Do mounted units feel kinda terrible to anyone else?

[andersw]

I usually aware of ZOC but i think it may be the hill+forest thing as it can often be difficult to see easily a hill under a forest/jungle with a unit on top also and likely why the units take much more damage when it happens due to the additional defense from the combined hill+forest/jungle.

Yes this can be very obnoxious not to mention rivers that you cant see.
If Im unsure I save/reload, Im not willing to lose units because of the interface, but usually toggling to strategic view helps enough.

 

[Fluffball]

Yes this can be very obnoxious not to mention rivers that you cant see.
If Im unsure I save/reload, Im not willing to lose units because of the interface, but usually toggling to strategic view helps enough.

It is one of the reasons i have the game save every turn and one of my save scum exceptions as it is not that i made a wrong decision as i wouldn't have made that move if i knew that vital piece of information but that i made a decision lacking information i feel i should reasonably have.

I find it a minor issue compared to the massive clutter/information overlaod on civ 6 maps

 

[andersw]

It is one of the reasons i have the game save every turn and one of my save scum exceptions as it is not that i made a wrong decision as i wouldn't have made that move if i knew that vital piece of information but that i made a decision lacking information i feel i should reasonably have.

I find it a minor issue compared to the massive clutter/information overlaod on civ 6 maps

I mean the interface could easily show at what tile you would end a units move or have arrows of different size showing how much move would be used up (heroes of might and magic managed that 15 years before civ5) .

 

[Bruhmoment]

Mounted units specialize in flanking and going behind enemy lines, pillaging stuff and finally getting that one stupid prick A.I to shut up about trashtalking me
They're useless for city attacking, I'll be honest. I forgot what the other promotion is called, but that one specializes in flanking, which is great. I usually pick that one and build as (reasonably) much mounted units I can.
They're good with alhambra, but they retreat so this means that they're not good defenders.
You said knights get killed with a few comp's? Never seen it be used efficiently, though. You probably spammed a LOT of ranged units in order to be able to do that.
They usually have higher strength than any melee peon, so they can defend if they're not completely surrounded. I think they're good as they are, plus - if you make a general buff for mounted MELEE units, uhhh - Songhai. Don't forget about them
Although I rarely find myself using mounted units later in the game though, as they turn into tanks IIRC

 

[chicorbeef]

I used to use them a lot but Horses/Knights got nerfed while Spears/Pikes got buffed so I don't build them often anymore. Most mounted UUs are still pretty good though.

I do build some mounted units if I have a long line of territory to defend and I want units that can travel quickly between different cities.

 

[ridjack]

Me: posts a thread saying mounted units are bad

Also me:

Spoiler :

 

[Bruhmoment]

Is that with pdans tweaks where mongolian mounted ranged units get +2 attack? Not really that useful but could be good in plains

 

[ridjack]

Is that with pdans tweaks where mongolian mounted ranged units get +2 attack? Not really that useful but could be good in plains

Yes, and I thought the same thing before playing with it. They absolutely annihilate, to the point that I'm wondering if the change doesn't make Mongolia too strong. Taking cities using them alone is slow, but entirely doable and has the benefit of giving them a ton of XP. I have multiple level 7 and 8 units in the medieval era. Armies are just completely ripped to shreds; pikemen, longswords, cover II, doesn't matter, they just die.

 

[Bruhmoment]

Yes, and I thought the same thing before playing with it. They absolutely annihilate, to the point that I'm wondering if the change doesn't make Mongolia too strong. Taking cities using them alone is slow, but entirely doable and has the benefit of giving them a ton of XP. I have multiple level 7 and 8 units in the medieval era. Armies are just completely ripped to shreds; pikemen, longswords, cover II, doesn't matter, they just die.

Obviously I'd say the black tug is better, but if you have enough movement and you've killed off every unit, then yes, they just might be better than trebs

 

[ridjack]

Obviously I'd say the black tug is better, but if you have enough movement and you've killed off every unit, then yes, they just might be better than trebs

The Tugs have accomplished almost nothing, to be honest. They're mostly there to actually capture cities, get pillage XP and occasionally snipe an opportunistic kill or two. All the actual work is being done by my skirmishers, with fantastic support from the Khans. Ordos are still largely unused at the moment, because having multiple Khans roaming around is generally better IMO, and trying to figure out the best way to use the Ordos hurts my brain.

 

[Bruhmoment]

The Tugs have accomplished almost nothing, to be honest. They're mostly there to actually capture cities, get pillage XP and occasionally snipe an opportunistic kill or two. All the actual work is being done by my skirmishers, with fantastic support from the Khans. Ordos are still largely unused at the moment, because having multiple Khans roaming around is generally better IMO, and trying to figure out the best way to use the Ordos hurts my brain.

Ordo - no
Citadel with different graphics - yes
Will need to try out the mounted ranged units again, never saw them be that good although my neighbor had great wall...

 

[ridjack]

Ordo - no
Citadel with different graphics - yes
Will need to try out the mounted ranged units again, never saw them be that good although my neighbor had great wall...

Without Mongolia, they're underwhelming on the offense, at least for me. And yes, Great Wall makes them essentially useless.

 

[azum4roll]

Try the Logistics Skirmisher mod, once I update it to be compatible with 4UC and other mod civs (expected tonight).

You'll have to remove the part about skirmishers and Mongolia UA in pdan's tweaks.

 

[ridjack]

Try the Logistics Skirmisher mod, once I update it to be compatible with 4UC and other mod civs (expected tonight).

You'll have to remove the part about skirmishers and Mongolia UA in pdan's tweaks.

Is it still using Skirmisher Doctrine? That was the single thing that got me using Pdan's tweaks in the first place. I hate it quite a lot.

 

[Stalker0]

Is it still using Skirmisher Doctrine? That was the single thing that got me using Pdan's tweaks in the first place. I hate it quite a lot.

No S. Doctrine is removed in that version. Its skimishers with logistics, half xp from attacks (so 2 attacks will generate the same XP as you get now).

 

[ridjack]

No S. Doctrine is removed in that version. Its skimishers with logistics, half xp from attacks (so 2 attacks will generate the same XP as you get now).

Doesn't sound all that great. Are you using this as well?

 

[Stalker0]

Doesn't sound all that great. Are you using this as well?

I tried logistics skimishers quite a bit, and I playtested PADs version as well.

My opinion: L. Skimishers are fun....and overpowered. I could never find a reason to build mounted melee, and generally I found them better than ranged units. The Light Cavalry (aka PAD's version) I found generally underpowered, there mobility I could replicate with scouts, and they weren't strong enough to do anything I wanted.

While I agree the base skimisher is clunky, it does do the job.

 

[pineappledan]

And yes, Great Wall makes them essentially useless.

Checks out. That's what it was for.

The Light Cavalry (aka PAD's version) I found generally underpowered, there mobility I could replicate with scouts, and they weren't strong enough to do anything I wanted.

Of the 3 developed options, I maintain my "light cavalry" model is the most consistent with how these units were used historically. skirmishers weren't the main damage dealers of an army, but they were great for pick-offs and covering/patrolling ground.

I'll preface this by saying that I don't do a lot of warring in my games, or I try not to. However, my own experience with my "light cavalry" skrimishers is that I just don't build them... unless I do. If I'm playing a civ that has a unique skirmisher I will try to build lots of them, and when I do that, the unique skirmisher absolutely melts faces. Mongols is the obvious example -- like @ridjack, I blow people away completely with the +1 attack on all skirmishers -- but Huns and even Austria end up the same way. Im not really sure if it’s fair to surmise if the base units are in an okay place based on the fact that unique replacements feel appropriately powerful, but I conclude that the base units are at least within an acceptable power curve, but below my interest curve, since I only use them when I feel like the civ I'm playing encourages me to.

Maybe it's because they're so click-y, as you say. Using skirmishers demands a lot of actions per unit, per turn, so they tend to make turns longer. As someone who will happily play civ-city in some corner of the map, skirmishers just aren't my thing.

 

[azum4roll]

I tried logistics skimishers quite a bit, and I playtested PADs version as well.

My opinion: L. Skimishers are fun....and overpowered. I could never find a reason to build mounted melee, and generally I found them better than ranged units. The Light Cavalry (aka PAD's version) I found generally underpowered, there mobility I could replicate with scouts, and they weren't strong enough to do anything I wanted.

While I agree the base skimisher is clunky, it does do the job.

Have you tried it recently? Early skirmishers got toned down and the AI is better at using proper counters (i.e. ranged, especially siege) now.

 

[Rekk]

The mounted archer line could simulate its skirmishing function by inflicting a "Distracted" plague of -15% CS or other X%. The helicopter gunship doesn't skirmish, but it does provide air support to infantry, so you could say that it still performs a -% CS action while fulfilling these duties.

The other historical skirmisher functions of recon and screening are either performed by another line or don't exist in civ.