Pikeman upgrade to Lancers?

[KrikkitTwo]

There is a problem with upgrade wierdness in the pike line.

I'd suggest changing it to
Pike->Rifle (like the Impi)
Knight->Lancer->Cavalry (allow Lancers to be built until Dynamite or Railroad though)

and have the AT gun use Helicopter promotions rather than melee promotions

(also Keshik/Camel Archers ->Gatling Guns, and Chariot Archers->Crossbows, but that is different)

 

[digrosz]

if knight upgraded to lancer and lancer upgraded to cavalry, the lancer would have a very short non-obsolete period. Now they can atleast be a somewhat decent counter to Cavalry.

 

[Babri]

if knight upgraded to lancer and lancer upgraded to cavalry, the lancer would have a very short non-obsolete period. Now they can atleast be a somewhat decent counter to Cavalry.

Lancers don't fill any niche IMO. They kill knights, pikes can do a decent job for that as well. They loose to cavalry so their anti-cav sort of role fails here. Then they upgrade to AT guns which is even more weird because they gain defensive bonuses but loose mobility.

It should be like this :-
Knights -> lancers (standard horse unit of renaissance era, no bonus against horses) -> Cavalry

Pikes ->?? (renaissance anti-cav foot soldier) -> Anti-tank.

Sent from my HTC One V using Tapatalk 4 Beta

 

[VainoValkea]

Historically, lancers coexisted with dragoons, who are absent from the game, unless you count the modern cavalry.

 

[Gyra Solune]

Lancers don't fill any niche IMO. They kill knights, pikes can do a decent job for that as well. They loose to cavalry so their anti-cav sort of role fails here. Then they upgrade to AT guns which is even more weird because they gain defensive bonuses but loose mobility.

It should be like this :-
Knights -> lancers (standard horse unit of renaissance era, no bonus against horses) -> Cavalry

Pikes ->?? (renaissance anti-cav foot soldier) -> Anti-tank.

Sent from my HTC One V using Tapatalk 4 Beta

Pretty much this, yeah. I considered the possibility of giving Spain a unique building to replace the Tercio, which would be renamed the Pike and Shot and be put in as the general Renaissance anti-cavalry.

 

[KrikkitTwo]

if knight upgraded to lancer and lancer upgraded to cavalry, the lancer would have a very short non-obsolete period. Now they can atleast be a somewhat decent counter to Cavalry.

They are Not a decent counter to cavalry*... and I would have them not go obsolete until Dynamite (mostly for Lancer UU)

Lancer v. Cavalry=25+33% v. 34
or
33.33 v. 34

The best counter to Cavalry is other Cavalry

Pikes should just go to Rifles (like the Impi does) or Muskets (Since Muskets are just as good v. Horse Units as Pikes)

AntiTank can be its own(have it use the Helicopter promotions..mobility and Antitank)

 

[reddishrecue]

When I upgraded my pikes into lancers, I thought 'what happened to the defensive bonus for infantry? ' since the pike is no longer infantry/melee and now a mounted, which doesn't get defense bonus like melee does. When I was trying to upgrade my warrior to a musketman in civ 5 I couldn't because I lacked iron to upgrade into swords and then into musks. I figured it would be a lot cheaper to make a new musk and delete the old warrior or have the warrior scout new lands.

 

[George Abitbol]

Historically, lancers coexisted with dragoons, who are absent from the game, unless you count the modern cavalry.

I wish Dragoons were included in the game. It coul be a cool unit: can fight both on horse or on foot. So if your sources of horses are pillaged, they can still fight as infantry unit. Maybe it would fill the gap between knight and cavalry.

 

[Calouste]

I wish Dragoons were included in the game. It coul be a cool unit: can fight both on horse or on foot. So if your sources of horses are pillaged, they can still fight as infantry unit. Maybe it would fill the gap between knight and cavalry.

That would more likely be modeled in Civ5 as a mounted unit that gets defensive bonuses, like the Conquistador.

 

[Vidszhite]

Question 1: Why is this year old thread necro'd and nobody seems to notice?
Question 2: Why don't people recognize that while Lancers aren't the best, their upgrades are certainly serviceable in the later eras?

1) Lancers are still crap.
2) Every unit the Lancer upgrades into is crap too.

Helicopters can't even stand up to WWII Infantry for pete's sake, and they're Information Era units that cost Aluminum. Helicopters and AT Guns are wayyy over-specialized, and when other units can do their job just fine, and then go on to do other jobs, that's the mark of a useless unit.

 

[KrikkitTwo]

1) Lancers are still crap.
2) Every unit the Lancer upgrades into is crap too.

Helicopters can't even stand up to WWII Infantry for pete's sake, and they're Information Era units that cost Aluminum. Helicopters and AT Guns are wayyy over-specialized, and when other units can do their job just fine, and then go on to do other jobs, that's the mark of a useless unit.

Lancer is fine in the Renaissance era... it is terrible in the Industrial and Modern eras.

It should be between Knights and Cavalry.

(Helicopter could be improved as well..after all they gave paratroopers range 9 from 5)


as for necroing the thread... they made the impi (pikes) upgrade to Rifleman.. so hopefully they may finally fix the pike line in the Fall patch.

 

[3drawegroeg]

Pike to Lancer was a great change. It increases variability from game to game due to resource availability. Lack of strategic resources should matter. That's all been debated to death, though. I just came here to say that pike to winged Hussar upgrade is @\/\/3$0/\/\3. They have a short shelf life, but they're incredible during their window of opportunity.

 

[KrikkitTwo]

Pike to Lancer was a great change. It increases variability from game to game due to resource availability. Lack of strategic resources should matter. That's all been debated to death, though. I just came here to say that pike to winged Hussar upgrade is @\/\/3$0/\/\3. They have a short shelf life, but they're incredible during their window of opportunity.

The problem with lancers is their window of opportunity closes in the early Industrial Era. They can't upgrade to anything until the Atomic Era.

That's why Lancers should be in the mounted line
and
Pikes+Spears should be in the Melee line.

 

[megabearsfan]

This issue has been debated to death in the 2K forums as well.

I also do not like the Pike to Lancer upgrade for several reasons.

First and foremost, the pike is the default infantry unit of the Medieval era. Longswords are a resource unit and are supposed to be specialized at capturing cities. The default infantry unit of one era should upgrade to the default infantry unit of the next era (Ancient being the only exception, as the Warrior and Spearman are both "default" units). Thus, the pike (as the default unit of the medieval era) should upgrade to the musket (as the default infantry unit of the Reniassance). You should not have to build an entire new defensive army just because you entered a new era. If that's what they wanted to do, then nothing should have upgraded to the Musketman, and Longswords should have upgraded to Rifles (as in vanilla game). Or muskets and rifles should require a resource (i.e. saltpeter). If the devs want spears/pikes to be a specialized unit, then they should reduce their base strength so they aren't as competitive against warriors/swords and aren't practical for use against an invasion force, then introduce a NEW classical/medieval infantry unit (i.e. a axe/mace) that can act as a resourceless-default unit.

Secondly, the jump from foot unit to specialized mounted unit back to foot unit then to helicopter is jarring.

Lastly, the civilopedia says that the invention of muskets and bayonets obsoleted pikes and spears. So there

If you ask me, the upgrade tree in general needs some work.

 

[thegingerninja]

Also, something stings about a unit upgrade being completely wasted in combat by its predecessor in combat because it is now the thing it is supposed to kill

 

[DemonMaster]

Also, something stings about a unit upgrade being completely wasted in combat by its predecessor in combat because it is now the thing it is supposed to kill

But they have the same target, the same purpose. The same concept. Lancers is more offensive though.

 

[Walter R]

...and guess what the most common militaristic CS unit gift is?! I tend to swap them with inland city garrisons so that I can use the more useful promoted ranged units at the front - I guess everyone else does? I agree the AT gun is rubbish but the helicopters can be great - bugs me that they can't fly out over water though, this seems a silly restriction.

 

[Babri]

But they have the same target, the same purpose. The same concept. Lancers is more offensive though.

The problem is that lancers don't actually specialise in killing mounted units practically speaking. Even without formation promo they'll be able to defeat knights. And even in current state (ie having anti-cav bonus) they fail miserably against cavalry which has much higher strength. So lancers should actually be in between knights & cavalry.

Sent from my HTC One V using Tapatalk 4 Beta

 

[ledfranklin]

I really liked this change. I think having a strong, cheap, front line unit that lasts as long as the pikeman did and upgraded to another relatively cheap unit made going to war to easy. Throwing the SR in the line makes them more important and makes you think a lot more about what you're building. I would have actually nerfed the pikeman a little and buffed the swordsman/longswordsman a little to make iron even more crucial. Wars throughout history have generally been fight over two things, religion and resources. This might require domination to be a more strategic victory by first having to conquering cities with SRs, allowing you to build more units to go conquer more cities. But this could also be chalked up to a fundamental view difference, where some people think that domination should be the "default" VC and others do not.

 

[Strategist83]

1) Lancers are not a crappy unit. They deal as much damage against mounted as a next-tier (renaissance vs medieval) unit (yes, the Lancer is a medieval era unit, even if it's technically placed in Renaissance). They absolutely slaughter Knights and can move after attacking, to boot. The only reason people dislike them is, as usual, that they base their balance observations upon what is needed against the AI. The game is not - and should not - be balanced around this.

2) Germany in particular just breaks down due to this change as they can no longer convert their Landsknechts into their WW1 & WW2 armies as intended (which is the real use of the Landsknecht unit). At the very least an exception needs to be made so that Landsknechts upgrade into the Rifleman series. It makes no sense that Germany ends up with massive anti-cavalry/defensive unit armies rather than an offensive one.

*

The problem is that lancers don't actually specialise in killing mounted units practically speaking. Even without formation promo they'll be able to defeat knights. And even in current state (ie having anti-cav bonus) they fail miserably against cavalry which has much higher strength. So lancers should actually be in between knights & cavalry.

Total nonsense. First, Lancers are decidedly an anti-cavalry unit meant to battle Knights. Second, the Formation promo gives them high enough strength to battle Cavalry (33 vs 34) at significantly lower hammer cost. Lancer is fine.