Militia

[Sneaks]

Pretty much same idea as Discipline. I see them operating almost zergling like.

 

[Malachi256]

Maybe you could make them even a little cheaper to produce, but make them like settlers where they stop growth while they're being produced.

 

[rf900]

I have found myself not creating any more swordsman, now that I have the choice, when in doubt I always go for militia. ¿Am I missing something? The swordsman is a bit stronger, but it has the requirement and costs more, I guess the promotions are different, but their role is similar.

 

[Thalassicus]

The difference is combat bonuses. If we consider an average early game war...

20% Great General
20% Discipline
20% Terrain promotion (swordsman only)
20% Flanking bonus from at least one unit assisting

12 * (1 + 0.2 + 0.2 + 0.2 + 0.2) = 22 Swordsman (on attack and defense)
10 * (1 + 0.2 + 0.2 + 0.2) = 16 Militia (18 on defense)

Strength is non-linear so the +40% strength of a Swordsman has more than a 40% effect. Swordsmen can also get the +35% Siege vs cities as their second promotion, while Militia only have defensive bonuses. Militia are also at a later tech level than swords.

Since these are mostly advantages on the attack, swords are good for a conqueror but not needed for peaceful games.

 

[sk065]

That would be cool! I have very little experience with modding art.

I believe there's information on how to do so in the modding guide on the Civ5 - Modding Tutorials & Reference forum. There might also be more tutorials there on how to mod artwork. I've attached the most recent version of the ModBuddy project if you'd like to take a look in it.

@Sneaks
I really like the idea of a friendly-adjacent bonus! Sorta like the Discipline policy? I don't see a friendly-lands movement bonus option, but there's one for friendly-lands combat (Himeji Castle's effect).

Thanks for the help. It would appear that this is far beyond the scope of what I would able to achieve personally.

Thanks anyway

 

[Malachi256]

I think the problem with the "swords can also attack" logic is that I (and I would imagine quite a few others) primarily use ranged attacks to take cities and kill units. The ground troops are entirely there as a buffer, to protect the ranged units. Therefore the defensive bonus on the militia make them overpowered for this role, even from an aggressive perspective.

 

[Txurce]

I have found myself not creating any more swordsman, now that I have the choice, when in doubt I always go for militia. ¿Am I missing something? The swordsman is a bit stronger, but it has the requirement and costs more, I guess the promotions are different, but their role is similar.

The difference is combat bonuses. If we consider an average early game war...

20% Great General
20% Discipline
20% Terrain promotion (swordsman only)
20% Flanking bonus from at least one unit assisting

12 * (1 + 0.2 + 0.2 + 0.2 + 0.2) = 22 Swordsman (on attack and defense)
10 * (1 + 0.2 + 0.2 + 0.2) = 16 Militia (18 on defense)

Strength is non-linear so the +40% strength of a Swordsman has more than a 40% effect. Swordsmen can also get the +35% Siege vs cities as their second promotion, while Militia only have defensive bonuses. Militia are also at a later tech level than swords.

Since these are mostly advantages on the attack, swords are good for a conqueror but not needed for peaceful games.

Another factor is that Medieval units and Swordsmen are Classical. This has to be considered in any comparison.

I think the problem with the "swords can also attack" logic is that I (and I would imagine quite a few others) primarily use ranged attacks to take cities and kill units. The ground troops are entirely there as a buffer, to protect the ranged units. Therefore the defensive bonus on the militia make them overpowered for this role, even from an aggressive perspective.

To me this is a debatable tactical point - meaning you may favor a siege approach over a direct assault, but iron units also put a big dent in cities, and can help them take them much faster (and with fewer casualties) if managed correctly.

I'm also not sure whether Militia with Survivalism outperforms Pikemen with Cover, when the issue at hand is absorbing ranged fire while siege units wear down a city.

However, I would argue that the role of Militia as resilient cannon fodder doesn't feel right.

 

[Thalassicus]

The main thing about comparing swords vs militia is militia come too late to be effective in early warfare. I've usually conquered several cities before reaching the Medieval era, and my classical priorities are ones good for conquerors (iron working and construction) not peaceful players (philosophy).

Still, since the number of strategic units is limited I'd be okay with buffing their numbers further. Perhaps 14 Swords and Horses?

 

[Txurce]

The main thing about comparing swords vs militia is militia come too late to be effective in early warfare. I've usually conquered several cities before reaching the Medieval era, and my classical priorities are ones good for conquerors (iron working and construction) not peaceful players (philosophy).

Still, since the number of strategic units is limited I'd be okay with buffing their numbers further. Perhaps 14 Swords and Horses?

If you think these units need buffing, then sure. But I wouldn't buff them just because they're on their way to being upgraded, and don't have quite the relative punch they did when first teched. By the time Militia appear, Swords and Horses shouldn't be quite so strong.

More to the point, to me the issue isn't every other unit - it's the chronic issues arising with the Militia. (I'll say more on this in a post I'm writing right now for the Combat thread.)

 

[Thalassicus]

I actually feel swords/horses are a little underwhelming right now even on their own. They do require more teching than chariots/archers/spears, yet don't seem to be enough of a reward for that additional investment.

 

[Zaldron]

The main thing about comparing swords vs militia is militia come too late to be effective in early warfare. I've usually conquered several cities before reaching the Medieval era, and my classical priorities are ones good for conquerors (iron working and construction) not peaceful players (philosophy).

Still, since the number of strategic units is limited I'd be okay with buffing their numbers further. Perhaps 14 Swords and Horses?

To me this seems way too close to longswordsmen and muskets, and changing them would result in an arms race escalation.

Healing two every turn at promo level three is powerful: What about nerfing their defense bonus from the survivalism line?

 

[Thalassicus]

Spears and Pikes are already very close to one another in power; I don't see a problem with moderate strength differences between the eras.

Since Firaxis moved the Armory, it's been difficult to get Survivalism 3. I have a hard time even reaching Survivalism 2 except for my initial scouts. I usually skip that and get Medic instead, which I think is more valuable.


=============================================

This thread is somewhat obsolete now, with the discussion continued more comprehensively in the Combat Roles thread.