Melee Units: 1% Taking cities, killing units, etc., 99% cannon fodder

[Barghaest]

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.

Not in my game. Here's an easy fix.

Go to the following directory (whichever drive it is on):

Steam\steamapps\common\sid meier's civilization v\Assets\DLC\Expansion\Gameplay\XML\Units\

Find the file "CIV5UnitPromotions.xml" and open it with Notepad.

Scroll down til you find the section <UnitPromotions_UnitClasses> and add the following lines BEFORE the first <Row> (make sure you add it between <UnitPromotions_UnitClasses> and the first <Row> otherwise it may cause crashes if you got a misplaced <> begin command without the </> end one.

<Row> <!-- New -->
<PromotionType>PROMOTION_COVER_2</PromotionType>
<UnitCombatType>UNITCOMBAT_MELEE</UnitCombatType>
</Row>
<Row> <!-- New -->
<PromotionType>PROMOTION_COVER_2</PromotionType>
<UnitCombatType>UNITCOMBAT_GUN</UnitCombatType>
</Row>
<Row> <!-- New -->
<PromotionType>PROMOTION_COVER_2</PromotionType>
<UnitCombatType>UNITCOMBAT_ARCHER</UnitCombatType>
</Row>
<Row> <!-- New -->
<PromotionType>PROMOTION_COVER_2</PromotionType>
<UnitCombatType>UNITCOMBAT_SIEGE</UnitCombatType>
</Row>

That should fix it... the <!-- New --> is just a comment so I can quickly glance through the xml to see if a patch overwrote it. You can indent the lines to match spacing with the existing ones but it isn't absolutely necessary. The bug is they left out the classes capable of chosing the Promo so it can't be chosen at all (no classes are eligible). All I did was copy the info they had for COVER_1 and repaste it changing 1 to 2.

 

[Jaybe]

Ranged/Siege SHOULD get penalties vs. wounded units AND cities. Simple matter of valid target density.
For example: -25% if target is at 50% HP or less, -50% if at 25% HP or less.

Especially against cities, I do not like the idea of needing just one melee to walk in.
OTOH, I'll often commence an attack with a melee against a city to ensure the city strikes at that now-wounded unit so my siege can safely deploy.

 

[GrayingGamer]

Ranged/Siege SHOULD get penalties vs. wounded units AND cities. Simple matter of valid target density.
For example: -25% if target is at 50% HP or less, -50% if at 25% HP or less.

Especially against cities, I do not like the idea of needing just one melee to walk in.
OTOH, I'll often commence an attack with a melee against a city to ensure the city strikes at that now-wounded unit so my siege can safely deploy.

Regarding vs. cities - ranged are fine as they are now, although I wouldn't mind a penalty as the city gets low. Siege are somewhat fine - obviously giving them a penalty vs. cities would be weird, since their only role (and bonus) is vs. cities. If anything, siege should temporarily debuff city strength, making it easier for melee to storm the gates, so to speak. This is traditionally how siege weapons were used - not to take a location, but to make a location take-able.

 

[Drawmeus]

Swordsmen vs Spearmen at least is a mess. I'd like to see Swords pick up a point or two of strength; if they're going to cost resources and not specifically counter anything, they ought to be center line, signature military units. Right now they're just ... yeah.

 

[AfterShafter]

While I agree in principle, the fact that the effectiveness of your ranged units is usually heavily tied to how well those melee guys can protect them. Quarterback VS offensive line - sure, the QB gets all the glory and makes the plays happen, but take away the offensive line, and he's a smear on the field. Usually the same deal for melee units - their ability to absorb hits and intercept guys going for your ranged units is always what I focus on.

 

[compwiz1202]

Regarding vs. cities - ranged are fine as they are now, although I wouldn't mind a penalty as the city gets low. Siege are somewhat fine - obviously giving them a penalty vs. cities would be weird, since their only role (and bonus) is vs. cities. If anything, siege should temporarily debuff city strength, making it easier for melee to storm the gates, so to speak. This is traditionally how siege weapons were used - not to take a location, but to make a location take-able.

I always thought that too. Like since Walls have 50HP, once you take off 50HP, you lose the wall defense until the city gets a chance to repair them. Then after walls, you are breaking down the castle, then arsenal, then military base. Then it is down to just the city's defense and HP.

 

[Barghaest]

Swordsmen vs Spearmen at least is a mess. I'd like to see Swords pick up a point or two of strength; if they're going to cost resources and not specifically counter anything, they ought to be center line, signature military units. Right now they're just ... yeah.

Not seeing that issue... my swordsmen cut through enemy spearmen just fine... and my longswordsmen have similar success vs pikes. Because of the close strengths other promotions/situations have slightly more importance (terrain defense, flanking, etc.) but unless I'm sending a scrub vs a vet spearmen aren't a major issue for my swords.

 

[Khadroth]

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...

That's exactly the reason they're stuffed in a garrison back at home. They're extremely mobile and can quickly arive to the defense of any of my cities which when coupled with a rush buy or two is generally enough to hold most attacks off. However it's also a matter of fact that their promotion to mounted loses them their defensive capabilities which makes them poor for use on the front lines. They're best used for flanking or to pick off weak units, not tanking for your ranged units. And again, they might be able to hold their own in early industrial, but they have to wait until late modern era for an upgrade. Better than they were? Sure, but they're still bad.

 

[Kabloosh]

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...

Lets not forget the gunship. God is that poor this crap for requiring 1 aluminum. They really downplayed one of the most effective weapon platforms in modern warfare.

 

[Koolaidking]

I think melee units are overall ok. I certainly build more archers than spearman, but i have always done that so not much change in G&K. However, i take defensive promotions much more early (like cover and medic instead of Shock II or something like that). The "meat shield" attribute we attached to the early melee is pretty justified, but i really think this is a consequence of good gameplay. How so? The reason spearman seem to always make good archer fodder (at least a damage soaker) is because we have experience in the game and know the importance of not loosing our archer and siege units and instead placing our spearman in range of the archer.

As far as there roll on the battlefield, i often have the front line of my army fortify when the enemy is right ahead. Since melee units take damage when you attack with them and when they are attacked, i often opt to just take the damage caused by the enemy and not attack. Using a pike man or swordsman in this way (only fortifying, healing, or moving) against army's with same or greater numbers is usually how i achieve victory. I certainly am not doing long swords rushes in G&K, and i too (as others have said above) prefer offensive melee ships to attack cities when possible. But saying that the melee units have no use i think is to fail to use them tactically. Building a couple as “meat shields” and promoting them can be a very effective tactic; building a ton of melee units and sending them to attack anything they can reach is not. No one is saying the archers are “too good” at offense and should have more base melee strength to compensate. Having early melee units playing a defensive roll opens more options for your army composition, not less. Dont forget that clicking “do nothing” is still something; sometimes a very smart tactical something.

 

[OmniPotent42]

It's fun to use units as cannon fodder, though. Especially the German Landschnets, because they only cost half the production of pikemen. I once took over a city state using 7-8 landschnets, and what's nice is they only cost 220 gold to rush.

 

[SlithyTove]

While I agree in principle, the fact that the effectiveness of your ranged units is usually heavily tied to how well those melee guys can protect them. Quarterback VS offensive line - sure, the QB gets all the glory and makes the plays happen, but take away the offensive line, and he's a smear on the field. Usually the same deal for melee units - their ability to absorb hits and intercept guys going for your ranged units is always what I focus on.

This. I don't attack with them much because they are too busy doing their job of being meatshields.

If you can't do without them, then they aren't underpowered.

I do find that leveling them is much, much harder though since they attack less and are more likely to get into deadly situations. I think their leveling rate vs ranged could use a bit of a buff.

 

[Darac]

Ranged/Siege SHOULD get penalties vs. wounded units AND cities. Simple matter of valid target density.
For example: -25% if target is at 50% HP or less, -50% if at 25% HP or less.

Especially against cities, I do not like the idea of needing just one melee to walk in.
OTOH, I'll often commence an attack with a melee against a city to ensure the city strikes at that now-wounded unit so my siege can safely deploy.

I agree with this, only I wonder if it should be reversed... give melee units a bonus vs wounded units and cities.

 

[dexters]

Melees are still the most versatile units because of their STR and promotions.

You really just need to bring reserves. The days of sending in a line of melee 1 line deep hoping to take a city in a few turns are gone.

If your enemy is fresh (ie: at the start of the war) you will be taking fire from the city, the defender inside the city and his units swarming around your line looking for weakpoints.

Depending on the AI and UU you are facing, you need two double up your line at least. But that's probably not enough. I used 7 muskets , 3 crossbows and 3 cannons arrayed in a formation 3 lines deep and 3 units wide to attack Siam, having to deal with his elephants and crossbows. I probably needed more if it wasn't for our borders nearly tocuhign allowing me to retreat injured units back into friendly territory to heal.

If you do the math 3 melees in the front, 3 crossbows in point position and 3 seige units 1 line behind all taking fire. 4 muskets +assorted units on reserve to swap out from the front to the back of the line.

 

[Polycrates]

I'm totally cool with spears/pikes being meatshields - in fact I think that's perfect for them.
But swords and longswords? These guys need a sidetrip that's pretty expensive early-game and then you need to have iron to boot. Hard not to think these guys need a bit more offensive oomph or just something to make them more exciting. I'm not sure upping their strength is the answer, but what about a combat bonus vs melee like the civ iv axeman? Maybe in the order of 25%? I think that would promote using them more offensively to punch through the enemy lines, and it wouldn't give any bonus to sitting around getting walloped by archers. Also gives them better survivability from that currently-awkward moment when you accidentally win with a melee unit and find yourself advancing forward into a salient where you're outflanked by three enemy spearmen.
You'd have to be more proactive in stopping them, and it differentiates them from spears/pikes beyond just the strength and the mounted bonus.
Seems like it would give them a bit more star-player swagger and a more interesting tactical role.

 

[Darac]

I'm totally cool with spears/pikes being meatshields - in fact I think that's perfect for them.
But swords and longswords? These guys need a sidetrip that's pretty expensive early-game and then you need to have iron to boot. Hard not to think these guys need a bit more offensive oomph or just something to make them more exciting. I'm not sure upping their strength is the answer, but what about a combat bonus vs melee like the civ iv axeman? Maybe in the order of 25%? I think that would promote using them more offensively to punch through the enemy lines, and it wouldn't give any bonus to sitting around getting walloped by archers. Also gives them better survivability from that currently-awkward moment when you accidentally win with a melee unit and find yourself advancing forward into a salient where you're outflanked by three enemy spearmen.
You'd have to be more proactive in stopping them, and it differentiates them from spears/pikes beyond just the strength and the mounted bonus.
Seems like it would give them a bit more star-player swagger and a more interesting tactical role.

Perhaps the previously mentioned bonus vs wounded units should only be applied to swords and longswords. That way it would preserve the mixed armies strategy that the developers have been going for in the G+K expansion. To use their advantage effectively you'd first need to wound enemies with a volley from archers or with a quick strike and retreat from mounted units.

 

[seasnake]

I wish Melee could have a bonus against ranged if they're in the sword line just as spears have a bonus against the mounted.

 

[Darac]

I wish Melee could have a bonus against ranged if they're in the sword line just as spears have a bonus against the mounted.

Ranged are already very weak on defense as it is. I don't think a bonus vs ranged would help make them more useful.

 

[seasnake]

Ranged are already very weak on defense as it is. I don't think a bonus vs ranged would help make them more useful.

The idea is to give swords a focus and a specialty to match what spears do for cavalry. Makes sense to me to increase the attractiveness of training the sword line. Or possibly give swords a bonus against spears and siege, and not mounted or ranged. That might be a better way forward.

 

[Darac]

The idea is to give swords a focus and a specialty to match what spears do for cavalry. Makes sense to me to increase the attractiveness of training the sword line. Or possibly give swords a bonus against spears and siege, and not mounted or ranged. That might be a better way forward.

Yes but I don't know if giving them a bonus against specific type of units is the way to go. It ends up being a bit to much of a rock paper scissors game which isn't my idea of in-depth strategy. Your strength should be more about the entire composition of your army, the situations and the ways you use them in the moment that determines their effectiveness. Not purely the ability to match up rock paper scissors bonuses.