If horsemen get nerfed

[strategynoob]

How should they get nerfed? (Assuming they ever do.)

 

[Soronery]

Put iron on the map.

 

[Neuro]

I voted both Less Overall Strength and Fewer Movement points. Horsemen should be 10str and 3 move; Companion Cavalry would then be nerfed to what Horsemen are now, 12str and 4 move.

 

[strategynoob]

Couple other things I forgot to include in the poll, one, have them require more XP to level/promotion. Having a swarm of horsemen invade a territory, each kill off a couple of units, then insta-heal and do it immediately over again in the next city is just crazy.

Also, because of their insane mobility, mounted units really benefit from flanking bonuses because it's so much easier to set up a flank. And they get flanking bonuses from both standard flanking and additional +15% from the Honor track. And if you're on the Honor track, you probably also have a GG giving you another combat bonus. Maybe they should have their flanking bonuses reduced/removed, and/or get less benefit from a GG? I dunno.

Horsemen just seem really crazy, and Genghis Khan seems totally nutrageous.

 

[wurstburst]

Two other items not mentioned in the poll, that I think would help: city attack penalty and longer tech time for the HBR tech (not later in the tree - just same tech cost as iron working).

I'd rather see a few small things than 1 big change to nerf. 1 less strength, a bit more hammers to produce, a bit longer to tech to it, a city attack penalty.

I don't want to see the basic character of horses (high movement and attack/retreat ability) removed. Horses should not become just another generic melee unit with a different name.

 

[Antarion]

if you would build walls like CS do, horsemen would be fine

 

[bryanw1995]

I'm playing with thallassicus' balance mods, he has their strenght dropped to 11 and it seem to make a pretty big difference. at least I'm not one-shotting everyone now! He made iron available at bronze working, I think that's a good move, too. and they should move horse availability back to the wheel imho as well.

 

[kossmikman]

Make the AIs use them more intelligently.

 

[atteSmythe]

Put iron on the map.

Iron on the map with mining would help a lot, I think. In the long term, I'd rather have swords and 'pults, to keep their promotions right through to the end. Waiting for iron working to see where your cities should be and make your improvements makes that more of a gamble.

Alternately, or in combination, give horses the city attack penalty that armor gets.

 

[jorissimo]

I already made this poll... http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=395382&highlight=fix+horsemen+poll

 

[Tabarnak]

Penalty move for attacking units/cities. Attack and retreat is what make this unit so powerful. So i voted others.

 

[strategynoob]

I already made this poll... http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=395382&highlight=fix+horsemen+poll

Argh. Sorry. Did a search for "horsemen" but didn't find anything.

 

[adrianj]

I'd like it if spearmen were actually a unit to be feared by a horse - open terrain, whatever.

Also, make the AI more likely to build spears. Something I am unsure of - a spear garrisoned in a city - would the city also get the bonus vs mounted? Seems to me like it should. Hopefully these measures might make the early game rush strategy some sort of gamble, or at least require a bit more thought/planning.

 

[Bob1475]

I like the city attack penalty - good idea Wurstburst! It actually makes sense. While Horse were always powerful in battles they are just as ineffective in storming walls or fighting house to house. So a city attack penalty would still make them an attractive unit but force more mixed arms to take the cities.

 

[atteSmythe]

Also, make the AI more likely to build spears. Something I am unsure of - a spear garrisoned in a city - would the city also get the bonus vs mounted? Seems to me like it should. Hopefully these measures might make the early game rush strategy some sort of gamble, or at least require a bit more thought/planning.

That's a really intriguing idea, the bit about cities inheriting some bonuses from garrisoned units.

 

[elthrasher]

I like the city attack penalty - good idea Wurstburst! It actually makes sense. While Horse were always powerful in battles they are just as ineffective in storming walls or fighting house to house. So a city attack penalty would still make them an attractive unit but force more mixed arms to take the cities.

With an attack cities penalty, I'd just want swords for taking cities. I might want horses for defense, maybe as part of an attack to take enemy units in the open. The problem with that is the AI builds so many spears and pikes on the higher levels, horses are sort of a bad choice for that kind of task. All they have going for them over swords is hit and run tactics, which work really well on cities.

I think horses are fine because they already have a counter that is cheap and doesn't require a resource. They are nearly useless against Bismarck on Deity.

 

[wurstburst]

I think horses are fine because they already have a counter that is cheap and doesn't require a resource. They are nearly useless against Bismarck on Deity.

Saying that the UU version of their counter on the hardest difficulty level make horsemen nearly useless doesn't exactly make me feel like everything is "fine" about horsemen. I've had no problem with Bismark and his hoards of spears and pikes on Emperor. The hard counters are not good enough to beat horsemen if the horse are used right.

 

[elthrasher]

Saying that the UU version of their counter on the hardest difficulty level make horsemen nearly useless doesn't exactly make me feel like everything is "fine" about horsemen. I've had no problem with Bismark and his hoards of spears and pikes on Emperor. The hard counters are not good enough to beat horsemen if the horse are used right.

They are if the counter is used right, but the AI is pretty unlikely to do that. Have you tried sending horses into an area with 4-5 pikes and lots of rough terrain? It's pretty much impossible.

I don't think horsemen are fine because they are bad against their +era counter (which they are). I think they are fine because they really aren't any more powerful than going for early swords or, ffs, BC rifles. In fact they are a lot weaker than BC rifles. In other words, I think horsemen are not quite as good as their contemporary, swordsmen. They are a little easier, a little more plentiful, but ultimately the weaker choice, I think, if you have to clear out a Pangaea on high difficulty and a standard or harder map.

 

[bryanw1995]

With an attack cities penalty, I'd just want swords for taking cities. I might want horses for defense, maybe as part of an attack to take enemy units in the open. The problem with that is the AI builds so many spears and pikes on the higher levels, horses are sort of a bad choice for that kind of task. All they have going for them over swords is hit and run tactics, which work really well on cities.

I think horses are fine because they already have a counter that is cheap and doesn't require a resource. They are nearly useless against Bismarck on Deity.

or against alexander on lower levels with his phalanx spam...

@elthrasher: horsemen as a general rule are much better than swordsmen. however, knights aren't that much better than longswords, and after that infantry/artillery takes over. I think that a good mix is important, with the understanding that you're going to want highly promoted rifles later on.

 

[Lord Lakely]

Horsemen hit and run attacks are very close to cheese. So "cut down their movement point"s is what I voted for.

Alternatively, Spearmen and Pikemen are WEAK and could use a boost.