How do Legions with Oligarchy bonus fare against Knights?

[Leathaface]

I'm playing at Immortal now, since I win easily on Emperor. However the AI has so far been able to send Knights my way before I could research Ballistics and use Field Cannons against them. Knights easily overpower Crossbowmen.

The Iron Working tech is available much earlier than Ballistics, so that is a big plus.

 

[Leyrann]

Well, if you stack Oligarchy with the legacy bonus, that'd be 48 vs 48, so you'd be in for a pretty even battle.

 

[Art Morte]

...+3 combat bonus on Immortal.

Defending against Knights with crossbows is all right, but I'm not sure have I ever been on the offensive in that situation.

 

[Archon_Wing]

They'll be able to hold their own, but you'd really need to bait them out with your crossbows and have the legions block the knights. If you have some culture, you could try aiming for nationalism and make corps.

However, I wouldn't recommend using Oligarchy at this point in the game unless for some reason you must take the offensive, especially when a t2 government is probably available. It's too big of a hit to your economy as Oligarchy is not useful unless you enter combat.

What I do sometimes if I care enough is to stay in oligarchy only long enough to build a government building to pick up that +4 card.

 

[Leyrann]

...+3 combat bonus on Immortal.

Of course, but that's not a game changer compared to the +2 on Emperor.

 

[Pietato]

Just build your own Knights. They are the god unit in this game.

 

[acluewithout]

Yeah. But it’s more fun not building Knights. Makes you have to find other strategies.

Maybe not efficient, but it is kinda cool dropping from a T2 government to Oligarchy because you need to boost your melee and anti-cav in a war. I did that once with Pikes to defend a German Knight rush. Felt like my civ has regressed because of war!

 

[Trav'ling Canuck]

Maybe not efficient, but it is kinda cool dropping from a T2 government to Oligarchy because you need to boost your melee and anti-cav in a war. I did that once with Pikes to defend a German Knight rush. Felt like my civ has regressed because of war!

And right there is an issue, because Pikes were generally adopted specifically to counter Knights. In other words, Pikes shouldn't need a boost to hold off Knights. That's what they should be best at.

 

[MaryKB]

And right there is an issue, because Pikes were generally adopted specifically to counter Knights. In other words, Pikes shouldn't need a boost to hold off Knights. That's what they should be best at.

I am afraid I don't understand, do Pikemen not work properly against Knights? I thought they have a bonus against cavalry.

 

[acluewithout]

@Trav'ling Canuck I didn't drop to Oligarchy because I needed to really. I did it because I wanted to try in and it was fun. With the extra boost my Pikes just chewed up the Knights.

Leaving aside whether Pikes are good or not, I do think the Oligarchy bonus is baked into the balance of Melee and Anti-Cav, more so now one can keep the bonus via the Oligarchy Legacy.

Does Oligarchy + Melee or Anti-Cav mean those units are better than Knights? Nah, not really. At least, not "Knights being used by the Player" - that Knight rush is a killer.

 

[Uberfrog]

I am afraid I don't understand, do Pikemen not work properly against Knights? I thought they have a bonus against cavalry.

They do, but with their base strength being only 41, this only boosts them to 51 CS vs a knight's 48, which is not exactly a hard counter. Given their high production cost (200 vs 180 for a Knight) and penalty against melee units, Pikemen are generally not worth building.

 

[Arent11]

They do, but with their base strength being only 41, this only boosts them to 51 CS vs a knight's 48, which is not exactly a hard counter. Given their high production cost (200 vs 180 for a Knight) and penalty against melee units, Pikemen are generally not worth building.

I just want to add that they are also slower than knights, meaning that the enemy can easily circumvent you & withdraw, & their tech is quite out of the way. Knights are therefore cheaper to build, faster, similar strength, can't be countered by melee and are easier to research.

 

[Trav'ling Canuck]

I am afraid I don't understand, do Pikemen not work properly against Knights? I thought they have a bonus against cavalry.

They do, but with their base strength being only 41, this only boosts them to 51 CS vs a knight's 48, which is not exactly a hard counter. Given their high production cost (200 vs 180 for a Knight) and penalty against melee units, Pikemen are generally not worth building.

Yes, thank you. This is what I meant. If you have Pikes, they should be such a clearly superior counter to Knights that there's no need to do things like drop down to Oligarchy to get them an additional bonus. Right now:

• Melee units clearly beat anti-cav units.
• Cavalry has a clear movement superiority against melee units but fight them on about equal terms.
• Anti-cav units are not sufficiently powerful against Cavalry / not sufficiently cheap to warrant building them as a Cavalry counter.

It's like rock-scissors-paper where paper just gets a draw against rock.

 

[acluewithout]

I think Pikemen's worst crimes are really just that: (1) they're a bit overpriced, and (2) they're a defensive unit.

On the defence, 51 combat strength versus 48 is significant, because Pikemen are healing faster in their own territory, whereas Knights are healing slower in enemy territory (and probably getting hammered by city ranged attacks as well, and also possibly cross bows). Pikes may also well be fortified, giving them extra strength. And then you can throw in Oligarchy. And you're also probably building more units while under attack, which unlike you're opponent don't need to travel to the front.

The speed difference doesn't really matter on defence. You're enemy is coming to you, so you don't need to be faster than them. Did my Pikes kill all the Knights that attacked me when Germany Knight rushed me? No, but I killed a lot of them, and the rest ran away. Germany then surrendered. Job done.

The melee thing is really irrelevant. Yes, Pikes have a negative. But you're fighting a unit one era behind you (Swordsmen), and your first promotion cancels out the negative. And the negative is also irrelevant when your Pike is garrisoned in a city.

And the tech isn't out of the way in some senses. Yes, it's a leaf tech, but it's a leaf tech on the way to campuses, commercial hubs and industrial zones. Knights are just on the way to more things which punch.

The real problem with Pikes is that they are defensive. First, that means you can't use them to take enemy cities - they just don't work like that way. Second, and this is the killer, you don't need them to defend from the AI. The AI is so bad at combat, that "a good offence is the best defence" could not be more true. I suspect they are also fairly useless in MP, because I'm guessing that's all about the Zerg rush.

Bottom line: if Pikes were cheaper, and the AI much better at war, Pikes wouldn't be half bad.

Melee units clearly beat anti-cav units.

They really don't. A Pikemen, in his own territory, will hold off a swordsmen unit. As soon as your Pike gets one promotion, they are on the same footing. If swordsmen turn into muskets, yep, your Pikey has a problem. But so do Knights - Muskets are nasty.

Here's the killer: if you send Pikemen over the border to wreck havok ... they will just get wrecked. They are terrible on defence, because they don't have all those fab promotions melee units have.

 

[Uberfrog]

I think Pikemen's worst crimes are really just that: (1) they're a bit overpriced, and (2) they're a defensive unit.

On the defence, 51 combat strength versus 48 is significant, because Pikemen are healing faster in their own territory, whereas Knights are healing slower in enemy territory (and probably getting hammered by city ranged attacks as well, and also possibly cross bows). Pikes may also well be fortified, giving them extra strength. And then you can throw in Oligarchy. And you're also probably building more units while under attack, which unlike you're opponent don't need to travel to the front.

This is missing the fact that those Knights on the offensive have ample healing from pillaging farms, and unlike non-cavalry units, they have the movement points to pillage effectively.

The speed difference doesn't really matter on defence. You're enemy is coming to you, so you don't need to be faster than them. Did my Pikes kill all the Knights that attacked me when Germany Knight rushed me? No, but I killed a lot of them, and the rest ran away. Germany then surrendered. Job done.

This is mostly moot because the AI isn't really doing anything resembling a proper advance, but having cavalry on defence is useful for flanking the invader and hitting ranged and siege units that will otherwise wear down your defending units and cities.

The melee thing is really irrelevant. Yes, Pikes have a negative. But you're fighting a unit one era behind you (Swordsmen), and your first promotion cancels out the negative. And the negative is also irrelevant when your Pike is garrisoned in a city.

It's not irrelevant when you consider that you're building the Spearman/Pikeman instead of something else, be it melee, ranged or cavalry. My argument is that, on balance, it is generally not worth building the anti-cavalry units unless perhaps you're entirely without strategic resources. The Pikeman just has too many cons and very few pros.

And the tech isn't out of the way in some senses. Yes, it's a leaf tech, but it's a leaf tech on the way to campuses, commercial hubs and industrial zones. Knights are just on the way to more things which punch.

I'm confused by this: leaf techs, by definition, aren't "on the way" to anything... I've said it before, but Military Tactics needs to be connected to later techs in the tree. It's absurd that it still isn't, and a contributing (though hardly the only) factor towards many units currently regarded as weak: Pikemen, Samurai, Berserker, and Khevsur.

Bottom line: if Pikes were cheaper, and the AI much better at war, Pikes wouldn't be half bad.

Cheaper is the key point I think. It's probably beyond the scope of Civ VI, but what I think would be much better a system would be to have a split between light (and cheap) spear and pike infantry and heavy (and expensive) sword units, instead of the poorly balanced "anti-cavalry" line we have now, in which the first two units are inadequate counters to their contemporary mounted units.

 

[Karpius]

They do, but with their base strength being only 41, this only boosts them to 51 CS vs a knight's 48, which is not exactly a hard counter. Given their high production cost (200 vs 180 for a Knight) and penalty against melee units, Pikemen are generally not worth building.

This is one of my few disagreements with the game. Historically, the units we regard as "anti-cav" were generally cheaper to acquire and maintain than knights or other cavalry. However, I do feel the combat values are generally commensurate from the historical perspective (when one considers the mobility as @Arent11 alluded to).

I build very little anti-cav type units for this reason. I personally feel they should be no more than half the cost/maintenance of cavalry of the same tech level or era. I would rather put the resources into cavalry that can defend itself reasonably well against similar cav unit, but also capable of a sound offense.

Historically, the advantage to pike formations and their ilk was the fact they were easily raised and trained. In many cases, they were just bodies to get underfoot of charging horses unitl one's own horses could be brought in.

 

[Uberfrog]

Historically, the advantage to pike formations and their ilk was the fact they were easily raised and trained. In many cases, they were just bodies to get underfoot of charging horses unitl one's own horses could be brought in.

Well if you're talking about Spears and Pikes in general: yes and no. By the Renaissance and Early Modern periods, Pikemen were highly trained professional soldiers, needing excellent discipline and drilling, rather than an economically armed peasant levy with spear and shield. The Swiss Pikemen and German Landsknechts made a career of their excellent reputation. Civ VI Pikemen, visually, are clearly modelled on these later units, so it's strange to see them be so ineffectual.

 

[Karpius]

Well if you're talking about Spears and Pikes in general: yes and no. By the Renaissance and Early Modern periods, Pikemen were highly trained professional soldiers, needing excellent discipline and drilling, rather than an economically armed peasant levy with spear and shield. The Swiss Pikemen and German Landsknechts made a career of their excellent reputation. Civ VI Pikemen, visually, are clearly modelled on these later units, so it's strange to see them be so ineffectual.

Quite true! You are speaking of elite units developed by smaller polities that could not easily afford large cavalry forces. One must keep in mind also that even into the 18th century, most military organizations (especially cavalry such as knights) were funded directly by the various nobility that offered "allegiance" to a higher noble. the Swiss cantons were among the first to start breaking away from this model so they were almost forced to lean on better training for affordable footmen rather than expensive cavalry.

Of course gunpowder eventually reduced the sheer numbers of footmen necessary to break the typical cavalry charge, but the tactics remained largely the same until volley fire became a real thing.

 

[Archon_Wing]

That seems to be an issue in this series (and many others like AoE) where the spearline should really be the foot soldier. Much easier to make a pointy thing than it is a sword! Civ IV got it sorta right where Warriors upgraded into spearmen but then it got kinda weird where the dominant unit was axemen(???)

It is good that ranged was sorta nerfed in Civ 6 to make melee more of a thing though. Could go a little further.

 

[Scaramanga]

Knights when facing knights is best. Their promotions are built for jousting.