Some reflections about mounted units

[bonscott]

There should be a WWI style tank and a WWII style tank.

See the Rise and Rule mod for an example of this. WWI tank has movement of 2, not a huge offensive improvement over cavs and can't move in jungle or mountains without a road. Cavs in R&R really stay effective into the modern era until Armor.

 

[Wolfwood]

In my own mod, I made the chariots as powerful as the horsemen (and special chariots even more so) and made them both upgrade to the knight (so that they co-exist). I still find myself not using the chariots, though. I suspect I'll have to push horseback riding a bit further forward, if that would help.

Also Celts used chariots, by the way. I did not see that mentioned...

 

[IbnSina]

How did I miss this thread?

In my mod I have bifurcated my chariots into two tracks. One group (including the standard chariot) keep the same cost and attack values, but get a bombardment ability. This lets them e.g. run out from a city, bombard approaching swords, and run back to the safety of the city (thinking of a harrassment raid against an approaching column of troops or the kind of attack described in the article Uiler cited). The other group of chariots act like regular horses, except with wheels. The Persians and Chinese get these.

This was part of a general reworking of my horse units. The bombarding chariots do not upgrade to horsemen; they upgrade to "light cavalry": 3.1.2 units with a light bombardment that show up with Feudalism (thinking of small horses, but riders with stirrups). The light cavalry upgrade to "hussars" (hussars were usually heavy cavalry, but I was running out of names): 4.2.3 units with a light bombardment ability. The heavier chariots follow the usual upgrade path.

With respect to the defense of knights, I have left them at 3. I reason that these were the professional warriors of the day, well-equipped and well-trained. The disasters at Crecy and Agincourt were not the result of poor defense, they were the result of underestimating the effectiveness of English foot troops - longbows in particular.

As for the 3 movement of cavalry, I agree that it seems unhistorical, but I left it for game-play reasons. I'm really in the mood for some blitzkrieg by that time.

 

[morchuflex]

@IbnSina:

I too would love to mod my game deeper but I'm no expert, so I must stick to simple modifications to existing units.

As your answer shows, there are indeed two ways to improve chariots. I like the idea of giving them some bombardment capacity, because it is (somewhat) historically accurate.

Homeric poems depict chariots as transport and harassment units: heroes use them to quickly move from one point to another on the battlefield, and they can carry 2 warriors, one of them throwing arrows or javelins at the enemy. A kind of ancient Mech Inf! However he never shows them as a way to charge the enemy or punch through their lines. Of course, Homer is not really a reliable historical source, but still I find it interesting to mention.

Much later (6-4th century BC), Persians are known to have used special chariots called "drepanephora"; these chariots bore long, curved blades... "Drepane" means... erm, I don't know the English word: what's a blade used by a reaper?
They were supposed to be devastating, but their bark was stronger than their bite and they caused about as much damage to friend than to foe.
So much for calling them "ancient tanks".

Overall, I still hesitate... I may make them 10 (15?) shield 1-1-2, or 15 (20?) 1-1-2 with a bomb str of 2, or 20 2-1-2 upgrading to horsemen...
I would also like to extend prohibited squares to toundra and marsh (I think "wheeled" only applies to jungle and mountains?). But unfortunately you can't choose which terrain should be impassable.

I agree with you about Kn and Cav. I may still reduce Kn defence to 2 because a defence of 3 makes them too autonomous: as is, they hardly need infantry support, and I like the combined arms concept. With only 2, you'll have to escort them with pikes and some longbows.

 

[Yuri2356]

Much later (6-4th century BC), Persians are known to have used special chariots called "drepanephora"; these chariots bore long, curved blades... "Drepane" means... erm, I don't know the English word: what's a blade used by a reaper?

That would be either a 'sickle' or 'scythe'(sp?), both are acceptable.

 

[morchuflex]

That would be either a 'sickle' or 'scythe'(sp?), both are acceptable.

Thanks. My memory was a bit rusty.
Scythe it is. Sickle is too small, IIRC. We're talking about huge blades, meant to tear enemy infantry to pieces.

 

[IbnSina]

I too would love to mod my game deeper but I'm no expert, so I must stick to simple modifications to existing units.
...
Much later (6-4th century BC), Persians are known to have used special chariots called "drepanephora"; these chariots bore long, curved blades...
So much for calling them "ancient tanks".

Overall, I still hesitate... I may make them 10 (15?) shield 1-1-2, or 15 (20?) 1-1-2 with a bomb str of 2, or 20 2-1-2 upgrading to horsemen...
I would also like to extend prohibited squares to toundra and marsh (I think "wheeled" only applies to jungle and mountains?). But unfortunately you can't choose which terrain should be impassable.

I agree with you about Kn and Cav. I may still reduce Kn defence to 2 because a defence of 3 makes them too autonomous: as is, they hardly need infantry support, and I like the combined arms concept. With only 2, you'll have to escort them with pikes and some longbows.

Yes, the choices on chariots are difficult to make. That, and BeBro's and Steph's beautiful work, is why I have so many different kinds. I recommend using the chariot as an excuse for learning how to throw more units into the game. "Come for the game, stay for the mods," as I think someone said once.

Thanks for the information on the drepanephora - I was not aware of that. It is good to know that there was at least an attempt in history to make a genuine 3.1.2 chariot .

I may have to try your ideas about combined arms - that is a current problem with my game. It's just too easy to pile up knights/cavalry when they're available and steamroll one's enemies without further thought. Thanks.

 

[Babbler]

How about letting Cavs upgrade to Tanks? They serve the same purpose as fast moblie attackers.

 

[douche_bag]

How about letting Cavs upgrade to Tanks? They serve the same purpose as fast moblie attackers.

That's what I did in my mod, it makes no sense having a cavalry in the modern times, although it would cost alot having all the cavalry properly upgraded.

 

[morchuflex]

I disagree. There is nothing in common between tanks and cavs, so how could you upgrade the latter to the former? It's just a big leap in military equipment. In previous civ installations, barracks became obsolete twice in the game to reflect such leaps. It was a real annoyance, but was realistic.

 

[Gato Loco]

I have to disaggree bout the combined arms problem. The high cost of knights guarantees that building masses of Medieval infantry, longbows, pikes, and trebuchets with a few supporting knights gives you much more offensive power, especially if the terrain doesn't favor knights to begin with, or you're playing on a high level where there are just too many enemys to steamroll with knights. In fact, I find myself skipping chivalry entirely on sufficiently oceanic maps since my infantry will just disembark right next to their target anyway.

 

[Jaybe]

Regarding the movement points of different 'fast' units, you have to remember that Civ is a STRATEGIC game, not a TACTICAL one. A unit is not just one person or vehicle. It moves at the speed of the slowest person/vehicle in the unit. Tanks CAN move through many types of terrain, but they prefer hard level ground, not mud and gullies.

Even more important, units do not always have orders. Commanders (other than the game player) take time to develop plans, attempt to coordinate them and logistical requirements, and communicate the information to the troops. Radio was not always in existence.

In addition, it is an abstract game. It has to fit all the units in -- try to keep them more powerful than less powerful ones, and less powerful than the most powerful.

The Firaxis design decision to make 'fast' units the predominate offensive units was unfortunate. The poor foot-slogger has always been the vast majority ordered to smash the enemy through most time periods.

 

[Roxlimn]

I agree with many points.

1. Cavalry were never really the predominant unit in any sort of large army excepting Barbarian Europe. In that case, however, Knights were predominant because most "kingdoms" of that era were really small territories that couldn't field a large enough army to really use combined arms tactics. Once European armies became large enough, combined arms theory was relearned from Chinese and Arabian armies perforce.

2. The Knight should have a defense of 3. The point of fielding a Knight wasn't that he was extremely good all around (he wasn't, and the Civ3 Knight isn't, either), it was that he was a versatile soldier on his own. A single Footman or Archer is next to useless compared to a single Knight. However, as armies become large, Knight (and other cavalry roles) increasingly become marginalized, which is partially true in Civ3 as well. It's unfortunate that cavalry were protrayed as being strategically faster, as they were not. They were tactically more maneuverable, but on the move on long distances, they were not much faster than infantry.

 

[Jaybe]

Knights came about along with chivalry, when personal honor (especially prevelant among the upper-class knights) was more important than surviving and winning the battle or war.

Knights should become available BEFORE Pikes, because pikes were a reaction to the offensive capability of the knight.

 

[Roxlimn]

You must be mistaken. Knights in middle age Europe has been traced to the development of Heavy Cavalry late in the Roman period and also in the development of heavy cavalry tactics in the immediate decline. However, in many instances, the development of a rigidly defined code of behavior that might be called chivalry almost always heralded the latter and even waning days of such warriors.

Further thoughts on War Chariots: the primary reason these units are so useless is that they require a strategic resource so early (and many civs just can't afford to find and link to Horses early enough) and that they're obsolete so quickly. To solve this requires a twofold solution, therefore. Firstly, they should be made co-equal with Horsemen in the areas in which they can operate. The wheeled requirement is usually potent enough that most civ will want Horsemen anyway. Making them a little more expensive than Horsemen is a good way to "balance" the increase in power. Secondly, the requirement for Horses should be waived to allow Chariots to be fielded in faster. This is especially going to be potent for Egypt who will then be able to field in strong attack units (stronger than Horsemen, but expensive) early in the game.

 

[Admiral8Q]

I have to agree that I haven't built a Charriot for ages now. They are obsolete before you get horses anyways so why bother. Right? I remember in Civ1 that war charriots were my "scouts" per se. I actually remember winning a game in the ancient ages by sending out chariots everywhere on an earth map, but I picked my enemies and knew where they'd be, plus I played on an easy skill level...

OK, getting off a rant there, charriots definately need to be either more usefull, or for gameplay purposes do not require horses.(I don't like that though) I think they are a "neet" unit, but like I said, I see no real point in building them. Horsemen should be the same as they are not, but honestly, with the introduction of required resourses in Civ3, even though the wheel is earlier, chariots should have maybe a 2.2.2 ability.

 

[TriangleMan]

Knights have high defense because they had the best armour of anybody on the medieval battlefied. If they weren't mounted, they wouldn't be even be able to wear that much armour.

Of course, the armour weighed down the knight a lot, which is reflected by the fact that cavalry have more moves than knights. It's true that cavalry should have the same number of moves asa horseman, but imagine if there were units with 3 movement running around in the ancient age. Can you say overpowered?

 

[cpikey316_]

RE: upgrading cavalry

I think the only real use for horse based cavalry now is a cerimonial one (where you see them on the TV etc) so wouldnt it make sense to upgrade them to a special modern unit that can act as an MP unit in all governments?

 

[morchuflex]

Well, after due reflexion and consideration of what you guys (and gals?) have suggested, I have modified mounted units in the following way:

General modifications:
- No mounted unit faster than 2.
- Wheeled units' handicap aggravated to include forest squares (this is to somewhat tone down the new chariot - see below - in comparison with the horseman).

Chariots:
- Chariot is now ADM 212.
- Egyptian War chariot accordingly increased to 312.

Knight based units:
- Knight unchanged.
- Chinese Raider is now 432 (was 433) and "ignores" hills and mountains.
- Mongol Keshik is now 522 (was 422), cost increased to 70 (was 60); it still "ignores" mountains and hills.
- Arabian Ansar is now 422, Blitz (was 423), cost increased to 70 (was 60).

Cavalry based units:
- Cavalry is now 632 (was 633).
- Russian Cossack is now 632 (was 633), still has Blitz, cost reduced to 80 (was 90).
- Ottoman Sipahi is now 832 (was 833).

Another change:
- Ancient Cav can now upgrade to Cav.

While I was at it, I also modified several bombardment units:
I wanted 1. to better reflect history (no ship prior to WW1 ever had a really effective coastal bombardment capacity) and 2. speed up the late game (am I alone to find it insufferable to watch dozens of AI frigates futilely bombarding your agriculture?).
Hence:
- No bombardment whatsoever for ships prior to cruisers.
- No letal land bombardment for any unit.
To keep game balance, I made the following compensatory changes:
- Byzantine Dromon is now ADM 313, no bomb. (was 213, letal sea bomb.).
- Korean Hwach'a is now available with gunpowder (was metallurgy).

Finally (!), I also modified some other units to improve game balance:
- Inca Chasqui now costs 15 (was 20).
- Spanish Conquistador now costs 50 (was 70!).

Overall, I'm rather satisfied with these modifications, except for the Dromon (I wish I could make it even better to help the poor Byzantines. But it would be absurd to make it as powerful as a frigate) and for the Hwach'a, probably already one of the worst UUs in the hands of the AI. Maybe reduce cost to 30?

Feedback greatly welcome.

 

[IbnSina]

Those look like good changes. I would suggest one more small one. I made my Keshik a 4.2.3, for both a historical reason, and because I thought the UU needed some kind of a boost.