Skirmisher Units

[azum4roll]

What if we nerf its CS to be the same as the archer line (=making it weaker than archers in rough terrain) and RCS to be weaker than the archer line? They can still be invincible and do damage but it won't be significant anymore, and you need a large number of them to kill something.

 

[amateurgamer88]

Switching tech can work but I'm not sure how we'll balance the fact that Heavy Skirmisher comes so soon after Skirmishers. Will we move Heavy Skirmishers to Machinery then? Then we'll have to tweak the numbers of Skirmishers more.

If we want to do something about rough terrain, then I think we can do the following. We'll increase the Skirmisher movement to 5 and give them movement cost doubled in rough terrain. Then they'll thrive in the open terrain where they belong while rough terrain will hurt them more. Won't this make them less effective in certain starts then? Then it will make the Archers more viable in certain situation so composition is more diversified instead of Skirmishers being the staple of any army in the Classical Era.

 

[crdvis16]

I think skirmishers need to keep 4 movement in open terrain to maintain their niche of being harassers that avoid damage via mobility. Lowering it to 3 just makes them too similar to an archer's role when attacking. Yes they can travel further faster but when it comes to actual combat they would not function much differently than an archer.

I do think they should lose the ability to move into rough terrain, attack, and still retreat, though. Changing the line to have the chariot's rough terrain penalty makes sense to me. They still get to be the kings of open terrain but become much easier to catch and kill if the terrain is not favorable. They would also still be strong on defense where roads or chopping forest/jungle would strategically help you out.

 

[Stalker0]

Playing Japan in the 8/15 patch. I'm in desert/grassland with a bit of forest, and skirmishers are doing just fine. I only had Spearman against chariot archers, and the c archers just couldn't be stopped. Eventually I got horses and skirmishers of my own, and both sides saw strong use with the unit.

What it means is there are certain map conditions in which you will not go skirmishers (aka jungle heavy). But that's fine, they are still plenty strong in their native terrains.

 

[pineappledan]

I wonder if we couldn't do some sort of change to how rought terrain penalty works, where mounted ranged lost 1 additional point in rough terrain, instead of losing all movement? I guess that wouldn't be very different, but it would preserve the utility of that +1 move from parthian tactics. It also wouldn't hurt Mongolia quite so bad. +2 moves is pretty wasted if you are restricted to open terrain only.

 

[ridjack]

Playing Japan in the 8/15 patch. I'm in desert/grassland with a bit of forest, and skirmishers are doing just fine. I only had Spearman against chariot archers, and the c archers just couldn't be stopped. Eventually I got horses and skirmishers of my own, and both sides saw strong use with the unit.

What it means is there are certain map conditions in which you will not go skirmishers (aka jungle heavy). But that's fine, they are still plenty strong in their native terrains.

I have a somewhat ambiguous issue with the idea of a unit that requires strategic resources being so niche.

I completely agree with the posts I've seen that having mounted ranged units be so strong in rough terrain is thematically problematic. What I can't see myself agreeing with is the degree of changes I'm seeing suggested, for a lot of reasons.

Skirmishers are absolutely the dominant unit of their era, no question. Nothing else even comes close. I don't think this is a problem:

• It's thematically appropriate. Mounted archers were, historically, devastating when they came on the scene.
• It's true of other units in other eras. Horsemen in the ancient, Knights in the Medieval, Frigates in the Renaissance, Field Guns and Gatlings in the Industrial as some examples.
• It's heavily remedied by just going for Chivalry. Castles make Skirmisher bombardments much less efficient, and Knights completely destroy Skirmishers and Heavy Skirmishers both.
• The rest of the Skirmisher line of units is not nearly as dominant. Heavy Skirmishers are still very strong, but the ease of getting Cover from Barracks+Armories combined with the devastating strength of Knights makes them much more easily countered. Generally speaking, once I hit Crossbowmen, my mounted-ranged line are relegated to much more of a supporting role.

I would much rather see this problem handled differently than the current implementation, and I can't say I've been terribly fond of a lot of the ideas I've seen floated. Pineappledan's suggestion above (+1 movement point lost) is, I think, the least "offensive" one I've seen so far, though it's one I'd have to try out before saying anything firmly on it.

Relatedly, I've never found the "anti-mounted" line of units to be particularly effective at that job. At worst, a few Spearmen or Pikemen together means I won't use my Horsemen or Knights to weaken them; I don't take it into consideration at all for attacks with my Skirmisher-line units. I've been successful at war up to and including Emperor; I can't comment beyond that.

If it were possible, my favorite idea would be to re-tool the anti-mounted line somewhat to act as a proper counter to the strength of the Skirmisher line. The picture in my head(with no idea of feasibility) is something involving a tweak to Zone of Control such that a mounted unit uses all but one movement point if they move into the ZoC of a Spear-line unit. This would make those units an extremely effective counter to the biggest strength of Skirmishers, which is their mobility. They can move in and attack, but then they're completely vulnerable to the counter attack. Getting yourself up to Parthian Tactics would negate this advantage and get your Skirmishers back to their former glory.

You could also do a similar thing with Castles, so that they aren't nearly as effective at sieges.

 

[Stalker0]

• It's true of other units in other eras. Horsemen in the ancient, Knights in the Medieval, Frigates in the Renaissance, Field Guns and Gatlings in the Industrial as some examples.
• It's heavily remedied by just going for Chivalry. Castles make Skirmisher bombardments much less efficient, and Knights completely destroy Skirmishers and Heavy Skirmishers both.
• The rest of the Skirmisher line of units is not nearly as dominant.

A good post, and one I used to subscribe too. But as I have been focusing on my war play, and my use of mounted ranged....I am starting to rethink that belief.

Knights are very good units its true, but are they actually better than heavy skirmishers? I used to think that was true, but again I've started to rethink that. Once you have a strong line of skirmishers, heavy or otherwise, they just apply so much damage consistently, round after round. And that is their power, especially in human hands. Its true, a knight charge can make a big splash, but humans don't make big splashes against the AI, as that tends to lead to trades, and trades are never good for the human. Instead its better to skirmish. Its much less flashy, but you just keep applying the damage, keep getting the XP, while your enemy starts to take attrition.

Calvary I think are very strong compared to Lancers, but they are actually quite expensive, which is there balance. Also Light Tanks are very powerful for their time, its just that aircraft and other things are started to come in to play. Ultimately I agree that skirmisher lines do start to weaken in the later game, and we could consider changing the penalty at some point.

 

[ridjack]

I don't think Knights are strictly better than Heavy Skirmishers; there are many situations where the Skirmishers are clearly the superior option. The thing with Knights is that they're fast, strong and tanky. You can use them to push hard into an area when your Skirmishers don't have the movement to get out of harm's way, and have a reasonable chance of keeping your Knight alive. Their CS is enough to sneak around the flanks of an enemy line and one-shot snipe a trebuchet, or convince a Cannon or X Bow it's not safe to be in that spot.

And gods help your foes if you have a Knight UU; I'm absolutely convinced that the Knight UUs are pound-for-pound the strongest UUs in the game. If you haven't yet had the joy conquering an entire up-to-date civilization with nothing but a horde of Conquistadors, give it a try. It's disgusting.

Where Skirmishers are just straight-up dominant, Heavy Skirmishers and Cavalry are instead the best supporting units in their eras. As you mentioned, they're great at attrition; they're fantastic on defense and very good at wearing down a defender's defensive line so your Knights, Pikes or Longswords can get in there and make the needed push. Give your Skirmishers Medic and get your Knights up to March and you've got a mobile conquering force that needs heavy focused fire to take down, which mounted units are particularly adept at avoiding.

Lancers get underestimated because the era they show up in has so many other heavy hitters coming online that their relatively unexciting upgrade from the Knights doesn't give you any reason to pay special attention to them. That being said, they're a very solid unit that arguably takes contemporary hits better than their predecessor, especially since they naturally have more promotions.

Everything after that is a toss-up that's entirely situational. In most of my games, my land military is largely irrelevant at that point except for the ranged units I'll use to defend my borders. Naval is usually where it's at by then.

I'm just not convinced the Skirmisher line needs a nerf at all, and they certainly don't need one of this magnitude. The AI doesn't use them as well as the human, but they still use them to good effect. It's not clear to me how this presented a problem.

 

[amateurgamer88]

From my experience, only the Skirmisher is very powerful and dominant for their era. Why? Let's look at what they have to face. Archers are certainly inferior and Spearmen just can't catch them. Horsemen are in such few numbers that they can't compete very well and Swordsmen, while tankier than Spearmen, suffer in the mobility department. If we move Skirmisher to a later tech in Classical Era and Heavy Skirmisher to Machinery, I don't even think we have an issue.

How's Heavy Skirmisher for their era? Knights are becoming more abundant since more horses are connected so mobility isn't just an advantage of the Heavy Skirmisher. More promotions with Armory becoming available at this era certainly makes it easier to counter them with Cover promotions. If you focus on military and get Crossbowmen, then Heavy Skirmisher won't really shine at all.

Then, what about the Cuirrassier? This unit is alright but require careful use. Lancers, unlocked at the same tech, is far more dominant to clearing the battlefield of enemy units.

Cavalry is a joke at this point. I see no reason to get them as I'd rather have a wide line of Fusiliers with Field Guns and Gatling Guns as support. There are few terrain where they can really shine until I play Mongols and get those two extra movement allowing them to pull back to a safe distance. The same can be said about Light Tank since their usefulness is gone with the introduction of air units and Artillery that have 3 base range. Helicopter Gunship? These are fun to have but they come so late that their impact is almost minimal.

Regarding attrition approach, you can do it with ranged units too. Take advantage of good terrain with a few meatshields in front of your ranged units. You can setup a kill zone as easily. Ranged mounted units just push that kill zone further into the enemy territory and, with higher difficulties, you have to fight attrition. Otherwise, there's no way you can take on your neighbors who boast twice your numbers.

 

[CrazyG]

I think knights are really overrated to be honest, and that heavy skirmishers are actually the dominant medieval era unit. It isn't until musketmen that the skirmisher line drops off. Curaissers are a strong but fair unit (I hate their tech), while cavalry are generally pretty useless. I no longer play Mongolia, it is just way to easy to stomp the AI with 6 move skirmishers. I usually have like 2 or 3 horsemen or knights at most because why would I spend a horse on something that isn't a skirmisher? This is extending to the point where my opinion of units such as Winged Hussar is pretty heavily influenced.

Horses and knights aren't some crazy power spike, the AIs warrior swarms can take down horsemen. You can fight favorably but constantly have to heal. They are great for flanking and killing archers, but struggle against spearmen. Knights are extremely expensive. Are they strong? Yes but they cost a lot of hammers and need to spend turns healing.

Really I think the two easiest paths to victory (pre-august 16th version) are to skirmisher/heavy skirmisher rush, or spam frigates. The 1 range, move after attacking mechanic is just super favorable to human players, compared to the AI.

 

[Bhawb]

Honestly, if you are ever having issues as a player, just wait until Frigates+ and then laugh while the AI pathetically fails to defend any city they were foolish enough to settle on the coast. You settle a city that is nearly impossible to conquer, with just 1 tile exposed to the coast and a million defensive features nearby, and Frigates will laugh at you while they ping your city down. It gets even worse if you're a successful warmonger that has gotten Grand Canal, Great Lighthouse, Coal Monopoly, etc.

 

[Rekk]

The 1 range, move after attacking mechanic is just super favorable to human players, compared to the AI.

Frigates were changed to this model because it was more favorable to the AI this way.

 

[CrazyG]

Frigates were changed to this model because it was more favorable to the AI this way.

That may have been the intention but it isn't what happened. I recall that people were mostly bothered by dromon doing a ton of damage to inland units.

Cycling frigates on cities makes naval conquest really, really easy, the AI cannot defend against it at all. A 5 move frigate (which any civ can have with imperialism) can move 2 spaces, shoot, and move 2 more spaces, staying out of range of cities, musketmen, or catapults. Your units deal damage every turn, and very rarely take any back (if you take a hit, its not like frigates are frail)

 

[Stalker0]

That may have been the intention but it isn't what happened. I recall that people were mostly bothered by dromon doing a ton of damage to inland units.

Cycling frigates on cities makes naval conquest really, really easy, the AI cannot defend against it at all. A 5 move frigate (which any civ can have with imperialism) can move 2 spaces, shoot, and move 2 more spaces, staying out of range of cities, musketmen, or catapults. Your units deal damage every turn, and very rarely take any back (if you take a hit, its not like frigates are frail)

Yep, its the Skirmisher scenario magnified. Frigates do little damage to cities, but can just do it again and again and again until the city falls, taking almost no damage in return. That changes a little bit with cruisers sometimes because Artillery and Arsenals start to give 3 range, allowing for some counterattack. The mine field can sometimes be a counter as well, if your actually working the water at that point.

 

[Gazebo]

That may have been the intention but it isn't what happened. I recall that people were mostly bothered by dromon doing a ton of damage to inland units.

Cycling frigates on cities makes naval conquest really, really easy, the AI cannot defend against it at all. A 5 move frigate (which any civ can have with imperialism) can move 2 spaces, shoot, and move 2 more spaces, staying out of range of cities, musketmen, or catapults. Your units deal damage every turn, and very rarely take any back (if you take a hit, its not like frigates are frail)

I’ve considered reverting move and shoot on pre-cruiser ships for this reason, as the AI often delays a proper navy during the Renaissance due to the wide variety of options.

G

 

[CrazyG]

I’ve considered reverting move and shoot on pre-cruiser ships for this reason, as the AI often delays a proper navy during the Renaissance due to the wide variety of options.

G

You make the Galleas and Dromon even less useful if they can't move after attack.

My experience with Renaissance navies is the AI build way too many corvettes, which I don't understand because frigates currently don't need iron. They can't hold their cities because they usually can't do any damage to my ships, so eventually I will kill the city. It also means that you get farm experience as you slowly whittle down the city (but I am genuinely killing the city as fast as I can). If you look at my photojournals, I conquer a lot of cities with the 1-range frigates that I couldn't with the old 2-range, no move after frigates. Often those 2 range boats could only have 3 shoot at a city, unless you parked right next to the city, which meant that inland units could shoot me. I could cycle as many as 10. Notably, I took cities that had arsenals using frigates, not cruisers.

Also the promotions for frigates are wack. Targeting into logistics is always the best choice, they do more damage to cities than frigates with full city damage promotions will. I can't even remember what the other tier 4s are, I usually end up just going logistics then bombardment to help knock down arsenals or fealty cities more quickly.

 

[Stalker0]

My experience with Renaissance navies is the AI build way too many corvettes, which I don't understand because frigates currently don't need iron.

This may be a holdover for when melee ships were a lot stronger than they are now. Part of this is a consequence of weakening the melee vessels. For a time, a melee heavy fleet was the best one, it would route any ranged heavy fleet. So this meant in order to get the benefit of a "full frigate attack", you had to invest in a lot of corvettes, or your fleet would get wrecked. Now you can usually get away with a few corvettes and a lot of frigates.

 

[chicorbeef]

Maybe it's just me, but I have trouble in large assaults with Skirmishers. Skirmishers are great at defensive warfare but I don't have the kind of success invading other civs that others seem to have. Part of the problem is that it's very hard for me to siege and take down cities, and enemy roads inland somewhat nullify my mobility advantage (I can't spend a lot of pillaging their roads). I prefer old-fashioned Siege + Melee for early rushes.

Offensive warfare can start as defensive warfare though, which is a plus for Skirmishers. Let the AI advance, kill their units, then go in. I just can't rush that effectively with Skirmishers.

Frigates are really good for rushes, though.

 

[Stalker0]

Offensive warfare can start as defensive warfare though, which is a plus for Skirmishers. Let the AI advance, kill their units, then go in. I just can't rush that effectively with Skirmishers.

This is one of the reasons that Skirmishers are very powerful, at higher levels, all wars start out as defensive wars. You can't realistically send in your units into enemy territory and win by the midgame, the AI slaughters you. You have to thin the heard, and skirmishers do that better than anything.

 

[CrazyG]

Maybe it's just me, but I have trouble in large assaults with Skirmishers. Skirmishers are great at defensive warfare but I don't have the kind of success invading other civs that others seem to have. Part of the problem is that it's very hard for me to siege and take down cities, and enemy roads inland somewhat nullify my mobility advantage (I can't spend a lot of pillaging their roads). I prefer old-fashioned Siege + Melee for early rushes.

Offensive warfare can start as defensive warfare though, which is a plus for Skirmishers. Let the AI advance, kill their units, then go in. I just can't rush that effectively with Skirmishers.

Frigates are really good for rushes, though.

Unless it is skirmishers vs wall-less cities, you do need some catapults. You want a couple of melee to tank hits and I usually have an archer or two with medic to support those guys. But really my first goal is to kill some of my opponents units, and skirmishers are the best unit for that. If you have a huge tech lead you can sometimes just run over the enemy, but I find grinding to be a lot more common.