1. We have added a Gift Upgrades feature that allows you to gift an account upgrade to another member, just in time for the holiday season. You can see the gift option when going to the Account Upgrades screen, or on any user profile screen.
    Dismiss Notice

Pikeman upgrade to Lancers?

Discussion in 'Civ5 - General Discussions' started by Sharku, Jun 20, 2012.

  1. Txurce

    Txurce Deity

    Joined:
    Jan 4, 2002
    Messages:
    8,272
    Location:
    Venice, California
    No, I didn't mean any of those. Can you believe it?

    The entire game seems designed to make you pay if you develop tunnel vision. Just spamming GS, for example, won't allow you to cruise to an easy victory anymore. More upgrades mean that you can fall behind faster than before with regard to a fighting force. The much bigger importance of navies makes focusing strictly on land units not so easy to get away with.

    With regard to religion, I meant that other religions can undercut yours, and your early relationships as a result; and even more, what you build up in religion will be undercut by the rise of secularism. You have to periodically shift gears much more than you did in vanilla.
     
  2. Zenstrive

    Zenstrive Ocean King

    Joined:
    Sep 24, 2010
    Messages:
    912
    Gender:
    Male
    Well, lancer at least has reason to exist now. Previously it's a unit I keep on baffled about. Also it gives processions from spearmen to Anti-tank guns. Now you can keep your thousand years old unit alive and kicking :)
     
  3. Calouste

    Calouste Deity

    Joined:
    Mar 17, 2006
    Messages:
    2,725
    Yep, it's about gameplay so you can end up with fun things like a 500 XP, nine promotions Machine Gun like I had in my last game.
     
  4. Zenstrive

    Zenstrive Ocean King

    Joined:
    Sep 24, 2010
    Messages:
    912
    Gender:
    Male
    Sounds cool. Put a ring (of Citadel) on it :)
     
  5. Calouste

    Calouste Deity

    Joined:
    Mar 17, 2006
    Messages:
    2,725
    It actually did live in a Citadel once I upgraded it from a Crossbow to a Gatling Gun. Range two, double attack, march..., and Askia kept feeding me units trying to win the 5000 year war :D
     
  6. Infantry#14

    Infantry#14 Emperor

    Joined:
    Dec 26, 2006
    Messages:
    1,580
    Spearman -> Pikeman -> Lancer? -> Anti-Tank Gun -> Helicopter

    Isn't Lancer seems to be out of place? I know the spearman line is suppose to be anti-cavalry, but the upgrade seems illogical from melee to mount then to gun. Also, Lancer does not go obsolete even when cavalry upgrades to landship. Suggestion:

    Pikeman -> Rifleman (with the anti mount bonus promo)
    Lancer -> Landship
     
  7. The_J

    The_J Say No 2 Net Validations Retired Moderator Supporter

    Joined:
    Oct 22, 2008
    Messages:
    32,172
    Location:
    DE/NL/FR
    Moderator Action: Threads merged.
     
  8. Hyper Nova

    Hyper Nova Warlord

    Joined:
    Jan 26, 2007
    Messages:
    217
    Pikeman to Lancers is the logical upgrade, always was. Pikeman to Rifleman never made sense. There are 5 main types of lands units (and 1 minor - the anti air).

    Mounted/Armored (Horseman > Knights > Calvalry > Landship > Tanks > Modern Armor

    Standard Ranged (Archer > Com. Bows. > Crossbows > Gatlings > Machine Guns

    Siege (Catapult > Trebuchets > Cannons > Artillery> Rocket Artillery)

    Strong Melee (Swordsman > Longswordsman> Muskets> Rifleman >Great War Inf.> Infantry> Mech. Inf)

    And finally the Anti Mounted(Armour)/Weak Melee

    Spearman > Pikeman > Lancer > Anti Tank > Heli. Gunships

    Having Pikeman go into Rifles or Muskets makes/made no sense, you're taking a unit thats designed to be Anti-Mounted and a Weak Melee in to the Strong Melee line this caused the problem that when Pikeman upgrade they were changing roles and kept there anti-mounted capabilities this made them far to strong. Having them push into the Lancer line makes much more sense since they are the Anti mounted line just like Pikes. Also if you don't have to Build new anti- mounted or anti-Armor units from scratch you can no upgrade all the way.

    The Issues if anything is not that Pikes up to Lancers but with the Lancer themselves.

    Lancers are the only ones in the line that require the resource they are trying to counter. Spear/Pikeman are resourceless and counter Horse units and Antitank/Helicopters are resourceless and counter Oil/Aluminium Units. The Lancer however is the Counter to Calvary but also require Horses. And they themselves count as Mounted (this is less of an issue but still means they are not effective vs there earlier counterpart).

    The final thing that puts people of building lancers is that they were bad in vanilla. This is not the case in gods and Kings (they are much stronger in general now) but perception is hard to shake.
     
  9. Gali

    Gali Prince

    Joined:
    Jun 19, 2011
    Messages:
    541
    Units no longer keep anti-mounted promotions so it makes sense. Spearman line was important when calvary had a role, but rifleman portray the 19th century when increased stopping power really ended that. IN that period anti-mounted forces disappeared. Having lancers fold into infantry line makes sense since infantry was dominant in that period. Anti-tank guns don't belong until WW2 and come at combined arms. Thats too big a gap in effectiveness for a unit that has trouble dealing with riflemen much less GWI or infantry and landship. Either create a new stop gap unit or fold it into infantry. SPear line is decent early but when you hit lancer it loses steam fast and really mkes the line weak.
     
  10. Barghaest

    Barghaest King

    Joined:
    Apr 18, 2011
    Messages:
    758
    Actually that's wrong. Helicopter Gunships require Aluminum, so there are two in that line with strategic resource reqs.
     
  11. Hyper Nova

    Hyper Nova Warlord

    Joined:
    Jan 26, 2007
    Messages:
    217
    The point is that this is from a game play point of view not what happened in real life.

    Yes Pikemen were an infantry unit and merging them into the infantry line at rifles (or since Muskets are now higher than LSman perhaps them) would make sense. But from a gameplay point of view having one line/role of units merge into another line with a different role doesn't make sense and then for the Anti Mounted/Armoured Unit to then Start up again from Lancers onwards is awkward from a game play point of view.

    No other Lines merge with one another now that Ranged units have a line that goes all the way to Machine Guns (with the exception of the final step to mech inf. which is jarring as well), Siege units don't Merge with anything. Mounted units don't merge anyway. So why should the line dedicated to being the Anti Mounted/Armoured merge halfway down the line into a different role and then start up again? That's what never made sense This change allows you to upgrade that unit type all the way to Helicopters.

    But people can't seem to understand the difference to what happened in real life doesn't equal the same thing as game balance or game play issues.

    I iterate again that the issue with the line is the Lancer itself not the Pike up into the lancer.

    I stand corrected, least then you can get hold of some aluminium on your own via recycling plants. But yeah thats also a slight issue with them then.
     
  12. GenjiKhan

    GenjiKhan Emperor

    Joined:
    Apr 29, 2011
    Messages:
    1,117
    If you count Warrior as an initial Strong Melee unit,then you can add 3 units to that count .
     
  13. Hyper Nova

    Hyper Nova Warlord

    Joined:
    Jan 26, 2007
    Messages:
    217
    Err Ok then? I dont get your point? Were talking about the anti-mounted line requiring resources? Warriors are in the strong melee and are resourceless, how does that make a 3rd?
     
  14. GenjiKhan

    GenjiKhan Emperor

    Joined:
    Apr 29, 2011
    Messages:
    1,117
    Warriors could be placed on the same line of the strong meele units,although they are the 2nd weakest combat unit in the game . And to upgrade them to swordsman,you need to have Iron,which puts them in the same situation of Pikeman/Lancers .
     
  15. Hyper Nova

    Hyper Nova Warlord

    Joined:
    Jan 26, 2007
    Messages:
    217
    Oh I see where your coming from. Though not quite the same, we're talking about units that are supposed to counter a resource based unit also requiring said resource.
     
  16. Louis XXIV

    Louis XXIV Le Roi Soleil

    Joined:
    Mar 12, 2003
    Messages:
    13,579
    Location:
    Norfolk, VA
    To me, the weird thing is the Anti-Tank. It makes sense, but you suddenly gain speed, lose speed, and gain it back again. Otherwise, it would feel relatively natural to me. The resource thing doesn't bother me, since resourceless ships upgrade to Frigates.
     
  17. jjkrause84

    jjkrause84 King

    Joined:
    Sep 24, 2010
    Messages:
    959
    Location:
    UK
    I can sort of see the "anti-mounted" line of reasoning....but you're still taking a foot unit and making it mounted, then dismounting it. It is silly and completely ahistorical. Now, yes, I know....gameplay is more important (something I only partially agree with), but does pikes > lancers really improve gameplay that much? If anything it takes a nation's ground-holding troops and makes them incapable of holding ground!!!

    Pikemen should become muskets, period. It makes sense historically, would simplify the upgrade path, and would mean that the player could keep a core of infantry units from the beginning of the game right through to the end.

    I still feel that "gameplay > history" is an easy excuse for sloppy design, but that's probably a topic best saved for another day.
     
  18. compwiz1202

    compwiz1202 King

    Joined:
    Mar 18, 2012
    Messages:
    703
    Location:
    Bethlehem, PA, USA
    The thing I always think is funny about recycling centers is if you don't have any aluminium in the first place, how do you make the things to be recycled? Or if you did have aluminum but used it all to make units or buildings, how would there be any left over to make the things you recycle?
     
  19. Lyoncet

    Lyoncet Emperor

    Joined:
    Dec 20, 2009
    Messages:
    1,676
    Location:
    Minnesota
    The random introduction of a cavalry unit into an infantry line is IMO jarring, unrealistic, and bad for gameplay. Jarring: I already talked about this at length, but suffice to say that infantry - infantry - mounted + reasource - infantry - helicopter + resources is just goofy. This is compounded by the fact that spears and pikes aren't just anti-cavalry. They're also the non-warmonger path/no iron frontline soldier/meatshield/defensive bonus unit. So the Lancer keeps the Pikeman's bonus, but not a large part of its role. Unrealistic: it breaks immersion and makes it feel very "gamey", which is bad when there are good, easy, non-gamey ways of doing it (gameplay > realism, yes, but this isn't a case where one has to be sacrificed for the other). Bad for gameplay: putting a unit with a resource requirement in the middle of an upgrade path. Ever seen a city-state ally get before you can show up to save it because it has a huge army of pikes it can't upgrade going up against WWII infantry? I see it all the time. There's also the problem that a couple techs after Metallurgy lancers are pretty much useless , anti-tanks aren't that great, and as it stands Gunships are a joke. So no, the fact that one unit with a mounted bonus upgrades into another unit with a mounted bonus does not make it a good or reasonable system.

    Alternative: I already proposed one – multiple upgrade paths – which would solve a lot if the problems and is something the game should have anyways (along with a greater range of units, but I digress). But a second alternative would be to introduce another unit that represents mixed-arms forces like the Tercio. In fact, just give Spain a different UU and make that unit, probably with a more generic name, a representation of the musket-pike formations proved to counter cavalry beautifully in the early days of gunpowder. I actually don't see where it could go other than on Gunpowder or Metallurgy (that doesn't make much sense though), and you don't want them to overshadow/overpower muskets, so you'd want to reduce the combat strength somewhat from the Tercio's. But that would pretty much solve the entire set of problems. Pikes get an upgrade that maintains all ther roles, not just one of several like Vanilla and G&K, which just swapped which part of their role they held onto. We don't have a random speed ramp up and resource requirement followed by going straight back (and then back AGAIN). Lancers can be made into a more standard cavalry unit – maybe with the anti-cavalry bonus, maybe not – and put on the Knight-Cavalry path. As it is, Civs with a Lancer UU have to suffer through upgrading from a meh unit, and upgrading into an even more meh unit, and being of very limited use the whole time anyways. And there's just a huge gap between Knights and Cavalry, which this would help fill. It just seems so sensible and simple to me, since it uses a unit that already exists as its template, that it kind of boggles me that they went with the system they did.
     
  20. jjkrause84

    jjkrause84 King

    Joined:
    Sep 24, 2010
    Messages:
    959
    Location:
    UK
    Lyonet, what about solving the problem downstream? Let Pikes become muskets, but introduce a new "line infantry" type unit, that way we don't jump from 1600s technology to mid-1800s technology in one upgrade. It would be easier than trying to squeeze yet another renaissance unit in. The musket units can represent "pike and musket" formations. Line infantry could be had not long after muskets, would be more powerful, but not have any bonus against cavalry.

    As a side note: you do not always need an "anti-mounted" unit. Sometimes it makes sense for certain 'types' of units to exist or not exist.
     

Share This Page