Moving Horsemen to Classical Era

[chicorbeef]

Hey everyone, so @randomnub, in the "Settling on Resources: A Human Exploit" thread, mentioned that he modded his game so that Horsemen were moved to where the Masonry tech currently is (and moved Watermills earlier).

I was originally going to post this in the "Going for Gold: Units" thread, but this is a fairly big change if implemented that I think is worth a bit more discussion.

I personally feel like Horsemen are still fairly dominant, even with the Spearman buff. Horsemen are better at fighting Archers/Warriors, better at tanking ranged hits, better at fighting Swordsmen, have more movement, and are fully capable of trading blows toe-to-toe with Spearmen.

This is relatively balanced by their horse cost/slightly higher Production costs (90 vs. 70 hammers for a Spearman).

However in my opinion this is not quite enough and there is still one key thing that should be done, and that is moving the Horseman to the Classical Era, where the Masonry tech is (or perhaps some other tech but I think that's the best one. We would rename the tech and change its icon of course).

Horsemen currently require Military Theory, but this is hardly more Science than is required to research Bronze Working. Horsemen come so soon after Chariots as well that the Chariot Archer has basically no role in Standard games. The position of Military Theory near Calendar/Mathematics, both often useful techs which are worth teching for in peaceful/warmonger games alike, means it is often more convenient to tech to than Spearmen. I find myself often not wanting to build Spearmen at all in many games (except for Authority tributes or if I have a Spear UU), opting instead for Horsemen. And Horsemen early on are pretty devastating in human hands.

Pushing the tech back means that Spears/Archers/Chariots would all be used (and relatively equally, since Spears don't crush Archers without Cover the way Horsemen do), and would open up the Swordsman (I don't like this unit either because I think it's inferior to the Horseman currently. Like I play Rome but I don't care about Legions until after I get Horsemen) which I think is great.

It's also more historically accurate, since Chariots were used more prevalently in the pre-Classical Era compared to horseback.

The Production/Faith cost discrepancies of the Horseman would have to be adjusted as well, to be the same as a Skirmisher. We should also move the Arena to Military Theory (which should be renamed Masonry) to avoid overloading Masonry (which would be called Military Theory and have the appropriate icon. So Military Theory would have Horsemen, War Elephants, faster Road movement, and Terracotta Army).

On a slightly different note, my original idea for moving the Watermill was to move it on Construction, but I think that's a little bit too early and interferes with the Well. I propose to move it to Engineering, adjust its cost accordingly with buildings in its column and slightly buff it (make it +1 prod. per 3 citizens rather than +1 prod. per 4 citizens) to compensate for the tech delay and increased cost.

 

[Owlbebach]

That is a pretty damn good idea. Horsemen are absolutely dominant and one of the reasons for that is exactly the tech tree

 

[pineappledan]

It's also more historically accurate, since in the description of the Horseman it says that Horsemen were impossible to use in Ancient Eras due to the lack of a stirrup and were really only used for war in the Classical Era.

Eh?? does the pedia really say that? Because it's wrong.

Stirrups were not made until the medieval period, and people had been using horses in warfare for thousands of years prior to that. Alexander's hetairoi didn't even use saddles, nevermind stirrups.

 

[chicorbeef]

Eh?? does the pedia really say that? Because it's wrong.

Stirrups were not made until the medieval period, and people had been using horses in warfare for thousands of years prior to that. Alexander's hetairoi didn't even use saddles, nevermind stirrups.

"The first horses used effectively in battle pulled chariots. The nomadic people of Central Asia were riding horses by 2000 BC, perhaps earlier. While certainly horsemen were employed to carry messengers and scouts, they did not become effective fighting platforms until the development of dual stirrups combined with a solid saddle (to distribute the rider's weight when standing in the stirrups). The earliest effective dual stirrups/saddle combination is found in China and dates from approximately 300 AD, and over the next four centuries it spread across Asia and into Europe."

That's what the description for Horseman says.

Let's not get too caught up in historical details though, I want to focus on balance.

 

[pineappledan]

All I'm saying is that stirrups can't be used as an argument to move the unit back. The horseman unit pre-dates stirrups in the game's timeline, and there are tons of historical examples of horses being used in direct combat prior to the adoption of stirrups.

 

[Moi Magnus]

I think the main "historical" argument would be to give enough time to the chariot archer to be a dominant unit central to warfare and conquest, as it was IRL.

Currently, if you have horses, rushing horsemen is better than basing your strategy on chariot archers, which is sad for them.

 

[tu_79]

To avoid voids, would it be right to swap horsemen with catapults? In a time where most cities can be captured with spearsmen I don't think catapults could dominate the world.

 

[CrabHelmet]

If we're using the rough European historiographical nomenclature whereby the Ancient Era is 4000 BC - 800 BC, and the Classical Era is 800 BC - 600 AD, then unfortunately catapults do not fit in the Ancient Era. They were an early classical invention.

That said, by the same logic, it is odd that Horsemen are available in the Ancient Era. While cavalry did exist prior to the Classical Era, they predominantly used bows or throwing spears, because without further domestication, horses weren't stocky or strong enough to use lances effectively. The first heavy cavalry proper pop up in Iran, with the Nisaen chargers, around 600 BC. So that fits.

If you wanted to swap something, my intuition is that it would actually be Skirmishers and Horsemen. Chariots would be cheap, mass-produced affairs; Skirmishers would be significantly more expensive and reflect the difficulty of becoming a skilled and stable rider prior to the cantled sandle and the stirrup. They'd have a sort of Spearman/Swordsman relationship. Obviously Skirmishers' stats would have to be significantly altered, though.

Even this is stretching it a little, though.

 

[Moi Magnus]

If we're using the rough European historiographical nomenclature whereby the Ancient Era is 4000 BC - 800 BC, and the Classical Era is 800 BC - 600 AD, then unfortunately catapults do not fit in the Ancient Era. They were an early classical invention.

That said, by the same logic, it is odd that Horsemen are available in the Ancient Era. While cavalry did exist prior to the Classical Era, they predominantly used bows or throwing spears, because without further domestication, horses weren't stocky or strong enough to use lances effectively. The first heavy cavalry proper pop up in Iran, with the Nisaen chargers, around 600 BC. So that fits.

If you wanted to swap something, my intuition is that it would actually be Skirmishers and Horsemen. Chariots would be cheap, mass-produced affairs; Skirmishers would be significantly more expensive and reflect the difficulty of becoming a skilled and stable rider prior to the cantled sandle and the stirrup. They'd have a sort of Spearman/Swordsman relationship. Obviously Skirmishers' stats would have to be significantly altered, though.

Even this is stretching it a little, though.

I agree, catapults are classical, not ancient.

Chariot weren't exactly cheap and easy to use too. And I don't think that's a good idea to have nothing for the chariot archer to upgrade to in classical era, so chariot (ancient) -> skirmishers (classical) makes more sense.

In fact, I don't think there is a need to "replace" the horseman in ancient era. Chariot archer should be the unit that takes the place of horsemen in ancient era.

 

[CrabHelmet]

Yeah, I was just trying to offer something for the swap. Otherwise, Military Theory is a very empty tech.

 

[CrazyG]

Horsemen come so soon after Chariots as well that the Chariot Archer has basically no role in Standard games

I've tried to use chariots in two games following their most recent changes. The problem with chariots isn't horsemen. The problem is that they are just not a very good unit. If you just outright removed horsemen from the game, we still wouldn't see a chariot archer meta.

Archers are overall almost always better. The archer also requires only one tech, and no horses. This means they can be built much faster than chariots, as you don't need to connect horses first. My experience is that archers are better even on very flat terrain. Also an archer can tank a hit from spearmen far better (you can play a lot differenlty if you know for sure that your unit will survive 1 hit). The only major advantage of the chariot is that it can be ugraded to a better unit earlier than the archer can. Or I guess you use them in a game where you don't have trapping or bronze working but you have animal husbandry?

I view the chariot archer as an experiment. Given even combat stats, is a mounted range unit or a 2-range archer unit better? The answer is pretty clearly the archer IMO, unless you are Egypt or Mongolia. Skirmishers and heavy skirmishers are pretty good units, but one of their biggest strengths is entering a forest, shooting, then moving back. Chariots can't do that and its a huge deal.

Edit: I forgot the one time chariots are a good thing to build. Right before the Terracotta Army finishes

 

[Moi Magnus]

Yeah, I was just trying to offer something for the swap. Otherwise, Military Theory is a very empty tech.

I would move walls from construction to military theory. And move one building from classical to construction if needed.

But anyway, if we want to push horesmen to classical, it means we have more room for chariot archer and that:
+ They are no longer forced to be accessible with only 1 tech.
+ They can be buffed to be relevant.

Alternatively (or on top of that), in case we can afford adding a new unit (unlikely), we can add melee chariot units, since that was aslo a thing:

The other method was using melee weapons. Chariots could terrorize and scatter an enemy force by charging, threatening to run over enemy foot soldiers and attacking them with a variety of short range weapons, such as javelin, spear and axe.

 

[CrabHelmet]

I've tried to use chariots in two games following their most recent changes. The problem with chariots isn't horsemen. The problem is that they are just not a very good unit. If you just outright removed horsemen from the game, we still wouldn't see a chariot archer meta.

Archers are overall almost always better. The archer also requires only one tech, and no horses. This means they can be built much faster than chariots, as you don't need to connect horses first. My experience is that archers are better even on very flat terrain. Also an archer can tank a hit from spearmen far better (you can play a lot differenlty if you know for sure that your unit will survive 1 hit). The only major advantage of the chariot is that it can be ugraded to a better unit earlier than the archer can. Or I guess you use them in a game where you don't have trapping or bronze working but you have animal husbandry?

I view the chariot archer as an experiment. Given even combat stats, is a mounted range unit or a 2-range archer unit better? The answer is pretty clearly the archer IMO, unless you are Egypt or Mongolia. Skirmishers and heavy skirmishers are pretty good units, but one of their biggest strengths is entering a forest, shooting, then moving back. Chariots can't do that and its a huge deal.

Edit: I forgot the one time chariots are a good thing to build. Right before the Terracotta Army finishes

Would it work if Chariots had 2 range? Then they'd be strictly better on open terrain, but probably worse otherwise.

 

[civplayer33]

As was already stated by others here, horses were certainly used for battle prior to the classical era, even in Europe, just not as effectively as later on (ex.: Battle of Tollense valley) and not as often, either, due to them requiring more resources on the part of the owner and therefore usually being reserved for the higher status warrior class (which is partly reflected in their greater production cost and horse requirement in the game, though I think the production cost could be increased a bit more to reflect this aspect better).
I think that since horses are indeed very useful and powerful they should be very strong, too. It seems to me that part of the argument here is whether or not there should be "perfect" balance where every unit has a counter and I think that while this is a good overall principle in a strategic game it shouldn't be overdone.

I agree with @CrazyG in that chariots are simply too weak to be particularly useful in most situations, which would not change if horsemen were to be pushed back. So it would be better, IMO, to just buff the chariot archer (strength or ranged strength or lower movement restriction in rough terrain or requires only half a horse, if this is possible, or a combination of those) rather than push back or nerf the horseman. However, I'd be on board with increasing horseman cost slightly as well.

 

[Gokudo01]

Or we can remove chariot archer from the game and leave everything as it stands after years of play testing ....

I dont understand why we should make many changes for one unit in the unitclass

So what next ? Buff infantry and modern infantry because theyve got outmatched by any unit of their time and their only purpose is to be a filler ?

 

[CrazyG]

Would it work if Chariots had 2 range? Then they'd be strictly better on open terrain, but probably worse otherwise.

I would try something like giving them base 5 movement before trying this.

 

[CrabHelmet]

I think @Gazebo might have a fit if we proposed a unit with base 5 movement...

 

[tu_79]

So catapults cannot be in late ancient for realism, but horsemen can be in late ancient even if it is not realistic either and causing gameplay problems... Figures.

About chariots, I was always in favor of dropping the stops on rough mechanic. Keeping this for the sake of realism is turning this unit into a fake unit. Very limited use and far better options.

 

[CrabHelmet]

I would also support increasing the Production cost of Horsemen.

 

[Omen of Peace]

If horsemen are deemed a problem, other options could include:
1) increasing production cost, as mentioned above
2) lowering CS to 14 (not in favour for this, but mentioning it for completeness' sake)
3) increasing penalties vs cities (e.g. to -50%). That means other units would have to be built to help take cities, and the army overall would move more slowly.

I like either 1 or 3.