Going for Gold: Units

Is this item in a reasonable state of balance?


  • Total voters
    19
  • Poll closed .
Most games I unlock horsemen before spearmen. I have no idea what you mean by a late ancient era unit, its available very early and pursuing it early is a powerful and commonly used strategy by human players.
Late ancient as in second column, which means you actually have to rush specifically if you want to get them fairly early on, to the exclusion of other possibilities.
I'm not saying that it isn't a viable strategy to rush horsemen, rather that this strategy isn't used most of the time; I just looked at the 10 last Photojournals on this forum and not a single one of those rushed horsemen.
Whether it is better to go for horsemen before spearmen is not the issue here, the issue is whether this unit, which most agree is just fine as it is in the Classical Era, comes too early or not; again, as I have already pointed out in my other post in the other thread, just look at the photojournals...what I see there reflects my experience and I don't see people going for horsemen ASAP, but rather taking them in the second half of the ancient era (by techs researched) or even after entering Classical. So this narrative that somehow the majority of games are unbalanced in the ancient era because of too early horsemen is simply false!
 
Late ancient as in second column, which means you actually have to rush specifically if you want to get them fairly early on, to the exclusion of other possibilities.
I'm not saying that it isn't a viable strategy to rush horsemen, rather that this strategy isn't used most of the time; I just looked at the 10 last Photojournals on this forum and not a single one of those rushed horsemen.
Late ancient is a really pointless distinction.

You looked at the photojournals? Weird, three of the most recent ten of those photojournals are mine and in two of them, horsemen are the backbone of the army for early wars despite my enemy being Greece and having hoplites. Even with access to jaguars as the Aztec, when the time came to fight hoplites my primary strategy was horsemen (supported by skirmishers). In the other photojournal I don't have war for a long time, but horsemen are still the backbone of my army when war finally occurs. In the incomplete Korean photojournal attempt I use a horsemen rush that has spectacular success, it ends only because the games crashes.

I've also turned on strategic balance for my games because frankly if I have horses and my neighbor doesn't, I win. What makes this really easy (and I think this is what the reddit guys are referencing) is that you just pillage their horses. You can still control and pillage their land if they have spearmen. Can I defend if I don't have horses? Perhaps, but the fact that I'm automatically put on the defensive just because of this shows how powerful they are.
 
I can support the idea that pillaging their horses once you get yours is part of the strength. Perhaps that is thought of more as a tactic, but the AI isn’t so good at doing that compared to the human. I spawned next to Assyria with Brazil and managed to Horseman rush him quite easily and wiped him out completely. I just kept his horses pillaged and he couldn’t do much on defense. Not sure that I should be able to wipe out a Civ like Assyria with Brazil THAT easily, simply due to Horseman advantage.
 
Late ancient is a really pointless distinction.

You looked at the photojournals? Weird, three of the most recent ten of those photojournals are mine and in two of them, horsemen are the backbone of the army for early wars despite my enemy being Greece and having hoplites. Even with access to jaguars as the Aztec, when the time came to fight hoplites my primary strategy was horsemen (supported by skirmishers). In the other photojournal I don't have war for a long time, but horsemen are still the backbone of my army when war finally occurs. In the incomplete Korean photojournal attempt I use a horsemen rush that has spectacular success, it ends only because the games crashes.

I've also turned on strategic balance for my games because frankly if I have horses and my neighbor doesn't, I win. What makes this really easy (and I think this is what the reddit guys are referencing) is that you just pillage their horses. You can still control and pillage their land if they have spearmen. Can I defend if I don't have horses? Perhaps, but the fact that I'm automatically put on the defensive just because of this shows how powerful they are.
If late ancient is a pointless distinction then surely you wouldn't mind swapping Chariot with Horsemen? I think you would.
I looked at the photojournals to determine whether anyone rushed horsemen. No one in the last 10 did. That was my point: I never claimed they weren't a strong and important unit, just that having them in late ancient is not too early; if you are building skirmishers alongside them then clearly you are in Classical already and thus would have access to horsemen even if they were pushed back.
So I don't see how this counters my main point, which was: please don't push back the horsemen, which Gazebo doesn't wanna do anyway, thank God.

As to nerfing them: I'm not a fan of that either but this can certainly be debated. I'd rather they get some extra production cost and maybe the barracks requirement than lose 1 point of strength, but at this point I'm getting tired of arguing about this stuff...so as long as they aren't pushed back or nerfed into oblivion I guess I'll probably be fine with it.
 
If late ancient is a pointless distinction then surely you wouldn't mind swapping Chariot with Horsemen? I think you would.
I looked at the photojournals to determine whether anyone rushed horsemen. No one in the last 10 did. That was my point: I never claimed they weren't a strong and important unit, just that having them in late ancient is not too early; if you are building skirmishers alongside them then clearly you are in Classical already and thus would have access to horsemen even if they were pushed back.
So I don't see how this counters my main point, which was: please don't push back the horsemen, which Gazebo doesn't wanna do anyway, thank God.

As to nerfing them: I'm not a fan of that either but this can certainly be debated. I'd rather they get some extra production cost and maybe the barracks requirement than lose 1 point of strength, but at this point I'm getting tired of arguing about this stuff...so as long as they aren't pushed back or nerfed into oblivion I guess I'll probably be fine with it.
Photojournal where I rush it
https://forums.civfanatics.com/threads/aztec-write-up-photojournal-on-deity.634934/

Its my 4th tech in this game, that is a rush. I suppose this isn't in the most recent 10, but its very recent and I don't think you should put photojournals that feature 10+ additional mods above this one when discussing balance. The evidence is that many players did not pursue horsemen early, but this is weak data because it allows player error. For example the England photojournal would have a much easier life if horsemen were rushed. His logic is reasonable (hoplites have a bonus against horses, I shouldn't use them), but horsemen are that powerful. If facing hoplites I intentionally build horsemen anyways. Many of the photojournals just don't feature early war, which is why there are no horsemen, for example the Celtic one.

If you have early war you either get horsemen quickly, you had no horses, or you made a mistake. It really is the best early war strategy for almost any civ in almost any situation.
 
Well alright then, I guess almost everyone has to compromise with this solution...

@CrazyG Yes it was further back than the last 10, which is why I didn't see it, but your points are all well and good anyway. My point, again, was that horsemen aren't so crazy powerful and early that the majority of games would feature a horseman rush, thereby excluding any other strategies or that the other units don't matter thereby making ancient warfare boring (and also that it's not incompatible with history that horsemen come in late ancient). All these assertions are wrong, as has been shown sufficiently IMO in this thread, but especially in the other one. And now that horsemen are nerfed on strength, that should assuage your worries as well, I hope.
 
Well alright then, I guess almost everyone has to compromise with this solution...

@CrazyG Yes it was further back than the last 10, which is why I didn't see it, but your points are all well and good anyway. My point, again, was that horsemen aren't so crazy powerful and early that the majority of games would feature a horseman rush, thereby excluding any other strategies or that the other units don't matter thereby making ancient warfare boring (and also that it's not incompatible with history that horsemen come in late ancient). All these assertions are wrong, as has been shown sufficiently IMO in this thread, but especially in the other one. And now that horsemen are nerfed on strength, that should assuage your worries as well, I hope.
Why don't you try a horsemen rush instead of theory crafting. It doesn't take much. Follow the steps, (Settler in advance, save gold, settle over horses, purchase horseman), abuse it, and then report back.
 
Why don't you try a horsemen rush instead of theory crafting. It doesn't take much. Follow the steps, (Settler in advance, save gold, settle over horses, purchase horseman), abuse it, and then report back.
No.
Again, for the probably tenth time, I never claimed that horsemen aren't powerful or that a horseman rush isn't a good strategy for early war, especially when going for Domination ASAP.
I haven't gone for Domination in a while since I've kinda had this "Domination phase" about a year ago where I mostly went for that and after that I've gotten bored with it; however, I'm pretty sure I've done horsemen rushes back then and they were probably pretty successful, although I think I'd remember them if they had been really overpowered.
There are a lot of other strategies, though, and even when going for Domination Victory explicitly, many civs that focus on early DV come with early UUs; furthermore, even if they didn't, I don't view it as some sort of fundamental flaw that going for horsemen is a really good move in that context. Horsemen were powerful, just as knights were powerful in the Medieval Era (both IRL history, as well) and anyone who wanted to have the best possible army in those times better have plenty of those as a part of it. Additionally, you have to make this your strategy explicitly, as other research orders will be messed up if you first spend 3 or 4 techs for your horseman rush and then start your other strategy and discover that you miss wonders, start later on trade than you wanted, have more trouble with founding etc. etc..

Horsemen are good and they should be. Horsemen are ancient and they should be. They are the tool that is available for those who want to tread the path of war as early as possible and it is this looming threat that is part of what makes civ VP great; will your opponent try to rush you while you are busy setting up a solid economy or faith production? He might, and you better be ready.
 
Just so I can beat this dead horse one last time-we could leave the Arena where it is and move just the Watermill to Mathematics. Arenas would make sense on a tech called Military Theory.

More importantly, however, what's the plan for the Chariot? I'll beat another dead horse here and say the mounted class should be removed and the RCS bumped to 8.

Edit: Or, again, a promotion called "Scythed Chariots" on Spearmen giving them -50% combat Strength vs. Chariots to cancel out the mounted bonus.
 
Last edited:
Considering the CA is only 1 more CS than archer, and the same RCS, I think that the chariot could stand to get a CS buff.

Here is my proposal for chariot archer:
Requires horses
100:c5production:
10 CS 10 RCS
1 range
4 moves (chariot movement debuff)
Warlord promotion (+10% CS to adjacent units)

So powerful, but very expensive for an early ancient era unit. Acts like a war elephant, but it buffs your units instead of debuffing enemy units
 
A little late to the party here - some thoughts on units in general and where they are in the tech tree.

Archer and mounted archer line: the increased to strength several months ago are definitely appreciated but I'm still not a huge fan of the archer line. For how much later in the tech tree they come than mounted archers they aren't any stronger except for +1 range. I keep finding myself in the situation where I already have knights but only have composite bows to accompany them or same with cannons and tercios but only crossbows. Would a +1 RCS be out of line on archer through crosswbow to keep them relevant longer and give a bigger bump when they come online? Right now rushing their techs doesn't feel worth it.

Also I'm confused about the swordsman line, especially with changes to horseman.
  • In ancient/classical era: horseman comes earlier and has 14 CS. Swordsman comes later and has 15 CS plus the free promo which makes sense given that iron is slower to bring online and they have less mobility. Swordsman > horseman in a 1:1 in this era
  • In medieval era: knights come at the same time as longsword but have a whopping 25 CS to longswords 20. Longswords still get the free promo but Knights easily > Longswords 1:1 in this era unless you're factoring in fortify or terrain bonuses.
  • In rennaissance era: swords now get the earlier upgrade to tercio but are only 25 CS to the lancers 35, even bigger discrepancy now.
Just seems in general horse units are too strong relative to archer and swordsman line even with the horseman nerf because the knight power spike is so high.

Let me know your thoughts.
 
A little late to the party here - some thoughts on units in general and where they are in the tech tree.

Archer and mounted archer line: the increased to strength several months ago are definitely appreciated but I'm still not a huge fan of the archer line. For how much later in the tech tree they come than mounted archers they aren't any stronger except for +1 range. I keep finding myself in the situation where I already have knights but only have composite bows to accompany them or same with cannons and tercios but only crossbows. Would a +1 RCS be out of line on archer through crosswbow to keep them relevant longer and give a bigger bump when they come online? Right now rushing their techs doesn't feel worth it.

Also I'm confused about the swordsman line, especially with changes to horseman.
  • In ancient/classical era: horseman comes earlier and has 14 CS. Swordsman comes later and has 15 CS plus the free promo which makes sense given that iron is slower to bring online and they have less mobility. Swordsman > horseman in a 1:1 in this era
  • In medieval era: knights come at the same time as longsword but have a whopping 25 CS to longswords 20. Longswords still get the free promo but Knights easily > Longswords 1:1 in this era unless you're factoring in fortify or terrain bonuses.
  • In rennaissance era: swords now get the earlier upgrade to tercio but are only 25 CS to the lancers 35, even bigger discrepancy now.
Just seems in general horse units are too strong relative to archer and swordsman line even with the horseman nerf because the knight power spike is so high.

Let me know your thoughts.

Archers are actually really strong to me, because they don’t take damage. They just kill kill kill. More and more I’ve been going heavier archers.

Knights vs longswords. Knights are meant to be the dominant unit of this era. Longswords are competent, but knights are king. I think thst is very intended.

Tercios vs lancers. Remember tercios have a full 50% bonus against mounted. This is the first time you have a tough infantry unit with anti mounted bonuses...and it’s quite powerful. They rip up lancers very well.
 
The problem with the archer line is their unlock techs are often very inconvenient and late. The units are actually really great for their tech level, but they tend to occupy techs that you wouldn't otherwise rush. Composite bowmen are good, but Engineering tends to be one of my last Classical pickups regardless of my playthrough. On the other hand, if I'm going militaristic, Chivalry is either 1st or 2nd Medieval tech, and Knights wipe the floor with bowmen.

Crossbows and musketmen don't have it as bad, I tend to pick up Machinery fairly quickly, especially if I'm focused on military.

Then Gatling guns hit, and ranged is the bell of the ball.

So while I agree that they are probably on the bottom for Classical, something has to be. Ranged gets steadily better in medieval and later though. I think it's fine.
 
The problem with the archer line is their unlock techs are often very inconvenient and late. The units are actually really great for their tech level, but they tend to occupy techs that you wouldn't otherwise rush. Composite bowmen are good, but Engineering tends to be one of my last Classical pickups regardless of my playthrough. On the other hand, if I'm going militaristic, Chivalry is either 1st or 2nd Medieval tech, and Knights wipe the floor with bowmen.

Crossbows and musketmen don't have it as bad, I tend to pick up Machinery fairly quickly, especially if I'm focused on military.

Then Gatling guns hit, and ranged is the bell of the ball.

So while I agree that they are probably on the bottom for Classical, something has to be. Ranged gets steadily better in medieval and later though. I think it's fine.

That's largely by design - ranged power doesn't really come into its own until the medieval period in actual history. It played a role, but it was far more about harrying than raw damage.

G
 
That's largely by design - ranged power doesn't really come into its own until the medieval period in actual history. It played a role, but it was far more about harrying than raw damage.
I don’t necessarily think the balance is too bad right now. However, If there’s one ranged that I think could use a small tweak, it’s composite bowman.

As I said, by virtue of their tech placement they are pretty late. Once you unlock them, however, they don’t offer much over the catapults which you’ve unlocked 30-50 turns earlier. They take more damage vs other ranged and don’t have any bonus vs cities. They have a lot more raw Defense, but given that they have to withstand knights, which come fast on their heals, it’s the difference between being annihilated and only slightly less annihilated. Trebuchets are also fast-approaching, which have more raw Defense anyways.

As a result, in my own games I play with archers in ancient, then make do with siege for all of classical, and mostly skip composite bows entirely. They are a good match against other classical units, but composites can really only get fielded in time for early medieval, by which point they simply can’t hack it
 
I don’t necessarily think the balance is too bad right now. However, If there’s one ranged that I think could use a small tweak, it’s composite bowman.

As I said, by virtue of their tech placement they are pretty late. Once you unlock them, however, they don’t offer much over the catapults which you’ve unlocked 30-50 turns earlier. They take more damage vs other ranged and don’t have any bonus vs cities. They have a lot more raw Defense, but given that they have to withstand knights, which come fast on their heals, it’s the difference between being annihilated and only slightly less annihilated. Trebuchets are also fast-approaching, which have more raw Defense anyways.

As a result, in my own games I play with archers in ancient, then make do with siege for all of classical, and mostly skip composite bows entirely. They are a good match against other classical units, but composites can really only get fielded in time for early medieval, by which point they simply can’t hack it

Ranged units are not designed to tank mounted units....mounted is their main counter.

They are meant to be continuously firing over a nice meat line that protects them. In this context they do plenty of damage, st a cheap hammer price, and no strategic cost.
 
Top Bottom