Swordsmen and Catapults: who cares?

Discussion in 'Civ5 - Strategy & Tips' started by Jamuka, Oct 6, 2010.

  1. stormerne

    stormerne is just a Retired Moderator

    Joined:
    Jan 16, 2001
    Messages:
    3,428
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    the United States
    Remember the Chariot in Civ1? Vastly overpowered and available with The Wheel. A bunch of those would often bring a quick win at the top difficulty level (Emperor). They got nerfed in Civ2.

    I can only hope Civ5 horsemen don't get any of their characteristics removed. I like them. Just charge 50% more hammers/gold for them, that's all.
     
  2. eewallace

    eewallace King

    Joined:
    Nov 1, 2005
    Messages:
    797
    Location:
    USA
    I think the finite quantity of horses (like iron) was supposed to limit the number of horsemen, and that would probably work great...except for the fact that horses are really plentiful, at least in all of the random maps (normal resources) that I've come up with so far.
     
  3. madscientist

    madscientist RPC Supergenius

    Joined:
    Oct 6, 2006
    Messages:
    6,954
    Location:
    New York City
    Seams to me like an easy fix to teh horsemen issue (yeah I know there is another thread, but too many to read at this stage).

    My opinion

    1) Up the costs to build as mentioned.

    2) Get the AIs to build Speas/Pikes more often.

    3) Add a 10% penalty for moutned versus cities.

    4) Decrease teh frequency of horse resources but keep the varying numbers, nice to have some spots have 2, 5, or more horses which changes strategy a bit as far as setting or culture expansion.
     
  4. Seanner

    Seanner Chieftain

    Joined:
    Apr 23, 2009
    Messages:
    24
    Along with horses being superior combat units, there's the issue of the way the tech works...the first tech you can research reveals them, whereas iron takes much longer and is so is harder to settle and set up, if you even can at that point. It's also closer to the top of the tree..AH gives trapping and the wheel, both of which one would want, and then HBR is RIGHT after wheel, whereas iron is two away from mining and more or less useless unless you are spending the first 50 turns building barracks/armory/epic and not actually making a single unit.

    That leads to the following strategy: if iron working IS worth it, and the techs are in theory balanced, then that implies you MUST make use of the barracks/armory/epic (else it would be overpowered when you did use it if you normally didn't need it). So you SHOULD spend 50 turns building all that, with the idea that meanwhile you were hoarding gold from luxury sales and TPs to buy up a bunch of high-promoted units to catch right up to the number of units you would've built by then (since the general reasoning for not building the rax is it takes too long relative to how many units you build in the first place). The obvious downside here is now you have less gold, and are stuck with higher maintenance costs..but none of that matters at this point. What should be the best army on the field at this point will make that up in pillaging.

    Of courses, horses are better at that too :mad:

    EDIT: IW is also 50% more expensive than HBR..
     
  5. SolkaTruesilver

    SolkaTruesilver Chieftain

    Joined:
    Jun 4, 2010
    Messages:
    88
    Why take swordsmen and catapults?

    Because I'm playing the frakking Roman Empire, and these are my Unique Units! :lol:

    Or, alternatively, in my current game, I culture-farm my neighbours with Aztec Warriors. I plan to have them upgraded in time to swordsmen to keep that +3 healing/kill.

    (Also, my empire is a 1-city is in the middle of the woods of a Great Plains map, so little advantage to building roads, so little advantage to having horsies)
     
  6. Bibor

    Bibor Doomsday Machine

    Joined:
    Jun 6, 2004
    Messages:
    2,998
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Zagreb, Croatia
    Why to take Swordsmen and Catapults?

    1. Cavalry is the last upgrade.
    2. Any industrial-age unit kills Cavalry, starting with Infantry.
    3. Because experienced Swordsmen promote to Mech. Inf with March, Cover, triple Shock/Drill, and experienced Catapults promote to Artillery with triple Accuracy/Barrage, Logistics, Range and March.
    4. By the Industrial age city defenses have higher strength than Cavalry.

    Granted, if you play pangaea (or continents where by some miracle one AI haven't cannibalized its own continent) it works. But good luck invading a continent full of Artillery, Infantry and anti-tanks.
     
  7. ICNP

    ICNP The Third Superpower

    Joined:
    Aug 17, 2007
    Messages:
    772
    Location:
    Missile Silo
    And make iron revealed at bronze working. So Swordsmen get more love.
     
  8. PestWulf

    PestWulf Chieftain

    Joined:
    Sep 28, 2010
    Messages:
    22
    I would also add that if they wanted to "fix" the lower ages, they could leave the units alone and put the change in city walls. If a city has a wall, it gives the normal protection but an additional protection against mounted attacks.

    If the goal of the game is to make the units individually useful, then against fortifications cavalry should be about the lowest in usefulness. If the city doesn't have walls, then cavalry can maintain it's power, but fortifications of any type should blunt cavalry. This would make the reason for siege equipment much more valid, if of course that is how they want the game to be, which it seems like they do.
     
  9. duxup

    duxup Prince

    Joined:
    Dec 31, 2001
    Messages:
    385
    I agree, but the fact that you're building units because they'll be useful centuries from now seems a bit off ;)
     
  10. Bibor

    Bibor Doomsday Machine

    Joined:
    Jun 6, 2004
    Messages:
    2,998
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Zagreb, Croatia
    Getting a siege unit to 5 promotions takes a lot of time and effort.
     
  11. mrt144

    mrt144 Deity

    Joined:
    Jan 27, 2007
    Messages:
    11,121
    Location:
    Seattle
    This is such myopic thinking. If the tactic can effectively WIN you the game in the BC era, it doesn't matter that you will have 4 suboptimal units hundreds and hundreds of turns later. It also doesn't preclude you from actually building those other units.
     
  12. automator

    automator King

    Joined:
    Sep 15, 2005
    Messages:
    731
    Location:
    Northwest USA
    I'm so used to not using horsemen in Civ 4 that I haven't once used them in Civ 5, but the numbers (and the mad proliferation of horses on maps) show me that they are far to powerful at the time and place.
     
  13. duxup

    duxup Prince

    Joined:
    Dec 31, 2001
    Messages:
    385
    Oh I agree. My point though was that when you can build the superior horsemen the fact that I'm building other units just to get them promoted and not because they as a unit are handy right now, but because later when I upgrade them centuries from now they'll be useful seems a bit off.
     
  14. TrailblazingScot

    TrailblazingScot I was kittenOFchaos

    Joined:
    Jan 6, 2001
    Messages:
    6,878
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Brighouse, England
    I think walls should stop horsemen being able to attack the city. Would make walls a good investment and mean that seige equipment has an actual role.
     
  15. Buccaneer

    Buccaneer Deity

    Joined:
    Nov 2, 2001
    Messages:
    3,562
    So is iron, esp. through Patronage. I think the first place to start would be to greatly reduce the number of resources and bonuses in getting them, esp. from city-states. In other words, you would be hard pressed to be able to build four horse units early on unless you get really lucky. Once you have them, they should not be able to clobber cities so easily. Fast movements and fighting on open ground, yes, but not against cities.
     
  16. Buccaneer

    Buccaneer Deity

    Joined:
    Nov 2, 2001
    Messages:
    3,562
    How about having AI cities automatically come with walls and have significant horse penalties against walls - or more accurately, have walls provided a bonus against mounted units? That way they don't have to change horse units numbers.
     
  17. stii

    stii King

    Joined:
    Oct 3, 2010
    Messages:
    933
    Horsemen having higher attack than swordmen is just absurd.

    I do find cats useful from defending your cities from waves of Ai attackers.
     
  18. gaiko

    gaiko Warlord

    Joined:
    Jul 10, 2003
    Messages:
    225
    "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."

    Agreed, and I see little discussion of how OP ranged (not siege) units are in city attacks in the BCs. They need to be nerfed too, viv-a-vis cities. I typically need only 2-3 ranged units (archers, chariot archers (+horsemen, of course!) or crossbows) backing me up to take down cities, and never need siege.

    Conversely, nerf siege in the open.
     
  19. eric_

    eric_ Emperor

    Joined:
    Nov 29, 2005
    Messages:
    1,725
    Location:
    Riverdale, MD
    Maybe the developers just wanted to help us get over not using horseman :D
     
  20. greggbert

    greggbert Warlord

    Joined:
    Aug 2, 2007
    Messages:
    176
    Maybe the walls should give you a 100% city defense against mounted units. That would be a great way to get ppl to use them. Also you wouldn't have to expire the walls bonus because in modern times people stop using mounted units anyway.

    In the total war games, if a city has walls horses are practically useless. I'm not saying civ needs to be total war, but that would be a cool change that makes more sense. Then you could use your catapult to soften the city so your horese could attack!

    Edit: Kitten, yeah what you said. (Just read it)
     

Share This Page