[GS] OMG, Anti-Cav are still (really) Broken!

[lotrmith]

Cavalry is about Flanking.

AC is about Support.

You have promotions available to you to either counter the melee bonus against AC (and then to provide outright superior bonus on defense, combining with being fully fortified), or to improve upon the AC support bonus. Having to choose, at least early on, between one or the other makes for better more compelling gameplay. There's also a fairly clear distinction between defensive and offensive applications of the two sides of the AC promotion tree.

Hoplites are also fantastic units as they really play into the mechanic of Support. You actually get +12 combat bonus for adjacent Hoplites, and for AC in general to be offensive properly you need them in multiples to be providing that Support bonus (as well as potentially a flank bonus). 3 AC in a triangle gives a +4 bonus to each. 4 AC in a diamond gives two of them a +6. These bonuses can be doubled on an individual receiver at promo rank II....

There's potential for the ideal formation of 6 total units buffing one AC unit with the Square promotion, ending up providing a +20 combat bonus (and coincidentally a -4 combat penalty for Flanking on the target). If it's a Hoplite with at least one other Hoplite it's +30. ((Imagine a single tile occupied by an AC surrounded by 6 other friendly units. Remove one outter unit and replace it with an enemy unit. The AC unit in the center attacking the enemy unit has this maximum formation buff.))


This is very good for single player for actually moving your units into formations and attacking.

In multiplayer it's thrown out the window due to simultaneous actions.

 

[Scaramanga]

Cavalry is about Flanking.

AC is about Support.

You have promotions available to you to either counter the melee bonus against AC (and then to provide outright superior bonus on defense, combining with being fully fortified), or to improve upon the AC support bonus. Having to choose, at least early on, between one or the other makes for better more compelling gameplay. There's also a fairly clear distinction between defensive and offensive applications of the two sides of the AC promotion tree.

Hoplites are also fantastic units as they really play into the mechanic of Support. You actually get +12 combat bonus for adjacent Hoplites, and for AC in general to be offensive properly you need them in multiples to be providing that Support bonus (as well as potentially a flank bonus). 3 AC in a triangle gives a +4 bonus to each. 4 AC in a diamond gives two of them a +6. These bonuses can be doubled on an individual receiver at promo rank II....

There's potential for the ideal formation of 6 total units buffing one AC unit with the Square promotion, ending up providing a +20 combat bonus (and coincidentally a -4 combat penalty for Flanking on the target). If it's a Hoplite with at least one other Hoplite it's +30. ((Imagine a single tile occupied by an AC surrounded by 6 other friendly units. Remove one outter unit and replace it with an enemy unit. The AC unit in the center attacking the enemy unit has this maximum formation buff.))


This is very good for single player for actually moving your units into formations and attacking.

In multiplayer it's thrown out the window due to simultaneous actions.

I would add that the support comes from military tradition, which could be undiscovered with spears but it's unlikely.

Unless I'm missing something, a unit with 6 support units beside it would be surrounded and not reachable for attack. I do find diamond and triangle formations very effective when combined with good terrain.

Also I don't mean to contradict you but I find that I usually have enough time to form up in multiplayer as well.

 

[lotrmith]

I would add that the support comes from military tradition, which could be undiscovered with spears but it's unlikely.

Unless I'm missing something, a unit with 6 support units beside it would be surrounded and not reachable for attack. I do find diamond and triangle formations very effective when combined with good terrain.

Also I don't mean to contradict you but I find that I usually have enough time to form up in multiplayer as well.

For visual purposes surround a unit with 6 friendly ones then remove and replace a friendly one with an enemy. So you have 5 units providing the 6th, 'center' unit with support buffs.

In multiplayer it's most commonly played with simultaneous turns which becomes a click fest. Moving several units into position before actually using one to attack isn't typically possible unless you're moving in on a unit that has already moved/attacked.

 

[Scaramanga]

For visual purposes surround a unit with 6 friendly ones then remove and replace a friendly one with an enemy. So you have 5 units providing the 6th, 'center' unit with support buffs.

In multiplayer it's most commonly played with simultaneous turns which becomes a click fest. Moving several units into position before actually using one to attack isn't typically possible unless you're moving in on a unit that has already moved/attacked.

I don't think the maximum support scenario of 5 units is realistic because noone would walk into the circle opening to attack the middle unit. Not even the AI could be that stupid; they would attack one of the outside units. That's why I find diamond or triangles much more reasonable since the support bonuses are more evenly distributed.

In simultaneous turns the advantage is with the defender since they can create a formation in friendly territory where they can heal from attacks, establish fortification bonuses, and get support bonuses without excessive clicking as long as they can anticipate where the attack will come from.

 

[steveg700]

Has Boris come by yet to tell everyone the folly of categorizing polearm units as "defensive" in nature? The general purpose of an armed force is to mobilize whenever possible, not to sit and place and wait to be advanced upon. If they did that, they'd find themselves being fired upon instead.

If anything, I find it vexing to reach the modern era and not be able to deploy tanks because the AI is forgoing building oil-dependent infantry in favor of an endless spew of resource-free AT crews. So, even my promoted tank armies spend wars shaking with terror in the water closet.

Good post.
See, once I'd played with P&S, and seen just how fun and balanced they are for their Era, I want to be able to play Spears and Pikes with the same delirious joy as well!

Balanced?

Pike & shot is as strong as a musketman, without the niter resource cost.

That's not balanced. That's a shaft for the musketman. Who needs'em when you got P&S?

 

[lotrmith]

I don't think the maximum support scenario of 5 units is realistic because noone would walk into the circle opening to attack the middle unit. Not even the AI could be that stupid; they would attack one of the outside units. That's why I find diamond or triangles much more reasonable since the support bonuses are more evenly distributed.

In simultaneous turns the advantage is with the defender since they can create a formation in friendly territory where they can heal from attacks, establish fortification bonuses, and get support bonuses without excessive clicking as long as they can anticipate where the attack will come from.

Well yeah , that's best case, and it's for offense.

Also yes advantage defender in MP but again, the Support bonus is on the offensive side of the promo tree. The only surefire time a formation can advance and attack on a target in MP is against a city because it's stationary.

And defender, being stationary, does sacrifice a little. Attackers, for example, can go at the sides of a diamond that are only receiving the +4 bonus instead of the +6. You also can't force human players to attack.

 

[Jkchart]

That's not balanced. That's a shaft for the musketman. Who needs'em when you got P&S?

And musketmen get an attack bonus of +10 versus Anti-Cavalry units, of which P&S is one. So that's 65 on a Musketman vs 55 on a Pike and Shot.

 

[NukeAJS]

The biggest downside is the penalty against melee. I think that if you got rid of that, AC would be an alternative to melee. That could mean you could completely get rid of the +against melee promotion and replace it with a +against ranged promotion. Swordsmen still beat spears but spears beat warriors. They'd alternate with the melee units as to who is more powerful depending on the era. The only balance issue would be that the melee line, starting at swordsmen, require resources whereas the AC line never requites resources. Having pikes and beyond requiring the same resources as the melee line would put them on even footing.

 

[Alexadamz]

Really good thread here. I rarelly train AC too, as they are not that good before P&S. For me, thinking about how things worked IRL and simulations, AC should be better at defense and melee better at attack. Melee units should get +10 against AC only when defending, as it is probably harder to charge with a point stick against someone holding a shield and waiting for you to come close. But AC should be better at defense, even more against ranged units: warriors don't have shields, spearmen have, so they should defend better agains archers, at least until swordman is available, as the unit's model has shields too. For gameplay purposes, they could make AC better at defense against all units, and crap attacking against everyone, getting a buff only for attacks against horses.

That way it would be a fair trade: you don't have resources, you can still defend your territory fairly well with the resourceless AC units, but if you are willing to get the resource, it would be a little harder, but a justification for expansion. On defense, just train AC and ranged units; for attack, train melee, some ranged and cavalry.

 

[steveg700]

And musketmen get an attack bonus of +10 versus Anti-Cavalry units, of which P&S is one. So that's 65 on a Musketman vs 55 on a Pike and Shot.

The P&S get a +10 versus cavalry. The musketman gets +10 versus anti-cav.

No news there. No balance in pointing out that a melee unit gets and advantage where it gets an advantage. If I'm fighting paper, scissors rock. Fighting scissors? Rock rules.

The musket requires a strategic resource, the P&S doesn't. If they're equal strength, gotta be something better to justify that differential than point than a roshambo bonus that's already washed out.

 

[Victoria]

It would also be helpful to take away ZOC from Melee unit

Welcome to civ fanatics!
ZOC is very useful, especially early against barb scouts and for sieging cities. Some ZOC could be done away with but in general there are some hidden unit issues around it. For example a unit entering a ZOC cannot leave it, and that makes sense.

 

[Jkchart]

The P&S get a +10 versus cavalry. The musketman gets +10 versus anti-cav.

No news there. No balance in pointing out that a melee unit gets and advantage where it gets an advantage. If I'm fighting paper, scissors rock. Fighting scissors? Rock rules.

The musket requires a strategic resource, the P&S doesn't. If they're equal strength, gotta be something better to justify that differential than point than a roshambo bonus that's already washed out.

But...it's not washed out? 65 combat strength on the Musketman vs 55 on the P&S? A difference of 10 is huge in game terms...I don't understand.

 

[SammyKhalifa]

But...it's not washed out? 65 combat strength on the Musketman vs 55 on the P&S? A difference of 10 is huge in game terms...I don't understand.

And if I recall none of the mounted units have equivalent bonus vs melee, though the heavy/light calvary differentiation muddles things a bit.

 

[Jkchart]

And if I recall none of the mounted units have equivalent bonus vs melee, though the heavy/light calvary differentiation muddles things a bit.

Fair, it does do some funky things by breaking it out. But Cuirassiers for example are already more powerful and significantly quicker (and their promotions are pretty good). So there's that. I don't think that Cavalry are exactly contemporaneous (yet) since in Renaissance you're probably using Coursers still. So those are basically only raiders until you get cavalry.

EDIT: Cuirassier has 64, Musket 55 (+10 vs AC), P&S 55 (+10 vs Cav). So P&S has a fraction of an advantage vs cuirassier (not enough to be super significant without promotions or terrain, kills LC though), Musket slaughters P&S, Cuirassier slaughters Musket. That's what I get out of a quick look at some numbers.

 

[Sostratus]

But...it's not washed out? 65 combat strength on the Musketman vs 55 on the P&S? A difference of 10 is huge in game terms...I don't understand.

And if I recall none of the mounted units have equivalent bonus vs melee, though the heavy/light calvary differentiation muddles things a bit.

This exactly. AC's +10 vs cav is paid for by that -10 against melee. That's a terrible penalty and most people here have been complaining about it. Melee has no weakness, except nominally ranged if it doesn't take tortoise, but ranged + a meat shield can counter anything. Melee is a very solid generalist trooper. If they didn't need resources you'd never make anything else.

 

[Jkchart]

This exactly. AC's +10 vs cav is paid for by that -10 against melee. That's a terrible penalty and most people here have been complaining about it. Melee has no weakness, except nominally ranged if it doesn't take tortoise, but ranged + a meat shield can counter anything. Melee is a very solid generalist trooper. If they didn't need resources you'd never make anything else.

Ah okay now I see where we are coming from here. Thanks for explaining.

 

[Sostratus]

EDIT: Cuirassier has 64, Musket 55 (+10 vs AC), P&S 55 (+10 vs Cav). So P&S has a fraction of an advantage vs cuirassier (not enough to be super significant without promotions or terrain, kills LC though), Musket slaughters P&S, Cuirassier slaughters Musket. That's what I get out of a quick look at some numbers.

This triangle is almost identical to the one in the next era, infantry-AT-tank, except cuirs cost like 340 where the other two only cost 240/250.

The modern era break down when tanks don't cost appreciably more and thus drive over everyone.

That's not balanced. That's a shaft for the musketman. Who needs'em when you got P&S?

Why aren't people spamming Anti Tank crews like it's 1945 in the modern era? Same 70 as infantry, they cost 400 vs 430, infantry need oil. Its just like the renaissance. Yet AT crews are pretty much awful according to most players!

 

[Jkchart]

Why aren't people spamming Anti Tank crews like it's 1945 in the modern era? Same 70 as infantry, they cost 400 vs 430, infantry need oil. Its just like the renaissance. Yet AT crews are pretty much awful according to most players!

AT Crews are VERY awkward. Modern AT is a decent enough upgrade (still not amazing), but if you need them it is better than standard AT.

Also RE your above: Tanks and Modern Armor probably do need to cost significantly more than they do.

 

[lotrmith]

For me, thinking about how things worked IRL and simulations, AC should be better at defense and melee better at attack.

But then what happens when a melee attacks into a defending AC?

 

[Alexadamz]

But then what happens when a melee attacks into a defending AC?

It could be changed in a lot of ways: AC could get +10 on defense, so both +10 bonuses cancel each other; but if AC attacks, it loses the +10 overall bonus, and only gets the basic +10 versus cavalry. That would make AC also more tough against ranged. The only thing that would need to change is the standard mercenary AC troop inside their camps, as that would make really hard to destroy them with a single troop.

That change would probably be too much, as AC would be really OP versus cavalry on defense, so maybe the best change would be simply to increase their basic combat strength, to make it a little more strong than Melee, and closer to cavalry power, and maybe adding ZOC against cavalry for AC, to give them a niche.