Unit balance is a real mess. Just as
@Sostratus and
@Boris Gudenuf. But it's a bigger problem then just AC are a bit weak against Cav.
I think the whole Rock Scissors Paper thing in Civ is a bit misunderstood.
Paraphrasing something I said in a different thread, in principle, I think the key RSP dynamic is Melee, Anti-Cav, Lighr Cav. Range and Seige are sort of "support" for Melee and AC, providing additional damage output (Ranged a good v Units and on Defence; Seige are good v Cities and Naval). Heavy Cav are Melee+Light Cav, but cost more investment.
But the twist on the rock-scissor-paper mechanics is that, in addition to "rock" beats "scissors" etc, rock, scissors, paper also each have a different "job" rather than just different "abilities".
What I mean is this. Currently, in principle, Melee
are good a taking cities and are weak v LC and need resources. LC are
good at pillaging and exploring but weak v AC and need resources (but easier to get resources than Melee). And AC are
good a defence and don't need resources but weak v Melee.
Let's say my strategy is to capture cities (Dom). My opponent is going for a Diplomatic Victory (so, militarily, wants to be peaceful and defend).
I want to capture one of his cities. In principle I don't really just choose between Melee (and HC), LC or AC. I choose Melee because they're better at what I want to do. If I'm more about Pillaging, then I could chose LC. But I choose Melee because I want to be aggressive and capture cities.
But each unit having a unique job makes decisions more interesting. Now when I build Melee, I'm not just having a preference on what unit I want. I'm having to commit to a strategy.
My opponent also now has a interesting strategic choice.
He could build LC. That's the obvious counter (strong v Melee). But at the end of the day, that gives him a whole lot Pillaging units. And that might not fit with his overall strategy - so he either changes strategy to make use of the LC units, or builds a long term sub-optimal unit to solve a short term problem.
He could build Melee. Not the optimal counter, but if his long term strategy is to capture cities himself then this is a long term better use of resources. But that's not his strategy.
He could (and does) build AC. They're weak against Melee ... but good on Defence. Indeed, their weakness v Melee (in principle) should be offset by their strength on defence. And of course those units are more consistent with his overall strategy - defence - but he equally can't now pivot to being the agressor. And it's a dangerous move - AC don't get a -10 v Melee when Fortified in a city or Encampment, but move into the open an they're toast v Melee.
Anyway. It doesn't quite work like that in practicd, because of balance issues. AC actually end up bad at even their core role of defence, Melee are good attack and denfece and Horses etc are good at everything. But the above seems to be the overall design intention.
So. I can't say I'm all that excited about AC getting a bigger bonus v Cav. That alone is not going to fix all the unit balance issues. But my hope is that if they've tweaked P&S or AC that may mean there has been a more general re-balancing and tweaking.
