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. Yzman

    Yzman Deity

    Joined:
    Jul 18, 2002
    Messages:
    2,692
    Location:
    Illinois, USA
    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.
     
  2. Barghaest

    Barghaest King

    Joined:
    Apr 18, 2011
    Messages:
    758
    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).
     
  3. jjkrause84

    jjkrause84 King

    Joined:
    Sep 24, 2010
    Messages:
    959
    Location:
    UK
    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.
     
  4. GAGA Extrem

    GAGA Extrem Emperor

    Joined:
    Dec 24, 2008
    Messages:
    1,581
    Gender:
    Male
    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?
     
  5. jjkrause84

    jjkrause84 King

    Joined:
    Sep 24, 2010
    Messages:
    959
    Location:
    UK
    I'm sure it could be done....but I still do not think that a foot unit should ever upgrade to a mounted unit.
     
  6. smallfish

    smallfish Immortal

    Joined:
    Oct 1, 2011
    Messages:
    2,968
    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.
     
  7. Barghaest

    Barghaest King

    Joined:
    Apr 18, 2011
    Messages:
    758
    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).
     
  8. The_Quasar

    The_Quasar King

    Joined:
    Oct 1, 2010
    Messages:
    862
    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.
     
  9. jjkrause84

    jjkrause84 King

    Joined:
    Sep 24, 2010
    Messages:
    959
    Location:
    UK
    Not everything needs to be in an upgrade path which goes all the way back to the classical era. New units can (and should!) be introduced as time goes on.
     
  10. Babri

    Babri Emperor

    Joined:
    Apr 16, 2010
    Messages:
    2,449
    Location:
    Pakistan
    Oh my. Do u know there were a zillion threads pre-G&K about muskets & lancers being useless because they had to be created from scratch. I think this is a perfect compromise.

    Any units that are to be built from scratch should be filling a new role/niche otherwise no one would built it. For example pre G&K ppl built fighters & bombers but no one built lancers & muskets (except some rare circumstances when u have a UU of that type or u don't have strategic resource etc).
     
  11. jjkrause84

    jjkrause84 King

    Joined:
    Sep 24, 2010
    Messages:
    959
    Location:
    UK
    Just because there were threads where people felt they needed a better upgrade path does not mean that all units need to be in one dating back to the beginning of the game (basically, "lots of people" can easily be wrong!). In any case, lancers DO fulfill a new role: they are the only mounted anti-mounted unit in the game (and they are also pretty worthless, in my opinion....but most cavalry is in GAK).
     
  12. bcaiko

    bcaiko Emperor

    Joined:
    May 9, 2011
    Messages:
    1,412
    Location:
    Washington, DC
    I think this an elegant solution for making some oddball units relevant. And all the units are connected by their anti-mobile units abilities.

    ...or how a horse can suddenly need oil to become a tank? There are lots of wierd jumps in the upgrade paths. The connection here is that both units have uses against mobile units.



    As Hyper Nova points out, by the time Lancers show up, a Pikeman style unit no longer needs to fill the "Hold the Line" or "making due" role. You should have access to Musketmen around that time, which do not require a resource. What your new Musketmen can't easily provide is the anti-mobility that your newly upgraded Lancers can do in spades.

    Yes, your Lancers have now specialized their role because of their upgrade. The point is that you can back them up with other units by the time the Lancer upgrade becomes available.

    Just like someone being promoted at work, Lancers go on to fill a role that they do best and someone new takes the old work off their plate.
     
  13. Denkt

    Denkt Left permamently

    Joined:
    Jul 3, 2012
    Messages:
    3,654
    No type of cavalery is useless in Civ 5, mobility is often stronger then pure strength and defensive bonuses. Pikemen are the free resource melee infantry of middle ages but then musktemen takes over this role. Pikmen has also another role, be strong against cavalery which is the lancers role in renisance. In one way or another which upgrade line pikemen follows they will lose one of thier attributes. It would be strange to give muskets that are uppgraded from pikes the anti mounted bonus while they do not gain any bonus from being built from scratch or uppgraded from longsword, why would pikmusket be stronger then longswordmuskets then they use the same weapon. Uppgrading to lancers are a better option for pikes and that why they did chose it. Lancers still counters cavalery, it lack infantery atributes and cost a resource but makes upp for it by having cavalery attributes. A lancer got more base strength then a musketman while knigth is weaker in base strength then a longswordman. The lancer should be used as the knigth in its era and in Industrial it can still battle cavalery cost efficent and may even win one vs one if it can get an early pick at formation II. In its own era lancers may be a unit that is only countered by itself and basicly counters all of the other land units in that era, muskets, lancers, cannons can probably all be countered by lancers so its not a weak unit and it do more then just counter cavalery.
     
  14. jjkrause84

    jjkrause84 King

    Joined:
    Sep 24, 2010
    Messages:
    959
    Location:
    UK
    Is this not the best, most succinct argument for pikemen to upgrade to musketmen?
     
  15. Ulthwithian

    Ulthwithian King

    Joined:
    Apr 25, 2012
    Messages:
    733
    jj: Certainly that is the case, if you start from the premise that you should have a resourceless infantry line unit at all points in history. However, many don't have that.

    There is nothing that says that a resource-free unit should not upgrade into a resource-using unit, or vice versa.

    There is nothing that says you should have access to resource-free line units at any point in history. You may think that is good or bad, but it certainly is more _interactive_ if you are forced to acquire the resources for your units from others (whether peacefully or not).

    Really, if you want this, you need to really change Warrior -> Swordsman. Create an upgrade to the Warrior that doesn't require resources (or, alternately, remove the cavalry bonus from Spearmen/Pikemen). Specialize the Swordsman/Longswordsman into a 'meat shield' role (give them Cover innately?).

    Simply put, a generic line unit should not receive bonuses against specific troop types. If it does, it is not generic.
     
  16. jjkrause84

    jjkrause84 King

    Joined:
    Sep 24, 2010
    Messages:
    959
    Location:
    UK
    Should foot troops upgrade to mounted?
     
  17. bcaiko

    bcaiko Emperor

    Joined:
    May 9, 2011
    Messages:
    1,412
    Location:
    Washington, DC
    No, because Swordsman already fill that role. Pikemen upgrade to Lancers because they have a relation to Lancers - both are effective against mobile units, something no other unit of the era has. And Lancers need something to upgrade into them. It's an elegant solution.

    You don't believe people can be trained to ride horses?
     
  18. Olleus

    Olleus Deity

    Joined:
    Oct 30, 2005
    Messages:
    6,478
    Location:
    England
    I agree with you completely. Lancers do a different job from pikes, and do it well. Therefore, pikes shouldn't upgrade to lancers.

    I know that by the time lancers come around, pikes are no longer capable of holding the line, that's why they should be upgraded into a unit that can. You're just saying:
    "Your pikeman are obsolete at holding the line, therefore you should build a new unit that can do that role". The entire point of having units upgrade is that I don't need to build new units to fill that role.

    My suggestion:
    Gives muskets -25% vs cavalry, so that they no longer dominate the battlefield on their own and you might still want to build pikes/longswords (longswords still upgrade to muskets, but can be built until rifling). Then have pikes and muskets both upgrade to rifles which get +20% vs mounted. At the same time, reduce cavalry and knights movement to 3, boost their strength up a bit; and give the lancer 5 moves or a bonus against gattlings/cannon and remove the anti-cavalry bonus. Everything now works better as:
    1) Units keep their function as they upgrade
    2) The longswordsman is no longer obsolete one tech after you discover it, and same for lancers.
    3) More diverse roles for mounter units, with both a light and heavy cavalry unit existing.
    4) It makes historical sense leading to more immersive gameplay.

    Who's with me?
     
  19. Ulthwithian

    Ulthwithian King

    Joined:
    Apr 25, 2012
    Messages:
    733
    jj: If you are asking from a game perspective, then your real question is whether or not units that do not require a strategic resource should upgrade into a unit that does require a strategic resource.

    In that case, the answer by precedent is clearly yes (in Vanilla, Warrior -> Swordsman). In G&K, you also have Galleas -> Frigate.

    If you are asking from a historical perspective, I do believe that the answer is also yes. Dragoons are basically Mounted Infantry.
     
  20. Ulthwithian

    Ulthwithian King

    Joined:
    Apr 25, 2012
    Messages:
    733
    Olleus: From a balance standpoint, I really don't like the idea of Pikemen being Line units. It greatly discourages the use of Mounted units.

    That is, IMO, the issue is not that the Pikeman doesn't upgrade into a Musketman. The issue is that Pikemen (apart from places like Germany) are line units at all.

    About the only Musketman unit that I think a Pikeman should upgrade into is a Tercio.
     

Share This Page