Is Anti-Cav Underrated?

[AaronTBD]

Is it just me or are Anti-Cavalry Units underrated? Everyone (including myself) thinks it's the worst unit class in the game, even though they have high combat strength against (what most (including myself) think) one of the best classes in the game, light and heavy cavalry.

 

[8housesofelixir]

Normal melee units have no problem stopping cavalry. And they can easily kill anti-cav.

 

[Sostratus]

Oh boy...
Anti cav are units intended to trade cost effectively with mounted, but pretty much nothing else. Problem: the number of units on a civ6 battlefield negates the “cost effective” part because it’s somewhat uncommon that you will actually be able to turn that into greater numbers. Also they aren’t actually that cheap in most cases. Pikes at 180 vs knights at 220: you need 5 pikes to get an equal production cost with 4 knights. And you’re only at +3. But then anyone who can make knights can build swords for 90, which beat pikes by 5.

AT crew at 400 vs Tanks at 480: it’s 6AT crew to 5 Tanks. And they trade at even combat strength!!

Then, they have a dedicated counter that is exceeding efficient at demolishing them. So they deserve their reputation. If melee didn’t rip off their heads and dump chamber pots down their necks, they might be able to serve as a generic mass of meat countered by ranged fire.

 

[Siddharth Venkatesh]

The biggest problem with Anti-Cav imo, which is something that has been an issue forever in civ 6, is that Cavalry ignore zone of control. You can't counter something if it can just bypass you. And Anti-Cav are awful against everything else.

 

[Lily_Lancer]

Cavalries are good because AI prioritizes melee and ranged units, so there're few counters for them.

The same logic applies to anti-cav as well. Ais don't prioritize cavalries, instead they prioritize melee and ranged units, so anti-cav becomes useless.

 

[Siddharth Venkatesh]

But the cavalry being good and anti-cav being bad is true against humans as well. Playing against the AI may exacerbate this because the AI is dumb about unit choice, but there are fundamental problems with anti-cav in this game. People don't build spearmen or pikemen in multiplayer and even pike and shot (which is perhaps the best anti-cav) is still very rarely seen.

 

[HalveBlue]

It's because the combat mechanics in Civ 6 are wonky. It tries to approach the subject with a rock-paper-scissors approach, but the unit's aren't properly balanced. Unit upgrade paths are off, promotion paths are whack, and the UPT mechanic makes in depth tactics unviable.

 

[ezzlar]

One could add that it is not only melee-anticav-cavalry but also ranged that melees hold well against with first +10 ranged defense promo.

Also is the tech tree timing. You start with warriors which are cheap and cost no maintenance which a bit later can be compared against spears which are not such a great alternative, production and costwise. Then the swordsmen show up and the cost/power ratio is even more whack.

 

[Archon_Wing]

They are useful if you lack strategic resources and sometimes if you can get the +10 vs melee promotion. Otherwise, they're rather bad because they barely can hold their own against the cavalry units they can counter and the later has so much more mobility that there is no reason to fight them.

In theory they have lower cost and thus are most cost effective, but Civ 6 combat is rarely about cost efficiency because of 1 UPT limiting the amount of units that can engage against a single target and war weariness. In addition units that run away to live another day have a better chance to get promotions, heal for a good amount and thus snowball. And promoted units are just way better than unpromoted ones.

Basically, trading is a terrible idea.

 

[Chekko]

I mostly get the Spearman and have them in a couple of cities on defense. Useful in case some random horsie comes and the overall +5 CS compared to Warrior is nice too. I think Anti-Cav should have increased bonus against cavalry units but at the cost of not being so effective against regular melee.

 

[Tech Osen]

One could add that it is not only melee-anticav-cavalry but also ranged that melees hold well against with first +10 ranged defense promo.

The lack of ranged defense for anti cav also makes them useless at city sieges, and that's where most of the fights are centered around.

 

[Oberinspektor Derrick]

It's because the combat mechanics in Civ 6 are wonky. It tries to approach the subject with a rock-paper-scissors approach

That is one of the core issues right here.
I've seen so many games in general base their balance around the "rock, paper, scissors" approach, and my question is simply - why?
They are taking the concept of one of the absolutely simplest games in existence, and use the concept on games that are infinitely more complex, just because of some "ideal" and "this is how it should be".

I say throw out that ideal right away.
Instead of balancing these units in a "rock, paper, scissors" style, just cut the anticavalry production costs across the board and make them the "poor man's infantry" that can be massed without strategic costs.
Screw "countering this but being countered by that" as the basis for their weird stats, and make pikemen-type units the massed and cheap infantry that they historically were.

 

[criZp]

Is it just me or are Anti-Cavalry Units underrated? Everyone (including myself) thinks it's the worst unit class in the game, even though they have high combat strength against (what most (including myself) think) one of the best classes in the game, light and heavy cavalry.

Cavalry is the best class because anti-cavalry is a terrible class. And they are a terrible class because they get absolutely demolished by any melee unit.

I think Anti-Cav should have increased bonus against cavalry units but at the cost of not being so effective against regular melee.

Well that's exactly what they currently are, +10 vs cav and -10 vs melee. Make that -10 any bigger and a warrior can just fart in the direction of the spearman to defeat him.

 

[Tech Osen]

Sometimes I think the that the main reason for anti cav is so they can be put in barbarian outposts to make it harder for the player to clear them with fast moving cavalry units. Having to move melee/ranged units out into the wilderness is such a drag.

 

[Chekko]

Well that's exactly what they currently are, +10 vs cav and -10 vs melee. Make that -10 any bigger and a warrior can just fart in the direction of the spearman to defeat him.

I mean a bigger bonus. They have a penalty vs melee already? Ah. I forgot about that.

 

[Victoria]

I like a spear for early city attacks and the extra +5 means they are not targeted by range first. They are also a fair counter for those damned chariots the AI spams early despite what lily may say. I like to get two, promote one for anti melee and one for anti cav but primarily they are early city busters especially on the coast
Pike and shot, I have the cash normally so yeah, they work for a short window there
They are the scum of the army really but I like a mix.

 

[Tech Osen]

I mean a bigger bonus. They have a penalty vs melee already? Ah. I forgot about that.

No. Melee has a +10 bonus vs anti cav. It's not a penalty on the anti cav self.

 

[criZp]

No. Melee has a +10 bonus vs anti cav. It's not a penalty on the anti cav self.

In practice it is the same, of course.

 

[Lonecat Nekophrodite]

@Boris Gudenuf Protested the existence of 'Anticavalry' class concepts (heavily based on 'Rock, Scissor, Paper' concept) and upgrade systems implemented in Civ6 in many posts here. even in Classican warfare. He even attested that Swordsmen with tower shields can still perform anti-cavalry well with rigid teamworks called 'formation' system. particularly Legionairy.
AFAIK Spearman and Warrior being distinct lineage of land units actually originated in Civ2 and even inCiv3&4 (and Civ5 Vanilla) where land unit has 'Orientations' (Offensive or Defensive) in additins to 'Classes' (Melee, Ranged, Siege, Mounted, ETC) and so much headaches in upgrade system where Archer and Spearman status are unclear. (many units eventually becomes Rifleman in Industrial Era). In civ6 unit class system becomes rigid and units have their respective predessors and successors lineage and promotion sets. While this reduces headaches. it contradicts with historical realism in Renaissance Era where concepts of Melee and Anticav is practically over with the introduction of Pike&Shot formations (and it becomes army backbone) and Musketeers shouldn't even exists as unit AT ALL.

Musketman revised

And I am implementing his ideas in second version of my mod which it's still a WIP. and it turns out to create 'Mod Heavy' burden. But i'm not gonna back down. this is one of many disagreements I have with Firaxis over Civ6.

 

[Chekko]

No. Melee has a +10 bonus vs anti cav. It's not a penalty on the anti cav self.

I'm confused. Thought I remember seeing a penalty somewhere about Spearman fighting a melee unit when he mentioned it. Maybe it is a Civ 5 thing.