Take #2.1:
Horseman
Requires Riding
Requires Horses, Copper or Iron
6
, 2
, 50
• Doesn't receive defensive bonuses
• 20% chance to withdraw from Combat
• -50% city attack
• +50% vs. Siege Units
• Flank Attack vs. Siege Units
Upgrades to Heavy Horseman or Horse Archer
No changes here. They're lethal against Siege and will defeat Axemen and Chariots in the field. Spearmen will stop them and they're evenly matched against Swordsman and Horse Archer. They don't need to be the Swordsman counter because the Axeman already has that role, and the Horse Archer picks it up a bit later. They're the only unit capable of flanking siege before the medieval era so they have a vital role to play.
Horse Archer
Requires Nobility and Riding
Requires Horses
6
, 2
, 70
• Immune to first strikes
• Doesn't receive defensive bonuses
• 30% chance to withdraw from combat
• +25% Attack vs. Axemen, Swordsmen, and Heavy Footmen
• Targets Axemen, Swordsmen, or Heavy Footmen first in combat outside cities
Upgrades to Cuirassier
Key (and only) change here is that the Horse Archer's attack bonus is reduced. They will still comfortably kill Axemen and Swordsmen but they now have a slight numerical disadvantage against Heavy Footman. Their withdrawal chance compensates for that so the two units should be a reasonably even match out in the field. Thus the Horse Archer remains useful in the Medieval era, but not so useful that the Heavy Footman is weakened too much.
They can be countered by War Elephants, Heavy Horsemen, counterattacking or city-based Spearmen and Pikemen. Crossbowman and Horsemen are the same strength as them. I don't think they'll be too unstoppable.
As you point out, horse archers date to about 900 B.C.
Alexander the Great fought against horse archers in about 300 B.C.
So lots of historical justification for having them appear much earlier.
They were still around when you will have them appear, so if that works better from a game standpoint that is fine. They were still important in the western US in the 1800s.
The earliest Horse Archers in western asia (Assyrian, Scythian, Sarmatian, etc) were really just archers on horses, with little capability of attacking while mobile. It may been different over by China, I don't know. By Alexander's time we start to get records of more 'proper' Horse Archers as the more eastern Iranian peoples moved westward.
Given the classical era in HR goes from 1000 BCE - 500 CE (varying game to game of course) I figure the second column is the ideal place to unlock the Horse Archer, but Nobility is one of the easier third column techs to acquire so it'll do.
Nobility seems like the least bad choice for Horse Archer.
This may indicate a possibility of usefully expanding the tech tree a bit in this area, but this is not a high priority.
Yeah I never designed that part of the tree with such units in mind. No obvious changes come to mind now, but maybe in the future.
The real problem is making horse archers good enough to matter, without making them so good building Horsemen is pointless.
That's why I'm proposing the Horse Archer become a later upgrade to the Horseman (and Chariot).
Or we could just go back to the way the game used to work and have nothing but Horse Archer cavalry in ancient/classical times. But having an expensive 'shock cavalry' unit that is inferior to Horse Archers in almost all circumstances just isn't going to work.
Not in the same era, no.
I would strong advise against using "targets first" bonuses for Horse Archers. Here's why: target first bonuses completely undermine the rock-paper-scissors model at the heart of Civilization IV unit design. Horse Archers that target Axemen, Swordmen, and Macemen first outside cities, and have a significant attack bonus against these units, would completely change late classical and medieval warfare.
Good. I think it's worthwhile to shake up the system a little, so long as we don't break it the process. A few units scattered throughout the eras that introduce some different tactics makes warfare more interesting. Especially if they encourage warfare away from cities.
The only response to stack of Horse Archers would be other mounted stacks, particularly War Elephants, since melee units could not be adequately defended in the field. (You would lose more hammers in Macemen than your opponent would in Horse Archers, especially given the 30% withdrawal chance.)
Yeah I agree that this is a problem, have made some adjustments.
Spearmen and Pikemen, unable to defend single move melee units outside of cities, would be relegated to the role of city defenders. It wouldn't be pretty.
They're still needed against Heavy Horsemen and War Elephants, which will both be active around the times Horse Archers are. You still need to protect your siege units.
A few versions ago, the balance worked out as follows:
In the Ancient Era, Axemen beat Spearmen, Spearmen beat Chariots, and Chariots beat Axemen.
In the Classical Era, Horse Archers beat Horsemen, Horsemen beat Swordsmen, Swordsmen beat War Elephants, and War Elephants beat Horse Archers.
(Horse Archers were 6
with a high withdrawal chance. Horsemen were 5
with a bonus against melee units. Swordsmen had a bonus against War Elephants.)
We can't really consider the ancient and classical eras separately, especially under the old system where many of the units are unlocked around the same time (late Ancient, early Classical). Spearman also beat Horse Archers and Horsemen, Axemen also beat Swordsmen, War Elephants beat almost everything, and so on.
In the Medieval Era, Macemen beat Pikemen, Pikemen beat Knights, Knights beat Crossbowmen, and Crossbowmen beat Pikemen.
The medieval era is different because those units replace many of the early units, whereas most of the classical units exist alongside the ancient ones.
Since then, a few units have been moved around the tech tree; but I feel the original balance was best.
The main problem with the original balance was that you had 4 mounted units become available within 3 columns of the tech tree and then just one per era thereafter. Even with their counter roles there still wasn't space for them because other units could counter the same units.
The War Elephant shifting later in the classical era made things much better and I think shifting the Horse Archer later is needed too. It also means we'll have a wider variety of mounted units available throughout the Medieval era as well. Options increasing rather than decreasing as the game progresses is a good thing.
I sympathize with that point; particularly because it makes axemen practically useless, at least in the open field. However, given the role of horse archers historically (and i think that is the entire point of the civ franchise) it makes perfect sense. while horse archers do have that advantage they can be easily countered by spear/pike men. Yes your axe and swordsmen will be decimated when you invade an enemy, but with spearmen you can easily return the favor, since horse archers can very rarely attack and retreat in one turn.(really only on road tiles in their own territory) This means horse archers are not only historically accurate (they were used to wipe out slower armies) but with out spearmen and axemen in support those horse archers are just as vulnerable to counter attack as you were to their initial attack.
Yeah, it's just an attack bonus. Spearman and Pikeman will still slaughter Horse Archers if they can counter attack, and in cities of course. Horse Archers were one of the most significant cavalry forces in history, I think they should have a powerful (but balanced) role and be around much longer than they are currently in HR.
What about giving Horse Archers Flank Attack against the units they're intended to counter? They engage the enemy army, the dedicated counter units step up to tackle them, they do their best to get an opportunity to snipe at some shock troops and escape.
Flank attacks affect numerous units, while the target first mechanic affects just one. Flank attacks are fine for siege but against regular units it's just too strong.
Ships of the Line should probably be changed to add a Gunpowder requirement, same as Frigates, Galleons, and Privateers. As it currently stands, it is possible to research Meteorology before Gunpowder, resulting in the odd situation of having Ships of the Line alongside Dromons and Caravels.
Ship of the Line used to be at Physics which required Gunpowder. Guess I forgot to account for this when I moved it forward to Meteorology, which doesn't.
Also, the 'tag' for non-European Great Generals seems to have been replaced with the one for Great Engineers, which can be confusing.
By 'tag' do you mean button graphic? If so, fixed.
