Civ4 battles - wuh?

[stormbind]

Sorry for not reading the whole thread.

Infantry will have defensive bonuses in difficult terrain, while cavalry will have an advantage attacking ranged units such as archers. Artillery/Siege units will be stronger and will allow for damaging all of the units in a stack. The damage a unit has is relative to their strength. Again, these changes were done to encourage use of combined arms

From the above quote, "cavalry will have an advantage attacking ranged units such as archers".

I have never found (experienced or read of) cavalry being good for attacking ranged units such as archers. Infact, it is nearly always the single most suicidal tactic available to a general.

Where in history is there anything to support the idea that cavalry are good for attacking ranged units: Agincourt? Waterloo? Charge of the Light Brigade? Great War?

At times in history, cavalry sometimes flanked enemy units or performing a U-turn to come from behind. This worked not because cavalry attacked ranged units (although ranged units may be present) but because the cavalry positioned themselves the oposite side of a human wall.

The continued evolution of ranged weapons made cavalry increasingly obsolete: bow, longbow, musket, machine gun, attack helicopters, &c. are all the bane of their respective cavalry oposition.

Cavalry are oportunist. Cavalry's biggest influence and primary role through most of history has been to cut down vastly inferior (practically unarmed) or fleeing enemy units. They relly heavilly on speed to take advantage of previously unseen oportunity.

So unless I completely misunderstood something, making Cavalry the superior of Ranged Units strikes me as being somewhat iffy.

 

[stormbind]

Maybe the author of the original quote meant artillery instead of archers? That would make some sense, because Artillery operators are vastly inferior (practically unarmed). Roughly speaking, the units on the left are the superior to units on the right...

Artillery -> Infantry: block -> Ranged: line -> Cavalry -> Artillery

It is a complete circle, though in modern day the infantry and ranged are merged.

 

[Slax]

Artillery in Civ3 was defenseless, though.

 

[stormbind]

True, but in Civ3 the artilley were still most at risk from sneaky attacks by fast cavalry. The way I would aproach the Civ4-type battle idea:

Example 1: Longbowmen <==> Archers + Spearmen

What happens here is that Longbowmen inflict heavy casualties on the Archers + Spearmen before being in range of reprisal attacks.

After suffering severe losses without reply, the Archers + Spearmen would flee the battlefield. The losing side may still rally upto 50% of those men - or whatever turns out to be most playable.

Example 2: Longbowmen + Knights <==> Archers + Spearmen

Knights don't move! The same thing happens again, except this time there is a persuit.

When the Archers + Spearmen flee, the Knights charge them in the back - completely destroying one of the units. The losing side may still rally upto 50% of the surviving unit - or whatever turns out to be most playable.

Example 3: Swordsmen + Longbowmen <==> Catapult + Spearmen + Spearmen + Spearmen

Swordsmen advance slowly. Longbowmen inflict casualties as before, but it takes longer to break moral because of too many Spearmen.

Catapult fires at Swordsmen which are in a vulnerable block formation. Swordsmen suffer sufficient losses to cause fleeing. Losing side would rally as before.

Example 4: Knights + Swordsmen <==> Catapult + Spearmen

Swordsmen advance slowly, exactly as in Example 3.

Knights charge the Catapult sustaining some losses to the Spearmen. If the Knights can break through the Spearmen (very quick - minimal contact), the Catapult is removed from the battle and the Swordsmen can now reach their target.

 

[GeneralZed]

A cavalry in civ has a gun, not a sword like a night. I doubt archers have a chance against the cavalry cause: more power, faster. Plus the arrows dont go through flesh as easy as a bullet, so theres a chance that the archer hits the horse, so the unmounted gun dude can still kill the archer. It just happened to the incas/aztecs when the spanish came riding horses with massive armor against the native archers.

 

[stormbind]

Yes, but Cavalry has wider meaning than that which is used in Civ3. In my interpretation of the quote...

Cavalry = Horsemen, Knight, Cavalry, Tank, Modern Armour

Cavalry at Waterloo, Charge of the Light Brigade, and Great War all had rifles but they all lost because they attacked ranged units.

 

[Aussie_Lurker]

Fact is that-even with full plate armour-archers proved devestating to knights on the field in the Battle Of Crecy. It has been shown that even at a distance of 80 yards, an arrow from a longbow can go right through plate metal.
Of course, archers are classical age units-so I don't know whether they would do quite as well against modern cavalry. As with most things regarding this game, I guess we should just wait to find out the details before we rush to judgement. I am just glad that certain units WILL get bonuses against certain OTHER units!!

Yours,
Aussie_Lurker.

 

[Vael]

Hmmm... There's also the possibility that the reviewer got some information wrong. It wouldn't be the first time that's happened.

 

[antonio]

Yes, but Cavalry has wider meaning than that which is used in Civ3. In my interpretation of the quote...

Cavalry = Horsemen, Knight, Cavalry, Tank, Modern Armour

Cavalry at Waterloo, Charge of the Light Brigade, and Great War all had rifles but they all lost because they attacked ranged units.

Officail caualty figures show that there were only about 50 caualtys in the charge of the light brigade.Also offcail reprts say that it was a great success.The idea that cavlary get an advantage against missle troops could meen that they are able to flank them or somthing but that would be strange as civ is a stragical game not a tatical one.

 

[stormbind]

The brigade had lost 118 men killed and 127 wounded; 362 horses were killed.

However, it was probably a bad example because this actually involves artillery. I used it as an example because I could think of no other doomed cavalry charges from that period.

 

[Nobody]

on brave heart the scotish calvary flank the english archers and kill them all.

 

[mastertyguy]

The cavalry concept has to be changd. in civ, cavalry means 2+ move. So Gallic Swords are cavalry. elephants are cavalry. But they hvave to make it real cavalry, infanty and maybe elephant distinct class.
My idea is that you have categories of weapons
-archers (archers, longbow)
-pikes (pikeman +spear, early def units)
-swords
-early guns (muskets)
-rifles
-modern gun
Then you have unit "type"
-infantry
-cavalry
Finally, you have the armor. It is a factor in the early game, agianst close ombat units. Light is faster on the battlefield, so best attack, heavy has more def.
So you could have light cavalry with rifles (cavs), or piked heavy infatry (pikes). Infantry (the unit) would be light modern gun infantry. It would be to definite the bonus against certain unit types, not the unit combat stat.

 

[North King]

Cavalry are only really effective against melee infantry unarmed with pikes, and other cavalry, and pikes with flank turned.

Archers, pikemen should have an advantage against cavalry, archers and cavalry against swordsmen, swordsmen and archers against pikemen. Archers are usually most beatable when one can cover the gap quickly--in a surprise attack or a quick, light cavalry charge.

 

[Nate1976]

I think that's the point.^^^^^^ If the cavalry can get to the point to attack, they are too close for an archer/longbow to aim and fire properly, and will be killed before they get the chance to.
To me the point is, close range will beat long range at close range. If a cavalry is attacking, hence kinda insinuating that they are close enough to attack, they will win. But if archers are attacking, insinuating that they are in thei range to atttack confortably, they have the upper hand.

 

[North King]

I think that's the point.^^^^^^ If the cavalry can get to the point to attack, they are too close for an archer/longbow to aim and fire properly, and will be killed before they get the chance to.
To me the point is, close range will beat long range at close range. If a cavalry is attacking, hence kinda insinuating that they are close enough to attack, they will win. But if archers are attacking, insinuating that they are in thei range to atttack confortably, they have the upper hand.

Light cavalry have the advantage against archers. But then, heavy cavalry can usually crush light cavalry if they pin them down.

 

[bkwrm79]

Cavalry does very poorly against archers in well-prepared positions behind men with polearms. But it is my understanding that cavalry was indeed the weapon of choice against archers on the open field of battle.

 

[Quebec Patriote]

I'd take cavalry over archers in an open field any day of the week! Sure cavalry will suffer a few losses while charging but once it gets there, archers will break off in 3 seconds top.

Sure archers with pikemen protecting them OK. Cavalry is in for a hell of a time. But the original quote doesnt mention protection. Hence the need for COMBINED ARMS

 

[Shaftoe]

I think that's the point.^^^^^^ If the cavalry can get to the point to attack, they are too close for an archer/longbow to aim and fire properly, and will be killed before they get the chance to.
To me the point is, close range will beat long range at close range. If a cavalry is attacking, hence kinda insinuating that they are close enough to attack, they will win. But if archers are attacking, insinuating that they are in thei range to atttack confortably, they have the upper hand.

If that were the case though, then archers would need to have some sort of zone of control or a ranged attack option, allowing them to rain arrows on units from a distance. Seems silly to have a ranged attack unit that still needs to creep up and occupy the same tile to attack.

And who would've thought I'd find a Dream Theater fan here? Actually listening to James LaBrie's new sideproject CD right now...

 

[Shaftoe]

I'd take cavalry over archers in an open field any day of the week! Sure cavalry will suffer a few losses while charging but once it gets there, archers will break off in 3 seconds top.

Sure archers with pikemen protecting them OK. Cavalry is in for a hell of a time. But the original quote doesnt mention protection. Hence the need for COMBINED ARMS

I think that's the key right there. Combined arms. I can't remember if it was Colonization or one of the Civ clones I've played, but one of those games tried to do it. Essentially, an attacking stack took on an entire defending stack. So while sending a Knight against Medival Infantry is usually a good idea, sending a Knight into a stack of 10 of them would be suicide.

Perhaps this is the way they are trying to encourage combined arms, by giving units advantages over others. No more sending stacks and stacks of archers in the early game unless you've got spears to protect them. Something to that effect.

 

[sir_schwick]

Cavalry, especially medium cavalry, is perfect to use against archers and other ranged units. Most archers are not equipped for more than the most basic melee combat. Skirmisher types could hold out somewhat against light cavalry, but that is part of why I prefer medium cavalry overall. Also, the English won at Agincourt and Crecy because the French relied too heavily on their heavy cavalry and knights against one of the best infantry armies in Europe. Trying to attack through a line of spearmen would be stupid, but that is why you have infantry backup, or use the length of the field if you were stuck with cavalry. Infantry kill, cavalry hit at the weak spot.