jjkrause84
King
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.
Pikeman upgrade to Lancers?
- Thread starter Sharku
- Start date
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.
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).
jjkrause84
King
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).
bcaiko
Emperor
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.
...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.
Kouvb593kdnuewnd
Left Forever
- Joined
- Jul 3, 2012
- Messages
- 4,146
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.
jjkrause84
King
Is this not the best, most succinct argument for pikemen to upgrade to musketmen?
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.
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.
jjkrause84
King
Should foot troops upgrade to mounted?
bcaiko
Emperor
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?
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.
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.
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.
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.
jjkrause84
King
I was asking in a general sense. The whole "does it require a resource or not" logic is FAR too complex...it doesn't need to be that 'mechanical'. Historically, it makes no sense whatsoever. Just because mounted infantry have existed does not mean that pikemen should upgrade to lancers instead doing what they ACTUALLY did....evolve into musketmen.
To be honest, and this is not your fault, but I'm sick of arguing it. I, and others, have made well reasoned arguments based on a sound understanding of history and a reasonable consideration of gameplay values. I'm beginning to feel that people are arguing more because they cannot abide anything contrary being said about GAK, rather than because they feel that pikemen should upgrade to a completely unrelated unit.
Pikemen > Lancers is blatantly absurd. I still cannot fathom how people have managed to work up any sort of argument in favour of it, however tenuous.
Ulthwithian
King
- Joined
- Apr 25, 2012
- Messages
- 733
jj: You have an argument based on function. Others (including myself) have an argument that is also based on function.
To say that the upgrade chosen by the designers is 'blatantly absurd' is tantamount to saying that the other argument is irrational, and it is not. It simply focuses on a different function.
Your argument, as I understand it, is that Pikemen are the de facto line unit of the early mid-game, and therefore should upgrade into the de facto line unit of the mid-game (Musketman). That is a valid argument, and I do not believe I have ever taken issue with the validity of the argument. This is an argument of empirical function. And that is fine.
My argument is that the Pikemen are a unit that is specialized to attack Mounted units, and therefore upgrades into a unit that is specialized to attack Mounted units (Lancer). This is also a valid argument, as it is an argument of theoretical function.
I do not agree with your argument, as I prefer a more theoretical (and internally consistent) system. I have no issue with your argument as presented.
(Again, as I stated before, I think the better solution is to reduce the reliance on Pikemen as line units.)
To say that the upgrade chosen by the designers is 'blatantly absurd' is tantamount to saying that the other argument is irrational, and it is not. It simply focuses on a different function.
Your argument, as I understand it, is that Pikemen are the de facto line unit of the early mid-game, and therefore should upgrade into the de facto line unit of the mid-game (Musketman). That is a valid argument, and I do not believe I have ever taken issue with the validity of the argument. This is an argument of empirical function. And that is fine.
My argument is that the Pikemen are a unit that is specialized to attack Mounted units, and therefore upgrades into a unit that is specialized to attack Mounted units (Lancer). This is also a valid argument, as it is an argument of theoretical function.
I do not agree with your argument, as I prefer a more theoretical (and internally consistent) system. I have no issue with your argument as presented.
(Again, as I stated before, I think the better solution is to reduce the reliance on Pikemen as line units.)
bcaiko
Emperor
That's an...interesting interpretation of what I said. He's another look:
Longswordsmen and Pikemen both do the "hold the line" job you want Pikemen's upgraded unit to do. Longswordsmen generally do it better, but they cost a resource you may not have. So Pikemen fill two roles: they don't cost a resource, and are also adept at stopping mobile units.
Now the upgrade happens. Around that time you have Musketmen, who don't cost a resource and can do the hold the line job (Pikemens' first job). There are no more Iron units, so Longswordsmen upgrade into Musketmen. You can build Musketmen to your heart's content now!
Then there's Lancers, who do Pikemen's specialty job. No one else does this role previously filled by Pikemen.
You argue that Pikemen should not turn into Lancers, but then who does upgrade to Lancers? Longswordsmen have no relationship whatsoever with the Lancer's role. We also know from experience with CiVanilla that having a unit that no one upgrades into wholly undermines the unit (and the civilizations who use that unit via uniques). Pikemen is the best choice; they share a very special role with Lancers and their other role is now easily handled by Musketmen.
Your solution to have multiple upgrade paths, while understandable, adds needless complexity to an already complex game. Good game often speak of eliminating such complexities in favor of elegant design. I believe the upgrade path chosen for the Pikemen is the best, most elegant solution given that it allows all units to be upgraded into and all roles to continue to be filled by a unit.
I would invite you to look at those two ideas together. Your exasperation is palpable, but you then turn around and make the same type of blanket statement that you accuse others of. Though neither side may "win" this arguement, there is a very good gameplay reason for Pikemen upgrade into Lancers: because they both fill the anti-mobile role. It may not a reason you like, but it is not "absurd."
bcaiko
Emperor
Sorry, I must've confused your earlier posts with someone else's.
It's a long thread.Just curious: under the tweaks you propose, what would upgrade into Knights?
- Lots of players complained about no upgrade line for something into lancer including many experienced players.
- Firaxis analyzed the problem & fixed it.
Plz learn to play G&K before making statements like (cavalry is useless).
No they don't fill a new niche, they are the only unit in their era which kills cavalry so they are very similar to pikes in their function. However they have some advantages & disadvantages over pikes but that is fine. Its like saying that anti-tanks fill a new niche because they kill armour class of units not mounted ones.
jjkrause84
King
This is not really my main argument, although it is one that I have made. My main argument is that a game about history should not make jarring ahistorical gameplay decisions without very good reasons for doing so. In my mind GAK does NOT have a truly compelling reason to not allow pikemen to upgrade to musketmen, instead preferring to, for the first time in Civ history (as far as I can remember) allow a foot unit to upgrade to a mounted unit. It is, at best, a misguided choice, in my opinion.
I can see the theoretical argument, even though I think it takes a minor aspect of both the pikeman and lancer as a point of comparison, ignoring the major aspects (namely: foot vs. mounted). I suspect your position comes from seeing the game from a radically different point of view: seeing Civ as a 'game' like any other. As merely a game it does not need to have any external logical consistency (only internal). I do not see Civ like this, and probably for personal reasons as much as anything (without Civ I would probably never have decided to become a historian, a decision which radically changed my life).
Obviously I do not think or even wish that Civ were 'realistic' (please do not try to argue that). I just want it to have a degree of both external and internal consistency. Again, history will have to be changed to make a game like Civ work....but changes still need to 'feel' right. It's like a joke: the player needs to be able to suspend disbelief. I cannot do that for the transition from pikes > lancers (especially as it is unnecessary).
That is one solution, but not a necessary one. Pikes "feel right" as the pre-eminent melee unit of their era (which, in sheer numbers, they ALWAYS are in GAK). A compromise solution would be to give players the choice between lancers or musketmen. I, personally, would only allow pikes to upgrade to muskets. Doing so would be historical, it would allow players and AI to maintain and upgrade their forces without having to build new ground units, and it would take pikes out of an upgrade path that is "sometimes mounted, sometimes not", which I do not think is ideal from either a logical or gameplay point of view.
Excuse the length of my reply.
jjkrause84
King
Yes, I make a strong and direct statement in my conclusion after having provided a detailed argument multiple times in this thread. Such is the nature of argument. In any case, I did not say that the reasoning behind having pikes upgrade to lancers was 'absurd', but that the result was. Naturally, I do consider the argument for the current upgrade path to be very weak. Look at it this way:
Similarities between pike and lancer:
- Both get bonuses against mounted units
Dissimilarities:
- Pikes can fortify, lancers cannot
- Pikes are the most numerous unit of their type (globally) for their period, lancers are a peripheral unit
- pikes do not require any resources, lancers do
- pikes have the 'normal' movement rate of '2', lancers '4'
- Pikes are primarily static or slow-moving defensive units, lancers are primarily fast-moving offensive units
Pikes upgrade from a unit (spearmen) which is perfectly analogous. They share the same function and fulfill the same role. This cannot be said of lancers upgrading from pikemen.
Good summary of the problem.
To the people saying "there was a problem and they fixed it, so what's the issue?" I'd like to say that not all solutions are inherently good solutions. They could solve the bad combat AI if they removed war. Or removed single-player. These would be bad solutions. So no, just solving the (or rather, a) problem does not necessarily excuse poor mechanics.
While I don't think it's necessary them to include a horseman-lancer light cavalry line, I do think that Lancers should be put on the cavalry path with another foot soldier to continue the Pikeman line. There's no real reason that Lancers have to be anti-cavalry; they'd be fine as just the next rung in the ladder with possibly more sight/movement than Knights and Cavalry. That (and/or multiple upgrade paths) fixes pretty much all the problems without really creating any. It would be a decidedly good solution, IMO.
If you see the role of Lancers during history,they always have been used to chase wounded soldiers and no general would think about using them directly against full units . Probably,one thing that could be made to reflect that,is to give them a combat bonus against enemy units with HP below 25 HP and give them another promotion,that gives them +1 movement for every enemy unit killed .
