God Like Horses?

I agree, with Cavalry being BOTH faster AND stronger than melee units, and with no significant penalties applied to their use, things end up looking grimly for melee units. Buffing anti-cav as suggested above is obviously a first step, but not much likely to solve the problem because cavalry can just move around them, plus frontlining your army with anti-cav will basically just make you stall if on offense, because anti-cavs are basically rubbish at doing anything than, well, countering cavs (which they are also rubbish at as things are). I'm generally a proponent of 1UPT, but this is definitely a shortcoming of that system.

I would like to see the cavalry penalty vs. cities from Civ5 return, this was a good way to level the field, and it also makes sense logically (if you're doing siege on a walled city, sitting on a horse is not going to help you, quite in the contrary). And if not that, then the logical solution is to make cavalry weaker than contemporary melee, so cavalry has the advantage of speed, while melee has the advantage of strength. But historically, that is less accurate, as cavalry has dominated melee units in one to one battle.

I agree mounted troops should not have an advantage versus cities compared to foot troops of the same era. So a malus making them equally to their foot contemporary makes sense (ignoring that a mounted unit typically had far fewer fighting men than a foot unit of the same period).

The main balancing issue, though, to my mind should be that you should be heavily limited in the number of elite troops, like cavalry, you can field, and it should be far more expensive to maintain them. I believe the resource system is intended to have this effect, but I'm not sure it works out in practice.
 
God likes all creatures equally.

OT: Mounted troops should definitely have a malus for attacking cities, especially walls.
 
And dont forget that pillaging is still very rewarding! The high movement, 1 pillage move promotion and no ZOC makes cavalry indeed superior.
 
Coursers are indeed too strong since you can just run over people with horsemen and upgrade them into coursers and then cavalry later.

I think it's better than chariot ---> knights because it flows better. Also easier to accumulate horse in the early game. It does get countered harder by the meme pikeman rush though!
 
Coursers are indeed too strong since you can just run over people with horsemen and upgrade them into coursers and then cavalry later.

I think it's better than chariot ---> knights because it flows better. Also easier to accumulate horse in the early game. It does get countered harder by the meme pikeman rush though!
Coursers are too strong because... horsemen are strong?
 
Knights and pikes are both stronger than coursers.

Yea, so?

You can prebuild horsemen and take a bunch of cities. They get promoted, and get upgraded to coursers. Then, they have a upgrade path to cavalry. You seriously aren't telling me you're prebuilding spearmen and taking cities, and while Chariots aren't bad, they don't pack the same punch. You snowball faster with horses.

Furthermore, you just need horses. If you miss niter, your knights are stuck.
 
Last edited:
You are just saying that horsemen are too good, not that coursers are.

The entire horseman line up to Cavalry is too good. The introduction of the courser is just part of it.

We done splitting hairs yet? Or are you just going to keep repeating yourself because you have nothing else to say?
 
Can somebody please create a mod that gives cavalry units a malus vs cities, similarly to ranged (but ofc less severe)? This has been bugging me for ages.
 
The thing is, historically cav was always superior to infantry. i don’t know any scenario where this wasn’t the case. I mean, it can dismount if needed. It was the cost of cav that made it more rare than infantry.

It should be stronger but also cost way more to build & maintain.
 
I always wondered why in civ5, mounted units didn't benefit from terrain (but did suffer from negatives), couldn't fortify, and had a sizable penalty against cities.

Then civ6 comes along and all of those penalties are gone. Why would I build swordsmen? Especially when flat tiles are more common than hills thus more horse resources than iron.

I think some of the civ5 penalties need to be reintroduced. Particularly the attack against cities. It'd give a reason to build a couple of swordsmen -- swords for sieges and horses for the field. Ranged units get a penalty against cities to make room for siege units. The would be the same but with up close fighting.
 
Yes, I'm gonna repeat that knights and pikes are both better than coursers. They are not OP.
Which also means cities are stronger too. Coursers can't crush cities like knights can. I just use them against obsolete units and for pillaging. It's not like you can just continue to spam only them and conquer the world.
 
The problem is is that the very first promotion option for Light Cavalry is +5 vs Anti-Cavalry, there-bye mitigating Spears and Pikeman might too easily. The +5 Anti-Cavalry attack bonus should come at the second tiered promotion option.

My next game im gonna mod this promotion out to the 2nd tier for something else, as soon as I learn how to do it!
 
Top Bottom