Discussion in 'Civ4 - General Discussions' started by kristopherb, Nov 13, 2006.
should mounted get cover?
i find that knigths that doant have cover is a pain in the ass(donkey)
No, knights are already superior to archers in the open battle fields. No cover needed.
Were you thinking about the scenario when knights attacking cities against archers? realisticaly, cover will make them too powerful (think about mounted troops attacking castles guarded by archers, who gets the advantage?).
Some mounted units already have huge bonus against archers (i.e. immortals anyone?). If they can get cover, +75% vs. archers around 2000BC (when all AI cities are guarded by archers) is game breaking.
If you're sitting on a horse there isn't going to be any cover around. So, no. Having no cover is logical.
English longbows could penetrate armour at 200 yards or more, and could kill a horse at a similar difference. Up until the english started using their longbows en mass, the french Knights ruled the battlefield, but this all changed when the english could penetrate their armour and kill their horses at long range.
Obviously the civ tech tree is a bit messed up with knights coming after longbows, but knights certainly shouldn't get a bonus against them.. quite the opposite in fact.
It sounds like you want to be able to take cities with unsupported knights, which isn't very realistic. Do a cavalry slingshot and use them against a pre-gunpowder civ... if thats what you want.
Longbows were around long before Knights were. The ancient Nubians employed them long before the concept of mounted warfare and the stirrup even existed.
But to the larger point I agree. Longbows should make short work of Knights.
Well there are longbows, and then there are longbows. The fabled English Longbows were as much about the proficiency of the archers as about how long the bows were, ho-hum. When people talk about longbows, they usually mean the English ones, and the kind of thing they were capable of (like, at Agincourt).
That's a mighty anglo-centric view of the world of archery. Perhaps that is what you think when you think of Longbows, but it is not what I think. I tend to consider more than western European culture when I think of history. No offense.
But most people do not -- most people on these boards. Most people here are European and American, and like most people anywhere, we're most familiar with the things that are closer to us.
Well, I'll give you that this is a somewhat monothematic, whitebread demographic here, but that is a far cry from saying most people.
However, facts are facts and just because people's perceptions are inaccurate does not ever compel me to follow suit. Just the opposite, in fact.
Well good for you!
And they say sarcasm is tough to get across on message boards.
Yeah, I'm aware longbows were around before the english ones... thats why I said before the english started using their longbows in large amounts, rather than saying "when they invented longbows".
I think civ seems to take most of it's influences on the medieval period from western europe. I mean... longbows have been around pretty much as long as people were firing arrows, but the english (or more correctly, welsh) longbow was quite a different weapon. It had a draw strengh of 150lb+, which was close to double anything that came before it. I think in civ, all the really early longbows are basically counted as archers, and the longbow and crossbow units were made to represent the french/english arms race during the medieval.
Now you just want to be offended! I'm your friend, dr.
I was not offended at all and actually found humour in you post. Sorry if it came across differently. Unlike some, I never take personal offense to anything posted on a message board (here or otherwise). Unfortunately (for me, and all too often) people do seem to take deep offense at some of my blatherings, though. Even the _________ threads did not offend me, although I thought them in bad taste and possibly would connote a form of subtle condonation by allowing them so I enjoyed their destruction (and paid a price for it).
Back to Topic: I would love it if Mounted units such as the Keshik could get Cover promotion or were affected by Aggressive trait, but I see it as just too empowering for those units. There are times when I feel those darn Longbows are just so powerful and can withstand blow after blow after blow when they are fortified in a city that I want to toss my monitor out the window in frustration because I foolishly wasted so many units thinkng the next one would crack them.
They never seem to perform as well for me, though.
So that's how this thread got so long!
My first thought was "of course", because light cavalry is supposed to be a counter to archers in reality and on most strategy games, but I agree with ABigCivFan.
Mounted units in CIV are already much stronger then archery units.
Archer : Horse Archer = 3 : 6
Longbow/Crossbow : Knight = 6 : 10
A knight with Combat 1 and Cover would be almost as strong as a Maceman with City Raider 3 when attacking a garrisoned archery unit.
Oh, and horse archers and knights are always immune to first strikes. Very helpful against Skirmishers, Cho-Ko-Nu and drill promotions.
Separate names with a comma.