England...sucks.

I've played as england a few times. Although I loved the naval bonuses, by the time I got SoTL's out, they were not as powerful as I would have hoped. In one game in particular it took 5-6 SoTL's constantly bombarding to take a city down. In the industrial era, arty that hits the field early enough can do it with 2-3 arty pieces in just a couple turns.

On the other side of the argument, during my attack against an england AI civ in one game, I was practically decimated by numerous longbows that were built to defend it's cities. I actually had to back off the attack and regroup because I was taking so many losses 3 tiles away without enough kills. The longbows are pretty awesome in the right circumstance. I see the original posters point about the upgrade path of longbows though.
 
No, England doesn't suck. England sucks against the AI because you don't need the +2 naval movement to beat an AI navy.

Stop confusing whether something 'sucks' or not with sucking against the AI.

EDIT: I do agree, though, that it might be appropriate to bolster their UA a bit to give England more of the 'financial' trait -. much like how Germany got a boost to theirs. They are, as OP notes, a bit too strongly pointed in the direction of a pure domination approach and it doesn't seem fitting for England. Making them receive extra commerce or production from sea resources seems like a good solution.,
 
I've experienced that, too! England with the Great Wall in the right terrain can be extremely difficult to attack. Then again, that's true of most anyone with the Great Wall. haha.

Yeah that's what I meant. I forgot why they were so tough to beat - the reason was that they had the Great Wall.

Great Wall + Longbowmen + City Defenses = almost impenetrable
 
No, England doesn't suck. England sucks against the AI because you don't need the +2 naval movement to beat an AI navy.

***
I do agree, though, that it might be appropriate to bolster their UA a bit to give England more of the 'financial' trait -. much like how Germany got a boost to theirs. They are, as OP notes, a bit too strongly pointed in the direction of a pure domination approach and it doesn't seem fitting for England. Making them receive extra commerce or production from sea resources seems like a good solution.,

It's definitely true that the AI under-utilizes naval warfare, but a navy isn't really required in this game as it is. As a previous poster stated, naval units aren't even particularly good at bombarding coastal cities. England suffers from that. "Sucks" may be an inflamitory word...but I'm glad you took to my original point. England could use a small bolster, much like Germany got.
 
While I agree that England's naval emphasis is sort of underwhelming, I think you guys are right that it's a symptom of a larger problem - mainly that Civ5's naval combat in general is just lackluster and unimportant. But hey, at least the AI's actually build ships, now. Progress!

I disagree about the Longbowmen, though. Three tiles! Outside of terrain that's crappy for all ranged units, they're pretty impressive. One of my recent games I was using Engerland to fight a proxy war against Arabia, and I got to watch Lizzy hold off all manner of higher-tech Arabic invaders with nothing but garrisoned Longbowmen and the occasional Pikeman. (Financed by yours truly, of course. Fun game.)

That said, is England really at the bottom of the heap these days? I've been looking over the various civ's UAs and UUs lately and some of them strike me as much worse. I mean, River Warlord, seriously? Is that actually better than England's UA? Don't the Ottomans have some terribly lackluster UA as well?
 
Hey who's the "River Warlord"? I'd just like to know since my personal play-style I couldn't care less about the coast/navy whatsoever. I'm always subconsciously enslaved into hammering about Pyramids/Great Wall/Great Library while inland at all costs :lol:
 
River Warlords is actually a very good UA; protection when embarked is just a small extra. You seem to be forgetting the "triple gold from barb camps and city pillaging" bit.

About England, read the War Academy article, if you haven't already, they pretty much say all about them.

About the UA, the extra movement for embarked units is actually really nice for moving your troops fast early in the game, and make triremes zip through the coastline.

And about the UUs, the keyword is logistics, especially for SotL. Remember by the way that you can start training them before you get the corresponding techs, as archers or triremes:

-As long as there is a hill, a longbowmen with logistics is going to rain death on your enemies (same applies on your territory if you have the Great Wall, no need for logistics then). And even before logistics, they are the poor man's artillery, since they don't get counterattacke by city defenses; afterwards, they are just early regular artillery. Their only real negative point is that they lose all their promotions when upgraded, so just keep them as is until infantry comes around.

-SotL are mediocre as a UU before logistics, but afterwards they are complete monsters; logistics comes with the hidden advantage of being able to move after attacking (either once or twice), so your SotL never get attacked again, thanks to both logistics and the 2 extra moves from the UA. 3-4 of them will drop a city's hp to 1 in 2 turns (3 tops), and will get to the city way before your army, so there will be nothing left to fight. They will retain their usefulness after (an expensive) upgrade, but they are somewhat lacking if there aren't enough coastal cities (although the extra range promotion makes a lot of cities "coastal").

Both of them make great city attackers once they reach logistics, and will eat alive any army that dares approach them; for English, longswordmen actually are the support unit, and trebuchets and cannons aren't needed at all.


That said, pangaea maps negate most of their bonuses, and they do need to war a lot before becoming an unstoppable war machine, so maybe an extra oomph to their UA isn't completely out of question.
 
Yeah, the English Navy was the reason England ended up on the winning side of every European war in that era, but don't knock the redcoats just because they also beat up on the Zulu - they were legendary throughout the world in their time, especially for their discipline.

Given that the redcoats are so iconic, I would be happy to see them as a unique unit. Given that each English ship carried a detachment of Redcoats ('Marines'), perhaps a bonus to amphibious assault would be in order? That would work quite well with England's unique ability.

The British Redcoats were not "legendary", they were ubiquitous -- they were everywhere from the late 16th to the early 20th centuries. But as I explained, it was the dominance of the British Navy that allowed the British to deploy their armies across the entire world.

The Redcoats are only "iconic" in the sense of their uniforms, which was arguably the dumbest thing they ever did. They chose red in part because it was one of England's traditional colours, but primarily because red dye was the cheapest, and they had a lot of soldiers to clothe. But their red uniforms made them so distinctive that they were obvious targets wherever they went.

The Redcoats were supposedly famed for their discipline and their extraordinary rate of fire. That's a falacy. As I explained, the Redcoats seemed unbeatable because they usually fought against untrained and technologically inferior forces -- most of their enemies didn't even have firearms. In the American Revolution, the British were initially successful because they were fighting against untrained American Colonials, most of whom weren't professional soldiers. From the Americans' perspective, the Redcoats were formidable soldiers because they maintained formation and discipline while under fire, whereas the American soldiers and militia tended to break and rout when they came under fire. That doesn't mean the Redcoats were extraordinary soldiers; it simply means that they were properly trained, disciplined, professional soldiers.

During the Napoleanic Wars, the British were part of the numerous coalitions against Napolean Bonaparte's Imperial French Army, wherein the superior French soldiers defeated them time and time again. The only decisive British victory was the Battle of Waterloo wherein the Duke of Wellington defeated Napolean's army once and for all -- and military analysts agree that it was primarily because of the terrain that Wellington wisely chose to fight on.

The point is that I completely agree with the dev's decision to make the Longbowman and Ship of the Line the unique units for the English civ, instead of the Redcoat, because the Redcoats were not extraordinary musketmen.
 
-As long as there is a hill, a longbowmen with logistics is going to rain death on your enemies (same applies on your territory if you have the Great Wall, no need for logistics then). And even before logistics, they are the poor man's artillery, since they don't get counterattacke by city defenses; afterwards, they are just early regular artillery. Their only real negative point is that they lose all their promotions when upgraded, so just keep them as is until infantry comes around.

I completely disagree that Longbowmen are "poor man's artillery", because they, like ALL ARCHERS, suffer a -25% penalty against cities. Even if you rush to Machinary, by the time you can produce Longbowmen, the average city is going to have a defence of at least 15; and a capital at least 20. Even with a Great General and unit adjacency bonuses, the most damage a Longbowman can inflict against a city is -2, which means it would take at least 8 to wear down a city in one turn. It's ridicilous to use Longbowman in lue of artillery.

I've been playing as the English on Prince difficulty since yesterday, and I'm kicking @$$. I've been able to conquer Japan with only 2 Swordsman, 4 Longbowman, 2 Catapults, and a Great General. The Longbows were far more effective at killing off the Japanese Warriors, Spearmen, and Archers, than bombarding their cities. That's how Longbowmen are supposed to be used -- against land units, not to bombard cities.

So you're completely wrong that Longbowman can serve as "poor man's artillery". Anyone who uses them that way is a fool, and will lose.
 
Well, I'm no pro, but I'm kicking ass with 3 logistic'd longbowmen on emperor, which on average took 12 hp per turn against regular cities (more like 9 against capitals), and that was before they reached siege (two attacks per turn give you loads of experience, you know).

Granted, you will need a big number of longbowmen to be effective before logistics (say, 6-8, and 2 melee to protect them), but then again, I said "poor man's" artillery. And since they are reasonably cheap, and can move and attack on the same turn, they do have advantages over artillery (during their respective eras obviously; once the real artillery comes, you can say goodbye to your longbowmen).

And logistics isn't that far away if you started training them as archers. You should get there in a couple of wars, or just DoW some CS and bombard it ad eternum, with a fortified melee to take the damage.
 
This discussion about the British targeting the weak reminds me of these quotes from Blackadder Goes Forth.

Captain Blackadder: 'When I joined up we were still fighting colonial wars. If you saw someone in a skirt you shot him and nicked his country.'

and,

Field Marshal Haig: 'Good lord, Blackie! I remember you, that pygmy with the sharp slice of mango could have...

Captain Blackadder: And you said that if I ever needed a favour, you'd be there. Well, it's the big push tomorrow, and I'm not all that sure that I want to go over.

(Haig mulls this over)

Captain Blackadder: It was a viciously sharp slice of mango, wasn't it sir!

Brilliant show with Rowan Atkinson, Hugh Laurie and Stephen Fry amongst others if anyone hasn't watched it yet.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blackadder_Goes_Forth
 
I've just started playing at King level. I played as England
last night. My closest neighbor was Alex. I settled my 2nd city
as close to his capital as I could.(He denounced me on turn 4)
In the ancient, and classical era he DOW'd me often. I held him
off with my archers, and the help of the great wall.
As soon as I was able to, I upgraded my archers to longbowmen,
built a couple more, and within a couple of turns Athens was mine.
That's where I saved the game last night. Tonight I will take
his 3 remaining cities. If you build longbowmen early enough,
you can annihilate your closest enemies in the renaissance era
quite easily. This strength far outweighs the uselessness of
their naval advantages.

Also, Evilsooty is right, Black Adder is one of the best shows ever.
 
Pangea style maps : Longbowmen.
Water maps : SoL

Worst maps to play with England are fractal and continents.

They own island and archipelago maps. Best civ for domination victories.

(mp) A good human player will build a lot of Longbowmen and care about placing cities to get maximum range from hills to defend against other competent players. With good support units, you can be the rusher and do a lot of damage.
 
Well, I'm no pro, but I'm kicking ass with 3 logistic'd longbowmen on emperor, which on average took 12 hp per turn against regular cities (more like 9 against capitals), and that was before they reached siege (two attacks per turn give you loads of experience, you know).

Granted, you will need a big number of longbowmen to be effective before logistics (say, 6-8, and 2 melee to protect them), but then again, I said "poor man's" artillery. And since they are reasonably cheap, and can move and attack on the same turn, they do have advantages over artillery (during their respective eras obviously; once the real artillery comes, you can say goodbye to your longbowmen).

And logistics isn't that far away if you started training them as archers. You should get there in a couple of wars, or just DoW some CS and bombard it ad eternum, with a fortified melee to take the damage.

In order to get Logistics you must've maxed out either Accuracy or Barrage, and probably had Siege to counteract the -25% penalty all archers receive against cities. I bet if an enemy city was built on open or rough terrain (which ever is the opposite of the type of promotion you chose) then your logistic'd LBMs wouldn't inflict 6 hp per attack -- more like 2 or 3, like mine do -- and your "poor man's artillery" strategy wouldn't work.

That's why I use Catapults and Artillery to bombard cities, like you're supposed to. Sure, they can't move, deploy, and attack in the same turn, but they inflict far more damage against cities than LBMs, regardless of what terrain the city is built on.

I assume that you prefer the Honor social policies, most importantly Military Tradition to boost combat XP, which is how you earn enough combat XP to reach Logistics. I prefer a build and expand strategy, which is why I choose Tradition and Liberty SCs. IME spamming units and being too aggressive early in the game only makes my neighbours Guarded, which makes it impossible to trade luxuries and have research agreements.

My preferred strategy has allowed me to build all available Wonders except 3 so far, and dominate the other civs in every way. I'm definitely going up to King difficulty next time, because Prince isn't much of a challenge anymore. I chose it because I've only completed one playthrough as England nearly a year ago, so I wanted to test the waters before I dove in.

I realize that I haven't exploited Longbowmen to their maximum effect, but I still don't agree that they should be used in lue of artillery. Eventually you'll have to upgrade LBMs, and once they become Rifleman or Infantry they'll lose the ability to bombard enemy units without suffering damage, which means that Logistics is useless. Also, if and when you train artillery, they won't have earned much XP because you've been used LBMs instead. I'd much rather have Artillery and Radar Artillery with Logistics than Infantry or Mech Infantry.
 
The only decisive British victory was the Battle of Waterloo wherein the Duke of Wellington defeated Napolean's army once and for all -- and military analysts agree that it was primarily because of the terrain that Wellington wisely chose to fight on.

Let's not forget the fact that it had rained the night before causing the French artillery to get stuck in the mud, the fact that Marshal Ney launched a premature cavalry charge effectively destroying his unit, the fact that Grouchy was unable to stop the Prussian general Blücher, and of course the fact that Napoléons forces were outnumbered.

Furthermore it might be a nitpick, but it's inaccurate to call Waterloo a British victory. Wellingtons forces, which were supported by Belgians and Dutchmen mind you, were about to be obliterated by Napoléon until the Prussians managed to outflank them, making it a Prussian victory if anything.

On topic:

I'm currently playing an England game and I think OP is being a bit too harsh on the longbowmen. Yes, rough terrain screws them over (as with every archer unit), but if you can navigate them properly they can be worth their while. They can even function as a siege unit because they're able to remain out of range of enemy cities. By no means great, but it's a boon. The problem of upgrading to riflemen exists with all ranged units (even the mighty keshiks use their promotion bonusses and range when upgraded to cavalry).

As many people said before, I don't believe the redcoats were skilled enough to be considered an elite/unique unite that deserves to be in Civ V. I think that their UA and ship of the line are okay. IMHO the problem lies not with the civ, but with how the AI handles naval combat. If naval combat actually mattered, England would be quite good. No top tier Civ by any means, but a decent mid tier civ with an unique playstyle.
 
yeah, getting logistics and training archers before upgrading to longbowmen is key. just imagine having scout promotions (+1 visibility and +1 movement along with ignoring terrain costs) as well, if lucky.

it is nice to have the xtra range right off, though the crossbowman can get this promotion as well.

last night I was able to have a cho ku that could shoot 3 times in a single turn thanks to scout promotions as well as +1 xtra range (tore through enemy units and cities). now if the longbowman had a unique ability that wasn't a shared promotion then maybe it would be more interesting... imagine a +4 range
 
Ok, we seem to have some trouble communicating with each other :)

Barrage and Precision don't give bonuses against cities, never. I'm actually dealing 2-3 damage per attack with a GG by the side, 3-4 with siege. But 3 longbowmen with logistics deal around 12 dmg per turn to a city, while not suffering counterattacks, which means that you've made the city's hp drop to 1 in 3 turns tops (counting the turn where you approach the city, and thus only get one attack against it), and then you just have to take it with a melee unit.

The corresponding siege unit is trebuchets (cannons come way later); they have way less chances to attack enemy units for xp, because of their shorter range, and the need to position themselves before attacking; more often than not, you will have to keep your distance against units for fear of the counter-attack. That leaves only cities to get xp, or garrison them in your own cities, while getting attacked (which isn't something you should be looking forward to, since you lose a lot of productivity if it lasts too long). Your siege units will take longer to get heavily promoted, and less of them will (usually one or two). And before they do, they won't deal that much more damage against a city, at most 3 times more than a regular longbowmen shot, and that isn't enough to justify their cumbersomeness (unless you don't have a UU in medieval/early renaissance).

By the way, I'm not geared towards war. I actually finished liberty, then went commerce, for Role-Playing purposes. You will get even better results getting into honour after dipping into liberty, but I didn't want to. My first war was a defensive war, Askia was a complete douche to me, and though that my military was puny (which it was, but he didn't though about the tactical advantage I had because of terrain); that war lasted a while, and got me some nice xp, but it wasn't until I left Askia with one city only, and I DoWed Bluetooth that my archers-now-upgraded-to-longbowmen started getting logistics, and killed everything.
My army was composed of two longswordmen, three longbowmen, and four SotL that cleared the beach for my landing (Harald was across a narrow sea).In Harald's defense I have to say that he didn't have iron, but Suleiman (the next one in the list) did, and he had just started building janissaries when I got there, so he was strong, but couldn't do a thing against an army one era old.
And well, now that I own 2/3 of the capitals, nearly everybody hates me (except good old Gengis), but it took a while for everybody to understand my goals (3 DoWs, and 6 conquered cities, 3 of them capitals), so as long as you meet people somewhat far away from you, your good for trading.

You do have two good points:
-longbowmen are nearly useless once upgraded to riflemen; the only promotions they keep are siege and logistics (which is as good as blitz until mobile infantry, don't forget it).
-once you get to artillery, it is best if you have heavily promoted cannons than heavily promoted longbowmen.

And by the way, artillery IS a gamebreaking unit; extra range, indirect fire to use it (the big flaw of longbowmen, if any), and ranged strength to kill things, artillery has everything you want; there's no way I'm going to argue against its raw power, that can't be compared to anything before it. And with extra range and logistics, artillery is a God of War.
But if you want a Domination victory, you have to start way before dinamite, and longbowmen will help you push through all resistance. Catapults, trebuchets and cannons won't, unless you are forced to use them (just watch some Deity LPs, and you'll notice how rarely they are built).

You should try a more aggressive game with England, starting with an early war (preferably on your own land, to train your archers safely), beeline machinery, and go kick some ass with your promoted longbowmen (or your horde of ~6 longbowmen, if that fails). You don't even need honour, but you can take it if you want.
 
As unintelligible as your post is, apparently you think that Redcoats were superior infantry.

They weren't.

The mighty British navy transported their armies all around the world, where the Redcoats primarily fought against peoples either with untrained soldiers and/or lacking firearms. That's how the British forged their empire -- by dominating the weak. The Redcoats weren't any better or worse than any European army. The French had superior infantry during that era, which is why France has the Musketeer unique unit.

The English Longbowman and Ship of the Line are far more appropriate unique units for England.

OK you're right the red cout is just a name for a british soldier in that time. But I still thinx they need to change the unique ability it is so weak compared to the other the ottomans have a better uniqe ability then this...
 
So far I've only completed one playthrough as England in Civ5. I was achievement-hunting and I fulfilled the archipeligo map achievement, among about a half dozen others in one playthrough. Admittedly I chose England because I was playing an archipeligo map, but IME England's naval superiority shouldn't impede their military success on land. It's no different than the Civs with only Ancient- and Classical-era unique units; those unique units give those civs an advantage in the early game, but just because they only have generic units later in the game doesn't mean they're at a disadvantage. If you can't achieve a Domination Victory with generic Musketman, Rifleman, Infantry, Tanks, Battleships, Fighters, and Bombers, then it's your fault, not England's.

The OP's obvious mistake was that he apparently tried bombarding cities with only Longbowmen, instead of using Catapults and Trebuchets, like you're supposed to. Same thing with Ships of the Line; they can be used to bombard coastal cities, but they're no replacement for Cannons and Artillery. That's where the OP went wrong.

If he adjusts his play style he shouldn't have any more difficulty winning with England than any other civ.

My problem isn't the unique units but unique ability it isn't strong enough. I dont feel any difference If i play the english instead of a other civiilization..

For example when I play and I get really fast policies and can expand without getting slower policies.... It feels ike playing like I am playing the french

The english well its just navy with some movement bonus Can achieve the same thing with the great lighthouse... Its jsut missing some something the feeling of playing as england
 
Top Bottom