Overall, filling in gaps is going to make Cav more powerful, which is going to make warmongering more powerful. They just thump everything - light or heavy.
But I think the resource system is going to be a big factor too.
Yep.
For example, you say Scythia are going to be OP - but they might not actually be able to build that many horses each game if they don’t have enough horses.
I certainly understand what you’re saying and know the 2 for 1 horse production efficiency will be partially mitigated by the new resource requirement system. The bulk of what I’m saying is to their ability to arrive at the new courser gap unit quickly as well as its ability to carry on with warring beyond the initial horse rush period due to increased melee strength values. Here’s essentially why I think they are ultraOP after the changes:
The +100% production efficiency (horse spam) will be partially offset by the new resource requirements system. This is not as bad as it might sound as the hammers from your cities will have to be utilized elsewhere for things such as commercial hubs and campus districts. This also leaves experience concentrated onto less units. It also means there will be less upkeep. I think we will have to be more careful with our units with the new system and throwing horse after horse against city garrisons them spamming up more units won’t be as viable a strategy as if may have been before (I don’t do it so don’t really know). If we were to add resource requirements under the present system without gap units, horses would start dying in droves mid game due to increased garrison strengths. With the gap units, however, and with the inability to SPAM horses due to resource requirements @ creation, attendant forced reallocation of hammers away from horse SPAM to other options, ie. districts, ie. campuses (which gets you to the gap unit faster), you are able to carry on with less (which is actually more). They can leverage this into continuous light cav warring into the midgame (due to gap units hardiness) and a faster and more sustained snowball.
If horsemen and knights both use horses, then I’m struggling to see why anyone would really waste time with Light Cav. Yeah, they come earlier. But you’ll get so much more bang for your buck from Knights.
I’m having the same trouble for everyone but Scythia (who get 2-for-1 light cav). I’d say Mongolia for the eventual escort promotion, but they can use their Keshigs to escort battering rams right out the gate.
If I had to offer some rationale, I’d say it would be out of convenience. As horses come sooner and you can probably build up quite a few of them by the time knights come online, you might be prone to use the suboptimal cav class simply because it’s the best option available presently. With the gap units. you can upgrade them and make them roughly comparable to knights (or what not, who knows until GS comes out). My thoughts would be, “well I have these units, and can upgrade them, I may as well carry on with these light cav and build knights in my encampments from here on out. But let’s see how far these units can get. And besides, even if they all get killed, they’ve still paid for themselves 3 times over as I’ve taken 4 cities due to the early combat advantages.”
That actually then feeds into the new Mechanic where you can’t see horses unless you research animal husbandry. So stupid. Isn’t AH going to be your go to tech now, regardless of map, because finding horses and then getting Knights will be such a killer move. Indeed, you’ll want to do that ASAP so you can start stockpiling horses for your knight push.
I kind of like the new AH requirement. I know AH will be the first thing I’ll research most of the time but not always. If you want to work a more peaceful internal (settler) expansion or a hybrid settler/conquest strategy with a civ like Rome, you might go for mining first (as you’ll have no need of horses per se and can settle based on other criteria). This might get you a lux mine 10 or more turns sooner than not, which gets you trading sooner. You can trade the lux’s for gold and use it to buy a warrior or two. Where Scythia has to first locate, them settle near the horses, so visualization of horses for the 2nd settlement spot is of critical importance. It is also of critical importance to have a builder to actually create the pasture so as to begin stockpiling horses.
You know, the whole revealing horses at AH is stupid for another reason. Have a read of my post about bronze working and spears in my signature. The tech for Iron is very clever - basically, the tech not only reveals iron, but (1) leads you to Swordsmen if you find iron, (2) does not actually take you towards Knights (who are more powerful than Swords), so makes that more powerful unit more work to get and also (3) gives you Encampments and anti-Cav should you not have iron.
Making Knights require horses is going to result in even faster horses rushes - less techs, easier eurekas, more time to stockpile resources. Dumb, dumb, dumb.
I read it over. Makes sense. I’m fairly sure I might have missed some of the nuances as I’m not a fanatical tech tree technician and tend to just hammer away at the tech I want for strategic advantage regardless if it’s boosted or not. Funny thing with bronze working and different playstyles: As I don’t use swords unless I have to, I’d say the most key aspect of bronze working for me is the ability to chop rainforest for production+population in a home city or for population in an occupied city. As I ignore swords, knights are so far off that the timeliness of the iron reveal is not particularly relevant for me.
You know something, that brings me to another observation. I think I may have to mix melee units into my army with GS, as both horsemen and knights will require horses and mixing swords (which require only iron) can help with fielding a large army if I need to. As to whether I will actually have to field a diversified army remains to be seen, but I think the incentive is there. And Pikes have no requirement whatsoever.[/QUOTE]
