That sounds good to me because it will make Riflemen more of a counter to Cavalry rather than a substitute. And I think that is exactly what they are supposed to be.
Russia - the most overnerfed civ in the game! Should it be improved?
- Thread starter 0R4NG3
- Start date
That sounds good to me because it will make Riflemen more of a counter to Cavalry rather than a substitute. And I think that is exactly what they are supposed to be.
Mortius said:
LMAO... now that's just plain silly :S... let's see how your theory goes, go on world builder give yourself 2 Pike and your Opponent 1 Cavalry and use your 2 pikes to attack the Cavalry, do it as many times as you want and record who wins.
now do it again with 3 Warriors and 1 Prat as stated above.
I really don't have time to debate about such things... the game itself with prove the point.
onedreamer
Dragon
You can call me Onedreamer and not "dude". You said that if you beeline for Cannons you CAN'T have the above mentioned techs, and I said it's incorrect. This is a straight fact that doesn't allow any objection, in fact I don't understand what your objection is ?
This post is about Cossacks (Cavalry), hence this is not just any individual situation, but THE situation we are interested in.
I hope you'll never teach a newbie then. Your answer should be "depends on [...]". As you yourself admitted above.
We were talking about upgrades in this particular situation. Quite off topic, I must admit, but it wasn't me to bring up a discussion about it, it was you.
No
This you can read from my first answer to "Orange", which is the sole reason why I got myself stuck in this silly discussion, in which I said that it's better to research Military Science and Military Tradition before Rifling, for strategic reasons. I think the reasons I gave on why having Grenadiers and Cuirassiers is better than having just Riflemen, or Riflemen first, make perfect sense; and the only answers I have received until now are stubborn comments that start with "Dude". The whole point is that Orange started this thread because he thinks that it's best to beeline Rifling, and doing so makes having Cossacks useless. I objected why this is not true with the FACT that fielding Cuirassiers and Grenadiers is better than fielding just Riflemen, especially if you're not SO advanced, and I've only received incorrect and incomplete and in the end useless answers (typically because it's hard to bring out objections to facts). I will close our discussion saying that anyways, we have different concepts of beelining. I will never beeline a tech 3 eras ahead.
onedreamer
Dragon
Nope, I am objecting your statement that Cossacks are useless because "beelining for Riflemen ignoring Military Tradition is better".
I used mathematics to show it -_-" Did you do the same ?
And I don't object that Riflemen CAN come before Cossacks. I object that Rifling comes 2 techs earlier than Military Tradition. Read what I write in the correct way please.
Absolutely true. If the AI wants to attack you, it will go for Grenadiers. So what will you need to stop it ? Riflemen ? No.
If you attack the AI, it will of course go for Riflemen. So what will you do to kill them, use Riflemen ? I hope not.
In both cases having Cuirassiers and Grenadiers before Riflemen is better.
You didn't say that cossacks can't come before Rifles, or I didn't read it, and I surely didn't object this. But I think you don't understand my point. I said that you make a point, in this thread, of the FACT that Riflemen come 2 techs earlier than Cavalry. For you this is a fact, and I have tried to show you that it isn't, that it's just a possibility, your own strategic choice, but not an absolute truth. I have been telling you that a better strategy would be to research Cuirassiers and Grenadiers first, which leads to the consequence that Riflemen and Cossacks come together. You don't want to accept that and continue to state that going for Riflemen first is better as an absolute truth, well I have understood by now that you won't accept anything else than your truth, so well... *shrug*
Why ? I think it's exciting enough. It's as exciting as any other unit. Pretty much all units are strong vs one and weak vs one other, and the same with Cavalry.
How YOU play is irrilevant here since you are discussing the game, hence how a gazillion players play. If Cossacks are not strong enough because of how YOU play, then just mod them as you think they would fit better.
PS: to end our discussion, I do think that Cossacks have been nerfed a bit too much. But not Russia.
Wodan
Deity
Yes sir.
- I said "don't" not "can't".
- If you get a non-required tech, it wouldn't be a beeline.
Fine. I loaded a game. It costs 110gp to upgrade a single Cuirasser. Meanwhile, you can spend 120 hammers to build anew. Generally, I would value commerce to hammers at a 1:2 ratio. Some people do 2:3. Either way, it's a poor economic choice.
My original statement was "Upgrading is almost always a poor economic choice."
Mr. Onedreamer, please don't twist my words. Nor, be so accusatory on a subjective issue.
If your tactic to teach a new player is to present them with all their choices, and a treatise on when and how each is relevant, then 2 hours later you'll find they've lost interest and mentally wandered away. A new player wants to know the general approach. Simply letting them know that some cases exist where other alternatives may be a good idea is all they want or need to know at that point. When they are ready to learn more, they will do so on their own initiative, either researching on their own or asking, at which point giving more detail is both warranted and desired. Prematurely forcing too much detail down someone's throat is much more likely to have a negative result.
Okay, let me try to sum up. I'll ignore the insults.No
This you can read from my first answer to "Orange", which is the sole reason why I got myself stuck in this silly discussion, in which I said that it's better to research Military Science and Military Tradition before Rifling, for strategic reasons. I think the reasons I gave on why having Grenadiers and Cuirassiers is better than having just Riflemen, or Riflemen first, make perfect sense; and the only answers I have received until now are stubborn comments that start with "Dude". The whole point is that Orange started this thread because he thinks that it's best to beeline Rifling, and doing so makes having Cossacks useless. I objected why this is not true with the FACT that fielding Cuirassiers and Grenadiers is better than fielding just Riflemen, especially if you're not SO advanced, and I've only received incorrect and incomplete and in the end useless answers (typically because it's hard to bring out objections to facts). I will close our discussion saying that anyways, we have different concepts of beelining. I will never beeline a tech 3 eras ahead.
Cuirassers+Grenaders > beelined Riflemen in your opinion (you call it a fact, but it is your opinion and is subjective). However and regardless, your caveat is that you do not beeline in the sense that others beeline, and thus you cannot get Riflemen as early as others can get Riflemen. So, it seems to me that your viewpoint is not valid on this issue.
Whether Riflemen > Cossacks is true or not -- you say this is an invalid question in the first place, because that is not a choice available to your playstyle. I agree with you there.
Wodan
Yah, yah, as I said we are talking about different things. I'm talking exclusively about beelining, and I don't think that the way I play is irrelevant, because alot of people beeline, it's a widely used strategy.
Wodan
Deity
He didn't say "useless" he said (twice), "But as I said if cavalry's main role is to protect riflemen from grenadiers it is not very exciting."
If you insist on getting all earlier era techs, then your objection is valid.
However, we should establish that the point of beelining is to have an advanced unit as early as possible, so that its tactical benefit is to give a huge, overwhelming superiority.
Thus, all the techs that you insist on getting, are making Rifling come that many techs later. For you, but not for someone who is doing a more direct beeline. It's more than 2, actually.
Actually, Riflemen do quite well attacking Grenadiers. They're higher strength, after all. The only question is standing on the defensive. In which case I would suggest simple, straightforward Longbows. They will do quite well, only cost 75
, and can be whipped out in response to the enemy invasion. You, Mr. Onedreamer, will have Nationalism and thus could draft, in which case Musketmen will do well as your city defenders. Though, honestly, Longbows = Musketmen when in the role of city defense, so this is a moot point. In any event, people who beeline Rifling, however, will not have Nationalism, so they would probably do best churning out longbows while they rally their Riflemen to go kill the Grenadiers.Riflemen against Riflemen? Well, I would have beelined Rifling, so it is very unlikely for this situation. It would mean my attempt to beeline failed (or, more properly, did not result in the benefit for me that I was basing my entire game up to that point to achieve). And so, if I see that my enemy has caught up technologically, then I probably wouldn't attack him in the first place unless I had numerical superiority (more units). I would stop and wait until I had Cannons or Infantry. Basically I would have to re-evaluate my entire game strategy and figure out how to recover.
What you don't or choose not to understand is that this also gives your enemies time to research better units of their own.
The whole point of beelining is to prohibit your enemy from doing exactly that.
With your playstyle, I can see how you would think this.
Wodan
18 str cossacks has been done before and was found to be overpowered, 18 str cavalry will likely end up just the same, just boosting a riflemans bonus so that the two new units = each other out does not take into account the effect this will have on cav vs every other unit in the game.
The two main problems for cavalry is not it being no good when you have it, it's that the upgrade path has a such a big hole, that the unit is only useful for a short period an then is effectively obsolete, the second infantry arrive
And the second is a credibilty gap when pikemen (what are they even doing in this era?) has a 1 in 4 chance to kill one, the answer to these issue's is not to buff up a cav's str to beat pikemen, it;s to get pikemen out of the late gunpowder era all together, since pikemen were effectively obsoleted by muskets which also obsoleted bow an arrow, yet in civ for some reason the musketmen is a kinda no role unit which is strange.
First point can be addressed by a early modern replacement for cav to bridge the gap to gunships which are a late modern unit.
Although cavalry was not as influencial in modern war, it still played a part in the conflict, particuarly on the eastern front, right up to WW2, cavalry of this era tended to function more like the dragoons of old, in that they used horse's to get around but fought mainly dismounted, so they were like more mobile infantry basically, the biggest issue for cavalry is while all other units get a early modern an then later modern update, cavalry does'nt get this, until gunships, so it's like the equivalent of going from a rifleman to mech inf, what they need is either a late styled cavalry unit based around perhaps the polish cavalry of WW2 which was basically a mounted infantryman who used horses for greater mobilty, or a light an fast armoured unit which is what replaced cav on the western front, to slot into the early modern era mechanic.
At the moment you can build these things right up until advanced flight! although why you'd want to is another thing, they need to either get a early modern unit in there or obsolete it with something like assembly line (Although whatever cav's you have left you can upgrade, to gunships if you have any left alive when you get to helicopters, but you should have them dissappear from the build options before gunships.
As for pikemen, well pikemen beating cavalry they shoudn't even be in this era, they were a medieval unit and were replaced by musketmen, who quickly took over as the main counter to cavalry as they could shoot them from a distance, the current musketmen is a bit of a funny unit, nothing upgrades too it, and it's quickly replaced by the later grenadiers etc, and during the time you have it, it does'nt seem to have much of a role, anti horse > pikemen, city attack > macemen , its just a unit with str 1 above mace an 1 below knight an no res requirements, hell you cant even upgrade longbows to it! and you can still build longbows....
Longbows, Crossbows an Pikemen should all upgrade to musketmen who should obsolete them all, musketmen should have a 25% vs mounted like riflemen, that would get rid of the whole pikemen killing cavalry thing, which as others have pointed out is streching credability a lot
Musketmen effectivly obsoleted bow an arrow an pikemen, so why longbows,crossbows an pikemen do not simply upgrade into musket men is beyone me, the gunpowder teck should require both education an guilds
The two main problems for cavalry is not it being no good when you have it, it's that the upgrade path has a such a big hole, that the unit is only useful for a short period an then is effectively obsolete, the second infantry arrive
And the second is a credibilty gap when pikemen (what are they even doing in this era?) has a 1 in 4 chance to kill one, the answer to these issue's is not to buff up a cav's str to beat pikemen, it;s to get pikemen out of the late gunpowder era all together, since pikemen were effectively obsoleted by muskets which also obsoleted bow an arrow, yet in civ for some reason the musketmen is a kinda no role unit which is strange.
First point can be addressed by a early modern replacement for cav to bridge the gap to gunships which are a late modern unit.
Although cavalry was not as influencial in modern war, it still played a part in the conflict, particuarly on the eastern front, right up to WW2, cavalry of this era tended to function more like the dragoons of old, in that they used horse's to get around but fought mainly dismounted, so they were like more mobile infantry basically, the biggest issue for cavalry is while all other units get a early modern an then later modern update, cavalry does'nt get this, until gunships, so it's like the equivalent of going from a rifleman to mech inf, what they need is either a late styled cavalry unit based around perhaps the polish cavalry of WW2 which was basically a mounted infantryman who used horses for greater mobilty, or a light an fast armoured unit which is what replaced cav on the western front, to slot into the early modern era mechanic.
At the moment you can build these things right up until advanced flight! although why you'd want to is another thing, they need to either get a early modern unit in there or obsolete it with something like assembly line (Although whatever cav's you have left you can upgrade, to gunships if you have any left alive when you get to helicopters, but you should have them dissappear from the build options before gunships.
As for pikemen, well pikemen beating cavalry they shoudn't even be in this era, they were a medieval unit and were replaced by musketmen, who quickly took over as the main counter to cavalry as they could shoot them from a distance, the current musketmen is a bit of a funny unit, nothing upgrades too it, and it's quickly replaced by the later grenadiers etc, and during the time you have it, it does'nt seem to have much of a role, anti horse > pikemen, city attack > macemen , its just a unit with str 1 above mace an 1 below knight an no res requirements, hell you cant even upgrade longbows to it! and you can still build longbows....
Longbows, Crossbows an Pikemen should all upgrade to musketmen who should obsolete them all, musketmen should have a 25% vs mounted like riflemen, that would get rid of the whole pikemen killing cavalry thing, which as others have pointed out is streching credability a lot
Musketmen effectivly obsoleted bow an arrow an pikemen, so why longbows,crossbows an pikemen do not simply upgrade into musket men is beyone me, the gunpowder teck should require both education an guilds
Cvntpumeler
Warlord
- Joined
- Sep 17, 2007
- Messages
- 102
I agree with everything you just said. It annoys the piss out of me that musketmen are so damned worthless -- the only thing that can even be used for is stack defense because they are = to longbows in city defense...
Wodan:
Even if you play as Russia, you shouldn't let the nonuse of your unique unit convince you to make a play that's detrimental to your win.
I would argue just as stringently that if you think you'll have no use for Cataphracts, you shouldn't force the issue as Justinian, if you could win better using other units, or by skipping era warfare altogether.
Even as Russia, I find the Cossacks to be nonessential as the main bulk of an army, which is in direct contrast to Redcoats and Praetorians, for instance. The main reasons why Redcoats and Praetorians are so useful isn't because of their inherent strengths. It's because they're a type of unit you would usually build anyway, even if you didn't have a UU of that sort. That means that the UU and its advantages is used almost every game.
You could argue that this is, in fact, a reason to boost the Cossack to the extent that I WOULD consider it essential to get, but in that case, you'd be making a huge strength boost to the Russian war machine by making what's a nonessential unit so strong that it displaces the main army composition, instead of just making a commonly used unit type slightly stronger.
Of course, a Praetorian is both a commonly used unit type and obscenely strong, but that's beside the point.
Of course, that isn't my point at all. Especially as Russia, a major in the Military line techs is a strong military play because it allows you to access Cossacks right at the outset of acquiring Rifling. That's a very strong move, since the newly minted Cossacks on the backs of their newly minted Rifleman comrades will probably be all but unstoppable.
To the contrary, upgrading is absolutely an excellent economic choice as long as the upgrade is done in the field and with a specific and immediate military goal in mind. The classic examples of such upgrades would be the Warrior-Swordsman upgrade, the Cavalry Rush, and the Maceman-Rifleman shift. All these upgrades are, on the face of it, massively unsound, but for the fact that what you're paying for isn't, in fact, a unit but time. Upgrading a unit buys you time.
Instead of 8 Cuirassers and maybe 4 Cavalry that will be built in about 7 turns plus 3 turns to get to front, you get 8 Cavalry on the field now. The momentum gained in such a shift is quite often invaluable, well worth the money. For peacetime efforts, I agree that building up new units from scratch is often preferrable to upgrading old units, unless the preexisting old unit promotions are somehow at a premium.
Even if you play as Russia, you shouldn't let the nonuse of your unique unit convince you to make a play that's detrimental to your win.
I would argue just as stringently that if you think you'll have no use for Cataphracts, you shouldn't force the issue as Justinian, if you could win better using other units, or by skipping era warfare altogether.
Even as Russia, I find the Cossacks to be nonessential as the main bulk of an army, which is in direct contrast to Redcoats and Praetorians, for instance. The main reasons why Redcoats and Praetorians are so useful isn't because of their inherent strengths. It's because they're a type of unit you would usually build anyway, even if you didn't have a UU of that sort. That means that the UU and its advantages is used almost every game.
You could argue that this is, in fact, a reason to boost the Cossack to the extent that I WOULD consider it essential to get, but in that case, you'd be making a huge strength boost to the Russian war machine by making what's a nonessential unit so strong that it displaces the main army composition, instead of just making a commonly used unit type slightly stronger.
Of course, a Praetorian is both a commonly used unit type and obscenely strong, but that's beside the point.
Of course, that isn't my point at all. Especially as Russia, a major in the Military line techs is a strong military play because it allows you to access Cossacks right at the outset of acquiring Rifling. That's a very strong move, since the newly minted Cossacks on the backs of their newly minted Rifleman comrades will probably be all but unstoppable.
To the contrary, upgrading is absolutely an excellent economic choice as long as the upgrade is done in the field and with a specific and immediate military goal in mind. The classic examples of such upgrades would be the Warrior-Swordsman upgrade, the Cavalry Rush, and the Maceman-Rifleman shift. All these upgrades are, on the face of it, massively unsound, but for the fact that what you're paying for isn't, in fact, a unit but time. Upgrading a unit buys you time.
Instead of 8 Cuirassers and maybe 4 Cavalry that will be built in about 7 turns plus 3 turns to get to front, you get 8 Cavalry on the field now. The momentum gained in such a shift is quite often invaluable, well worth the money. For peacetime efforts, I agree that building up new units from scratch is often preferrable to upgrading old units, unless the preexisting old unit promotions are somehow at a premium.
Wodan
Deity
Actually pikes and muskets got used together quite often. Muskets were too slow loading, and a cavalry rush, while it took a lot of casualties during the initial charge, would absolutely devastate the musketmen when they got in close. Hence: the use of pikemen in front of the muskets, to hold off the cavalry while the musketmen slowly pounded them to death.
Now, pikes were obsoleted by faster loading weapons, particularly breechloaders. It wouldn't be a stretch to equate breechloaders with the Rifleman unit, so that's when pikes should really be obsoleted.
Disagree... see above
Agree here. Firaxis tried to fix this in BtS with moving techs around, but it's still a bit of a mismatch.
Musketmen didn't obsolete longbows. It took a lot longer to train a bowman, years and years. But, longbows would decimate muskets.
I think my own preference would be to separate muskets into two units: arquebus (or matchlock) and flintlock musket. On the face of it, this might seem to make it even weaker, but I would do these changes:
- make gunpowder cheaper
- make arquebus units cheaper (historical accuracy reflecting you could train them in weeks not years)
- make arquebus units slightly weaker. Str 6 maybe.
- arquebus could get bonus vs non-gunpowder units but only on attack, while they might actually be -25% when defending vs mounted units
- make flintlocks available with Chemistry, perhaps
- flintlocks would be stronger, somewhere in the 10-12 range
- arquebus would upgrade to flintlocks
It wouldn't bother me a huge amount if they upgraded. However, it makes sense that they don't, because historically they didn't. Once you trained a longbowman, it would be ludicrous to take away his longbow and hand him a musket. He was stronger and more effective as a longbowman. The game should reflect this fact, rather than be patched still further ... fix an inaccuracy with another inaccuracy doesn't make sense to me.
Wodan
Wodan
Deity
Roxlimn: I agree with most everything you said.
Wodan
Wodan
@Wodan: It's gotten better with the tech tree and musketmen, but still isn't anywhere near perfect. At least you train muskets now because they are not obsoleted in the time it takes you research Chemistry.
If you were keeping one musket unit in the game, cheapening it would go far to improving it. The point of early gunpowder units, as you correctly pointed out, was not that they were more effective or lethal than existing weapons (for a long while, they were inferior), but rather the fact that it took years to learn how to use a longbow well, but only a week to become proficient with a gun.
@peter450: Do some research on the tercio formation, a popular military unit in Renaissance Europe that uses both pikemen and musketmen in a phalanx-type unit. Gustav II Adolf (or whatever you want to call him), a Swedish king, revolutionized warfare in Europe when he trained an all-gunpowder army (okay, it wasn't all muskets, but he relied much more heavily on them). This was in the 17th century. Gunpowder units, such as cannon were introduced in Europe around the 13th century. The Arquebus was used starting around the 15th century.
If you were keeping one musket unit in the game, cheapening it would go far to improving it. The point of early gunpowder units, as you correctly pointed out, was not that they were more effective or lethal than existing weapons (for a long while, they were inferior), but rather the fact that it took years to learn how to use a longbow well, but only a week to become proficient with a gun.
@peter450: Do some research on the tercio formation, a popular military unit in Renaissance Europe that uses both pikemen and musketmen in a phalanx-type unit. Gustav II Adolf (or whatever you want to call him), a Swedish king, revolutionized warfare in Europe when he trained an all-gunpowder army (okay, it wasn't all muskets, but he relied much more heavily on them). This was in the 17th century. Gunpowder units, such as cannon were introduced in Europe around the 13th century. The Arquebus was used starting around the 15th century.
Cvntpumeler
Warlord
- Joined
- Sep 17, 2007
- Messages
- 102
^^ Wodan
I see your point about Musketman and Pikemen supporting each other -- that does make perfect sense. The thing that doesn't make sense is that Pikemen have a 25% chance to kill Cavalry units regardless of whether or not a Musketman is in their tile.
While I have no doubt that you are correct about Pikes and Musketmen working together to defend against cavalry (why the hell wouldnt they!), that just doesn't really work too well with civ mechanics...
Personally, I think we need to bring back the ZOC in some form or another. I really liked in Civ3 if you attacked a unit with a ranged unit in it's stack, the ranged unit would have a chance of damaging your unit before combat begins. I guess this is kinda like a first strike, but its not because the units dont support each other in the same way. I liked it...
I see your point about Musketman and Pikemen supporting each other -- that does make perfect sense. The thing that doesn't make sense is that Pikemen have a 25% chance to kill Cavalry units regardless of whether or not a Musketman is in their tile.
While I have no doubt that you are correct about Pikes and Musketmen working together to defend against cavalry (why the hell wouldnt they!), that just doesn't really work too well with civ mechanics...
Personally, I think we need to bring back the ZOC in some form or another. I really liked in Civ3 if you attacked a unit with a ranged unit in it's stack, the ranged unit would have a chance of damaging your unit before combat begins. I guess this is kinda like a first strike, but its not because the units dont support each other in the same way. I liked it...
weasel77066
Prince
Another point is that musketmen negate the shock and cover promotions. So throwing a single musket into a garrison, with its defense of 9, and any promos you give it, takes alot of zing away from your enemy. Mace do not get the pinch promo, and unless they are really XPed with City3, a musket is a good defender. Knights DO get the pinch promo after gunpowder, however, Formation is a good counter. During the transition from medieval to gunpowder musketmen make a good step and its set up so that you can customize them depending on the needs of your garrison... (if your enemy is throwing knights against your bows, a quick line of musket with formation kills his attack)
I dont think they are obsolete or too expensive, and as they upgrade easier than older units, negate the older "specialized promos" and kick your power level up a notch (for diplomacy)- I definitely see a use for them interspersed with your regular forces.
I dont think they are obsolete or too expensive, and as they upgrade easier than older units, negate the older "specialized promos" and kick your power level up a notch (for diplomacy)- I definitely see a use for them interspersed with your regular forces.
I agree with most of what you've said. The original 18 str cossack was way too powerful, however I am not sure that if Cavalry was made to have 18 str now it would be just as overpowered and here's why:
1. One of the reasons why cossacks were so overpowered was that you could easily get them before their main counter - Riflemen, now it is more difficult to do so.
2. The other reason is that gunships used to come earlier making building cavalry more attractive. Now however as you have pointed out cavalry doesn't upgrade to anything for ages.
So I am not sure whether it would be so ridiculous to increase cavalry's str to 18, especially considerring that riflemen would get a +50% bonus against them. Maybe I'm wrong.
Here's another suggestion:
Allow cavalry to upgrade to tanks instead of gunships, this would make cavalry much more attractive. Also I remember someone saying (was it perhaps Wodan?) that tanks are a form of cavalry. I suppose they're deffinitely more similar to cavalry than gunships are.
I think tanks are the modern equivalent of heavy cavalry, but yes having the option to upgrade either to tanks or gunships seems a common sense solution that would not require additional units to be added, after all riflemen can either upgrade to sam infantry or infantry, so cavalry being able to upgrade to either tanks or gunships which are the modern day cavalry equivalents seems like very sound logic to me.
As to pikemen an musketmen i know that musketmen did not obsolete these units overnight an that it took many years, but in terms of gameplay, it's a logical progression, things in civ tend to happen in accelerated timeframes, theres no early WW1 fighter, it's WW2 fighter an Jet Fighter, Musketmen need a role, they may aswell not exist at the moment, in terms of gameplay people find modern cavalry with guns being beaten by pikes a bit hard to swallow, just like cannon's blasting longbowmen looks a bit of a mismatch two, having longbows, crossbows + pikemen upgrade to musketmen, and musketmen taking the role of thse units would tend to mean cannons, currisars, grenadiers etc would all be running around balsting musketmen an riflemen which would seem to be a better fit for era of these units, that the current one which see's to many longbows, pikemen running around with things like cannons an grenadiers.
As to pikemen an musketmen i know that musketmen did not obsolete these units overnight an that it took many years, but in terms of gameplay, it's a logical progression, things in civ tend to happen in accelerated timeframes, theres no early WW1 fighter, it's WW2 fighter an Jet Fighter, Musketmen need a role, they may aswell not exist at the moment, in terms of gameplay people find modern cavalry with guns being beaten by pikes a bit hard to swallow, just like cannon's blasting longbowmen looks a bit of a mismatch two, having longbows, crossbows + pikemen upgrade to musketmen, and musketmen taking the role of thse units would tend to mean cannons, currisars, grenadiers etc would all be running around balsting musketmen an riflemen which would seem to be a better fit for era of these units, that the current one which see's to many longbows, pikemen running around with things like cannons an grenadiers.
I've never studied History, especially military history, I have no idea about it, I don't mean to insult it or anything...but couldn't we just give the Muskets Bayonets and they'd be kind of like a semi-pike or were muskets with Bayonets didn't come into war until later in the game and that'd be inaccurate???
I'd really like to see game graphics of close combat rifles using Bayonets... seems a little boring that all they do is stand and shoot especially when their up against charging middle age units like Maces and Knights.
I'd really like to see game graphics of close combat rifles using Bayonets... seems a little boring that all they do is stand and shoot especially when their up against charging middle age units like Maces and Knights.
onedreamer
Dragon
Wodan when you say that pikemen are efficient (defensive) counters for cavalry and longbowman to grenadiers, you're only speaking theoretically. In the real game, you ought to have a decent army on the field if you're attacked, true you can whip longbowmen easily, but you can only whip one per turn, and that is not effective against grenadiers. The best result you would obtain is delaying the fall of your city of another turn while helping your enemy to damage your cities. On the other hand, if you were fielding a decent number of longbows (as many as you need to effectively stop grenadiers) before the attack, then you were paying twice or more the support in gold for your army than your enemy. I wouldn't call this an efficient counter/tactic, it sounds more like an emergency strategy that is not even sure to work. My main problem with your and Orange point about beelining for Riflemen is that the topic is "Russia - the most overnerfed civ in the game!", where one of the reasons why Orange thinks Russia has been nerfed is that Cossacks now require Rifling, but Rifling enables Riflemen which greately undermine the importance of Cossacks, so it is better to just skip Cossacks alltogether since Riflemen come 2 techs earlier (this is what I gathered, correct me if I am wrong). Now my only objection to this, from the beginning, has been that the topic is general, and when you have to come down to decide, or "judge", if a civ has been overnerfed, you must consider all aspects of the game and not just one or some (for example consider that your opponent may be a human player not the necessarily the AI). But in the end in all your replies you only speak of beelining Rifling, as if it's the "universal strategy".
And we're back, again!
Man, I wish it would take you less time to answer, 'cause I forget what the whole discussion is about and have to reread some of the posts just to understand what you are talking about.
You are right beelining is not a universal strategy, but it is VERY popular, meaning that alot of people use it. Also most people play single player games. So it only makes sense to discuss the strategies and experiences of the majority. I do understand your point though, and yes under certain circumstances cossacks can be very helpful, but as I said those times are few.
Pikemen - look at it from the point of view of an attacker. Would you prefer to attack a city defended by pikemen with cossacks or riflemen?
In one of my games I have successfully defended my cities with pikemen against Shaka who used cavalry, if he had the brain to attack me with riflemen I'd be pretty much dead. (I was seriously behind in tech) Oh and obviously since I needed to catch up really quickly I had to avoid nationalism and Military tradition, so yeah, no Cossacks in that game either...
As for the title of the topic, I didn't mean to say that Russia is the worst civ at the moment, I was just surprised that it was nerfed so much, I mean I never considered Russia to be that powerful, even with the ubercossacks, to require so many nerfs.
I, actually changed my opinion about the UB a little, after playing some games and beelining to it; with beelining it can be useful, however I'd still prefer if it came with a different tech.
My main complaint is that in most of my games as the Russians I hardly ever use either the UU or the UB, so the whole experience is rather dull, I could've had the same experience playing as any other civ without using their UU and UB.
Similar threads
