PIkeman and Spearman are too week vs Knights or Horseman

[MorphBer]

I would like a small buff to the bonus versus mounted on pikemen to not mess up balance vs longswords and range or maybe a reduction to prod cost so you can use them as gun fodder.

 

[Gothic_Empire]

Let crossbowmen be the same for longswordsmen.

That doesn't make tons of sense to me.

 

[Gothic_Empire]

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.

Communitas can also create the opposite problem, where you have very few to almost no units of horse / iron.

 

[CrazyG]

Spearmen and Pikemen come before Composite Bows and Crossbows though, respectively.

I build a comp bowman over a pikeman every time. I honestly think that currently building a pikeman is just bad gameplay. You can make an argument for it in really weird circumstances, but even then by the time crossbows unlock its like clealry really awful (pikemen will lose 1v1 to a crossbow even if the pikemen attack first....)

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?

I would build 4 knights and then build crossbows (trebuchets or composite bows if I don't have the techs yet). I've never had 0 iron by this point in the game unless I did a one city challenge, so I will have iron, and I will build longswords. Even a really low amount of resources (say 6 iron and 4 horses) is enough for 10 melee units. My supply is probably only 20 something.

And the last time I did play a OCC and had no strategics, I bought 1 horse for a knight, then used pure ranged units, and I'm confident its a better strategy that building a pikeman.

 

[tu_79]

That doesn't make tons of sense to me.

Prior to crossbows, archers were the main ranged force. They were very useful killing light infantry, warriors with light armor, our swordsmen units. But then armors got improved, what we call here longswordsmen, are actually heavy infantry, warriors wearing heavy armor. Heavy armor was an advantage against any attack type: sword blows and arrows, as most of them were deflected, and you needed a very skilled bowman to make blank shots that could penetrate the armor.
Then came the crossbow. Without long training, any person could throw those bolts quite proficiently, and those bolts were fast and strong enough to penetrate heavy armor. Heavy infantry is terrific when you have to face it only with a melee weapon, but with a small unit of crossbowmen, you could decimate those elite units, at least in open terrain. That was the end of the full plate armors.

Of course, a crossbow bolt works also against a fully armored knight in his horse, but as they are targets in movement, it's not so easy to kill one knight just by shooting. It was easier that those knights killed all the crossbowmen before they could fire a second time.

Here's were pikemen make their appearence, and anyone who has watched 'Braveheart' can get the idea.

 

[Stalker0]

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?

It has been tried. Knights have gone through periods of 2 horses and 1 horse/1 iron in the mod before. It was rolled back as being too severe, it made strategics too quickly spent at that point.

 

[Gothic_Empire]

Communitas on Scarce Resources creates situations where you can only support 1-4 knights, 1-4 longswords, etc. I have mixed feelings about that sort of play. I encourage people to try it so that they can get a sense of what it's like to have to choose their units and (later) buildings very, very carefully.

 

[Chandler]

And the last time I did play a OCC and had no strategics, I bought 1 horse for a knight, then used pure ranged units, and I'm confident its a better strategy that building a pikeman.

Fair enough. That option didn't cross my mind.

It has been tried. Knights have gone through periods of 2 horses and 1 horse/1 iron in the mod before. It was rolled back as being too severe, it made strategics too quickly spent at that point.

Sorry, didn't know about that ^^u. If it's already been tried and without success, we should try other options.

Thanks!

Prior to crossbows, archers were the main ranged force. They were very useful killing light infantry, warriors with light armor, our swordsmen units. But then armors got improved, what we call here longswordsmen, are actually heavy infantry, warriors wearing heavy armor. Heavy armor was an advantage against any attack type: sword blows and arrows, as most of them were deflected, and you needed a very skilled bowman to make blank shots that could penetrate the armor.
Then came the crossbow. Without long training, any person could throw those bolts quite proficiently, and those bolts were fast and strong enough to penetrate heavy armor. Heavy infantry is terrific when you have to face it only with a melee weapon, but with a small unit of crossbowmen, you could decimate those elite units, at least in open terrain. That was the end of the full plate armors.

Of course, a crossbow bolt works also against a fully armored knight in his horse, but as they are targets in movement, it's not so easy to kill one knight just by shooting. It was easier that those knights killed all the crossbowmen before they could fire a second time.

Here's were pikemen make their appearence, and anyone who has watched 'Braveheart' can get the idea.

Hm... Not sure about the chronology you're suggesting. I'm not an expert myself, at all. But from what I've been able to catch here and there just out of curiosity, a crossbow wouldn't be able to penetrate a full plate armor. At least, not that easily. I think crossbows became "fashionable" around the 13th century. And it wasn't that long till the Christian Church forbid them because of how "easy" was to kill with them. They were considered coward's weapons, but they were cheap (as it was to train people how to use them,as you said) and very effective, so people used them lots anyway.

Full plate armors, as we know them (and, mostly, as they're represented in the picture of the game), started becoming more affordable for the armies quite late, around the 15th century, and they were still pretty expensive. By that time, gunpowder weapons were starting to become more common and better developed. What killed full plate armors weren't the crossbows, but gunpowder weapons. When they reached the point where it was possible to aim before shooting, and do so with more accuracy (and not just shoot some smoke and a bullet that no one knew where was going to end), full plate armors became obsolete, cause they could end shredded in no time. The bolts of the crossbow can't even compare. They could dent the armor and maybe even wound the soldier who was under it with the impact force of the shot (as it can happen with a bulletproof vest), but it's not easy to penetrate a full plate armor with a bolt.

 

[Moi Magnus]

Fair enough. That option didn't cross my mind.

Sorry, didn't know about that ^^u. If it's already been tried and without success, we should try other options.

Thanks!


Hm... Not sure about the chronology you're suggesting. I'm not an expert myself, at all. But from what I've been able to catch here and there just out of curiosity, a crossbow wouldn't be able to penetrate a full plate armor. At least, not that easily. I think crossbows became "fashionable" around the 13th century. And it wasn't that long till the Christian Church forbid them because of how "easy" was to kill with them. They were considered coward's weapons, but they were cheap (as it was to train people how to use them,as you said) and very effective, so people used them lots anyway.

Full plate armors, as we know them (and, mostly, as they're represented in the picture of the game), started becoming more affordable for the armies quite late, around the 15th century, and they were still pretty expensive. By that time, gunpowder weapons were starting to become more common and better developed. What killed full plate armors weren't the crossbows, but gunpowder weapons. When they reached the point where it was possible to aim before shooting, and do so with more accuracy (and not just shoot some smoke and a bullet that no one knew where was going to end), full plate armors became obsolete, cause they could end shredded in no time. The bolts of the crossbow can't even compare. They could dent the armor and maybe even wound the soldier who was under it with the impact force of the shot (as it can happen with a bulletproof vest), but it's not easy to penetrate a full plate armor with a bolt.

Chronology is of course more complex, since "full plate armor" can go from crap to invulnerable depending of the period an the quality of steel.
Late medieval full plate armor is such a monster that one of the few realistic way of killing such a "tank" is to make him fall down (masses are quite useful for that) and kill him with a dagger. Until gunpowder, of course.

But before that late medieval period, piercing a full plate armor with a crossbow is reasonable. And that's one of the few advantages of the crossbow over the longbow (the other main advantage is that it is "easy" to train someone to use a crossbow). Longbows were more efficient in most of the other points (fire rate, ...).