Cossack or Sipahi

[MTheil3508]

Which do you perfer?

Cossack: 6/4/3

Sipahi: 8/3/3


Does the civilization make a difference? Does the Attack Value or the Defense Value persuade your choice?

 

[Shabbaman]

The turks are scientific and industrious, the russians expansionistic and scientific. It'd depend on the map size/type: I wouldn't play expansionistic on an archipelago map.

But doesn't the sipahi cost more than the cossack? The sipahi costs 100 shields, the cossack 80, as much as normal cavalry. That means the sipahi (or even cavalry) almost makes up for their lack of strength by superior numbers.

 

[Phantom Lord]

I once tried Sipahi, they're simply great. No need to wait for tanks, the game won't get that far ...

 

[Aggie]

I simply love the Sipahi. The one extra defence for Cossacks is nice, but the cavalry type unit should be used for offence imho. And if you consider a defence of 4 as maximum in the middle ages, it's obvious that the Sipahi play an important part. And they are useful even in the later industrial age (before Mech Infantry).

 

[poprawkz]

If we were to look at this in a vs. side by side comparison:

20 Cossacks vs. 16 Sipahi the Cossacks would win. The reason being is each has twice the attack as the others defence, 8v4 and 6v3. Therefore they each have the same chance to destroy one another before any defensive bonuses. The sheer numbers of the cossacks means that retreat is not an option for the Sipahi and the surviving members of the Cossack stack would over match the Sipahi.

In the actual game however the numbers play out differently. The superior attacking power of the Sipahi make them key in attacking fortified defenders. Keep in mind that losing a Sipahi hurts your war machine more than losing a Cossack. Sipahi must be moved strategically and always be on the offense. This means that their movement speed may be hindered by the need to bring along defenders to insure their survival. Whereas Cossacks are able to move around enemy territory pillaging and capturing workers with much less fear of being killed.

I guess it depends on what kind of war you want to fight. If you want to destroy massive amounts of enemy territory in the shortest amount of time, go for Cossacks for numbers and survivability. If you just want to take out a fortified defender in a blitzkrieg move your Sipahi with some defenders close by for the defenders to throw their own cavalry on so you can finish off stragglers with your fast army.

 

[kb2tvl]

I try to fight a war in the early middel ages or early industrial or early modern. If you have a factory, 20 shields is meaningless. Having the extra offensive punch when civs have riflemen makes Sipahi far more valuable than cossaks.

 

[Tiger_Nation]

i didn't know losing units gave you war wearyness

 

[MTheil3508]

Exactly what is the cost of a Sipahi?

Play the World Manual: 80 shields
Play the World Strategy Guide: 80 shields
CivFantics site: 100 shields
Civopedia: 100 shields

Is this another case of a wrong manual? Suprise, suprise.

 

[Gothmog]

The cost may have been upped after the Manual was writen, to restore a little bit of balance. The Sipahi is an extreemly dominant unit. I almost never let my cav's get attacked so the Cossaks extra defence does me no good. I just make sure to have a large enough attack force to do the job, then move in defenders once the attack is successful. The extra attack of the Sipahi is huge, just huge. It makes the difference attacking infantry, 8 vs. 10 is fine for human vs. AI - especially with the retreat option. 6 vs 10 only works with lots of bombardment, which I find distasteful. Sipahi laugh at Rifles.

 

[Reagan]

With due respect to poprawkz' argument, there's a logical flaw inherent in it. Cavalry units should not be measured by their defensive value against each other, but instead by their offensive value relative to the city defenses they are attacking. In other words, look at the difference of an 8 attack v. a rifleman or infantry unit as opposed to a 6 attack against the same units. The Sipahi gets a 33% offensive boost for a 25% price hike. That seems like a pretty good deal to me.

 

[Thoth]

I've only played the Ottoman's once, but Sipahi are awesome. 100 shields in the late medieval when you're in a GA is nothing. Your core cities can pump out replacements for your upgraded knights in 3-4 turns if your upgraded knights need it. Offensively the Ottomans are unstoppable by the AI until Replaceable parts, and as builders they can easily get the Industrial GWs and a tech lead in the early Industrial (at Emperor )

Cossaks make better pillagers, but the Sipahi make far superior conquerors

 

[anarres]

The offense of the Siphali (as others have said) has to make them well worthwhile.

I feel the cost is a little too high, but if it were lower I would be tempted to always play Ottomans

 

[col]

A siphali army has awesome firepower and will take out infantry quite comfortably.

@Anarres. Hmm - likes a four - legged attacking unit. That IS a surprise. Not.