1. We have added a Gift Upgrades feature that allows you to gift an account upgrade to another member, just in time for the holiday season. You can see the gift option when going to the Account Upgrades screen, or on any user profile screen.
    Dismiss Notice

I think I'm done with mounted units

Discussion in 'Civ6 - General Discussions' started by ShakaKhan, May 7, 2017.

  1. ShakaKhan

    ShakaKhan King

    Joined:
    Jan 5, 2015
    Messages:
    889
    I've beaten the game several times with each of the 3 peaceful victory conditions, and my current game is my first attempt at domination. Seems to be about the easiest victory condition, I just went with the other VCs first because there's more game elements to be learned/mastered with the other ones. But that's mostly backstory...

    Anyway, I'm playing as Mvemba, not the best civ for domination but I'm finding that the assortment of city-states has more to do with which VC you pick than anything else, including which civ. This particular game has a great selection of CS's for a dom game; I got Buenos and Zanzibar for extra amenities, Zanzibar and one other trade CS for the economy backbone, and three militaristic CS's for a 12-hammer per turn boost to building units from envoy bonuses, two of which have great suzerein bonuses as well (the Kabul XP-doubling seems to apply to every battle, and I have the almighty Carthage bonus.) Since Carthage is in the game and I'm going domination, every city's first two districts are CH and ENC.

    So my initial conquest and land-grab was an (5)archer rush with a single warrior for taking citiies, pretty standard and quite effective. After that there was a brief pause for expansion and development, during which I picked up 2 great generals. Moved the generals to where the 5 archers and warrior were, upgraded to crossbows and the Kongolese swordsman and started the second attack. This was extremely effective, even against walls without a seige unit, because of the +10 combat strength(it seems that all GG's have the same passive bonus: +5 strength and +1 move for units of two eras within 2 tiles, and they stack) to the crossbows and 4 movement points for all units, including the generals. For the next phase, I have a group of 7 knights that are moving in against the only civ that poses any threat to me. It's working OK I guess, I read somewhere here that knights absolutely rule the medieval era for conquest, but I'm finding that isn't really the case.

    There's two really important reasons why the ranged/melee composition of units seems to outperform the mounted units in the context of conquest (as opposed to the context of open-field wars of attrition, in which the mounted units are probably better):

    1.) ranged units. Since civ4 (Civ3 ended the era of rock/paper/scissors combat mechanics and ever since the game has been about sheer numbers and advancement), my carpets have either consisted of exclusively slow units (melee, ranged, support, siege) or exclusively fast units (mounted.) Either way, they're accompanied by a GG. This is because the main advantage of a group of mounted units is that they can advance on a target more quickly, and that advantage is lost if the mounted units are turn-clicking as they wait for the other units to catch up. As such, the slow melee units operate with the support of ranged units, which fire with impunity and is one of the more broken game mechanics, making the slow carpets more effective than the fast ones, despite getting there later...

    2.) ... but they don't get there later. This is because the extra movement points allotted by the great generals lets the slower melee and ranged units move at 4 movement points per turn if you have two GGs stacking, which is just as fast as mounted units. While it's true that the extra movement also apply to the mounted units, who have 6 or 7 movement points per turn, they really don't because the great generals themselves only have 4 movement points and the mounted units have to wait for them anyway, effectively negating the bonus they get.

    3.) seige units and bombard units. These guys really help for conquering cities, particularly developed cities. And the bombard units move at the same rate as melee and ranged units, with or without GG movement bonuses. The seige units don't get the GG movement bonus, which is unfortunate, but you just tie a single melee unit to guard them as they move towards a more developed target while the faster units (around the GGs) take out a less developed target, they all get there around the same time.
     
    KumaChan likes this.
  2. Temppu

    Temppu Warlord

    Joined:
    Oct 16, 2016
    Messages:
    160
    Gender:
    Male
    I find it difficult to agree with the uselessness of cavalry youre implying.

    Firstly, you cant always have 2 GG of the particular era from which your army is. When you dont, the 2 movement points of any other unit class than the cavalry classes is quite slow.

    Secondly, it seems that you are neglecting one of the most effective ways of using cavalry. Because cavalry not only has large movement, but also ignores ZOC, they can efficiently do "strike and return" kind of warfare, such that when damaged, they can move back your unit line to return healing.

    As an additional note, if I remember correctly, the light cavalry unit class has a promotion to enable support units inherit their movement rules, which also includes ignoring ZOC.
     
    Last edited: May 8, 2017
    Tiger Genocide, 4N4C0ND4 and GIDS888 like this.
  3. Victoria

    Victoria Regina Supporter

    Joined:
    Apr 11, 2011
    Messages:
    11,375
    IF I can get a couple of light horseman early I prefer to use these for a large variety of reasons including being able to peel off an attack to deal with a stray archer coming in, scout ahead and looting.

    If playing peaceful a few knights are great as primarily I want to loot land rather than take cities and the loot n move ability is great. Flanking is better against stronger opponents, especially with logistics.

    I still prefer ground grunts to do my city churning, it just feels right to me. And if it does not feel right I would not play it. Those 2 early galleys can also be a godsend for coastal cities although all my battering ram attempt have been battered by the slow movement rams have.

    A line of muskets with field cannon makes me feel like a true napoleonic, especially playing as France, just the cavalry missing the right class for me otherwise I would probably play france more.
     
    4N4C0ND4, nzcamel and c4c6 like this.
  4. Tech Osen

    Tech Osen Emperor

    Joined:
    Nov 13, 2016
    Messages:
    1,731
    I hardly ever use generals in the field, usually retire them asap. As for infantry vs cavalry: I prefer heavy cavalry but it's often the available resources that determine what I make. Knights and swordmen both requiring iron is a pain when you don't have it though.
     
    4N4C0ND4 likes this.
  5. king of nowhere

    king of nowhere Warlord

    Joined:
    Nov 23, 2016
    Messages:
    142
    Gender:
    Male
    huh, I never knew great generals did stack... I always assumed they didn't and kept them spread; plus, at deity it's difficult enough to get one great general, much less two, much less two of the same era. anyway
    - nothing stops you from using mounted units as support for your ranged. crossbow+knight is more versatile than crossbow+sword.
    - it's all well and good to say that crossbows are broken because with 5 you can kill a knight. mounted units are fast, meaning they can start from out of range and directly go to attack the ranged ones, and they hurt a lot. a ranged unit won't do much damage to a mounted one of the same era, and the mounted unit will kill in two attacks. 5 knights absolutely mop the floor with 5 crossbows.
    - mounted units also ignore zone of control, meaning it is much harder to protect the ranged units from attacks.
    - the first two promotions you can get with heavy mounted units are +7 defence against ranged attack - even better against those pesky ranged units - and +7 against any damaged unit. as long as you have some ranged support, any unit you fight will be at least a bit damaged, so it's +7 against anything. melee units are weaker than mounted, and they also have weaker promotions.

    In fact, I don't do melee anymore if a suitable mounted replacement is available. even anti-mounted units are pretty bad at doing their job, a pike having only a very slight advantage against a knight at the price of being much more vulnerable to ranged attacks.

    You may notice how in all your arguments you only say how the extra movement is not important, but even if that was the case - and mind you, it relies on the premise that you have 2 great generals of the appropriate era, which is really unlikely - certainly it's not a flaw, and you don't present a single argument to make melee rather than mounted. So what's the advantage of melee over mounted? that they have less movement, thus preventing you from outpacing your great generals by mistake? they have a promotion for +10 against ranged attacks against the +7 of heavy mounted, ignoring that a sword with tortoise is 46 while a knight with barding is 55?
    The only reason you are not being enthusiastic about mounted units is that you're going against AI, which is a pushover even at deity during a war. And I bet you're at difficulty lower than 6/8, or you wouldn't be able to get those two great generals. if you were playing against a human, he would be able to send knights from your flanks to kill your crossbows.
     
  6. Victoria

    Victoria Regina Supporter

    Joined:
    Apr 11, 2011
    Messages:
    11,375
    Life is not as simple as horse vs foot @king of nowhere
    My army comprises of all 3 and cavalry may be great in the open when we add terrain into the equation things get very sticky. My army, even my horsemen will move slower to avoid that first turn attack loss if they move too fast

    Terrain and visibility are enemies of cavalry speed. I am not saying cavalry is rubbish, quite the contrary, cavalry would be OP but terrain and visibility are great equalisers.

    At least we do not have to deal with all those other logistics like supply, morale and that realistic nightmare called orders. This game is at a nice easy level for combat but more complex than foot vs mounted in a desert.

    It is a shame heavy cavalry do not suffer a penalty in rough terrain IMO.
     
  7. king of nowhere

    king of nowhere Warlord

    Joined:
    Nov 23, 2016
    Messages:
    142
    Gender:
    Male
    Of course a good army needs diferent components. what I was arguing was the setup "all ranged plus 1 melee to conquer city", which only works against the AI. Still, given the choice between having a melee or a mounted unit of the same era, I almost always go with mounted. given the limitations of 1upt, I prefer to bring some more mounted, more versatile.

    fully agree with that. hystorically, rough terrain is the bane of heavy cavalry and the shelter of infantry. in civ4, mounted units did not get defence bonuses, and that was a good enough mechanic. Infantry is much better at holding a hilltop than are tanks. And that's what I think this game is missing in terms of combat balance. right now, a mounted unit can do anything a melee unit does. its only weakness is anti-mounted, but it's a +10 combat bonus from a unit that is inherently weaker, the final outcome is around +3 in favor of the anti-mounted, which is absolutely manageable. and given the big flaws of anti-mounted (weaker against ranged attacks and melee) i feel that anti-mounted are not good units, unless you are against scitya.
    it is my opinion that anti-mounted units should be made a bit stronger, and melee units should be made better defenders; this would give every unit its niche to fill. right now I find it easier to face mounted units with other mounted units rather than with anti-mounted, and that's definitely not how it should be.
     
    c4c6, KumaChan, 4N4C0ND4 and 2 others like this.
  8. Victoria

    Victoria Regina Supporter

    Joined:
    Apr 11, 2011
    Messages:
    11,375
    100% with ya on that, most people agree pikemen/halbradiers do not live up to their reputation in this game.
     
  9. nzcamel

    nzcamel Nahtanoj the Magnificent

    Joined:
    Feb 15, 2006
    Messages:
    2,987
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Christchurch, New Zealand
    I think that movement from GG's or GA's shouldn't stack, rare as having the right combo of them may be.
     
  10. Victoria

    Victoria Regina Supporter

    Joined:
    Apr 11, 2011
    Messages:
    11,375
    Now there is a Mausoleum I rarely have 2 GA's to stack, however there is benefit in hoarding them. For GA's the MP is pretty broken anyway. The GA does not get the MP and so lags behind. There is benefit though, 2 GA's with a fleet fill allow a sudden burst of speed for huge flanking bonuses or pursuit.. All in all I think you are right. If large naval engagements ever do happen (hah) they are pretty much a one off decider on who rules for quite while. Having 2 GA's at such events seems wrong.
     
    4N4C0ND4 likes this.
  11. 4N4C0ND4

    4N4C0ND4 King

    Joined:
    Aug 1, 2013
    Messages:
    413
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Spain
    Musket and not garde Impériale? No no no Victoria
     
    KumaChan, nzcamel and Victoria like this.
  12. TheMeInTeam

    TheMeInTeam Top Logic

    Joined:
    Jan 26, 2008
    Messages:
    25,804
    This is strictly false :p. If you can win domination, you can win anything else in principle, unless you believe the weakest AI can win religion, culture, or space with a single pillaged city.

    That could hold in SP. It is not reality for MP or the game's design/rules, not in civ 4, civ 5, or civ 6.

    Often 2x GG is unrealistic, and cavalry have the upside of moving through harsh terrain and still attacking same-turn, often applying flanking bonus. Archery units can certainly work offensively, especially against AI, but they're better defensively.

    Anyway the anti-mounted class is a joke and both cavalry and infantry are useful at the front. I actually like the melee line promotions a little better (GG boosted tortoise melee is sturdy vs cities, and with 3 promotions total they have that + boosts vs most units + all cities), but there are plenty of situations where the only unit type that can use a hex to attack on a given turn is cavalry, and if you can't put a unit in that spot you're losing damage potential.
     
    nzcamel likes this.
  13. Victoria

    Victoria Regina Supporter

    Joined:
    Apr 11, 2011
    Messages:
    11,375
    They "Recule!"

    TBH, I did say especially playing as France above as the guard look cool. And were cool ofc.
    It would be great if they formed square when cavalry came.
     
    Last edited: May 8, 2017
    nzcamel likes this.
  14. Canadian Bluebeer

    Canadian Bluebeer Prince

    Joined:
    Dec 1, 2011
    Messages:
    317
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Canada
    Don't forget that Knights upgrade to Tanks, and Tank Armies are very very nice.
    Horsemen become Helicopters, which also are very good later game, for those barbs that pop up on ice/tundra nobody settled.
    (as well as the ones that just "show up" around CS. I really hate that)
    Their mobility is great for getting from A->B fast. (before too much gets pillaged)
     
  15. Craig_Sutter

    Craig_Sutter Deity

    Joined:
    Aug 13, 2002
    Messages:
    2,752
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Calgary, Canada
    I like horsemen for pillaging. I just had a war vrs. India and a few horsemen flanking their cities were able to ravage about 20 tiles. Pulling out to heal out of sight range of cities and encampments every once in a while. Was quite fun... and the horsemen are relatively cheap units in later eras but before they are upgradeable.
     
  16. ShakaKhan

    ShakaKhan King

    Joined:
    Jan 5, 2015
    Messages:
    889
    This alludes to something Victoria mentioned earlier, which I'll concede I did neglect. It's not that I feel that mounted units are useless (which admittedly the thread title implies) it's just that I feel they are less than optimal for seiging. With their extra MPs, they are much better at pillaging, which makes them quintessential for wars of attrition, which plays a much bigger part in this iteration of the game than previous ones. Along similar lines, they are also better at open field combat, which I did mention in the OP and several have mentioned as well. Finally, I always like to keep a couple of them strategically spaced out throughout the interior of my empire; this along with having a ranged garrison in every city (or at least every frontier city) makes for an adaptable defense against the pesky, ill-timed DoW at the back door.

    Just a whole bunch of misquotes and things taken out of context in this attack! I never said the movement points aren't important, in fact the opposite. Part of my point was that the extra MPs from the GG's are more important than the strength bonus, and slower units utilize that bonus better since they don't have to wait for the GG's to catch up. Also I don't understand why people are having such a hard time generating 2 great generals that can overlap with a unit type; you have TWO FULL ERAS to get them (since each GG covers units of two eras) and, as I mentioned, Carthage suzerein bonus played a massive part in my district selection, maybe that's the difference maker, combined with the fact that there's a card which boosts encampment district builds which doesn't exist for any other district. So around turn 150ish, there were 19 cities in the empire, all of which had encampment and most of which had at least the first building. Also for your information, the game was immortal level, so no not the almighty deity which I have beaten but choose not to play because it restricts your options, not making anything harder, and while I guess the perspective was one of single player and may not transfer to multi-player, you should still refrain from comments like "I bet you're at difficulty lower than 6/8" because this is just trolling. When you're responding not just to me, but any contributor here, you have no idea of the experience and accomplishments that they have, and are being quite presumptuous and judgemental by making such disrespectful statements.
     
    Last edited by a moderator: May 9, 2017
  17. KoKid90

    KoKid90 Chieftain

    Joined:
    Mar 23, 2015
    Messages:
    58
    Do they get the CS bonus when fortifying ? I think the unit icon change to a shield when fortifying a mounted unit in civ 6, vs civ 5 where it was not, also were not getting the bonus CS.
     
  18. nzcamel

    nzcamel Nahtanoj the Magnificent

    Joined:
    Feb 15, 2006
    Messages:
    2,987
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Christchurch, New Zealand
    I've never considered mounted units great for sieges/taking cities. They've always been better at protecting your army and open field combat.
    Yeah, you're right about wars of attrition :)
     
  19. Temppu

    Temppu Warlord

    Joined:
    Oct 16, 2016
    Messages:
    160
    Gender:
    Male
    This probably has something to do with the penalty cavalry units used to have for attacking city in CiV. However, in Civ VI, they have no such penalty, and there is no reason for not using them in taking cities. The cavalry classes still could use a nerf of some sort, because currently there are no reasons for using melee class units over cavalry class units. This issue has been discussed, for example, here

    https://www.reddit.com/r/civ/comments/63bofs/civ_6cavalry_class_units_are_superior_in_every/
     
    ZubieMaster, c4c6 and Tiger Genocide like this.
  20. nzcamel

    nzcamel Nahtanoj the Magnificent

    Joined:
    Feb 15, 2006
    Messages:
    2,987
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Christchurch, New Zealand
    Even before V I haven't set out to use cavalry in that role. As long as you have melee on hand I think it's a waste of cavalry. Thanks to sieging in VI, I do more often end up with cavalry in a position to attack a city, and so I do use them more in that role than I would otherwise.
     

Share This Page