Who said we wanted them to match?
PIkeman and Spearman are too week vs Knights or Horseman
- Thread starter Boombar
- Start date
Who said we wanted them to match?
How about +1 CS and a higher mounted bonus? Seems like a decent compromise
Edit- I thought about this more. We should keep the mounted bonus consistent for all of the spearmen units. An issue I have with pikemen is that they perform so much worse than ranged units, they need more CS to alleviate this
Last edited:
lunker
Warlord
- Joined
- Oct 6, 2016
- Messages
- 278
I think the dynamic between knights and pikemen reflect history pretty well atm. Inexperienced pikemen get run over, experienced ones can at best hold their ground vs knights. From a gameplay perspective I think they're OK in that they are the cost effective vs knights. If you make use of terrain, forts, and fortify, pikeman can stall very well vs knights.
.
If I had to buff them I'd do one of two things:
1. Increase defense when fortified. Maybe like 15%
2. Slightly lower unit cost. Maybe like 10%.
We don't have much room for buffs because the Longswordsman costs iron and so should have more a good amount of advantages over a pikeman. I think it's fine the way it is now.
.
If I had to buff them I'd do one of two things:
1. Increase defense when fortified. Maybe like 15%
2. Slightly lower unit cost. Maybe like 10%.
We don't have much room for buffs because the Longswordsman costs iron and so should have more a good amount of advantages over a pikeman. I think it's fine the way it is now.
In gameplay terms, I don't think the pikemen vs knight matchup is relevant. My question is "Will I build a pikemen instead of something else", and that answer is an obvious no until I've run out of both horses and iron. I usually don't spend all my iron, a mid-sized empire will easily end up with 12 or more and I don't need that many longswords.
If I do end up with less iron than normal, and I've used all my horses, some more interesting decisions come up. The problem here is that the pikemen perform quite poorly compared to ranged units. I'm aware he can win a 1v1, but that doesn't matter, if I spent all my iron I already have plenty of melee units, ranged units (even the out-teched composite bowmen) are an overall better unit.
Looking at the 4UC project, where there are many pikemen UUs, I don't think I'd build them either. They are still really weak compared to longswords, and I don't want an army of pure melee units
If I do end up with less iron than normal, and I've used all my horses, some more interesting decisions come up. The problem here is that the pikemen perform quite poorly compared to ranged units. I'm aware he can win a 1v1, but that doesn't matter, if I spent all my iron I already have plenty of melee units, ranged units (even the out-teched composite bowmen) are an overall better unit.
Looking at the 4UC project, where there are many pikemen UUs, I don't think I'd build them either. They are still really weak compared to longswords, and I don't want an army of pure melee units
The people who wanted to actually see them in play
In seriousness though, if you want people to actually use the unit, it needs to be a strong counter to knights, and that means getting a CS close to the unit its supposed to counter.
The people who wanted to actually see them in play
In seriousness though, if you want people to actually use the unit, it needs to be a strong counter to knights, and that means getting a CS close to the unit its supposed to counter.
Mm, but that's the thing, though, it shouldn't be a hard counter to a unit that requires a strategic resource. 2:1 pikemen to knights is more appropriate.
I think a small CS bump is all that is needed for the Spearman/Pikeman/Landsknecht.
G
Not really. Let's say there were on completely even terms in a 1v1 (which isn't all that important, units don't fight 1v1 very often). Knights are still faster and much stronger against all other unit types.
I...agree? I don't see how that negates my point. I'm noting that Pikeman shouldn't be able to go 1v1 versus a Knight. You should need two or more pikemen to take one down.
G
This is where I go back to my original point above. I'm not going to make that many pikemen. I'm going to just make more knights, or I'm going to make longswords or crossbows. This is why I honestly think the pikemen is somewhat doomed, there just isn't a strong place for them right now.
Honestly my favorite idea is moving pikeman earlier in the tech tree. Then it was a use similar to the spearman, there is a window of time when its the best unit in the game and has room to see some use. Then as strategics come online it fades into the shadows.
Right, and when you run out of horses and iron...pikemen. That's their role. They're the rank-and-file. They're cheaper and cost no iron. 2 of them can spook off a knight.
G
Nope. When I run out of horses and iron (assuming I even do, I play communitas, continents, and fractals and I can't remember the last time I ran out of strategics at this point), I build crossbows or trebs or even just c bowman.
This is what I'm saying, I don't build pikemen ever. I use all my horses, then I use all my iron, then I build crossbows,trebuchets or even comp bowmen. I often don't run out of iron until frigates,
Edit- and I just realized I said exactly what Stalker0 just said
Even if a pikemen beats a knight 1v1, the knight is still a better unit because it has so many other advantages
We've also been here before in this mod. I think we have tried 2 horses, 1 iron/1 horse, more hammers. It either doesn't work and the dynamic doesn't change, or suddenly the knight drops off as being too expensive. Now I'm personally not the best war player, but I'm pretty good at keeping my knights alive. And the way the diety players talk, their units are just immortal, they never lose a unit. Ultimately the effectiveness of a unit is far more important in Civ 5 than the cost, and the higher up in difficulty, the more important that seems to be. Building a bunch of "trash" I can't keep alive and level is just a waste of hammers...so ultimately they are more expensive than an expensive unit that doesn't die.
I have often said strategics are just too plentiful in general, but I also realize this is very map and setting dependent. However, this would be my default way to do it. If only a small part of my army can be knights and longswords, than I would consider a few pikeman to fill in the holes. Not a lot mind you (going to go build those xbows), but enough to keep my melee wall strong.
But...I'm going to once again go to my point when this discussion was started. I actually like medieval warfare the way it is. Longsword/Knight/crossbow has a great dynamic. Its fun, its strategic...its downright balanced! If the pikeman didn't exist, we wouldn't be calling for its inclusion, its simply a bad option in an otherwise very nicely balanced scenario.
Another way to think about it, to me a pikemen isn't worth a tile most of the time. I would rather have another unit occupying that tile.
Additionally, if I have authority I do have a bunch of free pikemen, so even if the gods of horses and iron forsake me, I still don't end up building pikemen or buying landsksdkflajdsfkjasdlkfetches
Additionally, if I have authority I do have a bunch of free pikemen, so even if the gods of horses and iron forsake me, I still don't end up building pikemen or buying landsksdkflajdsfkjasdlkfetches
Another way to think about it, to me a pikemen isn't worth a tile most of the time. I would rather have another unit occupying that tile.
Additionally, if I have authority I do have a bunch of free pikemen, so even if the gods of horses and iron forsake me, I still don't end up building pikemen or buying landsksdkflajdsfkjasdlkfetches
Additionally, if I have authority I do have a bunch of free pikemen, so even if the gods of horses and iron forsake me, I still don't end up building pikemen or buying landsksdkflajdsfkjasdlkfetches
Chandler
Warlord
- Joined
- May 18, 2016
- Messages
- 195
Hm... Maybe the problem is that we have access to too many strategic resources, so the strategic units aren't actually that "special"? Have you considered lowering their numbers of horses' tiles to 2 and 1, from 4 and 2 respectively? Or what about increasing the requirements for the units that use them, the same way the diplomatic units do with paper? As in: a Horsemen requires 1 horse. A Knight requires 2 (you know, the other one for the squire). A Lancer requires 3, and so on.
You can also increase the requirements with other strategic resources. I think a Knight requiring 1 horse and 1 iron would be reasonable.
Another possibility would be to lower the movement of horse units to 3. But I think with that change we'd need to review many UUs, so... Maybe not.
You can also increase the requirements with other strategic resources. I think a Knight requiring 1 horse and 1 iron would be reasonable.
Another possibility would be to lower the movement of horse units to 3. But I think with that change we'd need to review many UUs, so... Maybe not.
Alright, so if increasing the base CS isn't enough, and fancy promotion changes are out, shall I just delete the unit? Lots of criticism of the poor pikeman here, not a ton of reasonable solutions. Altering the strategic resource count of maps is not reliable, as most maps have their own strategic resource placement algorithms (and I don't do maps).
G
I think it needs to be either 17 or 18 CS. Lets test one of those out.
One thing I've been saying for a while, I would use landsnakes if they were in progress, so I think progress or tradition would build an 18 CS pikeman. They are strong enough to be worth using, the only reason I don't use them in authority is the conscription policy.
