Pikeman upgrade to Lancers?

[Ulthwithian]

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 cannot see ANY upgrade from pre-gunpowder to gunpowder units, or from Cavalry units to Armor units, given what you said. 'Units become obsolete', IMO, is NOT a 'truly compelling reason' to allow these upgrades.

Since I have no problem with them, I cannot imagine that a far smaller change (Pikemen to Lancers) can evoke such a response.

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 view the 'anti-cavalry' focus of the units as the major aspect, and foot vs. mounted as minor.

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).

As a historian, how do you defend Cavalry upgrading into Landships? Certainly that is a far more radical change?

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).

I do not understand how you can suspend disbelief on the pre-gunpowder -> gunpowder upgrades, and not suspend it for Pikemen -> Lancer.

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).

That is an internal issue, and not an external one. That is, the fact that they are _in CiV_ the pre-eminent melee unit of their era is due to their resource-less nature, which is a game mechanic, not a historical issue. I am unsure why you can accept a game-theoretical defense of your position without also accepting a game-theoretical defense of the opposing position.

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.

As I understand it, I would allow pikes to upgrade into Tercios (the typical pike-and-musket formation of their era, correct?). I would not allow them to upgrade into generic musketmen. A better solution would, IMO, keep the separation into at least Riflemen. Pikemen would then be inexcusably weak by then, but I digress.

Excuse the length of my reply.

Why is the length an issue? Incidentally, what is your area of specialization in history?

 

[Buccaneer]

As an aside, I never understood the hate for the Cavalry unit. They have won Civ games for me including some in Civ5. They are powerful as a Rifleman and much more mobile, I perceive. I successfully played with Keshiks and Camels and as powerful as they become, I still upgraded some of them to Cavs. There were situations where I needed the firepower that the ranged units could not offer.

 

[ArcticPenguin]

As I read through this lengthy topic, I felt compelled to add my two bits as I felt some were looking at two separate problems and conflating them into a single issue: The "historical" suitability of the pikeman to lancer upgrade and the "game mechanics" approach. For issues of game mechanics, I am not a designer, although I do confess possessing mixed feelings regarding the upgrading of pikeman to lancers.

From the historical perspective, I see two issues at play. First, infantry coexisted with both pikes and muskets of the matchlock variety. For a long period of time, the pike was the preeminent battlefield weapon. The "push of pike" won battles. During the Thirty Years War, European militaries began increasing the number of matchlocks to pikes in the battle formations, but the pike remained the decisive feature of land battles due to the slow rate of fire, lack of reliability, etc. As time progressed however, and the comparative lethality, reliability, dissemination, and technological advancement all made superior muskets of various types of firelocks the new predominant battlefield weapon and pike became relegated to a supporting role of the anti-cavalry variety. This persisted until socket bayonets supplanted the pike altogether sometime in the early eighteenth century, certainly by the conclusion of the War of Spanish Succession. Now this is a purely European perspective, certainly Asian military powers had a different experience. Thus, from a historical perspective, moving from pike to musket, assuming the musket in question is sometype of firelock, makes sense.

Now, pike to lance is an odd choice to a degree, to be sure, from a historical perspective, if not from a gameplay one. There are lance armed cavalry and there are the light cavalry called lancers. Lance armed cavalry could be used against other cavalry, but it held no great advantage or disadvantage in this application, but it was used quite effectively against infantry. The Byzantines made great use of lance armed cavalry, as did the Ottoman empire. I think if one imagines the visage of a large mammal bearing down upon oneself with a long lance that would pierce straight through the body, it is easy to understand why they were valued as a shock anti-infantry weapon to break formations.

Traditionally, heavy cavalry would charge enemy lines and then return to reform their lines, as at close range swords were generally regarded as superior. However, at the time period the game seems to introduce lancers (and because we already have a knight unit), the lance had begun to be considered a poor choice as an anti-cavalry weapon. Lancers (the light cavalry) were not especially well armored (of course there are exceptions). Lancers (i.e. Uhlans) could be used to flank opponents, charge lines, launch raids, or for pursuit of defeated opponents. By the time of the rifled musket, lancers were, in my opinion, probably superfluous in military formations, though some may argue otherwise. The Crimean War drove that point home by my estimation.

If anything, I think the game underrates the power of mounted units in the early game. Perhaps celebrated battlefield fiascoes have led to us to somewhat underrate their usefulness. Not every battle ended like the charge of the light brigade. I would much prefer to see cavalry get some type of bonus versus infantry, or maybe an increased flanking bonus, to better portray the effectiveness of heavy cavalry in breaking lines. The Hussars comes to mind.

I suppose, in conclusion, I would say that I have no issue with pike upgrading to lancers per se, but that the rational that they do so because of their supposed inherent virtue as some great historical anti-cavalry formation is specious at best.

 

[jjkrause84]

I cannot see ANY upgrade from pre-gunpowder to gunpowder units, or from Cavalry units to Armor units, given what you said.

As pike units did evolve into musketmen, and since muskets in-game fulfill the same role (mass infantry) they should be connected in the upgrade path. I am not sure how you reach the above conclusion.

I view the 'anti-cavalry' focus of the units as the major aspect, and foot vs. mounted as minor.

Please see my post above of similarities and dissimilarities.

As a historian, how do you defend Cavalry upgrading into Landships? Certainly that is a far more radical change?

I don't defend Cavalry > Landships; I never have and never will. Landships should have to be built from scratch....just as they were. It makes introducing a new, powerful unit (like armour) fun by forcing the player to invest time producing it.

I do not understand how you can suspend disbelief on the pre-gunpowder -> gunpowder upgrades, and not suspend it for Pikemen -> Lancer.

This is because pre-gunpowder units DID evolve into gunpowder units....pikemen never became lancers.

That is an internal issue, and not an external one. That is, the fact that they are _in CiV_ the pre-eminent melee unit of their era is due to their resource-less nature, which is a game mechanic, not a historical issue. I am unsure why you can accept a game-theoretical defense of your position without also accepting a game-theoretical defense of the opposing position.

Not all theory-based arguments are made equal. It doesn't matter why pikes are the preeminent unit, all that matters is that they are. The most numerous ground-holding unit in the game should not upgrade to a peripheral flanking-attack unit.

As I understand it, I would allow pikes to upgrade into Tercios (the typical pike-and-musket formation of their era, correct?). I would not allow them to upgrade into generic musketmen. A better solution would, IMO, keep the separation into at least Riflemen. Pikemen would then be inexcusably weak by then, but I digress.

My guess is that 'musketmen' are in fact pike and musket units, based on the time period they arrive, and on the unit icon (in the bottom-left hand corner, not the floating icon). These are incredibly small, and possibly meaningless, indicators, but an argument could certainly be made. If anything, the game lacks a "line infantry" unit in-between muskets and rifles, which would be a nice addition. Why would keeping pikes from gunpowder until rifles make more sense?

Incidentally, what is your area of specialization in history?

My main area of expertise is the First World War (specifically the French Army), but I'm comfortable with European military history from 1337-1945 (and have a special and growing interest in the American War of Independence). I can "get by" on certain later conflicts, but my knowledge becomes far less detailed after 1945.

 

[Babri]

But lancers, don't kill cavalry. Let me do the maths for you:

Lancer:Cavalry (No experience on either side)
25*1.33 : 34 => 33:34 Cavalry wins narrowly, but when you take the unit cost into account (185:225), it's kind of fair, specially as cavalry can do other stuff.

Now consider the far more likely scenario of both units having two promotions at +20% each, and both being affected by a great general.
Lancer:Cavalry
47:53
The cavalry now wins even more.

Hence, the lancer is not even a good anti-cavalry unit.


Is the Lancer good against other lancer? Well, let's do the maths too. If the other side has a lancer, I can build a lancer to counter it and its even. That costs me 185 hammers.

But what if I just build pikes instead. The odds then are 24:25 against me and I have fewer movements, but that only costs me 90 hammers. So I can build 2 pikes per lancer they have (at slightly more maintenance cost, but significantly less beakers required). Whats more, I can fortify my pikes or put them in hills/forests/jungles. Thus, pikes are clearly better than lancers against other lancers.

Why would I build Lancers then? I guess if my enemy has lots of knights and I have researched metalurgy but can't be bothered to tech to military science. That's it.


I retract what I said earlier about Lancers being good at their job. They are not. Firaxis thought that something should upgrade to them. They were right, pity they picked the wrong unit from both a gameplay and historical perspective.

No they are good at their job if u know how to use them properly. They are cheaper & are available earlier than cavalry.Let me do the calculations again.

Lets say a city with barracks+armoury creates a lancer & a cavalry.

• Lancer costs 185 while cavalry costs 225 i.e cavalry is approximately 20% expensive.
• Lancer takes 1 terrain promo + formation II. Cavalry takes 2 terrain promos.
• Lancer : 25 +25*(15+33+33)/100 = 45.25
• Cavalry : 34 +34*(15+15)/100 = 44.2

The battle may go into a stalemate/minor defeat instead minor victory if we put in other factors like GG bonus.

Lancers are 20% cheaper. They are available earlier & can be good for scouting as well as doing serious damage to cavalry. They might be buffed slightly to make them more effective against cavalry but again swords loose to pikes so lancer & cavalry equal against each other is not really a big issue.

The problem is that some people are trying to use it completely like they use pikes. Lancers have certain advantages & disadvantages over pikes which is fine, in vanilla knights used to have less than horsemen.

• Higher mobility.
  [*]Better scouting potential.
  [*]Cavalry cannot outrun them like they can with pikes.
  [*]Can absolutely annihilate backward civs that are stuck with knights & crossbows due to their bonus against cavalary coupled with high mobility.
  [*]Doesn't receive penalties in flat terrain.
• Pikes are better in rough terrain.
  [*]Pikes can fortify but lancers can't.

 

[Babri]

I don't defend Cavalry > Landships; I never have and never will. Landships should have to be built from scratch....just as they were. It makes introducing a new, powerful unit (like armour) fun by forcing the player to invest time producing it.

Another gameplay Vs realism issue. I think it is perfectly fine (from gameplay perspective) as it is right now & Firaxis won't change it. Probably u need to mod things to make a realism mod then.

 

[Ulthwithian]

As pike units did evolve into musketmen, and since muskets in-game fulfill the same role (mass infantry) they should be connected in the upgrade path. I am not sure how you reach the above conclusion.

I guess that depends on how you view 'upgrading'. I see upgrading as primarily upgrading the equipment. I do not see it as upgrading in training. As such, pikemen did NOT evolve into musketmen. They specifically were there as a bulwark against cavalry to allow the musketmen time to do their jobs, correct?

Please see my post above of similarities and dissimilarities.

I saw it. My conclusion is that you weight the similarities and dissimilarities differently than I do. That doesn't mean that one of us is correct, and the other is completely irrational.

I don't defend Cavalry > Landships; I never have and never will. Landships should have to be built from scratch....just as they were. It makes introducing a new, powerful unit (like armour) fun by forcing the player to invest time producing it.

And, IMO, the same should hold true for a Musketman. Early gunpowder units should be built from scratch. You cannot hand a musket to a trained pikeman and expect them to do anything useful with it, from a tactical perspective. (Yes, you can make the same argument with handing a pikeman a horse.)

This is because pre-gunpowder units DID evolve into gunpowder units....pikemen never became lancers.

And I disagree here. They did not evolve; they were supplanted. The fact that they existed at the same time, and were used for different purposes, shows this. This is a better argument if you go from Pikemen to Riflemen, but I would argue in that case that Riflemen upgrades is much closer to giving a Musketman a Pike than it is to giving a Pikeman a Gun.

Not all theory-based arguments are made equal. It doesn't matter why pikes are the preeminent unit, all that matters is that they are.

And I disagree with this as well. I believe that pikes as the preeminent unit is a mistake in a game sense (it artificially devalues Horsemen, in particular), and therefore arguing that 'fixing' this mistake by continuing their line status is fixing the wrong problem.

The most numerous ground-holding unit in the game should not upgrade to a peripheral flanking-attack unit.

This I can agree with, in principle. Your solution is to fix the second part. My solution is to fix the first part.

My guess is that 'musketmen' are in fact pike and musket units, based on the time period they arrive, and on the unit icon (in the bottom-left hand corner, not the floating icon).

Why do you guess this? We have a pike and musket unit in the game (the Tercio), and it gets a bonus against Mounted units. I would argue that this shows that the regular Musket unit is, therefore, NOT a pike and musket unit. This is supported by the fact that at no point in CiV have the developers allowed Pikemen to upgrade into Muskets.

If anything, the game lacks a "line infantry" unit in-between muskets and rifles, which would be a nice addition. Why would keeping pikes from gunpowder until rifles make more sense?

Because I do not believe that Musket units (aside from the Tercio) represent integrated Musket and Pike formations, for the reasons stated above. And, therefore, there is no game reason and no historical reason that Pikemen should upgrade into Musketmen.

 

[GThreepwood]

I was also surprised at first to see my veteran Pike's upgrade to Lancers. As Babri pointed out It's nice to have more movement, scouting ability and that. The only thing i don't like is the city attack penalty (fortifying not much since i mostly attack and rarely defend xP ).

This will make Ottoman Sipahi much more valuable, and actually the Ottomans are turning into a very good Civ since the G&K expansion.

I still prefer Cavalry over Lancers though...

P.S. Landships (Cavalry upgrade) are BEASTS !

 

[Ulthwithian]

Threepwood: It certainly does change the balance aspect of multiple Civs. Any Civ with a Lancer UU (IIRC, Ottomans and Sweden) got a huge upgrade in power from this.

Any Civ that has a unit that upgrades into a Lancer now (that would be Hoplite, Immortal, Landsknecht, upgraded Maori Warrior / Jaguar Warrior, IIRC) now has to determine what they would prefer.

 

[Wuddel]

I really miss my Immortal-Mech Infantry. Just saying. Also Pitish Warriors should upgrade into (Long)Swordsmen, since they are clearly not anti-cavalry.

 

[Ulthwithian]

Wuddel: Oh, I completely agree that Pictish Warriors should be either Warriors or Swordsmen.

 

[Lyoncet]

Threepwood: It certainly does change the balance aspect of multiple Civs. Any Civ with a Lancer UU (IIRC, Ottomans and Sweden) got a huge upgrade in power from this.

Any Civ that has a unit that upgrades into a Lancer now (that would be Hoplite, Immortal, Landsknecht, upgraded Maori Warrior / Jaguar Warrior, IIRC) now has to determine what they would prefer.

Putting Lancers on the upgrade path is good. Putting them where they put them is not good. These can both be true, so this line of thought really talks around the point more than it addresses it.

 

[Ulthwithian]

Lyoncet: Well, given the (apparent) restriction of one unit upgrading to only one other unit, where would you place Lancers on the upgrade path?

 

[Barghaest]

Any Civ that has a unit that upgrades into a Lancer now (that would be Hoplite, Immortal, Landsknecht, upgraded Maori Warrior / Jaguar Warrior, IIRC) now has to determine what they would prefer.

Landsknecht have no special promotions to transfer (they're just an improved/cheaper version of Pikemen that carry nothing over to the next unit no matter if it's Lancer or Musketman) there are several UU that follow this pattern - Roman Legions and Ballistae are another example that springs to mind...

Maori/Jaguar upgrade to the Sword line unless you get an upgrade via Goody Hut.

 

[Ulthwithian]

Barghaest: Right. I meant by 'upgrade Maori...' one that got hit by the Goody Hut randomness.

I was just listing all of the Spearmen/Pikemen UUs that I could remember.

 

[Lyoncet]

Lyoncet: Well, given the (apparent) restriction of one unit upgrading to only one other unit, where would you place Lancers on the upgrade path?

I've seen one mention of making a "light cavalry" line, which I think isn't the best solution, but it's one way of doing it. Alternately, it could be put between Knights and Cavalry, which currently is a huge gaping hole that Lancers happen to fit right into. If you add a line infantry like the Tercio as the early gunpowder anti-cavalry and for Pikemen to upgrade into (and then later upgrade to anti-tanks), you no longer need the Lancer to fill that role and it can be just the next step along the way, possibly with an extra movement/sight to keep its light cavalry feel. Fixes a slew of problems. Doesn't really break anything or make anything less engaging/fun. Easy. Haven't really seen any objections past "it's fine the way it is" (which obviously plenty of people disagree strongly with). Seems pretty sensible.

Although ideally something like this would also be accompanied by multiple upgrade options for some units, but that's a larger issue than just where Lancers fit on the path.

 

[ArcticPenguin]

Instead of light cavalry or a specific anti-cavalry unit, why not give all infantry bonuses against cavalry if they are fortified? Then pikemen could upgrade into muskets, and have knights upgrade into lancers?

 

[Ulthwithian]

Lyoncet: The main issue with Knights -> Lancer -> Cavalry is that, IIRC, the Knight -> Lancer isn't much of an upgrade. It also certainly changes the concept of the Knight from heavy cavalry to light cavalry, which I find very jarring.

This also does nothing to fix the issue that Horsemen have, in which the ubiquitous nature of the Pikemen make them completely awful.

 

[Bechhold]

TBH who uses Lancers anyway...

 

[Barghaest]

TBH who uses Lancers anyway...

Well, I do for one. The high attack + mobility made them a great unit even Pre-G&K. I usually play slow-paced games on large or huge maps so there's time to use each unit type which makes their little niche quite appealing.

If you don't like pikes upgrading to lancers, don't upgrade em... by the time you get Lancers you should be able to churn out fresh units with 45-60xp (and likely Morale, Drill I or both) so it's not like you lost a lot with replacing over upgrading (with the few exceptions of Civs with spear UUs).