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

[Tomice]

This is my new favorite post in this thread. Yes, levy and professional army. Yes, scouts turning into light Cav.

AFAIK, there was a clear evolution of professional infantry:
hoplites - macedonian pikes - medieval pikes - pike and shot - line infantry - ww1/2 infantry - mechanized infantry

Heavy cav --> tanks is another clear evolution (which is adequately represented already)
The current ranged and artillery lines are fine, too.

Which brings us to scouts: their evolution seems blurry, as most of those units are neither historic nor do they work well in gameplay terms.
Merging them with light cav seems logical. Modern counterparts could be a light vehicle and a helicopter both carrying spec ops.
They could be resourceless, while horses could be renamed "warhorses". This would represent the ubiquity of horses in Afro-Eurasian armies at least after the classical era, while preserving horses as strategic resource.

The final land combat line would be various levels of improvised levy troops or light city guards. They would specialize in being cheap and resourceless, defense and garrisoning.

 

[lotrmith]

The only scout I consider weird is the Skirmisher, but the Scout-ranger-SpecOps makes sense to me. Perhaps they could provide a -5 Combat Debuff to any enemies in their visibility but otherwise I don't have a problem with them.

 

[Victoria]

Which brings us to scouts: their evolution seems blurry, as most of those units are neither historic nor do they work well in gameplay terms.

The only scout I consider weird is the Skirmisher

Scout class, not scout, personally I have always considered them skirmisher class.
The silly dog is a bit meh and how can a scout see less distance than a settler?
Beyond that I am fine apart from I consider the early scout a skirmisher also. Skirmishers were a very important part of an army and the Skirmishers are that. They really should be able to move after firing from the start and get more strength with upgrades, then they would act like proper skirmishers. They should not call them rangers, they should be light foot.
Skirmishers should be able to ZOC other skirmishers.

 

[acluewithout]

AFAIK, there was a clear evolution of professional infantry:
hoplites - macedonian pikes - medieval pikes - pike and shot - line infantry - ww1/2 infantry - mechanized infantry

Heavy cav --> tanks is another clear evolution (which is adequately represented already)
The current ranged and artillery lines are fine, too.

Which brings us to scouts: their evolution seems blurry, as most of those units are neither historic nor do they work well in gameplay terms.
Merging them with light cav seems logical. Modern counterparts could be a light vehicle and a helicopter both carrying spec ops.
They could be resourceless, while horses could be renamed "warhorses". This would represent the ubiquity of horses in Afro-Eurasian armies at least after the classical era, while preserving horses as strategic resource.

The final land combat line would be various levels of improvised levy troops or light city guards. They would specialize in being cheap and resourceless, defense and garrisoning.

The only scout I consider weird is the Skirmisher, but the Scout-ranger-SpecOps makes sense to me. Perhaps they could provide a -5 Combat Debuff to any enemies in their visibility but otherwise I don't have a problem with them.

As usual, we've very quickly got to the edge of what little historical knowledge I have. I don't really know if Scouts logically / historically should upgrade to light cavalry or something like that. Sounds right to me, but I don't know.

But to be clear, I actually really like the Recon line as it is. Skirmishers are cool. Rangers are cool. Etc. Frankly, I dont actually get much use out of the upgrades (although I get a lot of use out of my original Scout), but they’re still awesome. If you ask me, Recon is the unit line with the most personality in whole game.

It’s a pity AC is such a mess, because I really think basically all the other unit lines are well balanced as against each other (with the exception of maybe Infantry v Tanks). Even Seige seem okay these days, although they still seem to die when I take Cities. Maybe others have more luck.

I also really agree with @Victoria that the initial warrior unit being a guy with a club is really, really dumb. It seems to be because that’s how Civ has always done it - part of Civ’s stylistic baggage - but this is one I think they could just drop, even if it’s just changing the graphic from clubs to sticks. I do think the game would flow better though if you started with basically AC, and then the first Melee you unlock is Swords, which would be a much more significant jump in power.

If there’s a third expansion, I really think military is somewhere FXS could really tighten up the game. Fill in some (but not all) unit gaps; rework AC (plenty of good suggestions in this thread); have another look at late game units and resource requirements generally; introduce some more diplomatic options like Vassal or Puppet States and have another look at adjacent mechanics (eg Spies, Power, War Weariness and Happiness). I’m not saying the Combat system needs an overhaul - but it could be a bit tighter.

On a different note, I think this thread has inspired me to play around with Spears and Pikes again, I think. I wonder if maybe I could use them more effectively to take Cities if I also built Seige units, and then just fortified my AC in front of my Siege units and bombarded the City. It’s a lot of units to build, and Siege have to be built without a production card, but maybe it would work for taking a City State or two. If it works, I’ll let people know.

I might also try building AC and then provoking the AI to attack me, to see if AC are actually good on Defence. I suspect I’ll still be relying on Walls and Ranged, but it’s worth an experiment. Who knows, maybe I’ll start a new meme - sub 200 Science Victory, Anti-Cav and Scouts only.

Scout class, not scout, personally I have always considered them skirmisher class.
The silly dog is a bit meh and how can a scout see less distance than a settler?
Beyond that I am fine apart from I consider the early scout a skirmisher also. Skirmishers were a very important part of an army and the Skirmishers are that. They really should be able to move after firing from the start and get more strength with upgrades, then they would act like proper skirmishers. They should not call them rangers, they should be light foot.
Skirmishers should be able to ZOC other skirmishers.

100% this.

My initial scout is definitely an explorer for the first 20 turns, hunting down huts, City States and Enemy Scouts. But then Scouty-McScout Face is definitely my skirmisher unit. My scout is often the difference between other units living or dying, whether I can keep a City under Seige, whether I can grab a builder or settler. Often the hardest working unit I have in the first 100 turns (before I turn them into auto-explore).

 

[Sostratus]

to see if AC are actually good on Defence.

People keep saying this, and while I grasp the appeal of the idea, it doesn't seem very true.
All units, even those pesky cavalry, can get defense bonuses from terrain and fortifying. But even if they couldn't, melee units can, and melee units are always as good or better than AC in every era except medieval. The only real indication we have is that they have a t2 and t3 promo for defense against melee and in rough terrain, but that would be like saying melee units are designed to be city killers because of urban warfare.
Nothing innate about the class is particularly oriented to defense more than melee units (or plain heavy cav.) It would be an interesting attribute, though. (Like if they got max fortify value in one turn or something.)

Unless one was to argue cavalry units are inherently offensive, thus AC are defensively slanted as a counter to offensive units.

 

[acluewithout]

People keep saying this, and while I grasp the appeal of the idea, it doesn't seem very true.
All units, even those pesky cavalry, can get defense bonuses from terrain and fortifying. But even if they couldn't, melee units can, and melee units are always as good or better than AC in every era except medieval. The only real indication we have is that they have a t2 and t3 promo for defense against melee and in rough terrain, but that would be like saying melee units are designed to be city killers because of urban warfare.
Nothing innate about the class is particularly oriented to defense more than melee units (or plain heavy cav.) It would be an interesting attribute, though. (Like if they got max fortify value in one turn or something.)

Unless one was to argue cavalry units are inherently offensive, thus AC are defensively slanted as a counter to offensive units.

I think there are two slightly different ideas tied up with “AC are good on Defence”.

One idea is that AC are (or should be) actually “better” at Defence than other units. ie Defence is AC’s special niche. That’s usually what I mean when I say AC are (or should be) good on Defence. AC Promotions suggest they would be and they have a slight synergy with Defence in that their -10 v Melee drops away when they are garrisoned in a City. @Sostratus, I agree, taking everything into account, AC aren’t particularly or especially good at Defence and certainly not really better than other units at it.

But the other idea or sense is that Anti-Cav aren’t really “better” at Defence but more just “good enough” at it. Defenders have a slight advantage in Civ. So potentially, if you don’t have Resources, AC could be a crappy unit you build that is clearly weaker than Resource using units, and therefore useless for offense, but is maybe “good enough” to hold the line when combined with the inherent advantages of defending. I don’t think AC manage to do this either - ranged and walls are a better bet - but this was the sense I was talking about in my last post.

To make AC “particularly or especially good” a Defence (ie the first sense), I think AC need to be closer to on par with Melee in terms of combat strength. That would then let them survive long enough for their Promotions to be more of a factor.

To make AC “good enough” at Defence (ie the second sense), I think AC need to be much cheaper, because you really need to be able to pump them out in order to throw them into the meat grinder of your opponents Melee and Cav units.

Ideally, I think AC need both buffs - CS more on par with Melee (ie adjust their base CS to closer but still below the power curve, drop Melee’s +10 v AC, and then tweak AC and Melee promotions accordingly); and make AC a bit cheaper overall. But conceivably, just doing one of these things could be enough (particularly just making them cheaper, possibly with a slight adjustment to base CS).

 

[Ownsya]

People keep saying this, and while I grasp the appeal of the idea, it doesn't seem very true.
All units, even those pesky cavalry, can get defense bonuses from terrain and fortifying. But even if they couldn't, melee units can, and melee units are always as good or better than AC in every era except medieval. The only real indication we have is that they have a t2 and t3 promo for defense against melee and in rough terrain, but that would be like saying melee units are designed to be city killers because of urban warfare.
Nothing innate about the class is particularly oriented to defense more than melee units (or plain heavy cav.) It would be an interesting attribute, though. (Like if they got max fortify value in one turn or something.)

Unless one was to argue cavalry units are inherently offensive, thus AC are defensively slanted as a counter to offensive units.

I'd argue (and I already have) that AC units are defensive by design. To reiterate some points:

1. They are suitable for playing defensively since they don't cost strategic resources. Yes, strategic resources are easy to come by if you're aggressive, but not necessarily so if you're passive.
2. Their promotion tree has 2 skills that can only apply when defending, as you've mentioned.
3. They also have good support skills in their tree, making them support units as Victoria has already mentioned.
   
4. Since they are the best units for hurting cavalry, and cavalry excel at taking out vulnerable ranged/siege units, it follows that AC should be used for protecting ranged/sieged while allowing melee and HC to make the most of their offensive abilities while attacking

If the class promotion trees are clues to anything, clearly AC are intended to be support/defense units, while melee and cavalry are more focused on attacking and offensive maneuvers.
Next, here is a combat analysis of melee vs AC along the unit upgrade lines. This first table shows the values you'd get when AC is attacking melee, taking promotions into consideration. Here I assumed 1 promotion per upgrade (as if the same units survive and get a new promotion each upgrade). I also assumed that for melee, promotions that boost damage to AC are prioritized. Similarly for AC, I assumed that promotions boosting defense towards melee are prioritized. This means that I've assumed the following promotions for units:

• Warrior (Battlecry) <===> Spearman (Thrust)
  
• Swordsman (Battlecry + Commando [no bonus] ) <===> Pikeman (Thrust + Schiltron)
• Musketman (Battlecry + Commando [no bonus] + Zweihander) <===> Pike and Shot (Thrust + Schiltron + Choke Points)
• Infantry (Battlecry + Commando [no bonus] + Zweihander + Urban Warfare) <===> AT Crew (Thrust + Schiltron + Choke Points + [any])
• Mech. Infantry (Battlecry + Commando [no bonus] + Zweihander + Urban Warfare + [any] ) <===> Modern AT (Thrust + Schiltron + Choke Points + [any] + [any] )

In the case of Urban Warfare I always assumed that melee was standing in a district (ie. benefiting). This is a generous assumption imo.

In the case of Choke Points, the possible bonus while defending ranges from +5 on a marsh to +13 on Hills Woods/Rain forest. I always assumed +10. This is a reasonable assumption imo since when playing defensively, it is easier to get into ideal positions.

Results for AC attacking Melee (spoiler alert, AC get destroyed when attacking contemporary melees more and more as time progresses)

But look at what happens when the tables are turned. Now melee is attacking AC and AC benefit from defensive promotions:

Again, these results do not take into consideration bonuses from 'variable factors': fortification, support, flanking, or terrain modifiers (except for chokepoint where +3 from terrain is assumed).
Let me summarize what happens when promotions (taken in the way I've described) are considered:

• Spearmen lose slightly against Warriors whether attacking or defending. If defending and fortified, they can beat an attacking warrior depending on 'variable factors'.
• Between Pikemen and Swordsmen, the attacker loses.
• Between Pike and Shot and Musketmen, the attacker loses.
• AT Crew is destroyed when attacking Infantry, but has a minor loss when defending. If defending and fortified, they can potentially beat an attacking Infantry depending on 'variable factors'.
• Modern AT is destroyed by Mechanized Infantry either way. If defending and fortified, loss can potentially be minor depending on 'variable factors'.
• Again, I've assumed that melee are always benefiting from Urban Warfare which is a very generous assumption. Take that away and AC always beat contemporary melee while defending if they can benefit from Choke Points which shouldn't be hard to achieve if you're on the defense.

All in all, if you agree that AC are intended as defensive/support units, they're not too poorly balanced after all for that purpose. Going with the anti-melee promotion tree to cover AC's weakness, makes them a formidable match to melee units when playing defensively.

In the end though, all this is almost meaningless since the AI sucks at warfare and we're more likely to be attacking than defending. Maybe have 1-2 AC in your army to help take down enemy cavalry. Try to reach Hold the Line promotion for a nice supportive boost against cavalry for other classes as well. If you play multiplayer, this may be more meaningful to you. Some tweaks might still improve gameplay nonetheless, and for one, buffing AC will make the enemy AI slightly harder to deal with when they do use AC and we're attacking them.

 

[acluewithout]

• Spearmen lose slightly against Warriors whether attacking or defending. If defending and fortified, they can beat an attacking warrior depending on 'variable factors'.
• ...
• AT Crew ... has a minor loss when defending. If defending and fortified, they can potentially beat an attacking Infantry depending on 'variable factors'.
• Modern AT is destroyed by Mechanized Infantry either way. If defending and fortified, loss can potentially be minor depending on 'variable factors'.

All in all, if you agree that AC are intended as defensive/support units, they're not too poorly balanced after all for that purpose. Going with the anti-melee promotion tree to cover AC's weakness, makes them a formidable match to melee units when playing defensively.

Thanks for working this through, but I really don't see how you go from the first quote to the second quote. You're essentially saying that, putting aside variables, Spears lose to Warriors when defending, and AC lose to Melee once we get to the Modern Era. How are AC then good at Defending again?

Warriors v Spears is particularly bad - because Warriors don't require a Resource, so I can always build them. As a result, why would I build Warriors instead of Spears for Defence!?!

Modern Era AC maybe wasn't such an issue when Infantry didn't require Resources. But Infantry do now, and while I like that change in general, in means there needs to be a more viable no-resource default option.

Worse, if I'm playing on Immortal etc., then the AI is going to have extra bonuses against me. I appreciate that's part of the challenge of higher difficulties, but it magnifies these problems significantly. Surely early game I'm better off defaulting to Warriors and Ranged, and in later Eras, obsolete Melee or Cav (whatever I can build) and Ranged? And remember, I'm still paying a lot of hammers and gold for these sub-optimal units.

There's also personal experience. I get the argument you're trying to run on the numbers, but I have just seen my Anti-Cav chewed up too many times even when just defending.

AC do need to be a bit sub-optimal if they're focused on Defence, because they are more likely to benefit from terrain, shorter supply lines (e.g. to reinforce them with fresh AC and ranged units), Walls and Encampments and faster healing rates in their own territory. But based on my experience on Emperor and Immortal, they really aren't worth the effort building in great numbers even just for Defence, with Spearmen in particular being quite useless.​

 

[Kouvb593kdnuewnd]

What is interesting is all the talk about melee vs anti cavalry without much talk about how cavalry and other units play into this. Yes melee on paper don't have any weakness but now let say we remove the whole anti cavalry line and now melee will look terrible. Why build warriors when you can build 28 strength 3 move chariots that ignore zone of Control. Why build swordsmen when you can build horsemen that move twice the fast, ignore zone of Control and have same combat strength. Only time melee line is clearly superior is in renaissance but cavalry comes back with a vengeance in the industrial era.

So if we remove the anti cavalry line, melee line would suddenly go to terrible, being slower, and even have less combat strength than Heavy cavalry. Thus we cant compare just melee with anti cavalry, we have to look at the whole Picture Before we can make a conclusion that anti cavalry is clearly pointless in its current form.

It gets even harder once you look at what Techs unlock them, resource requirement (which make it easy to upgrade whole armies of ranged and anti cavalry units compared to other units), resource consumption, promotion trees and so on.

 

[Kaan Boztepe]

i only build siege and cav units anyway

 

[Victoria]

So if we remove the anti cavalry line,

What’s the difference between having anti cav and not using them, and removing them?

The horse cannot use rams and towers
The horse does not get the same promotions
And the horse needs horses.

Before that patch I use infantry armies because horse were too OP.
Now I use mixed armies and it really feels better.

 

[Ownsya]

What is interesting is all the talk about melee vs anti cavalry without much talk about how cavalry and other units play into this. Yes melee on paper don't have any weakness but now let say we remove the whole anti cavalry line and now melee will look terrible.

Indeed, I intended for this point to be implied in my previous post. Infantry are weaker against cavalry, AC beat cavalry. I didn't bother with AC v Cavalry because Cavalry only have minor bonuses to help them dampen damage from AC (+5 for LC from Caparison. HC on the other hand have promotions that could potentially be OP when combined in certain scenarios).

You're essentially saying that, putting aside variables, Spears lose to Warriors when defending, and AC lose to Melee once we get to the Modern Era. How are AC then good at Defending again?

Well, AC are supposed to lose against Melee as per the rock-paper-scissor rules. The point is that when defending, they don't lose by as much, and AC benefit from defending more than any other unit. Spearmen lose against warriors, as they should, but they win if they have a terrain advantage. Not unreasonbale.

But you still raise a good point, which is, despite all of what I said before, are Infantry still better than AC when defending overall? Obviously, they're an equal match to other infantry, but in most eras they get shredded by Cavalry (particularly HC). This isn't the case only when melee are "ahead of the curve" as @Sostratus puts it.

Chariot > Warrior
Knight/Courser > Swordsman > Chariot; Swordsman = Horseman
Cuirassier/Cavalry > Musketman > Knight / Courser
Tank/Helicopter > Infantry > Cuirassier/Cavalry
Modern Armor > Mech. Infantry > Tank/Helicopter

They leap frog each other but it starts and ends with HC > Melee. Clearly LC excel in pillaging and targeting ranged/siege units (also based on their promotion tree) while can also act as support/utility (flanking bonus, escorting). The only promotion that Infantry have to boost their chances against cavalry is Urban warfare, which makes sense. Tanks can't maneuver too well in districts. So I guess you should try to place infantry on districts as much as possible. So without AC, infantry should be highly vulnerable to Cav and HC in particular (their promotion tree makes them an even bigger threat).

So to answer your question, why are AC better at defense? Because they're the only class able to close the gap against the class that should have an advantage over it. AC, with the right tactics, can nullify melee attackers and beat Cavalry too.

After going through all of this, I'm more convinced that the game balancing is not that bad at all, it's just the AI that's bad. Walls and air units aside, then in theory, to defend you can rely mostly on AC and Ranged units, this doesn't require strategic resources which means you still have a chance even when lacking resources. Be prepared to use/sacrifice L-Cav to take down enemy siege units. Also on flat land, AC won't have the tactical advantages required to counter melee, which is fine, melee are supposed to have an advantage over AC, L-Cav can be helpful here too.

To attack you rely mostly on Melee and Heavy Cavalry with Siege to take down walls as needed. The promotion trees provide a surprising amount of tactical depth that is unfortunately irrelevant against a dumb AI. Firaxis should hire someone who helps design "tactics" games to help them sort out AI combat. Hello, Nintendo (Fire Emblem team)? It is really HC who can potentially run riot in the end game with 3-4 promotions leading to situations where they beat even AC.

One change I would make is to lower spearman cost from 65 to 50 so their cost-efficiency is in line with warriors, incentivizing players to prioritize offense/defense early on (in multiplayer). @Sostratus' suggestion to bump them +5 str is reasonable on the surface but can lead to broken scenarios: they'd rule the Ancient Era, and if an opponent can't find Iron then they'd also be top dogs in the Classical era, until they're promoted to Pikeman who will continue to rule the Medieval Era against a foe without iron.
Bumping Pikeman +4 is more reasonable, although in that case a Pikeman with Thrust would beat a Swordsman with Battlecry which I guess is debatable? These changes would make AC stronger than melee overall in early game. Probably another cost reduction here is the more reasonable route though.

If you look at the cost-efficiency curve I posted, AC start off far below the curve before following it in later eras. Not sure what the logic there is. Bumping both infantry and AT +5 might be an okay move, but they'd overpower ranged/siege units if changes are not made there as well, and imo would also make Infantry too level with Tanks. Tanks should be able to bulldoze infantry imo.

Edit: Modern AT +5 is maybe okay, though they'd beat infantry even when attacking, so probably not.

Tweaking maintenance costs might be reasonable as well. Just logically, defensive units shouldn't be expensive to maintain, but I haven't looked into those costs to have an opinion about their balancing.

 

[MarigoldRan]

Again, for defense why not just build an archer or some other ranged unit?

 

[Ownsya]

Again, for defense why not just build an archer or some other ranged unit?

You would of course, in combination.

 

[acluewithout]

@Ownsya I don't think you and I are that far apart on principle.

We maybe just disagree with the precise balancing / numbers, but basically, where I think we both agree is that:

1. AC should be generally vulnerable / less powerful than Melee,
   
   
2. AC's niche should be being "good at defence" (although whether "good at defence" means "particularly or especially good a defence" (ie better a defence relative to other units) or just "good enough" if you can't build eg Melee is maybe a question for another day - I think overall I prefer the "good enough" approach, tending to "particularly good" with Promotions), and
   
   
3. AC should generally be cheaper than Melee, so they can be fielded in greater numbers and or require less investment than hard hitting resource based units.

Let me know if I've got that wrong.

I think where I do part company is the idea that Melee units an Era behind should still smash / beat Anti-Cav units. I really don't like that dynamic - eg Warriors beating Spears, Swords beating Pikes - and I don't think it makes sense for the game overall. It's particularly bad for Spears - seriously, why would someone build Spears instead of Warriors, given they both don't require Resources? To me, the right place to get AC in that situation is to be slightly better or on par with the backward tech Melee unit, with the Melee unit getting the edge if it's Promoted. Ultimately though, for AC and Melee to be properly balanced, we probably need FXS to fill in some Melee unit gaps.

I thought this comment was interesting:

... why are AC better at defense? Because [Anti-Cav are] the only class able to close the gap against the class that should have an advantage over it. AC, with the right tactics, can nullify melee attackers and beat Cavalry too.

I think this is exactly the dynamic Anti-Cav should have, and you've really nailed the point. AC should be cheaper and weaker. But used well, and or Promoted, they should be able to hold-off / defend against both Cav and Melee (i.e. AC's counter).

I do agree the AI has problems (although it's getting better), and that these problems make Defending less valuable because you're just not on the Defence all that much. It's the same reason the Naval game is so bad - the AI just isn't playing. But I also think getting the balance better with AC would help the AI overall, because the AI would then have a more viable unit to war with or to defend its own Cities when it doesn't have resources.

I think at this stage - page 8 of this thread - I've probably exhausted all I have to say on Anti-Cav. Reading through the thread, I do think there are some easy changes FXS could make to improve them and the balancing with Melee, and I think those changes would also improve the game more generally. Hopefully FXS pick up on this in the next patch.

What’s the difference between having anti cav and not using them, and removing them?

The horse cannot use rams and towers
The horse does not get the same promotions
And the horse needs horses.

Before that patch I use infantry armies because horse were too OP.
Now I use mixed armies and it really feels better.

Yeah, really agree with this. The balancing of Cav feels much better now, and I really like having them as part of my armies now that they aren't OP.

 

[lotrmith]

I think one problem solving issue would be for Battlecry to not affect AC. I mean, it says vs "Melee' which implies Melee Class, not "non ranged".

Having innate +10 vs AC is strong enough. Getting another +7 as first promo is too good.

 

[Ownsya]

I think at this stage - page 8 of this thread - I've probably exhausted all I have to say on Anti-Cav. Reading through the thread, I do think there are some easy changes FXS could make to improve them and the balancing with Melee, and I think those changes would also improve the game more generally. Hopefully FXS pick up on this in the next patch.

Totally agree with this. This has been quite a lengthy (and rich) discussion. I too feel like the topic's pretty much been exhausted.

As an aside, I've been crunching some numbers, looking at different options/scenarios and how they might affect gameplay. I think I've converged to some sensible changes that make AC more relevant and military units a bit more balanced overall. It is a combination of ideas discussed in this thread, lowering costs here, some str tweaks there making sure not to break anything or lead to bad/cheesy scenarios. But the major difference (and my conclusion after everything is considered) is that melee should be a bit more vulnerable to cavalry than they are. The RPS system needs to come full-circle. By doing so, it immediately makes AC more important for countering cavalry units. Anyway, if anyone is interested, I think I have it fine-tuned enough to warrant an actual mod, if enough people are interested in such a mod (it sounds like people are). If anyone is interested in helping to make the mod please visit my mod request post here.

 

[Tomice]

I have a summarizing question.
Most of us agree that AC should be buffed somehow. But what is the best way to do it, what is our preferred design goal?

1) Add a few points of strength to most AC units
This would create a relatively classic rock-paper-scissors approach where no units are inherently better, they just have different roles and cancel each other out.
This is the "easy" change Sostratus suggested.
Possible problem:
As there wouldn't be a clearly stronger unit line, the importance of units would shift by era, you may have to switch your focus from melee to AC and back each era.

2) Leave AC units weaker, but reduce their cost (and maybe upkeep)
This would clearly designate them as a poor man's choice or levies. Even if you'd have strategic resources available, they'd have their use as a mass-produced throwaway unit or as a cheap garrison on less endangered borders.
Possible problems:
1UPT doesn't pair well with masses of cheap units, the map could become overcrowded.
Also, throwaway units would rarely earn promotions, making them weaker as the game progresses. This would be aggravated by the paradox that hard-building units becomes rarer and rarer in later eras, and upkeep is rarely a major problem.

3) Reduce or remove the combat bonus of melee vs. AC
Giving up the rock-paper-scissors design premise could help to make balancing easier. While it's clear and historical that spears are good against cav, the case is less clear between historic swords vs. historic spears. Sure, the romans beat the Greek eventually, but legionaries weren't the hard counter to spears/pikes they're often depicted as.
Possible problems:
Similar to solution 1, we'd have shifting dominance each era (e.g. swords beating spears, but pikes beating swords)
It would also possibly be the biggest change away from the initial design, causing hard to anticipate problems with certain promotions and in certain situations. Some promotions would probably have to be reconsidered.

 

[acluewithout]

I have a summarizing question.
Most of us agree that AC should be buffed somehow. But what is the best way to do it, what is our preferred design goal?

1) Add a few points of strength to most AC units
This would create a relatively classic rock-paper-scissors approach where no units are inherently better, they just have different roles and cancel each other out.
This is the "easy" change Sostratus suggested.
Possible problem:
As there wouldn't be a clearly stronger unit line, the importance of units would shift by era, you may have to switch your focus from melee to AC and back each era.

2) Leave AC units weaker, but reduce their cost (and maybe upkeep)
This would clearly designate them as a poor man's choice or levies. Even if you'd have strategic resources available, they'd have their use as a mass-produced throwaway unit or as a cheap garrison on less endangered borders.
Possible problems:
1UPT doesn't pair well with masses of cheap units, the map could become overcrowded.
Also, throwaway units would rarely earn promotions, making them weaker as the game progresses. This would be aggravated by the paradox that hard-building units becomes rarer and rarer in later eras, and upkeep is rarely a major problem.

3) Reduce or remove the combat bonus of melee vs. AC
Giving up the rock-paper-scissors design premise could help to make balancing easier. While it's clear and historical that spears are good against cav, the case is less clear between historic swords vs. historic spears. Sure, the romans beat the Greek eventually, but legionaries weren't the hard counter to spears/pikes they're often depicted as.
Possible problems:
Similar to solution 1, we'd have shifting dominance each era (e.g. swords beating spears, but pikes beating swords)
It would also possibly be the biggest change away from the initial design, causing hard to anticipate problems with certain promotions and in certain situations. Some promotions would probably have to be reconsidered.

To be clear, I think you actually do all three. i.e. buff Spearmen and Pikes, but still leave them slightly below the power curve; reduce the cost of AC generally (either directly or by having other mechanics that reduce their costs - e.g. Medieval and Renaissance Walls each give +15% Production); and lose the Melee v AC bonus (Melee are generally above or on the power curve, and have better promotions, so they don't need the +10 to dominate AC). If you did that, you'd maybe beed to tweak AC promotions slightly and ideally you need to fill in some Melee unit gaps.

@OwnsyaI've probably exhausted all I have to say on Anti-Cav.

Oh yeah, I said I was done. Sorry. Anyway, I'm probably just repeating myself at this point anyway.

 

[Kouvb593kdnuewnd]

I still think there is to much focus of melee vs anti cavalry which give a screwed Picture, currently cavalry is Argubly far superior to melee units and the battering ram argument only hold Before you actually build siege Equipment after which melee become obsolete, the difference in mobility between infantry and cavalry is just too large. The golden age of infantry is very early + maybe renaissance Before cavalry returns in the industrial era.

However the difference between fighting anti cavalry with melee or with cavalry is a swing of 20 strength which is huge and currently the only reason to ever build melee units over cavalry other than the early battering ram.

The solutions are not easy, yes we can do stuff such as nerfing melee vs anti cavalry but I think melee units themself are somewhat underpowered and nerfing the only reason for their existance is not a good move. Buffing anti cavalry is possible but you would have to do stuff such as move pikes up to maybe 200 cost + 20 resoruces and 3 gold maintenance. We have to be careful since the gap between underpowered and overpowered is not necessarily that great.

If we want to have defensive and offensive units, the simple solution is to give defensive units +5 on defence and -5 on offence and the opposite for offensive units. We could have anti cavalry be defensive and both cavalry types be offensive while melee and other are unchanged. Spears could fight warriors 30 on 30 when defending but would be destroyed if they tried to attack warriors. Cavalry would become more glass Canons and need to focus more on using their mobility to do well. Cavalry vs anti cavalry would be exactly the same as now with this change.

Other way would be to double AC support bonus (and maybe remove the promotion) and maybe reduce or remove its flanking bonus while cavalry could get the opposite treatment with strong flanking and Little to no support bonus.

Having innate +10 vs AC is strong enough. Getting another +7 as first promo is too good.

Be careful since AC get +10 vs melee which mean 1 promotion each, melee could go from +10 strength advantage to a +7 and later this can drop to +4 if the anti cavalry defending or even negative with other promotions.​