Land Combat Units Need a Bit of a Rework

[Boris Gudenuf]

It's a game.

Since denying fortification advantages to mounted units addresses the perceived in-game imbalance of capabilities between mounted and non-mounted units under discussion here, what is the point of that statement at all?

 

[nickelion]

Since denying fortification advantages to mounted units addresses the perceived in-game imbalance of capabilities between mounted and non-mounted units under discussion here, what is the point of that statement at all?

The solution is simply making them more expensive, but not taking away one of the most strategic, important features for any military unit which is fortify. Thank goodness developers won't listen to things like this.

Moderator Action: This is a discussion forum, we expect higher quality than your last few posts and you can expect people to challenge you rather than simply accept your perspective. --NZ
Please read the forum rules: http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=422889

 

[Leucarum]

Money isn't really much of a bottleneck in Civ7. I expect raising their cost or maintainance would have minimal consequences.

Meanwhile losing fortify isn't a particularly big deal either. While it may be a thematic solution, the main reason you want cavalry is for them to go faster which is usually the time you aren't fortifying...

I think lowering their combat strength, or at least lowering it against fortifications/Infantry is a better solition. Let them keep speed, but make them more of a skirmishing piece than a hammer.

 

[Boris Gudenuf]

The solution is simply making them more expensive, but not taking away one of the most strategic, important features for any military unit which is fortify. Thank goodness developers won't listen to things like this.

The most strategic, important feature for any military unit is to have a useful Function.

Mounted units' useful Function, since men first got on an animal bigger than a donkey, was to move faster and use the animal's speed to hit harder (charge). Mounted units can do both in the game now. They can also fortify, which was never an attribute of men on animals unless they got off those animals, removing their other functions completely.

The fact that being able to fortify is important to modern military units in the face of massive firepower since the beginning of the 20th century is one major reason why there are no mounted units in combat anymore, and the modern armor/mechanized units that have taken their place don't charge much any more, either - but that'd another potential balance problem that does not seem to be important in the game since no one actually finishes a game to get to the modern armor units . . .

 

[King Flevance]

The solution is simply making them more expensive, but not taking away one of the most strategic, important features for any military unit which is fortify. Thank goodness developers won't listen to things like this.

In civ 4 & 5 cavalry received no defensive bonuses. Fortify wasn't an option because the whole point was mobility. In civ 6 they recieved penalties vs. City combat.
"The most important feature of a military unit" is whatever it does well. Fortify is not the most important feature to Archers, range is. Fortified Archers still die easy.

The idea is supposed to work like paper, rock, scissors:
Archers>Infantry>Cavalry>Archers.

However, in Civ 7 its:
Cavalry>Infantry>Archers>? Maybe Infantry.

Siege really gets the short end of the stick but it is very valuable with its city attack. But fortified siege units also die fast.

Making cavalry just more expensive is still worth it because they are "the best" investments. Removing fortify actually gives them a weakness Infantry could exploit if they can close in on them. That mobility is certainly valuable. In previous games they were great for hard battlefield hits and rapid pillaging.

 

[CoconutTank]

It's a game.

I mean that same argument could be made in favor of taking away fortification for Cavalry, so....

 

[Leucarum]

Except that it is strategically necessary. It's important for the game, so...

Is it though? Fortifying cavalry is almost irrelevant to them being good.

That cuts both ways though, it also doesn't matter for game balance, so we'd want another solution if we want to balance cavalry, and I agree that taking it away isn't really worthwhile.

 

[Taefin]

CS-wise, cavalry are like infantry that always receive a fortification-level bonus (+5+2xhorses) vs infantry (+6fortified+iron). Infantry have the disadvantage of having to spend a turn (or two) fortifying before attacking, while cavalry can attack immediately and move further.

Thematically, fortification (getting off the horse) takes away the behavior of cavalry that is represented by the higher CS.

I think this is an elegant solution that fits with the existing mechanics of the game (siege cannot fortify I believe).

Also, given that siege has the niche of hitting cities AND fortified units harder, and archers (I thought, despite how hard the AI still hits) hit weaker against fortification, there could be overlapping RPS

[Cavalry > infantry > siege] and [cavalry > range] when infantry not fortified

[infantry > Cavalry > siege > infantry] and [range > cavalry] when infantry fortified, given that fortified infantry help range hide from cavalry (if cavalry can’t fortify against range)

This captures the dynamics of a rout, where without fortification, cavalry kills all. I actually was routed in a recent game, and difficult terrain is of little solace when being chased by cavalry.

 

[Tanel]

If infantry was better at both defending and attacking fortifications than cavalry then they would have a clear role. Cavalry would then still excel at attacking unfortified positions, flanking and mobility allowing them to potentially get around the enemies line to deal with the ranged or siege units.

 

[Smayo]

If infantry was better at both defending and attacking fortifications than cavalry then they would have a clear role. Cavalry would then still excel at attacking unfortified positions, flanking and mobility allowing them to potentially get around the enemies line to deal with the ranged or siege units.

I believe this could be modded in easy as well, whereas removing the ability to fortify would be harder.

Would Infantry getting +2 on attacking / +3 on defending fortifications make them fair?

I have a sneaking suspicion this would make Legions very strong, and the Ming Ranged/Infantry even more bonkers. They might need to be tuned down after this somehow

 

[evonannoredars]

Imo tying cavalry into flanking would be neat - less combat strength charging head-on into infantry, but much more damage swooping around and hitting already engaged units from the side.

I don't know much about irl warfare so it feels accurate but I could be completely wrong

 

[Smayo]

Imo tying cavalry into flanking would be neat - less combat strength charging head-on into infantry, but much more damage swooping around and hitting already engaged units from the side.

I don't know much about irl warfare so it feels accurate but I could be completely wrong

IMO this doesn’t need to be an extra bonus, as cavalry are already better at doing this than infantry with the extra movement.

Practically it doesn’t happen though, since if there’s vegetation, or rough, or a minor river, they are hamstrung.

But I think the Noyans grant that ability for better cav flanking, no?

 

[evonannoredars]

IMO this doesn’t need to be an extra bonus, as cavalry are already better at doing this than infantry with the extra movement.

Practically it doesn’t happen though, since if there’s vegetation, or rough, or a minor river, they are hamstrung.

But I think the Noyans grant that ability for better cav flanking, no?

Another reason I wish terrain types formed larger blobs rather than being so highly mixed (the first being to make town specialisations easier/prettier) - would make wars more interesting if some occured on large flat, open areas and others in dense forests.

 

[Melkus]

Another reason I wish terrain types formed larger blobs rather than being so highly mixed (the first being to make town specialisations easier/prettier) - would make wars more interesting if some occured on large flat, open areas and others in dense forests.

Gedemons maps give you that (definitely his continents+ map, but I tried a large Fractal and that delivered more distinct areas as well - maybe I'm imagining things there).
And more inland cliffs! Which are fun and you can "hide" archers on them, but they're frustratingly hard to see sometimes.

Doesn't help a lot with the current horse advantage, of course.

 

[Boris Gudenuf]

Another reason I wish terrain types formed larger blobs rather than being so highly mixed (the first being to make town specialisations easier/prettier) - would make wars more interesting if some occured on large flat, open areas and others in dense forests.

Ever since Civ VI at least, when they introduced terrain adjacency bonuses to the City Districts, the Civ map has been a mad collection of different biomes in the tiles so that every city has a chance at getting a variety of potential terrain bonuses.

Again, another example of the disconnect between a battlefield, that for most of history was no more than a few kilometers wide and maybe a kilometer or two deep, and a Grand Strategy Map Tile that represents anywhere from several times to an order of magnitude more space than that. The former could potentially be all flat plains (usually what the ancient/medieval commanders were looking for) while the latter each represent a collection of variations on a theme - plains with occasional groves of trees, streams, low hills - or 'rough' representing terrain with much more height diffrerential and harder movement over the terrain.

The answer is to fight the battles in a single tile and if that is a Vegetated tile, don't fight there with your all-cavalry army - as Subotai could have told you . . .

Otherwise, we have to change the generation of map tiles completely, and the entire system of terrain bonuses and adjacencies for something Different. Not impossible, but to my mind a lot more trouble than simply making battles between Army Commanders and their Armies (or two individual units) take place while they are still 'stacked' or assembled and all in the same tile, whatever it happens to be.

 

[evonannoredars]

Otherwise, we have to change the generation of map tiles completely, and the entire system of terrain bonuses and adjacencies for something Different.

I disagree, Civ VI had terrain features give adjacencies - by which i mean only flat/vegetated/rough, not really wet as it's generation is different - but they're not at all important for adjacencjes in Civ VII except for some unique cases such as the Maya palace.