Discussion in 'General Balance' started by Boombar, Jan 10, 2018.
Hehe wouldn't bother me. But if people want to go with 17/18 CS, I'm not against it. As I said, I probably won't make them, but for those who might its worth a try.
That's what I've been saying and G seemed to agree. Not sure why this discussion is still going.
That seems to cover both trees weaknesses too well.
I think in the corner cases where they're to be used being at 17 or 18 CS is right.
Me either...for some reason it seemed like people were unhappy with 18CS?
18CS makes puts them about even with knights, which you had stated you opposed, no?
27CS vs 25CS if both unpromoted
28.8 vs 27.5 with 1 layer of drill/shock
30.6 vs 30 with 2 layers
32.3 vs 32.5 with 3 layers (the knight is now slighlty ahead of pikemen)
Hmm, no, I think there's a miscommunication somewhere, probably by me. I said that I wasn't aware if that's what we actually wanted (i.e. 1:1 parity with knights), and that, right now, pikeman can take a knight 2:1 (which I personally feel is a fair assessment of their current power). I was just noting how the current design is set up to work, not if it is necessarily how players want it. 99% of the time that's my goal - just highlight how it was intended in the design phase.
If we make the bump in power their production cost will need to rise as well, as they're no longer just rank-and-file as they are now. I genuinely do not care what we do, but I don't think that pikeman are going to be a problem balance-wise if we bump them up 2 CS. It is just 2 CS.
I don't think they need a bump in production cost for 2 more CS. Currently, to me the rank and file unit is the crossbow, not the pikeman. I really don't ever consider building pikemen
It's me who says pikemen should have this role. If this is the sole cheap unit capable of dealing with the monster knights, then it's really a place in my army. But those pikes should be good for little else. So I'm more in favor to bump vs mounted promotion. +1CS, 70% to vs mounted, as CrazyG proposed, sounds better.
I still think Pikemen need access to the formation promotion.
Unless they already have it and I haven't noticed because pikemen die too damn easy.
Isn't it behind shock II?
I am strongly against flat CS buff because that will make them good vs everything simply because they are cheap and easy to spam.
Anti mounted need some serious buff. Like from 50% to 100% if not even more. Pikeman has very low CS which is why antimounted buff need to be significantly higher in order to make them strong vs knight.
"Bonus When Fortified" - New promotion for pikeman and possibly spearman and other similar units. Promotion that buffs normal fortify bonus from 25%(if i m correct) to much more. They should provide decent defense vs nearly everything except ranged attacks.
"Vulnerable to ranged attacks" - To counter defense bonus vs crossbow, otherwise they wont do any damage to pikes. Pikeman should be pretty much a 'free kill" for crosbows and other mounted ranged units.
I personally am against buffing the flat CS of pikemen/spearmen.
Another possibility I haven't seen brought up here is that Pikemen could get bonuses in OPEN terrain instead of ROUGH terrain.
It has always struck me as weird that Pikemen are getting that rought terrain bonus, because that's precisely the kind of situation in which a pike wall is horrid. Look at any examples of pre-gunpowder military tactics, and you'll see them talking about hills and uneven terrain for their pikemen like it's kryptonite.
Look at Alexander's dismantling of the Persian army, it's because the Persians kept engaging in open terrain, hoping that archers and horsemen in the open would give them the advantage, but it was pikemen and heavy cavalry, over and over. Hammer and Anvil. Then move forward 100 years and people had all but abandoned the Macedonian Sarissa because the legions had found that the Sarissa was a limited instrument, and they could beat a Greek pikewall in almost every situation that WASN'T walking straight at them in an open field.
In light of that, I would keep them exactly as they are now (15CS, 50% vs mounted), but then give them a "pike wall" promotion which gives a 15%-25% penalty in rough terrain and 25% bonus in open terrain.
Swordsman v pikeman (rough) = 22CS (20*1.1 shock promotion) vs 16.5CS (15*1.1 rough terrain bonus)
Swordsman v pikeman (open) = 22CS (20*1.1 shock promotion) vs 18.8CS (15*1.25 open terrain bonus)
Knight v pikeman (open) = 25CS vs 26.25 (15*1.75 open terrain and anti-mounted)
so pikemen would start trading more fairly with knights in ideal condition, and still fair pretty well in rough terrain vs them. They could also hold their ground in open terrain vs a spearman, but then they just get absolutely spanked in rought terrain vs swords, which is entirely accurate, historically
Maybe they could get upped to 16 though... maybe
How would this affect against ranged?
I guess You could just let it be vs ranged? Pikemen were quite vulnerable to ranged weapons since they lacked sheilds, but this could be overcome with sufficient discipline. A well disciplined pike formation could overcome most ranged opponents even up to the times of muskets as long as they could advance quickly and morale held.
If you aren’t building pikemen because you can spam long swords and knights, then you have too many strategic resources. Play something other than communitas, it creates too many resources.
I’ve been playing perfectworld lately, and strategics feel rare.
Can people stop using the "don't play communitas" argument in balance discussions? I play continents and pangea which are the two most commonly played maps of the community according to user polls.
Have you seen the several comments about preferring to build a composite bowman or crossbow when strategics are not available?
Spearmen and Pikemen come before Composite Bows and Crossbows though, respectively.
I'm just saying I think spear and pike fill a role of basic resource-less unit that defends well enough against mounted, and if you can't find a place for them in your limited military supply, then you have too many strategic resources.
Put me in the camp that prefers strong offensive units requiring resources and spammable resource-less units that you can defend with.
Oh, but they are strong. Double movement by itself rocks. But they also have strong CS with the only 'weakness' against cities. Not that you can't use mounted units versus cities. So, only weak point is not being able to use terrain.
Swordsmen are more rounded, weak versus nothing, master in any terrain, only 'weakness' is having normal movement.
I agree that strategic units that demand resources have to be better, but why can't they have weak points? Let pikemen be the Achilles heel of knights. Let crossbowmen be the same for longswordsmen.
One of them is yours. And you talk about what you do after you've spent all of your strategic resources in melee units, so you'll obviously want a more diverse army. But what if you could build only 3 or 4 knights?
They were indeed the tanks of the Medieval era, but they were also scarce, so armies were full of levies with a few knights here and there coming mostly from the nobility.
If changing the amount of strategic resources available in the map is not feasible, why not trying to increase the requirements for every strategic unit and see how it goes?
Separate names with a comma.