It just seems that with the new updates ranged units became much more important and effective, and it is harder to do almost anything with melee units, especially against cities above 1 hp, leaving me to build a ton of them just to be meatshields. Any thoughts?
Melee Units: 1% Taking cities, killing units, etc., 99% cannon fodder
- Thread starter Garvs
- Start date
I'd agree. melee units might have the higher strength, but they lack utility. Spearmen are effective meatshields that can withstand cavalry, bowmen do the damage and siege take the city. I find myself turning to Triremes rather than swordsmen for taking cities more often than not...
I'd like to see melee units get a bit more of a buff early game. I know they already have a higher base strength, and on paper that should be enough, but it's not.
I'd like to see melee units get a bit more of a buff early game. I know they already have a higher base strength, and on paper that should be enough, but it's not.
Well lets see my, auto-march + cover 1 Swedish Caroleans were just running off cleaning up Oda's left over modern age cities in packs of 3 so... No I'd say melee are fine.
Melee begin to snowball the more upgrades they get. Constantly churning through them as you let them die 1 by 1 to cities is not the way to go.
Melee begin to snowball the more upgrades they get. Constantly churning through them as you let them die 1 by 1 to cities is not the way to go.
Gucumatz
JS, secretly Rod Serling
- Joined
- Dec 11, 2011
- Messages
- 6,181
Well once you get into gunpowder I agree it feels different. There Muskets, Rifles, Great war infantry and reg infantry do shine much more.
But even up to longswordsmen I tend to avoid melee units. Other than a few pikes
Combats take longer, which means it's down to a war of attrition between units... Archers don't take damage every time they attack, which means they can survive longer. Horsemen can run away and heal. Swordsmen are left standing there taking the brunt of the hits.
Maybe Swordsmen, Longswordsmen (maybe warriors) should get a 50% reduction in retaliation damage, helping them to survive longer, without actually making them any stronger. Lost on upgrade to muskets of course. As said above, they become useful then.
Maybe Swordsmen, Longswordsmen (maybe warriors) should get a 50% reduction in retaliation damage, helping them to survive longer, without actually making them any stronger. Lost on upgrade to muskets of course. As said above, they become useful then.
Nah see I just can't bother to build the spears/pikes knowing full well that they're going to rot as lancers for quite a long time in some garrison far from the front lines. 10 times rather have the Swords/Longswords who can just keep rolling with me into the future.
I wouldn't be so cautious. In my experience, Lancers have definitely become more useful since the HP-boost and loss of the damage penalty. In any case their mobility and improved strength over pikemen make them capable, at the very least, in late-Renaissance early-Industrial combat.
Anti-tanks on the other hand...
GrayingGamer
Prince
- Joined
- Feb 16, 2008
- Messages
- 555
I don't mind having melee play the role of meatshields. It's still tactically interesting - you CAN attack units/cities with them, it's just much more of a calculated choice, and you have to use them for zone of control issues. I think it's realistic too - siege weapons were invented for a reason.
bcaiko
Emperor
What is wrong with Cover II?
Ghonasiflaids
Warlord
I think spearmen and pikemen should be weak to archers, but get the 100% bonus vs mounted again. Swordswmen should have a bonus to cities, and a bonus defending against archers (Or just get a significant buff in strength). Hoplites would also have a bonus defending against archers.
Cover 2 is bugged and can't be taken. Melee is fine and we don't want 100% mounted or more rock paper scissors. Melee are good meatshields and units that can stand in front. Defensive bonuses and cover can make them very tough. Some melee as anchor and mounted as mobile support with ranged support is quite good. There is another thread saying mounted is useless so its hardly universal.
MadDjinn
Deity
- Joined
- Jan 28, 2011
- Messages
- 4,554
You know balance is almost achieved when you have two threads that effectively nullify each other (Infantry OP - Mounted OP).
Infantry type units are basically pointless now, yes. You build them when you run out of horses or oil, but otherwise it's cavalry and then tanks for me, generously backed up by ranged and siege units.
Modest proposal: give the warrior line infantry units an intrinsic cover promotion. Then I'd build them. Before they get that promotion they are just cannon fodder. Mounted units are perfectly capable of taking cities when backed up by enough ranged and siege units, and can hit and run in the open field to their hearts content. Not even pikes will stop them if they've been softened up by ranged.
The threads claiming that mounted units need help baffle me. They are tremendously more effective in this expansion than in vanilla. It's infantry that is hurting now.
Modest proposal: give the warrior line infantry units an intrinsic cover promotion. Then I'd build them. Before they get that promotion they are just cannon fodder. Mounted units are perfectly capable of taking cities when backed up by enough ranged and siege units, and can hit and run in the open field to their hearts content. Not even pikes will stop them if they've been softened up by ranged.
The threads claiming that mounted units need help baffle me. They are tremendously more effective in this expansion than in vanilla. It's infantry that is hurting now.
Playing Rome right now and majority of my armies started as warriors. They're musketmen currently but they've been with me from the start, I seldom lose a warrior after 2 promos (either drill or shock depending on which terrain type is majority in the area) and when they hit 4 (march for most of my "regular" army - varies for my garrison since they'll be in friendly territory with a nearby city) this because even less frequent.
Sometimes I might take risks, for the most part I care about my soldiers (I don't like sending in someone to die unless it's absolutely necessary and will rotate units out to heal frequently - I REALLY hate losing a level 4+ unit and would rather yield a bit of ground for a few turns than do so)... especially the 1st Army 1st Legion - usually my oldest unit (original warrior).
Sometimes I might take risks, for the most part I care about my soldiers (I don't like sending in someone to die unless it's absolutely necessary and will rotate units out to heal frequently - I REALLY hate losing a level 4+ unit and would rather yield a bit of ground for a few turns than do so)... especially the 1st Army 1st Legion - usually my oldest unit (original warrior).
jjkrause84
King
Even when an enemy unit has >10 hp left I still try to shoot it, rather than attack it. Wounded units are VERY strong (arguably too strong) and will still deal a ton of damage. Making wounded units suffer a greater combat disadvantage, or even giving melee units more HP than ranged, might help balance things out a bit better.
GrayingGamer
Prince
- Joined
- Feb 16, 2008
- Messages
- 555
I've often thought that ranged units (especially siege weapons) should get penalties vs. wounded units. It would make sense that melee units would have an advantage, or at the very least not have the penalty.
