Lancer - Anti-Tank Gun Unit Gap

[D0MIN1C]

I started playing Civ 5 (Gods & Kings) again after BNW was announced, and I noticed this little thing that I found somewhat lacking.
That thing would be the Lancers sitting around doing mostly nothing because they're too weak to fight Gatling Guns, rifled infantry and cavalry, airplanes and whatnot. Even the first armored vehicle unit (The Landship) comes into play before the descendant of the Lancer comes along (The Anti-Tank Gun).

So basically, the Lancer has to sit out through the Industrial and Modern Era before he can get upgraded to an Anti-Tank Gun. How about filling in the gap?

Brave New World is due, and I'm wondering if we will see a new unit to end the Lancer's "I'm too old for this s*it" miseries and give the player and computer a bit more option.

Do you agree that this time gap between the anti-cavalry units needs to be reduced?
Do you have an idea for a unit that would work against both horses and steel?
Do you have a work-around in mind?

Discuss.

 

[wilbeard]

The simplest option would be to just move the anti-tank to be in line with the Great War line of troops (Great War Infantry, Landship etc). Considering anti-tank guns were first developed by the Germans during the First World War to combat the British Mark I tanks (the inspiration for the Landship), this would be perfectly feasible.

 

[ferretbacon]

Either move the anti-tank gun back an era or just allow both cavalry and lancers to upgrade to tanks.

But yeah, something needs to change on that front.

 

[Zaimejs]

bazooka!

 

[9gkj548hkm20vk79dj689bnj4]

There are quite a few gaps:

- no mounted unit in the renaissance era
- no privateer unit in the industrial era
- no anti-horse unit in the industrial and modern eras
- no archer unit in the renaissance era
- no frigate unit in the industrial era
- no machine gun unit in the atomic or information era (this one I can kind of understand, since automatic weapons eventually became a part of infantry squads).
- no paratrooper unit in the information era
- no bomber unit in the information era
- no upgrade, or even a prerequisite, for marine. I really don't know what the point of this unit is. Should've been the unique unit for America instead.
- no upgrades for scout AT ALL!

I understand the emphasis on the evolution of combat and how some things become obsolete like archers, but really, there should be contemporary units for each era to make it fair.

However, there is a problem with adding too many niche units in that you make them a bit too vulnerable to units that they're not designed to fight against, and thus you have to increase their overally attack and so you make them a waste of time to try and build when compared to simply building two of another unit. This is the big problem I have with the anti-air and anti-tank units being able to wheel across the battlefield like any other vehicle and damage infantry just because they're in rough terrain, like they're some kind of offensive weapon. It just seems a bit wrong for them to be able to do that...

 

[Aaron90495]

There are quite a few gaps:

- no mounted unit in the renaissance era
- no privateer unit in the industrial era
- no anti-horse unit in the industrial and modern eras
- no archer unit in the renaissance era
- no frigate unit in the industrial era
- no machine gun unit in the atomic or information era (this one I can kind of understand, since automatic weapons eventually became a part of infantry squads).
- no paratrooper unit in the information era
- no bomber unit in the information era
- no upgrade, or even a prerequisite, for marine. I really don't know what the point of this unit is. Should've been the unique unit for America instead.
- no upgrades for scout AT ALL!

I understand the emphasis on the evolution of combat and how some things become obsolete like archers, but really, there should be contemporary units for each era to make it fair.

However, there is a problem with adding too many niche units in that you make them a bit too vulnerable to units that they're not designed to fight against, and thus you have to increase their overally attack and so you make them a waste of time to try and build when compared to simply building two of another unit. This is the big problem I have with the anti-air and anti-tank units being able to wheel across the battlefield like any other vehicle and damage infantry just because they're in rough terrain, like they're some kind of offensive weapon. It just seems a bit wrong for them to be able to do that...

Some of these aren't a problem.

For example, while there's no ranged renaissance unit, Gatlings come at the very beginning of industrial and crossbows are near the end of medieval (IIRC). Likewise, Privateers are plenty powerful and come late in the renaissance.
No bomber in Information Era? What about the Stealth Bomber?
And the XCOM Squad looks to be a paratrooper upgrade.

But I agree on all other fronts.

 

[Alexander Boney]

- no upgrades for scout AT ALL!

This was actually discussed on one of my threads in this sub-forum quite a lot. Some said that the scout didn't need upgrading, as by the time it becomes so vulnerable to regular barbs that they get 1-shotted, land exploration is already a thing of the past. Others said that late-game starts would necessitate land exploration, for which Scouts are useless for. I personally side with the latter, as Civ 3 and Civ 4 had Explorer units to replace Scouts mid-late game.

 

[apocalypse105]

I Olso don't built tanks anymore only the early one the landship

Its because I usaly go straight to flight and infantry are way better

 

[kaspergm]

Imo. Landship should be moved back to Modern I (one step back) to increase the gap between Landship and Tank. AT Gun should also be moved back to Modern I (two steps back), this will make AT-Gun and Landship contemporary, it will make the gap between Lancer and AT-Gun reasonable (3 levels), and it will make the gap between AT-Gun and Helicopter Gunship reasonable (also 3 levels). But this will require some sort of general restructuring of the techtree around that era.

 

[Gamling]

You forgot the worst upgrade gap. The chariots, horse archers and camel archers and machine guns upgrade to units without range making their promotions useless.

My opinion is that they should ad the Dragoon unit to the game. A one hex ranged attack mounted unit that can retreat after it fired its guns. Perhaps with 4 moves. It should be available at the same time as musketeers. They should also change cavalry to the upgrade of the new dragon unit, also with a one hex ranged attack and able to retreat after it fired. Also this would make the lancer an upgrade of the knight unit instead. The game don't need 2 mounted melee units at the same time. As it is now in the Lancer pretty useless since its come´s to late and is to weak against cavalry.This change would make it more useful, handy for killing off the in melee weaker dragons and cavalry units.

At the same time they should change the pike unit upgrade to infantry, so that it can be used along side musket men. As a weaker but usefull anti cavallery unit. Infantry with pikes was used for a long time in history. The Pikemen to Lancer upgrade always felt silly.

Also then the new ranged Cavalry could perhaps then be upgraded to a Light armor unit or fast moving Recon unit, with increased sight and relatively weak one hex range attack. Useful for giving sight for your artillery units and hit and run attacks.

 

[Draskar]

My opinion is that they should ad the Dragoon unit to the game. A one hex ranged attack mounted unit that can retreat after it fired its guns. Perhaps with 4 moves. It should be available at the same time as musketeers. They should also change cavalry to the upgrade of the new dragon unit, also with a one hex ranged attack and able to retreat after it fired. Also this would make the lancer an upgrade of the knight unit instead. The game don't need 2 mounted melee units at the same time. As it is now in the Lancer pretty useless since its come´s to late and is to weak against cavalry.This change would make it more useful, handy for killing off the in melee weaker dragons and cavalry units.

I made a topic months ago with a Dragoon proposal like this! I'm your mentor?
Totally agree!

P.S. i'd like to see AntiTank as Machingun upgrade:
It's a better dead-end (WWI troops until the end of the games isn't nice to see)
Be a ranged unit is more suitable for the unit.

 

[D0MIN1C]

I was thinking and... I reworked the technology tree a bit in my mind.

Pikemen get upgraded to Lancers.
...what? There was both Pikemen and Lancers at the same time (Renaissance).

I think that there should be some kind of a "Sergeant" Spearman unit instead of the Pikemen under Civil Service. It is the beginning of the Medieval era after all (feudalism as the new social order - Civil Service technology), and "Sergeants" were some form of middle-class peasantry, who often fought as infantry, mostly spearmen. Pikemen on the other hand were mostly used through the 15th, 16th and 17th century.
(First noticable medieval uses by the Flemings and Scots in the 14th century, but enmasse uses were mostly in the time of which gunpowder was already there. (To protect musketmen from cavalry etc.))

So if we put Pikemen at the beginning of Renaissance, they would be killers against Knights, who would then be upgraded to guess who... Lancers, with the introduction of Metallurgy.

The Lancers would upgrade to Cavalry, and Pikemen to Riflemen, as the common unit of the Industrial Era. There was no actual anti-cavalry unit during the 18th and 19th century was there? It was the age of the bayonet.

I don't know about the Crossbowmen - Gatling Gun gap though, because historically speaking, the Crossbowmen were predecessors of Musketmen, who are ofcourse, a melee unit in Civilization.
It would make sense to have Musketmen as a ranged unit if there are Pikemen to protect them, but they would have to upgrade to melee Riflemen as there are no actual melee units after the Renaissance. Even so, Pikemen-Riflemen formations can't be so realistically represented in Civilization, except by a unit mix of the two. (F.e. the Tercio for Spain - Pikemen kneeling down, Musketmen behind them shooting etc.)
Maybe some form of Skirmishers? Using longer ranged rifles, they would fit the role of a ranged unit. I even recall a swedish king in the 17th century (I believe) being killed by a form of a long-ranged rifle.

As said before, put the Anti-Tank gun under Combustion to counter the Landship. If the Lancer would upgrade to Cavalry, and (renaissance) Pikemen to Riflemen, there would be no unit gap, as Cavalry wasn't directly countered by a sort of unit in that era.

So basically, new Spearman unit under Civil Service, move the Pikemen to the beginning of the Renaissance. Lancer used as a normal cavalry unit of the Renaissance (upgraded from a Knight), upgrades to Cavalry, and Pikemen (with Musketmen) to Riflemen. (Age of the bayonet, no actual anti-cavalry units.)
With the introduction of tanks, the anti-tank type of units would start from scratch with the Anti-Tank Gun countering the Landship. Problem solved.
Ranged units - Crossbowmen to a form of Rifle Skirmisher, then move on to the Gatling and then Machine Gun. Don't know about this one though, anyone have a better idea?

 

[steveg700]

This was actually discussed on one of my threads in this sub-forum quite a lot. Some said that the scout didn't need upgrading, as by the time it becomes so vulnerable to regular barbs that they get 1-shotted, land exploration is already a thing of the past. Others said that late-game starts would necessitate land exploration, for which Scouts are useless for. I personally side with the latter, as Civ 3 and Civ 4 had Explorer units to replace Scouts mid-late game.

I wouldn't mind it, but mounted units do tend to trump scouts.

 

[DudewiththeFood]

Rework the mounted upgrade path completely.

1. Halberdiers where pikemen are now like the seargent idea.
2. Chariots - Mounted Archer - Horse Archer - Carabinier - Cavalry - Armoured Car
3. Horsemen - Knight - Curaissier - Lancer - Landship - Tank
4. Crossbowmen - Falconet - Gatling
5. Pikemen - Fusilier - Anti-Tank Gun
Knights and Horsemen would appear sooner and other arranging would have to be made to fit the new units but it would be a big improvement.

 

[steveg700]

There are quite a few gaps:

- no mounted unit in the renaissance era
- no privateer unit in the industrial era
- no anti-horse unit in the industrial and modern eras
- no archer unit in the renaissance era
- no frigate unit in the industrial era
- no machine gun unit in the atomic or information era (this one I can kind of understand, since automatic weapons eventually became a part of infantry squads).
- no paratrooper unit in the information era
- no bomber unit in the information era
- no upgrade, or even a prerequisite, for marine. I really don't know what the point of this unit is. Should've been the unique unit for America instead.
- no upgrades for scout AT ALL!

I understand the emphasis on the evolution of combat and how some things become obsolete like archers, but really, there should be contemporary units for each era to make it fair.

I fear I must disagree to some degree. If anything, there needs to be a greater spread between upgrade points, not less. The poor longswordsman often enjoys a lifespan of less than ten turns as the state-of-the-art unit before the musketman obsolesces him. What a burn for the vikings, as their berserker replacement will lose their only special ability (3 movement) upon upgrade. Of course, you don't have to upgrade them...but your enemies will have those musketmen quickly as well.

The same goes for many uniques. Babylon's bowman is actually not a bad unit *except* for the fact that comp bows come so quickly on the heels of the archer. I'd rather not see this same rapid obsolescence. Moreover, I'm not sure I could afford all these extra, faster upgrades I'd be doing constantly.

 

[D0MIN1C]

Rework the mounted upgrade path completely.

1. Halberdiers where pikemen are now like the seargent idea.
2. Chariots - Mounted Archer - Horse Archer - Carabinier - Cavalry - Armoured Car
3. Horsemen - Knight - Curaissier - Lancer - Landship - Tank
4. Crossbowmen - Falconet - Gatling
5. Pikemen - Fusilier - Anti-Tank Gun
Knights and Horsemen would appear sooner and other arranging would have to be made to fit the new units but it would be a big improvement.

1. Halberds were used a lot later, it was still the time of the Spear.
2. Not bad, don't understand the Mounted Archer/Horse Archer difference though
3. Nice.
4. Not bad, I like it.
5. Just searched up for the Fusiliers, and I'm not really sure if that would really fill up the role of a pike? But as I see they were specialists in defending certain positions, so I guess they would do.

Knights need to be sooner there yes, but I don't really agree with the Horseman being there earlier. 2 technology stages of difference is fine I believe.

The thing with these propositions of yours is that they would pretty much complicate the whole story, but if there was willpower to do it, then why not.

I fear I must disagree to some degree. If anything, there needs to be a greater spread between upgrade points, not less. The poor longswordsman often enjoys a lifespan of less than ten turns as the state-of-the-art unit before the musketman obsolesces him. What a burn for the vikings, as their berserker replacement will lose their only special ability (3 movement) upon upgrade. Of course, you don't have to upgrade them...but your enemies will have those musketmen quickly as well.

The same goes for many uniques. Babylon's bowman is actually not a bad unit *except* for the fact that comp bows come so quickly on the heels of the archer. I'd rather not see this same rapid obsolescence. Moreover, I'm not sure I could afford all these extra, faster upgrades I'd be doing constantly.

For units such as those, I definitely agree. But there is also some gaps that definitely need to be filled, such as the one in the OP.

 

[Akinaba]

Rework the mounted upgrade path completely.

1. Halberdiers where pikemen are now like the seargent idea.
2. Chariots - Mounted Archer - Horse Archer - Carabinier - Cavalry - Armoured Car
3. Horsemen - Knight - Curaissier - Lancer - Landship - Tank
4. Crossbowmen - Falconet - Gatling
5. Pikemen - Fusilier - Anti-Tank Gun
Knights and Horsemen would appear sooner and other arranging would have to be made to fit the new units but it would be a big improvement.

I like it! Especially the appearance of Fusilers

 

[Vandal Thorne]

I started playing Civ 5 (Gods & Kings) again after BNW was announced, and I noticed this little thing that I found somewhat lacking.
That thing would be the Lancers sitting around doing mostly nothing because they're too weak to fight Gatling Guns, rifled infantry and cavalry, airplanes and whatnot. Even the first armored vehicle unit (The Landship) comes into play before the descendant of the Lancer comes along (The Anti-Tank Gun).

So basically, the Lancer has to sit out through the Industrial and Modern Era before he can get upgraded to an Anti-Tank Gun. How about filling in the gap?

Brave New World is due, and I'm wondering if we will see a new unit to end the Lancer's "I'm too old for this s*it" miseries and give the player and computer a bit more option.

Do you agree that this time gap between the anti-cavalry units needs to be reduced?
Do you have an idea for a unit that would work against both horses and steel?
Do you have a work-around in mind?

Discuss.

Honestly there isn't a RL gap. One of the things I've enjoyed about CiV is how the designers got it right with obsolescence. Lancers / cavalry were still in use at the beginning of WWI and were heavily used (light cavalry) throughout the Industrial Period (e.g., Charge of the Light Brigade). I really hope that Firaxis doesn't change the way Lancers / anti-tank are placed, IMO, they are quite historically accurate.

A new unit that could be developed is some kind of lighter field artillery, designed specifically to pick off infantry & cavalry type units. Shouldn't be too effective against landships though.

If you want to talk about the late game tech tree (starting in late industrial on) though, there is some serious reshuffling and expansion that could be applied.

 

[ferretbacon]

Though I'd like to see many changes to the current military lines, if I was going to choose my top changes:

1. Add an intermediary unit between Musketmen and Riflemen. Fusiliers or Line Infantry would do the trick.

2. Both Pikemen and Musketmen would upgrade to the Fusilier/Line Infantry.

3. Add an intermediary unit between Crossbowmen and Gatling Gun. A Culverin, Falconet, Field Cannon, Horse Artillery, or something similar. Some sort of light artillery that is used for field army support, not necessarily effective when seiging cities (as in, not a cannon replacement). This unit would require no setup. This unit needs to be in the game for sure... I feel bad for Napoleon, he doesn't have his artillery!

4. Lancer upgrades from Knight and into Cavalry.

As for the Anti-tank Gun- just start a new line with it. I'll build some new anti-tank guns to counter enemy tanks if necessary.

 

[apocalypse105]

I thinx the problem isn't the upgrade path but the tech tree .

Just like many other unit it can basicly be salved by changing the tech tree:

swordsman and longswordsman are useless now because :
-It doesn't take verry long to get pikeman(civil service) who are stronger then swordsman so why bother?
-Longswordsman go pretty fast obsolete with gunpowder only a few techs ahead

Great war infantry goes obsolete quickly plastics has allready infantry...

Are you seeing a pattern here?

Thinx this has allways been a weakness from civ 5 the tech tree is just to small
-