Mounted units! What are they good for? aka why mounted units have been sidelined

[Terakahn]

Could always look at them as the hit and run units.

 

[Question]

Why even use melee to attack? A wall of melee to serve as shields and ranged units to do damage is way quicker than using a melee unit to attack and waiting 3-4 turns for it to heal up.

 

[Terakahn]

because you need something in the front. Line of sight is an extremely limiting mechanic unless you're just spamming Artillery.

The idea here is that you're using all aspects. Mounted units to pick off weaker units, melee to act as a strong shield, and ranged to do real damage.

 

[Gort]

In Gods and Kings, the mounted archer units are almost game-breakingly good. Horse archers, Keshiks, Camel Archers - anything fast enough to stay safe and attack while taking no damage themselves is incredible.

Also, with the current state of the game where the best tactic is a mass of ranged units with occasional other types for specialised roles (melee as shields, for instance) you still want to have a mounted unit to rush in from outside of shooting range to grab cities.

I often have a mob of composite bowmen plus one horseman for city conquest, or later on it might be a mob of artillery plus one tank.

 

[chazzycat]

if you keep a couple mounted units around your flanks, they will certainly come in handy.

they are not the city stompers of previous civ games, which I am quite happy about, to be honest. They should be used for pillaging, hit & run attacks, finishing off wounded units and retreating, that sort of thing. Its actually pretty realistic.

 

[Question]

because you need something in the front. Line of sight is an extremely limiting mechanic unless you're just spamming Artillery.

The idea here is that you're using all aspects. Mounted units to pick off weaker units, melee to act as a strong shield, and ranged to do real damage.

Yes but i mean using melee to do damage, instead of ranged.

Like if i have a pikeman next to an enemy pikeman, why attack that pikeman with my pikeman when i can just bombard it for a few rounds with a composite bow or crossbow?

 

[Nukes R Us]

I normally stick to melee units, and one or two mounted units. I am mostly a defensive player though :b Until I get to Infantry before someone, or tanks. If not by either of those times, I definitely go on the offensive when I get to Bombers or atomic weapons (bombs or nuclear missile)

In the modern times, I use a flood of bombers instead of artillery. I hate having to position the artillery every few turns, and they can't keep up with tanks :b

 

[mintcandy]

In the modern times, I use a flood of bombers instead of artillery. I hate having to position the artillery every few turns, and they can't keep up with tanks :b

I'm not a big fan of how Civ V bombers take damage from cities, even if the target cities have no garrison, especially compared to how bombers were implemented in previous Civilization games.

Yes, I do recognize that having Civ V aerial units take damage when weakening city defenses is kind of necessary, given how ineffective aerial counters are, but taking damage when attacking is a characteristic I associate with melee (both mounted and foot) units.

I dislike having to worry about whether my aerial units can survive an attempt to weaken a city's defenses...heck, it's the reason why I don't like assaulting a city with melee units.

Sigh...

 

[Scarpa]

Great post, CraftyBison. I use a few of those techniques myself. Recently while playing Sweden I built a bunch of Hakkapelita units for fun and found them to be exceptional at the 'pick your battles' type tactics. That and you don't have to write them off when they get too close and are in the red. Move after attack means you can usually escape the AI focus-fire and barely survive to run to the back lines for healing next turn.

 

[smallfish]

In the modern times, I use a flood of bombers instead of artillery. I hate having to position the artillery every few turns, and they can't keep up with tanks :b

Why not upgrade them to rocket artillery? There are times when, even after airsweeping the tile, your Logistics Siege II full-health Bomber can die because the AI has more SAMs (and intercept fighters) in the rear of fog. Rocket artillery can solve those problems before you move in your stacks for the kill.

Spoiler :

 

[slyrp]

A recent foray to the Unique Unit elimination thread made me realize the scant amounts respect I have for most mounted units in Civ V.

Maybe it's me, and I'm just using them wrong...or perhaps it's just that I stubbornly refuse to get Gods and Kings?

Mounted units are not really needed in single player, as the AI is relatively predictable compared to good human players.

However, I use them _all_ the time in multiplayer. Some common uses:

* Taking cities after bombarding with catapults / archers - human players are smart and will bombard your melee units when facing overwhelming odds, so you can't take the city. Mounted units can take the city from a distance
* Pillaging! Pillaging strategic / luxury resources is a _must_ against any decent player / resource focused army. The gold from other tiles is nice as well. Don't forget to pillage trade routes in to capitals - that can really screw up a liberty tree player.
* Pillaging Citadels - most land wars involve these in G&K, especially with the new culture bomb flipping citadels
* Protecting workers / settlers - early mounted units (e.g. chariot archers) can quickly get to any civilian unit that might be taken by a barb / opponents scout
* When you have the great wall, the extra mobility allows you to use horses like replenishable missiles (watch out for a smart human who will start sending Pikes though)
* If your opponent has artillery before you do, you're going to need to go "around" and attack those artillery from the sides / behind, and all other units are too slow
* Slowing down units - this is something I have recently found _very_ useful. Take advantage of the "next to an enemy, moves cost double" rule with tatical placement.
* Scouting - early horse units can scout a lot quicker than scouts depending on the territory / civ - and they tend to hold their own against barbs
* Barracks + Armory + mounted unit = +1 scouting. Very useful for "spotting" for artillery
* Spot and withdraw - move mounted unit close to city, bombard, move unit back
* Combating archery rushes
* Against human players you quite often end up in standoffs where certain squares are crucial. You can hold them "temporarily" with horse, suck up some damage and then move it away from the front line
* Fast to get from your most remote cities to the front lines - timing matters more than strength in a lot of cases

I guess the point is, balance is the key in multiplayer. Too much of the same unit can easily be exploited by another good player.

 

[Corvus corax]

Sorry guys, I think most of you severely underestimate the power of mounted units. They are indeed vulnarable to melee and ranged attacks, and great to finish off damaged units. But their greatest strength is the ability to attack and retreat. It is not for nothing that most of them got a penalty when attacking cities, otherwise they would be very overpowered! Especially cities that are very difficult to reach with normal melee units (because there are very few accessible tiles next to the city) can be conquered pretty fast using mounted units. See for example Wainy's LP videos how to use Mandekalu chivalry. When only one tile next to the city is accessible, with mounted units you can often attack the city from that tile 4 times in one turn! Attack, move away, next unit! Try it and you will be amazed!

 

[Crow T Robot]

I am a big fan of mounted units. They arent as strong as melee troops, but thats not what they are for. Early horsemen are great for scouting as well as recon missions: have them scout ahead to see what kind of barbarians spawned so you know the best troops to get in position. Barbarians are MUCH more docile than in previous versions, so they are often effective on their own.

I also use them for far flung missions to kill primitive barbarians to curry favor with nearby CSs. They are also good for spotting for arty and scout out defenses.

In Civ3, they were great even in the age of tanks - they could go along the flanks and enslave fleeing workers as well as scout the flanks for reinforcements. Even when obsoleted by tanks, the AI will almost always shoot at a much weaker unit but closer unit (like Cav) than a greater threat a bit further away. Since the upgrade to Knights/Cav/Tanks (which is silly) they dont stay around for me as long in C5 and are so are useful in a different way.

 

[Tarvok]

Mind you, I'm only playing at Prince these days, but...

Earlier, I was using archers and infantry only. However, when I played Egypt recently, I gained a new respect for mounted units. I also learned their weaknesses. With a small force of horsemen and war chariots, the nearby Aztec empire could not successfully attack me. We had a lot of open space between us, and his units simply couldn't make it through alive.

Of course, I also couldn't take his cities, but wasted a lot of resources trying to do so. In the following game, I used my horses, instead, to mow down the invasion, and then pillage like crazy. The enemy couldn't rebuild under these conditions, while meanwhile I was grabbing the best spots with settlers. He sued for peace, I granted it, he declared war again later on, and the economic superiority I had attained, protected by my horses, provided the necessary infantry to eliminate him from the game.

With the way I'm doing in my current game, I'm about ready to advance to King. My only problem is that, thus far, I'm only really capable of peaceful victories. I simply haven't the patience to move the hundreds of units that seem necessary to a war victory. :-/

 

[Nukes R Us]

Mind you, I'm only playing at Prince these days, but...

Earlier, I was using archers and infantry only. However, when I played Egypt recently, I gained a new respect for mounted units. I also learned their weaknesses. With a small force of horsemen and war chariots, the nearby Aztec empire could not successfully attack me. We had a lot of open space between us, and his units simply couldn't make it through alive.

Of course, I also couldn't take his cities, but wasted a lot of resources trying to do so. In the following game, I used my horses, instead, to mow down the invasion, and then pillage like crazy. The enemy couldn't rebuild under these conditions, while meanwhile I was grabbing the best spots with settlers. He sued for peace, I granted it, he declared war again later on, and the economic superiority I had attained, protected by my horses, provided the necessary infantry to eliminate him from the game.

With the way I'm doing in my current game, I'm about ready to advance to King. My only problem is that, thus far, I'm only really capable of peaceful victories. I simply haven't the patience to move the hundreds of units that seem necessary to a war victory. :-/

I totally understand. Especially earlier in the game it takes hordes of units to take a city. If I am going to win militarily, I wait till late-game when I can get bombers and nuclear weapons.

With nuclear weapons, you simply launch 2 nukes and move in with 1 unit to take a city. With bombers, you don't have to position them, and they usually do pretty good damage depending on if there is anti-air measures or not.

 

[Crafty Bison]

Sorry guys, I think most of you severely underestimate the power of mounted units. They are indeed vulnarable to melee and ranged attacks, and great to finish off damaged units. But their greatest strength is the ability to attack and retreat. It is not for nothing that most of them got a penalty when attacking cities, otherwise they would be very overpowered! Especially cities that are very difficult to reach with normal melee units (because there are very few accessible tiles next to the city) can be conquered pretty fast using mounted units. See for example Wainy's LP videos how to use Mandekalu chivalry. When only one tile next to the city is accessible, with mounted units you can often attack the city from that tile 4 times in one turn! Attack, move away, next unit! Try it and you will be amazed!

True, they can be used in this way, and can work well, even though most don't use much melee in giving damage to cities as ranged and siege works fine. However, exactly what makes an M cav better than a Conquistador? No one ever goes on about Conquistadors being Domination vc beasts, but have the M Cav bonus and more. The Songahai UA is good for domination, but works with any unit and should be seperated from a UU discussion.

 

[Nukes R Us]

The moral of this thread is, the mounted units are balanced with the other aspects of the game

 

[LostInTime]

The moral of this thread is, the mounted units are balanced with the other aspects of the game

No. They need a buff, or cities need a nerf.

 

[Gamewizard]

No. They need a buff, or cities need a nerf.

Disagree. They are excellent for what they are meant to do: flank, pillage, hit and run.

 

[Nukes R Us]

No. They need a buff, or cities need a nerf.

Players who know how to use them think they are very effective. So don't take this offensively, but that just means you don't know how to use them