Should Mounted Units be Improved?

[bonafide11]

I wouldn't mind it if the Camel Archers could use ranged attacks, and then still attack like a normal unit after that. But combined with being able to still have two moves after using bombard, that would overpower it too much.

Camel archers can make two moves after bombarding already.

 

[ShadowSonic]

Camel archers can make two moves after bombarding already.

Yeah, what I meant was that they might consider giving it the ability to melee attack as well as bombard and move since it's still a mounted unit. But that might overpower it too much since it could bombard, melee and still have one move left to withdraw a tile away.

 

[omnishakira]

nope they should not.

 

[apocalypse105]

I'd like to see mounted units ignore zone of control and always have move after attack promotion, like the Lancer.

Yes I agree

THis is my opinion:

The horseman/knight unit is the only unit with a counter and not a little counter but 100% So why does it get extra penalties?

I thinx if the horseman should get their penalty versus cities removed you still wouldn't see the old horseman rushes because the AI now spams pikeman and spearman even if they have iron.

Its basicly just a wrong move from firaxis instead of fixing the AI they picked the easiest way lets nerf them to the ground So the player can only exploit one strategic resource. But then they had to nerv the longsword rush...

If I was a programmer at firaxis I should have donne this :

-instead if they just nerved the AI and let them build more pikeman even if they have iron it wouldn't be a problem.

-And more importantly horses are everywhere on the map instead of making them as rare as iron you have it or not now in because currently in each game you are will have horses wich is a bad game design in my opinion!!!!!!


Not to mention that the horseman only has 10 strenght and the pikeman wich is close by has olso 10 strenght.



Conclusion firaxis should have donne this to fix the horseman exploit abuse:

-Nerve honor dicispline donne
-Reduce the strenght from horseman 12 to 10
- Reduce the horses found on the map and make them as rare as iron
- Fix AI and let them build more pikeman and spearman

Problem solved!!!!!!! Instead they have chosen the lazy way

 

[apocalypse105]

This again. Do we have many MP players here to confirm this?

Multiplayer early game :

Swrodsman rushes horseman are rarly seen

 

[Gucumatz]

Swordman rushes outnumber horsemen rushes easy. Even Alexander Players will odds are not rush with horses.

I use my horses to pick at flanks, but I would kind of like to give them some more use. Either increase their strength a little or reduce effectiveness of Pikes vs them a bit.

Or at least make it so Pikes don't retain their promotion upon being promoted to a Rifleman.

 

[Deggial]

What about giving cavallery an evading possibility, if attacked (just as slingers)? *Maybe* only, if attacked by infantry, though.
This would represent their higher mobility very well.

I like the "ignore ZoC", too. Maybe it can be combined with evasion.

Knights could be the only cavalery unit *without* this retreating chance, by the way. They have higher stregth, but due to their heavy armour, they are less mobile.

 

[dexters]

Cavalry/horseman getting nerfed on city attack was neccessary as any fast moving unit = advantage human. The AI just can't handle them as well, though they are doing better now. I'm starting to see AI use horses to go around my defensive lines.

Really surprising actually in an army war when I had my army parked by a city using a mountain as a tent pole of the defense, and a horse pops up behind me having gone around the mountain. It then proceeded to attack and kill the warrior holding the line.

Fast moving units like tanks and cavalry has always been overpowered in Civ games, and I think there's now a decent compromise in terms of how fast units operate. They get a city attack penalty to make it easier for the AI to defend against them. And there's historical sense to it. Cavarly alone very rarely take cities, neither did tanks. These units were meant to crush the opposition out in the open

discussions on improvement mounted units should go into talking about how to improve on its strengths in a balanced way, not bringing back broken concepts that were patched out.

 

[KrikkitTwo]

Ignoring ZOC would probably be the best. It would make those spears+pikes more important.

The only other thing would be fixing the Lancer (remove Cavalry's -50% v. Mounted, give Lancers a +50% v. Mounted.. and reduce their defense penalty)

 

[therottweiler]

I only play against the computer and I stopped building horesman they day the big nerf came. The only viable mounted unit to me seems to be Cavalry now. Otherwise I will would take an acher or swordsman.. everytime.

 

[King_Course]

Horsemen and knights are excellent city defenders. Because they can run back in after taking out a unit. I usually give them 2 open ground promotions, and then the bonus to wounded units, this way they can deal with hillside too, if a city or an archer has fired first. I´ve had situations where a highly upgraded beserker couldn't stop the tide, but a knight certainly could.

I've also had maps where a large desert made the map look unappealing, but I ended up having the greatest horseback warfare in a long time.

 

[therottweiler]

Horsemen and knights are excellent city defenders. Because they can run back in after taking out a unit. I usually give them 2 open ground promotions, and then the bonus to wounded units, this way they can deal with hillside too, if a city or an archer has fired first. I´ve had situations where a highly upgraded beserker couldn't stop the tide, but a knight certainly could.

Interesting. I have always defended with archers and then cannons when available. You may be on to something here. I can see then being great at protecting workers. Thank you.

 

[bcaiko]

I only play against the computer and I stopped building horesman they day the big nerf came. The only viable mounted unit to me seems to be Cavalry now. Otherwise I will would take an acher or swordsman.. everytime.

This is true of most people, IMHO. I think the nerf to mounted units did have a point, but it left them unbalanced and unable to do anything particularly well. And they should, considering they cost a resource.

 

[ehecatzin]

I agree on the flanking bonus. Also, now that every unit has way more hitpoints, it would be interesting if cavarly had a bonus against damaged units (past certain point, say 60%), that way you keep your cavarly back, and once some blows have been exchanged you rush your cavarly and finish the battle, but then again, if you dont manage to kill you risk the enemy crushing you with their own cavalry.

 

[aluelkdf]

I know many people like mounted units. Personally, I don't really care for them. The one exception is if I'm playing as Greece, then I build lots of companion cavalry. They are extremely useful in the early game when some of the enemy units are still archers and warriors. They are also usefull against swordsmen. But later in the game I don't care for mounted units. I would rather build lots of rifleman than cavalry. It takes longer to move around, but cavalry can't really hold thir ground against riflemen, and riflemen are good at taking cities while cavalry are not.

 

[Tabarnak]

Also, does any ever use lancers as anything but a training tool for helicopters?

I use them a lot in mp games. Very useful against humans. Pretty weak against the AI. The reason is simple : AIs don't properly use ranged units and sneak attacks. Lancers are a great counter to these situations. They can eat artillery for breakfast when using them ''en masse''.