rather absent from Civ5 (although when you split units up into 'siege', 'stock' and 'other' categories, both cavalry and tanks fit nicely into the third).

 

[7thsamurai]

Yeah, I like the idea of building any unit you want indefinitely. Being able to build another samurai would be nice for symbolically or ceremonially taking other civ's capitols. I usually keep at least one signature unit around but couldn't risk it when I was in a particularly hairy war.

 

[Ahriman]

Yeah, I like the idea of building any unit you want indefinitely.

Broken, with the social policy that halves upgrade costs.

Build warrior, upgrade cheaply to Infantry?
No thanks.

 

[Triskelli]

I guess the theory behind it in Civ4 was that both were units with multiple movement points. Such justification would seem rather absent from Civ5 (although when you split units up into 'siege', 'stock' and 'other' categories, both cavalry and tanks fit nicely into the third).

I think the "other" that cavalry and tanks occupy would be shock units: Able to strike fast and strike hard over land. Same could be said of gunships too, but that's still a stretch.

 

[Camikaze]

Broken, with the social policy that halves upgrade costs.

Build warrior, upgrade cheaply to Infantry?
No thanks.

Hmm, yeah, that could be an issue.

Could be solved two ways. Firstly, change the social policy. Secondly, adjust the production costs of 'obsolete' units to prevent this from being an exploit. It's debatable whether or not the benefit derived in being able to build whatever whenever would be greater than the effort to change this, though.

I think the "other" that cavalry and tanks occupy would be shock units: Able to strike fast and strike hard over land. Same could be said of gunships too, but that's still a stretch.

Yeah, that's probably a good descriptor.

 

[Minor Annoyance]

I though in general that units that required a resource didn't make the previous unit obsolete, like the swordsman and the longswordsman, because you might not want to spend the resource. This seems like an oversight in that trend.
I'm kind of off put by lancers becoming anti-tank guns, then gunships. Fast-slow-fast is kind of odd, but they were trying to keep the role as being the anti-mounted to anti-armor unit line.

 

[Rusty Edge]

I think the "other" that cavalry and tanks occupy would be shock units: Able to strike fast and strike hard over land. Same could be said of gunships too, but that's still a stretch.

I always figured that the continuity between mounted, tanks, and helicopters was the use of flanking tactics. At least the continuity in promotions made sense.

Lancers in this game are a counter to cavalry, right? How about preserving the counter role era by era ...

Lancers -> tank destroyers ( speedy anti-tank guns ) -> gunships
&
Cavalry -> tanks -> modern armor .


On the other hand, while I see the footsoldier as eternal, perhaps it makes more sense sometimes to say that ironclads are the end of the line for sailing ships, and cavalry for horsemen. When these become obsolete you should scrap them , gift them, or sell them to a backward nation, accept the cash and diplomatic bonuses, and re-arm from scratch.