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

Samurai replace Swordsman?

Discussion in 'Civ6 - General Discussions' started by zwei833, Jun 30, 2016.

  1. Spartan_X

    Spartan_X Chieftain

    Joined:
    May 20, 2016
    Messages:
    88
    Location:
    Athens, Greece
    The Samurai used guns as well:
    Spoiler :


    They even used hand cannons:
    Spoiler :


    Though, of course, they are better known for their sword mastery.
     
  2. stealth_nsk

    stealth_nsk Deity

    Joined:
    Nov 28, 2005
    Messages:
    5,513
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Novosibirsk, Russia
    Well, that's trained and "famous" infantry. There were a lot of less trained infantry, incapable of fighting in formation.They used different kinds of short weapons.

    Also, as you pointed out, pike-based infantry also had some amount of soldiers with other weapons like two-handed swords.

    Finally, in many more "barbaric" cultures like vikings or slavs most common configuration was sword+shield as they often fought in conditions unsuitable for formations.

    All of them could be represented in game.
     
  3. killmeplease

    killmeplease Mk Z on Steam

    Joined:
    Nov 22, 2007
    Messages:
    2,794
    Location:
    Samara
    only if it was a feudal levy or peasant uprising. their weapons could be axes, clubs or such household equipment as flails or scythes. their combat effectiveness was close to zero. not to mention they had no swords or longswords.

    yes but they were few in number and didnt form separate military units.

    so they were swordsmen, not "longswordsmen" or "macemen". and medieval swordsmen were no better than their classical counterparts. as for mace it was a poor man's weapon after metals became widespread.
     
  4. stealth_nsk

    stealth_nsk Deity

    Joined:
    Nov 28, 2005
    Messages:
    5,513
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Novosibirsk, Russia
    I agree with you, but in general:
    - There's a significant amount of melee weapons in this period other than pikes.
    - If game needs some melee unit for this period other than pikes, there are enough sources for this.
    - The unit may need to be visually distinctive enough. Both maces and two-hand swords fit, with two-hand swords being better, IMHO.
     
  5. killmeplease

    killmeplease Mk Z on Steam

    Joined:
    Nov 22, 2007
    Messages:
    2,794
    Location:
    Samara
    my point is, the game does not need a special medieval swordsman, like it doesnt need a special renaissance pikeman - medieval pikeman is just enough, without the stupid upgrade to lancer, and like it is ok without a special renaissance version of knight (though there could be gendarmes or reitars). i think it would be even better if each era had an uber-unit which turned just ok the next era, and had no upgrade before another era.

    e.g. ancient chariots -> medieval xbows, classical swords -> renaissance muskets, medieval knights -> industrial cavalry, renaissance cannons -> modern artillery, late industrial riflemen -> wwii infantry
     
  6. stealth_nsk

    stealth_nsk Deity

    Joined:
    Nov 28, 2005
    Messages:
    5,513
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Novosibirsk, Russia
    Well, it's ok for swordsman to appear later than spears but before pikes and both of the latter to be upgraded to muskets. Historically that's the better and I generally like some reduction in upgrade path as in Civ5 on standard speed the unit change was too fast.

    However, there were the reasoning behind pairing units by era and the reasoning is resources. Original Civ5 idea was to have better resourceful units and weaker resourceless analogues. There could be balance issues without it.
     
  7. killmeplease

    killmeplease Mk Z on Steam

    Joined:
    Nov 22, 2007
    Messages:
    2,794
    Location:
    Samara
    everything can be done bad. civ5's swordsmen are useless, longswords being not much better, despite requiring a detour from education and the iron resource.

    if classical swords were better it would only improve the ballance, and they could retain some usefulness up to muskets without the need in longswords. heck longswords arent needed even now as they're just a couple of techs before the muskets.
    the strong resource-demanding medieval uint could be the knight what would make perfect sense.
     
  8. stealth_nsk

    stealth_nsk Deity

    Joined:
    Nov 28, 2005
    Messages:
    5,513
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Novosibirsk, Russia
    It would be good to have more than 1 resource unit line. Horseman - Knight line likely requires horses, it would be great and historical to tie iron to some units too. So, speaking about potential resource balance for variant with Spears - Pikes, Warriors - Swords and Horses - Knights lines for Ancient - Medieval time:

    If we have both swords and pikes require iron, we'll need some resourceless medieval units to counter this - probably some militia, so those unlucky with resources could get what they need. Or, depending on the balance, ranged units together with warriors/spears could be still somehow usable in medieval. That's one of the variant I see.

    Variant with only pikes requiring iron is interesting, but makes iron usability period in history too short. Variant with only swords requiring iron has the same problem, plus there will be balance issues if the swords will be stronger than pikes (as pikes are later) or weaker than pikes (as this will shorten the iron usability period to be very short). Making them very specialized (like pikes being very weak against foot units) will cause problems in other areas.

    It's possible iron could be required for ranged siege units instead. This could be quite interesting approach, but may reduce iron usability.

    Finally, I can think of the variant where Knight requires both iron and horses, while pikes and swords require none. This could be interesting, but if the land will have more iron than horses, exceed iron will become useless, which is not good.

    Something like this.
     
  9. toft

    toft King

    Joined:
    May 18, 2005
    Messages:
    758
    Location:
    €urope
    -----
     
  10. stealth_nsk

    stealth_nsk Deity

    Joined:
    Nov 28, 2005
    Messages:
    5,513
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Novosibirsk, Russia
    On standard it's still kind of fast.
     
  11. killmeplease

    killmeplease Mk Z on Steam

    Joined:
    Nov 22, 2007
    Messages:
    2,794
    Location:
    Samara
    realistically knights should require both iron and horses and be medieval juggernauts and then still be useful in the renaissance so the period of iron would span from classical to renaissance.
    while horsemen may be a separate line (light cavalry) to upgrade into lancers, having bonuces against ranged and gunpowder uints (while the knight would be a general purpose medieval unit).
    pikes shouldnt require iron i think but also they shouldnt be that strong. it should be mostly a defensive unit, capable of holding a defensive position vs knights and swords but no more than that.
    so if you had no resources you could save yourself with a combination of pikes and xbows and tech to muskets asap. i think it was the initial idea of civ5 but then they have made archers op and spoiled the whole balance.
     
  12. Haig

    Haig Deity

    Joined:
    Aug 3, 2010
    Messages:
    2,537
    Location:
    Finland
    By the way, I think it would be cool to have a Civic or ability where you can combine a musket and a pikeman unit into a tercio, like they did in renaissance.

    With Ed Beach being on helm I'm surprised he didn't as a renaissance buff have this feature.. or maybe it's possible..
     
  13. stealth_nsk

    stealth_nsk Deity

    Joined:
    Nov 28, 2005
    Messages:
    5,513
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Novosibirsk, Russia
    Yes, I've wrote about this. As I said, having unit requiring 2 resources could be very hard to balance. Anyway, let's wait and see.

    Combining units of 2 types to get another one could be interesting, but may be counterintuitive if the feature is used for one unit only.
     
  14. AriochIV

    AriochIV Colonial Ninja

    Joined:
    Jul 25, 2006
    Messages:
    5,958
    Location:
    Nehwon
    It will be interesting to see how Civ VI handles the issue of strategic resources and units. That's something that hasn't yet been addressed.
     
  15. mitsho

    mitsho Deity

    Joined:
    Nov 3, 2003
    Messages:
    7,580
    Location:
    Europe, more or less
    Naming units after their weapons has always seemed a bit wrong to me, especially as it lead to the maceman and stuff. But then again, it's not about realism (which is utopic), but playability. So, rather than a strict categories and lines, I would love a system which kinda changes its paradigm with every tech researched. (I'd also like cheaper units and upgrades, --> more flexibility). And last, but not least, besides ressources the new district and wonders on the map system should shake up warfare as well.
     
  16. AriochIV

    AriochIV Colonial Ninja

    Joined:
    Jul 25, 2006
    Messages:
    5,958
    Location:
    Nehwon
    Civ III had "Medieval Infantry" which was slightly awkward. "Maceman" was only slightly better, and "Longswordsman" was better still (even though the longsword was really a secondary weapon to lances, warhammers or pollaxes for armored knights/men-at-arms). The difference in infantry from classical through medieval times was really more about armor than arms... but there isn't any clear/catchy nomenclature for this series of changes.

    You could go the CivBE route in which you just have generic "Infantry" and you earn upgrades for it, but I found this to be somewhat unsatisfying.
     
  17. ripple01

    ripple01 Emperor

    Joined:
    Mar 7, 2006
    Messages:
    1,251
    Location:
    New York City
    History Rewritten for Civ4 calls the medieval infantry a Man-at-Arms which I think is a good name as it is not tied to a particular weapon. It may be a bit Eurocentric but that is hardly avoidable in a game such as this.


    Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
     
  18. KrikkitTwo

    KrikkitTwo Immortal

    Joined:
    Apr 3, 2004
    Messages:
    12,322
    One could have
    Classical: swordsman
    Medieval: armored swordsman? (Yes the classical ones were armored but easier to say armored and regular than more/less armored)
     
  19. zwei833

    zwei833 HRE Mercenary

    Joined:
    Feb 26, 2011
    Messages:
    1,184
    Location:
    Guangzhou
    Not agree. The difference between medieval sword and classic sword are much more than the difference between medieval pike and renaissance pike . Medieval swords are actually quite different to the classic era ones, worth to make them a independent unit.
     
  20. qwerty25

    qwerty25 Prince

    Joined:
    Mar 24, 2010
    Messages:
    399
    Well they have corps and armies now. Perhaps it could be an extra tech for a tercio ability to combine a musket and pikeman. (I think normally corps can only merge same type)
     

Share This Page