Swordsmen and Catapults: who cares?

[Jamuka]

After 2 weeks of civ 5, i still haven't found a compelling reason to build either swordsmen or catapults. Horsemen seem to be entirely better. I don't know why, but spear-men are never a problem. So I have two questions:

1) Are horsemen as dominant, and swordsmen/catapults as useless, as I think they are?

2) If this is the case, what changes could be made to balance these units?

 

[pi-r8]

Horsemen are so brokenly powerful that they overshadow everything else in the early game. The game is much more fun if you ban yourself from using them. If you do that, Swordsmen and Catapults are perfectly good units.

 

[cembandit]

Because warriors upgrade to swordsmen and then longswords, riflemen, infantry, mech infantry.
Catapults to trebs to cannon to arty

You can have some very nice promotions latter in the game. Infantry that heal on march, Artillery that fires twice a round.

 

[stormerne]

The problem is less with those units than with the horsemen, which are by far and away the most powerful unit in the early game. A horseman gives you:

• greater strength
• greater mobility
• a chance to escape after attack
• cheapness

Catapults get a 10 strength bonus when attacking cities, but they take ages to get there and they're sitting ducks between turns.
Swordsmen get defensive bonuses the others don't get but in Civ, as so often in real life, attack is the best form of defence.

So what to do? I would make the horsemen more expensive to make. A cost of 110 or 120 seems right. (The current cost is 80, compared to 80 for swordsman and 100 for catapult.)

 

[Andoo]

I'd like to give spearman/pikeman no panalty when defending against mounted units on -33% tiles. Better mobility makes horsemen easy to abuse -33% which wins over +100% spearman and even pikemen with the help of GG and/or shock promotion.

Or give horsmen a panalty when attacking cities like tanks so that you need healthy combination of units.

 

[cembandit]

Horse units could use a big big nerf to attacking cities.

This would still make them very useful in the field but you'll need combined arms to take that city.

EDIT: What Andoo said!

 

[Nunya]

Making Horsemen more expensive, would just delay the start of your offensive. The greatest advantage of Horsemen is their superior mobility that the AI simply can't deal with. Because of that the most important change should be a reduction of movement from 4 to 3. Knights and Cavalry have 3 moves, why should Horsemen have 4?

Then if it turns out they're still overpowered they could have their Strength reducd from 12 to 10 or something like that.

 

[King Jason]

Horsemen are so brokenly powerful that they overshadow everything else in the early game. The game is much more fun if you ban yourself from using them. If you do that, Swordsmen and Catapults are perfectly good units.

I actually tried this cause I'm exploring a lot of games without using certain things that I deem far too powerful for the player and without mounted units I found myself actually needing a much larger standing army.

Ranged units become the next OP thing though because the A.I. is terrible against those too, but that's more of a defensive issue than an offensive one. On the offense, it's much more of a challenge without horses.

You inevitably have to suffer losses so it becomes a lot like chess or checkers where it's about sacrifice.

At the same time it also factors in who can out produce who and how fast, just like earlier civs... though an aspect of that is fine because that's the whole point of simulating an empire. In any event, on higher difficulties the A.I. can produce plenty of units.

 

[Agent327]

After 2 weeks of civ 5, i still haven't found a compelling reason to build either swordsmen or catapults. Horsemen seem to be entirely better. I don't know why, but spear-men are never a problem. So I have two questions:

1) Are horsemen as dominant, and swordsmen/catapults as useless, as I think they are?

2) If this is the case, what changes could be made to balance these units?

Guess you missed the Swordsman-Longswordsman-Riflemen upgrade line... (Cheapest way to get those riflemen.)

 

[delra]

Cavalry should get -33% in rough terrain just like foot soldiers get out in the open. So getting your cavalry caught in the woods would mean you've lost them majority of time.

This would make armies more tailored to the conditions on the map making no unit universal - only encouraging use of different army in different setups. Cavalry in the plains, infantry in the woods, archers in the hills, artillery across water and other natural borders.

 

[mamuz]

In my opnion, horses should cost more.
And the number of horses ressources in the map should be decreased. The number of horses available in "paturage" should be decreased too.

 

[bigfatjonny]

Ive always thought that walls are very undervalued in all Civ games.
Historically most ancient and medieval cities had city walls and defensive structures.

I would like to give negative penalties to units attacking cities without siege equipment, that would mean that you HAVE to bring up the siege equipment to take the city, but could use horsemen to take control of the surrounding area.

How would horsemen alone take a city like this?
http://ancientneareast.tripod.com/IMAGES/MycenaeReconstruction.jpg

Cavalry should get -33% in rough terrain just like foot soldiers get out in the open. So getting your cavalry caught in the woods would mean you've lost them majority of time.

I second this, -33% on any non flatland.

 

[H4run]

After 2 weeks of civ 5, i still haven't found a compelling reason to build either swordsmen or catapults. Horsemen seem to be entirely better. I don't know why, but spear-men are never a problem. So I have two questions:

1) Are horsemen as dominant, and swordsmen/catapults as useless, as I think they are?

2) If this is the case, what changes could be made to balance these units?

horseman are powerful those time, the crappy thing is, the AI dont balance your army power with creating another horseman and use it properly. They rarely buildthem.

Catalput are nightmare in distance, my lvl 2 catalput just need one blow to kill persian immortal, just one blow in open field, they just pufff like that.

swordman are balance, they can handle horseman also give a way to your horseman by whipping out spear unit, and later upgrade to longswordman, this unit are nasty, i mean it. Even knight can have a bad day stand with them head to head i like this unit, in addition they also got defensive bonus.

Change will be on AI, i wonder if some-one ever play a multiplayer? i havent. But i think if the unit are use and function properly, they are preety balance.

 

[spoooq]

In my opnion, horses should cost more.
And the number of horses ressources in the map should be decreased. The number of horses available in "paturage" should be decreased too.

I've heard this suggested before, and I really don't like it. Leaving horsemen very powerful and restricting their numbers just means it is more likely only one civ will have them and kill everyone else.

I would really prefer the malus applied in rough terrain and vs cities. It would take the horse back to a more realistic role and add tactically to the game.

 

[Makaz]

A lot more satisfying and interesting game experience to mix archer; ballistas and swordsmen for waging a war over your neighbour than to hit and run with horsmen - bit more realistic too.

And I think that effort the devs have made at designing the victory screens is a just representation that you should enjoy the way to victory more than the victory in itself

Movement of horsmen should simply be brought down to 3 and horsemen UU be given other advantages; just as the Longbowmen should not have such a range but another advantage such as nice bonus against any non mechanical unit, at least until the French cut their 2 fingers off.

 

[H4run]

i love the horse, they can act like a real mounted unit, flanker, mobile, and powerful, mounted unit are rule in ancient, medieval even in early modern era. Mention it, Memluke, Cataphrac, Mongol Horseman, Egypt Chariot, templar they are the nightmare on the world history. In crusade war, mounted unit take an important role, in mongol ruling more then half of the world they mounted unit take a major role, indeed this is the truth. But the AI can use them well and balancing it, and they dont have battle formation wich can counter horse hit and run and flank attack (we dont even need to flank the AI, since they put siege in the front while mele unit far in the back)

But to keep it fair, i sugest, give them city attack penalty, so the swordman still have it function, and they cant go on here and there capture, raze and plunder city all alone with no need for anybody but themself (but indeed it still logical, razing town and minimize city are also they capability)

 

[madscientist]

Until some good patches come out I think the best thing to do is either abuse horsemen and win early and have self-restraint and limit how many you build and how you use them.

 

[spoooq]

Memluke, Cataphrac, Mongol Horseman, Egypt Chariot, templar

The only things these guys had in common was the horse

 

[SammyKhalifa]

Movement of horsmen should simply be brought down to 3 and horsemen UU be given other advantages; just as the Longbowmen should not have such a range but another advantage such as nice bonus against any non mechanical unit, at least until the French cut their 2 fingers off.

I'd hope there'd be some way to weaken the horseman without reducing their speed (traditionally they're faster than the slower heavier knights).

 

[duxup]

I agree, I'd like to see some cost and ability adjustments to the horse related units. The first few games I played I thought I was taking a risk using a horsemen in some non traditional ways (storming a walled city) and I just plowed through the enemy like crazy...

I do use warriors (don't even bother with catapults) to get some early upgrades so that they become useful later on, but that shouldn't be the only reason I use them.