Inaccurate phalanx

[Keroro]

"the phalanx is the anvil, the Hetairoi (Companion Cavalry) is the hammer"
Alexander the Great

Cavalry back in the classical time was never used to fracture an infantry formation, just so you know. They were for paralyzing, and for hunting men from broken formations.

Cataphracts actually were at times - they were so heavy and had such a crushing charge that they could be used even against a massed infantry block. It was also known for cavalry to charge the sides of rear of infantry formations. Apart from these exceptions you are right. Like I said previously, cavalry like the companions were used in combination with the infantry when an opportunity opened up. Like when Alexander got a chance to charge directly against Darius' bodyguard at the Battle of Issus.

 

[Fuzzz]

I thought about this a while ago, but this thread makes it worth saying actually.
How about solving the problem by giving the phalanxes (and other UU's) a unique promotion, in this case the "Hoplite-promotion" which is eg. +50% vs. melee units, yet they start of as ordinary spearmen.
Same could apply for eg. Keshiks. They can receive the steppe-raider promotion, which means that they ignore terrain movement cost.
...

 

[bardolph]

yeah yeah promotions, but a HORSE ARCHER will never have a SWORD and become a sort of EARLY KNIGHT.

That's mostly an issue of graphics and unit-naming. One of the design goals of Civ 4 was to keep the number of units reasonably small. I tend to think of "Horse Archers" as "Horsemen".

But you have a valid point. What would be the requirements/stats of such a unit?

On another note, was there ever a counter to horsemen in the ancient/classical era, other than more horsemen? There seems to be quite a bit of disagreement in this thread about whether or not spearmen could defeat horse archers.

 

[Antilogic]

I thought about this a while ago, but this thread makes it worth saying actually.
How about solving the problem by giving the phalanxes (and other UU's) a unique promotion, in this case the "Hoplite-promotion" which is eg. +50% vs. melee units, yet they start of as ordinary spearmen.
Same could apply for eg. Keshiks. They can receive the steppe-raider promotion, which means that they ignore terrain movement cost.
...

But you can just give them a flat bonus without creating new promotions. That's how most of the UUs work in the game now. Example: the Cossack doesn't have a "Cossack Promotion" that gives it an extra 50% vs. mounted, it just gets +50% vs. mounted.

I know I'm picking on you for implementation, but I think suggesting that is a clumsy way of doing things. I don't see how creating a new way of implementing unique units solves the historical inaccuracies of them.

 

[Sebiche]

i think we can all agree on a simple solution. MORE UNITS.

i DEMAND atleast 6-8 units per Era.

and i agree with Antilogic

 

[The Gonzo]

Who cares if the Phalanx has a slightly unhistorical bonus against horses (it actually is historical, have you ever tried charging a phalanx full on on horseback?), it's about game balance. There has to be a counter to horses otherwise horse archers would just be spammed all over the place.

 

[bardolph]

Who cares if the Phalanx has a slightly unhistorical bonus against horses (it actually is historical, have you ever tried charging a phalanx full on on horseback?)

No, and I don't think ancient horse archers charged phalanxes from the front, either. Just trot around and hit them from the side, or rear. I can't imagine horse ARCHERS would need to "charge" anything at all.

 

[The Gonzo]

No, and I don't think ancient horse archers charged phalanxes from the front, either. Just trot around and hit them from the side, or rear. I can't imagine horse ARCHERS would need to "charge" anything at all.

If you want to be truley historical about units strengths and weaknesses, there isn't going to be any counter to Horse Archers at all, because in real life there was none. I'd rather have an ahistorical counter than a unit run amok.

 

[TheAmerican]

Wouldn't it make more sense just to give certain units uniqe promotions, instead of outright uniqe units ?

 

[Sebiche]

Nnnnnnnnnnno!

 

[aelf]

If you want to be truley historical about units strengths and weaknesses, there isn't going to be any counter to Horse Archers at all, because in real life there was none.

If there wasn't, the world would be a much different place, so there were. One way was to use your own cavarly against them. They could also be beaten by foot archers.

 

[Antilogic]

However, if you also wanted to be accurate about it, your recently conquered empire by your horse archers would fall apart, start bickering internally, and fade over time despite the fact you used incredibly advanced tactics to bring it together.

The concept of "unique promotions" for units kind of rings with what is already done for certain leader traits (like Aggressive and Protective)--using that system with the currently existing unique unit system would just be confusing. I say leave the current implementation in place, and then try to work around it.

 

[dragomaster]

If you want to be truley historical about units strengths and weaknesses, there isn't going to be any counter to Horse Archers at all, because in real life there was none. I'd rather have an ahistorical counter than a unit run amok.

One small counter against horse archers where regular archers or testudo formation "roman style" (only defence). The fact is that, horse archers is extreamly hard to defend against, it's hard for regular archers to hit a moving object and chasing horse archers with horses is not a wise move ether.

The battle system is how it is and if it's going to be realistic horse archers shold have the ability to make colateral damage without being hurt at all. (how fun whod civ be if that was the way to play until gunpowder?) that was often the way horse archers where used. thay stayed out of contact, fired arrows against enemy and when they where out of amunation they withdraw. if they where strong and had the right training they charged after the arrows where out with a sword or spear, nomaly in combination with infantery.

I think the game is greate as it is, it can be better if they give more bonuses to UU's i.e. phlanx and prats. the problem though is that the battle system isn't realistic and to balance the game they need to make some units unrealistic.

 

[King Flevance]

I think the Phalanx is almost useless, outside of its role as anti-mounted. Which regular Spearmen do just fine. Axemen are too strong when fighting them.

Giving Phalanxes a bonus vs melee is the only real option to extend their lifespans, so they can fight axemen. Maybe this would work.

Phalanx- 5 strength
10% vs melee
100% vs mounted

With this setup, they would easily be able to fight, but not overwhelm, axemen. It would basically be a 7.5 str to 5.5 str battle.

But, Alexander is Agg, so it would be 7.5 to 6.05 str, but with a shock promotion the phalanx would stand a chance. Of course, axemen with shock would own them...

I dunno, my plan isn't that good for fixing them. Does anyone have a good idea on how to? The problem is axemen come too close after spearmen,

SPEARMEN SUCK SO BAD, WHEN THEY TRIED TO CAPTURE MY WORKER THEY ONLY HAD A 16.3% CHANCE OF SUCCESS!!!

/sarcasm

Anyways, I think the main problem with these early units not making sense is because the game chucks ancient times together rapidly in the beginning of the game. I mean, the counter to the Iron Age (Classical-swords) is the Bronze Age (Ancient-axes) what sense does that make? Bronze axes destroying Iron swords has always bugged the crap out of me and I finally decided to use a bronze sword unit and a iron axe unit.

Another thing is that archers are pretty worthless on the field and are only worthwhile to be guarding a city. This could go on for quite awhile talking about inaccuracies in the game. On the lines of UU's look at the persian immortals being cavalry. It would actually make more sense to have them count as archery units than cavalry.

 

[primordial stew]

If you want to be truley historical about units strengths and weaknesses, there isn't going to be any counter to Horse Archers at all, because in real life there was none. I'd rather have an ahistorical counter than a unit run amok.

The Huns, Mongols, Sassanids would have a much easier time achieving the explosive expansions which they historically did if the counters were removed. Another 1-2 horse archer techs should be available to select civilizations.

Maybe the best way to handle this, as well as the other explosive expansion periods, is to give the UU +75% attack, +2 move during the "great leader" golden age (eg Alexander, Scipio, Ghengis Khan..). This would be initiated by sacrificing the 1st warlord.

There is a cost to this! After that GLGA ends the nation *will* split into parts (a triumvirate for the Romans, Ghengis Khan's 4 sons, Alexander's generals).

Can somebody code this up

 

[DigitalBoy]

For the sake of realism, archers should get a +100% bonus against cavalry archers because they can trade blows instead of having to pursue like melee units would.[/sarcasm]

It doesn't especially matter to me that there are inaccuracies in CivIV. It's more of a strategy game than it is a simulator anyway.