Pikeman upgrade to Lancers?

[Louis XXIV]

Why can't Lancers hold the line?

 

[Kouvb593kdnuewnd]

In middle ages the longsword got one more strength then the knight, In renisance the lancer which is cavalery, anti cavalery got one more strength then the musketman who is the uppgrade to longsword. So lancer is not a bad unit and probably dominate its era better then knigth dominate its era.

 

[compwiz1202]

Why can't Lancers hold the line?

I'm sure they could if the opposing units were outteched since they don't get defensive bonuses, but the lancers are best for hitting the flanks and retreating behind melee zone of control - take out range/siege (and most likely become a sacrifice ) - scouting - pillaging - finishing off the enemy city.

Could also be fun to build like a dozen or more lancers and sneak attack.

 

[Hyper Nova]

I've said this a few time, but nobody seems to listen, maybe this will help:

PIKEMEN ARE NOT EXCLUSIVELY ANTI-CAVALRY UNITS. WHEN YOU ARE LOW ON IRON, FOR MANY AIs AND FOR ALMOST ALL CITY-STATES, THEY ARE PRIMARILY AN INFANTRY UNIT MEANT TO HOLD THE LINE WITH DEFENSIVE BONUSES TO PROVIDE COVER FOR RANGED UNITS BEHIND THEM. LANCERS CANNOT DO THAT.

At this point in the game IRON units are OBSOLETE so Lancers DONT Need to do the job Pikes once did they ONLY need to be anti-mounted.

Muskets are Available for you to use as your front line with no resources and Gunpowder is needed before Metallurgy.

Whats so hard for people to understand that it makes more sense to have the
anti-mounted unit become an anti-mounted unit on upgrade?

 

[Lyoncet]

Whats so hard for people to understand that it makes more sense to have the
anti-mounted unit become an anti-mounted unit on upgrade?

Do you really want me to retype everything I just posted or what? The sooner we stop making the argument that both Pikes and Lancers are defined by the fact that they have a bonus vs. mounted and only by the fact that they have a bonus vs. mounted, the sooner this conversation will actually start moving again.

 

[Louis XXIV]

Also, since Pikes never upgraded to Muskets, you had a time period where you had to build a different set of units as modern front line infantry anyway.

 

[Hyper Nova]

Do you really want me to retype everything I just posted or what? The sooner we stop making the argument that both Pikes and Lancers are defined by the fact that they have a bonus vs. mounted and only by the fact that they have a bonus vs. mounted, the sooner this conversation will actually start moving again.

I don't disagree the Lancer is the oddball out in the entire line.

But at the point they come in the need for a cheaper front line infantry not requiring a resource goes out the window due to muskets being available.

Therefore the need to replace the pikeman with a unit that can hold the front line AND be anti-mounted isn't necessary the only thing that make the Pikes unique over the muskets at that point is the anti-mounted part so having it upgrade to a anti-mounted unit is the only major area that the next unit up needs, hence Lancer.

However I think the Lancer has a lot of inherent flaws as I mentioned before.

Maybe Lancers should be replaced by a Infantry style unit thats uses gunpowder but is specifically a Anti-mounted unit thats cheaper than muskets to build but can hold the lines like you want. But isn't as strong as Muskets but when it gets it bonus vs mounted it does do high damage to those units. IDK

I just personally feel its logical to keep 5 completely distinct Sets of units rather than have 2 sets merge and one start back up halfway.

 

[Lyoncet]

Forward motion!

 

[jjkrause84]

@ Hyper Nova:

You do not always need to have the 3-4 'roles' (melee, ranged, siege, anti-mounted?) filled at all times. To an extent it makes the game too linear. Instead of recognizing a system and bending over backwards to make units fit into it, why not just create a better system?

 

[Hyper Nova]

@ Hyper Nova:

You do not always need to have the 3-4 'roles' (melee, ranged, siege, anti-mounted?) filled at all times. To an extent it makes the game too linear. Instead of recognizing a system and bending over backwards to make units fit into it, why not just create a better system?

Maybe, I don't know thats just how its seems to have been designed. If you were to make a "better" system you would probably have to start from the ground up and that might be a topic for a whole new thread.

 

[jjkrause84]

Lord Olleus: For your "something else", what about a light tank, like the Renault FT-17? Weaker than a heavy tank, but more movement points and perhaps the ability to move after attacking. It would fit perfectly.

 

[HeraldtheGreat]

This a complete kick in the balls for my entire infantry line to turn into a garbage unit
no one uses.

Tell that to my Hakkapaliita wall, bub!

 

[Yzman]

I'm not arguing that there is no need for lancers, only that pikeman shouldn't upgrade to them.

Let say I'm playing as china and my army consists of chokonus and pikemen, which works fine as a combination. No need for expensive resource consuming longswords. Pikemen providing defence, CHK the attacking power. Clearly, I want my pikemen to upgrade to another defensive unit. But once I reach metalurgy my pikemen upgrade to lancers - clearly not the unit I want. Sure, I could build a whole load of new musketmen/riflemen, but that's annoying. I want the unit which fills the role of a front line infantry unit to upgrade to the next unit which fills the role of a front line defensive unit.


The way the game should work IMHO is to go back to how it works vanilla. The expensive and cheap infantry units merge (which is historically accurate and makes for good gameplay as there is no modern resource requirement for infantry units) and two bring back two mounted unit type:
Light cavalry: horseman->lancer->something new->helicopter
Heavy cavalry: knight->cavalry->landship->tank->modern armour

Lancers with no more moves than cavalry are useless, as cavalry are only 1 tech up and literally better at everything, even killing other cavalry. Lastly, the anti-tank gun and AA gun should be merged into a single unit as, frankly, neither are useful enough in their own right. Being good against only 1 type of unit when the enemy might yield 5 or 6 different ones is not enough. A field gun or battery (modelled on the german 88mm) would be a unit actually worth building. Similarly, the SAM batter should be replaced by an RPG unit of some sort which is good against both aircraft and tanks. The helicopter would be relegated to a light cavalry recon/hit-and-run style of attacks.

In fact, I did a mod which did the latter for vanilla, will probably re release for G&K in a few weeks, once I've really gotten to grips with modern warfare.

It sounds to me that you want pikes to fit the role you want them too, and not the role that the developers want them too. Just because you say that pikes are a front line infantry unit does not make it so. Clearly longswords are supposed to be your infantry for that time. Don't have iron? Well that is the point of strategic resources. You will suffer for a bit, having to use other units ( such as pikes) to deal. However that does not mean that is the main purpose of pikes, and as such they shouldn't upgrade into something they are not. If you are screwed out of iron the logical thing is to make due until you can get access to musketman, which is the point of the line. They are resourceless front line infantry units.

 

[Barghaest]

Heh, having my Immortals upgrade to Lancers makes them vicious (especially with March) can't wait to see them working as Anti-tank guns once I get the Mobility promo as a Lancer... or even better as Gunships (if they live that long).

I still say all this fuss would be fixed if they gave a two-choice upgrade path for units (I believe that had than in Civ IV, but it's been so long I might be mistaken) allowing Pikemen to upgrade to either Lancers or Musketmen... and Chariot Archers to upgrade to either Knights (to remain mounted or if the Civ has a ranged knight UU) or Crossbowmen (to remain ranged).

Lancers could go Tank (for sooner promotion) or Anti-Tank (to maintain the anti-cavalry style role).

 

[jjkrause84]

It sounds to me that you want pikes to fit the role you want them too, and not the role that the developers want them too. Just because you say that pikes are a front line infantry unit does not make it so. Clearly longswords are supposed to be your infantry for that time. Don't have iron? Well that is the point of strategic resources. You will suffer for a bit, having to use other units ( such as pikes) to deal. However that does not mean that is the main purpose of pikes, and as such they shouldn't upgrade into something they are not. If you are screwed out of iron the logical thing is to make due until you can get access to musketman, which is the point of the line. They are resourceless front line infantry units.

Ah, yes...the now common, "Well, you must be playing the game wrong" argument.

Face it, pikes are the primary ground melee unit for the entire world in their time. FAR more pikes will be deployed than longswords in the years before muskets (if you take all Civs and lump them together). Thus, you are taking the most prevalent ground melee unit of its time (arguably the most common in the entire game) and making them upgrade to a mounted unit. Aside from the fact that foot units should never upgrade to mounted units (and vice versa), you force empires to rebuild their basic ground forces from scratch, which is not only jarring it is utterly ahistorical. What were once pike squares eventually became units of musketmen. There is not a single good reason for civ to NOT follow this same upgrade path.

Yes, I know "gameplay > history" but if a game about history is going to force the player to suspend disbelief for gameplay reasons it needs to have a viable reason for doing so. In this particular instance, Civ 5 doesn't.

 

[GAGA Extrem]

I wonder if there is some sort of limitation within the game mechanics that prevent us from having a "upgrade to lancer" AND "upgrade to musketman" button...
...because that would solve the issue, right?

 

[jjkrause84]

I wonder if there is some sort of limitation within the game mechanics that prevent us from having a "upgrade to lancer" AND "upgrade to musketman" button...
...because that would solve the issue, right?

I'm sure it could be done....but I still do not think that a foot unit should ever upgrade to a mounted unit.

 

[smallfish]

The best is having a Jaguar upgraded into a Spearman from ruins, and then surviving all the way into a Jaglancer.

Those are awesome Arborea units.

 

[Barghaest]

The best is having a Jaguar upgraded into a Spearman from ruins, and then surviving all the way into a Jaglancer.

Those are awesome Arborea units.

I had a Jaguar chain upgrade to Helicopter Jagship from ancient ruins... talk about dominating the map EARLY. I didn't finish that game and the next one had ruins back off (was playing around with them to see the new entries for faith and such).

 

[The_Quasar]

While I'm not ecstatic about the new upgrade paths, imho, they are an improvement over how they were before...

The biggest problem seems to be how to fit in Lancers. They can't go into the Knight spot, unless they are completely buffed to fit between Knight and Tank. The only real alternative is to put them where they are now, or leave them on their own, with no upgrade path, which would be a lot worse. That would mean an even larger gap between Pikes and Anti-Tank Guns.

No matter what Fraxis did, they would come into criticism. However, I think this compromise is probably about the best that could be achieved, while still maintaining relatively logical upgrade paths.

A slightly better arrangement might be to leave them resource-free.