Thanks for tuning in to our Shawnee livestream + Dev Diary #2: Leaders & Civs

[Krikkit1]

Scouts should probably be mounted anyway; that was a major use of cavalry IRL.

That could probably work, Exploration age Scouts are a little bit tougher and mounted (faster)

 

[Willie5000]

I mean, the name would have still been Medieval Walls, so I don't think that would have been an issue. The same statement can be made about the Native American units, they don't wear plate armour, but nonetheless they will have an identical combat strength to European knights.

The name would have been, but being able to know that they're medieval walls without having to mouse over it is just good game design. Plus Europe doesn't have a monopoly on stone walls with battlements.

 

[The Fanatical]

The name would have been, but being able to know that they're medieval walls without having to mouse over it is just good game design. Plus Europe doesn't have a monopoly on stone walls with battlements.

Making 5-6 different versions of a Dungeon might have been too much, and it isn't even necessary because the building is drowned by the adjacent abundant buildings that belong to the civilization's native architecture. A huge European medieval wall on the other hand doesn't blend in with the plethora of Native American buildings all around it. It isn't a rice farm where one version of it will suffice. A wall is part of the civilization's recognizable architectural identity. Making only one version for every civilization in the game is a bad artistic design.

 

[Boris Gudenuf]

Scouts should probably be mounted anyway; that was a major use of cavalry IRL.

"Some" cavalry only.

Civ VI's designation of cavalry was correct in that there was a distinct difference between 'light' and 'heavy; cavalry, more specifically shown by the 18th century European terms "battle cavalry" and "light cavalry" - Heavy was for charging enemy troops on the battlefield and breaking them: Light was for chasing the enemy once he broke and for finding him and bringing him to the battlefield in the first place.

The real problem was, Civ VI did not show enough differences between the two, so that, as posted, they tended to be used interchangeably despite their differing Promotions and designations.

Civ VII in general seems to put more of the distinctions into the Commander rather than the individual Units. This is based entirely on Ease of Play rather than historical reality, but I will wait and see how well it works in practice before saying any more about it.

Among the most impactful differences between 'light' and 'battle/heavy' cavalry that could still usefully be shown in t he game:

1. Light cavalry should have a wider Field of View/Sight - as much as Scouts, for sure, because they could range even further and report back faster.

2. Light Cavalry should be a bit (+1 Tile/Turn?) faster. Heavy cavalry on heavy horses cannot actually move much faster than marching infantry, given that their horses generally need more feed and rest to carry the big men in armor that comprise their usual Load.

3. Heavy/Battle Cavalry should have a generally higher combat factor in attack - the mounted charge was their Reason for Being, so much so that it became the only measure of success for too many European cavalry units by the 19th century, to the neglect of little things like Scouting, Screening, or using the firearms they were equipped with.

4. Since the game has made Resources like Horses a combat enhancer rather than a requirement for mounted units, I suggest that Heavy Cavalry is far more enhanced than Light. Light cavalry traditionally got any horse big enough to ride. Heavy cavalry (ever since the Classical Era) got the specially bred heavy breeds, that required that fodder be provided rather than simple grazing to keep them healthy, and were very hard to come by in quantity and hard to replace. Not having a regular supply seriously affected numerous historical cavalry forces as different as Napoleon's Grand Armee in the 1800s and German horse-drawn equipment in 1941 - 42, both of which required 10s of 1000s of heavy horses for, respectively, their Cuirassier heavy cavalry and to draw the bulk of their artillery.

 

[Zaarin]

"Some" cavalry only.

Civ VI's designation of cavalry was correct in that there was a distinct difference between 'light' and 'heavy; cavalry, more specifically shown by the 18th century European terms "battle cavalry" and "light cavalry" - Heavy was for charging enemy troops on the battlefield and breaking them: Light was for chasing the enemy once he broke and for finding him and bringing him to the battlefield in the first place.

The real problem was, Civ VI did not show enough differences between the two, so that, as posted, they tended to be used interchangeably despite their differing Promotions and designations.

Civ VII in general seems to put more of the distinctions into the Commander rather than the individual Units. This is based entirely on Ease of Play rather than historical reality, but I will wait and see how well it works in practice before saying any more about it.

Among the most impactful differences between 'light' and 'battle/heavy' cavalry that could still usefully be shown in t he game:

1. Light cavalry should have a wider Field of View/Sight - as much as Scouts, for sure, because they could range even further and report back faster.

2. Light Cavalry should be a bit (+1 Tile/Turn?) faster. Heavy cavalry on heavy horses cannot actually move much faster than marching infantry, given that their horses generally need more feed and rest to carry the big men in armor that comprise their usual Load.

3. Heavy/Battle Cavalry should have a generally higher combat factor in attack - the mounted charge was their Reason for Being, so much so that it became the only measure of success for too many European cavalry units by the 19th century, to the neglect of little things like Scouting, Screening, or using the firearms they were equipped with.

4. Since the game has made Resources like Horses a combat enhancer rather than a requirement for mounted units, I suggest that Heavy Cavalry is far more enhanced than Light. Light cavalry traditionally got any horse big enough to ride. Heavy cavalry (ever since the Classical Era) got the specially bred heavy breeds, that required that fodder be provided rather than simple grazing to keep them healthy, and were very hard to come by in quantity and hard to replace. Not having a regular supply seriously affected numerous historical cavalry forces as different as Napoleon's Grand Armee in the 1800s and German horse-drawn equipment in 1941 - 42, both of which required 10s of 1000s of heavy horses for, respectively, their Cuirassier heavy cavalry and to draw the bulk of their artillery.

I get it, but the problem is that I'm not sure how useful that level of distinction is on Civ's scale, both in time and space.

 

[Aeon221]

Having a Native American light cavalry unit as a "Knight" is eleven kinds of ridiculous.

I agree. And with the new era system and greater focus on representing cultures it'd be great to get different systems of war represented -- something Civ has tried in the past with some civs focused more on yield gain from raiding or easier transits through certain terrain types but otherwise avoided. More unit types with some capabilities gaps (ex: Native Americans have excellent light cavalry but no heavy cavalry or Romans lack a light cavalry unit or South Americans lacking heavy infantry but having excellent shock infantry or some cultures lack siege weapons) would make for more interesting military game play and would open up the possibility of using indies to fill those capability gaps.

 

[Olleus]

I get it, but the problem is that I'm not sure how useful that level of distinction is on Civ's scale, both in time and space.

Not at all. Just like scouts as a division-ish sized units that spend centuries exploring the distant corner of a continent also make no sense. Historically realism in units in Civ only makes sense in that it's flavour which hints at what units are for: spearmen are for standing in line, cavalry for moving fast, scouts for looking at stuff, etc... etc... The nuances between heavy and light cavalry don't work in this regard, especially as neither the screening nor hit-and-run nor foraging use of light cavalry even make sense in a logisticsless turn based game. Cut them out with the abstraction-scissors [patent pending].

IMO: It would make more sense for scouts to be a promotion that gives +1 sight range than anything else. But having a weak-but-fast early game unit as a counter part to the slow-but-strong warrior is good for the game, so the scout stays as a unit.

 

[Uberfrog]

I agree. And with the new era system and greater focus on representing cultures it'd be great to get different systems of war represented -- something Civ has tried in the past with some civs focused more on yield gain from raiding but otherwise avoided. More unit types with some capabilities gaps (ex: Native Americans have excellent light cavalry but no heavy cavalry or Romans lack a light cavalry unit or South Americans lacking heavy infantry but having excellent shock infantry or some cultures lack siege weapons) would make for more interesting military game play and would open up the possibility of using indies to fill those capability gaps.

For me this is getting a little too far away from the alternate history factor that makes civ fun. I think asymmetric civilisations that have completely different unit rosters would really serve to limit players even more narrowly to specific playstyles, and would be extremely difficult to balance against each other.

 

[Aeon221]

1. Light cavalry should have a wider Field of View/Sight - as much as Scouts, for sure, because they could range even further and report back faster.

2. Light Cavalry should be a bit (+1 Tile/Turn?) faster. Heavy cavalry on heavy horses cannot actually move much faster than marching infantry, given that their horses generally need more feed and rest to carry the big men in armor that comprise their usual Load.

The most important light cavalry mission you've left out is screening the friendly force while it deploys for action. In civ terms this would mean light cavalry would not fight to hold a tile but would instead withdraw from it when attacked for the first time in a turn while receiving reduced damage. This would allow the player to maneuver forces behind a friendly force that is perhaps able to ambush an oncoming enemy unit but certainly able to withdraw safely to the main body while delaying the enemy.

 

[Boris Gudenuf]

The most important light cavalry mission you've left out is screening the friendly force while it deploys for action. In civ terms this would mean light cavalry would not fight to hold a tile but would instead withdraw from it when attacked for the first time in a turn while receiving reduced damage. This would allow the player to maneuver forces behind a friendly force that is perhaps able to ambush an oncoming enemy unit but certainly able to withdraw safely to the main body while delaying the enemy.

Reconnaissance/Scouting and Counter-Reconnaissance/Screening are two sides of the same coin: light cavalry was used to find the enemy and keep the enemy (hopefully!) from finding you, and the same forces in the same positions worked on both tasks.

The trick in Civ VII is how to show the Counter-Reconnaissance 'screen' when armies are all bunched under a single Leader unit: either the Cavalry is separate and therefore moving slower, or it is bunched with the rest and incapable of doing either the scout or counter-scout mission.

I suspect that the developers intend 'scouting' to be done by completely independent units separate from the 'armies' - and they so far (in Antiquity) show the 'scout' units as Civilian, not Military units. That does not bode well for any cavalry units in the game having any specialized scout/counter-scout function or abilities.

Unless they add that in the Exploration Age, which would not be inappropriate and would be another of their oft-mentioned-but-so-far-not-shown Differences between Ages: Exploration Age gets a cavalry unit with the 'light cavalry' characteristics that can be used as a Military Scout/Counter-scout.

 

[MasterPaw]

Yeah I always think of my opponents as the civilisation rather than the leader. Like those are American rough riders not Teddys rough riders.
My favourite representation was actually cd-rom civ II with the animated diplomats.

Cavalry as represented in civ 6 was pretty bad imo. Like you used light and heavy cavalry basically the same way. That and they both did what was meant to be the scout lines purpose better than the scout line, rendering scouts basically useless.
But then again if all heavy cavalry had the winged hussar push back ability and light cavalry was a little stronger against ranged but weaker in melee, it might have worked a whole lot better.
I’m generally pro making it more simple though. Mount beats sword, sword beats spear, spear beats tank.

I like civ5 vox populi cavalry
Light was short ranged, good for skirmish
Heavy was melee, good for doing lot of damage

 

[8housesofelixir]

An important thing to note is that historically, the difference between light and heavy cavalries was more often than not a result of different socioeconomic backgrounds. Light cavalry tradition tends to come from societies that are more rural, more militia-heavy, with less manorialism but more pastoralism, or just outright nomadic (such as the Mongols).

There is a reason why many states and empires throughout history tend to recruit their light cavalries from a particular ethnic group (Uhlans, Hakkapeliittas, Croats, Akinjis, and most famously, Cossacks).

As a result, a simple combat-role-based division of "light" and "heavy" cavalries in a game will always feel awkward from certain angles, as the game did not really try to model the underlying factors that produced these troops (which is not a criticism - a game has its own priorities).

(BTW, the same was true for light infantry; the Cretan light infantry of the Classical Mediterranean and the French Zouave units are famous examples.)

 

[Boris Gudenuf]

An important thing to note is that historically, the difference between light and heavy cavalries was more often than not a result of different socioeconomic backgrounds. Light cavalry tradition tends to come from societies that are more rural, more militia-heavy, with less manorialism but more pastoralism, or just outright nomadic (such as the Mongols).

There is a reason why many states and empires throughout history tend to recruit their light cavalries from a particular ethnic group (Uhlans, Hakkapeliittas, Croats, Akinjis, and most famously, Cossacks).

As a result, a simple combat-role-based division of "light" and "heavy" cavalries in a game will always feel awkward from certain angles, as the game did not really try to model the underlying factors that produced these troops (which is not a criticism - a game has its own priorities).

(BTW, the same was true for light infantry; the Cretan light infantry of the Classical Mediterranean and the French Zouave units are famous examples.)

I don't know of any computer game at any scale that has effectively modeled the Societal aspects of the military.

"Every military force reflects the society that produced it."

More specifically, several states, including Mithradates of Pontus, tried to build their own Roman Legions, and all failed. It's not enough to equip a bunch of men with swords and full body armor and shields, they also have to be trained and maintained and, most important, motivated to fight. Most of them never got as far as being able to afford the training and maintaining, and men not trained or paid are notoriously hard to motivate.

In Civ VII (or any Civ, for that matter) terms, that means there are some types of troops that require you to change your Civ, sometimes significantly, to get and keep them.

Both light cavalry and light infantry (in the classical west, frequently missile troops) were socially below the 'real' close combat fighting troops - this, more than any question of weapons' effectiveness, is why massed archers or slingers never became popular in classical Greece or Rome: they were bound to be recruited from the lowest economic class, that could not afford to provide weapons and armor for themselves and take their place in the line of battle, like the hoplites and early Legion infantry.

And some weapons systems required such concentrated and prolonged attention to master that they were always going to come from specific parts of a society or particular societies. Prime example is the Horse Archer, which required both continuous access to horses and the time to learn how to both ride and shoot. Quite simply, it was not possible for any set of city dwellers to have the time, money and space to learn and practice these skills. Consequently, every army that included horse archers was either from a pastoral culture or hired them from a pastoral culture: Scythians were hired by Alexander and other Greek states and Persia, Huns by the Roman and Byzantine Empires - no militarily-significant number of Romans ever tried to learn how to be horse archers: it was far, far cheaper and easier to hire them.

Lesser known specialists were the Cretan and Rhodian slingers, who were hired by everyone who could get them, because they were life-long practioners with the sling and, as professional slingers, were first to fire streamlined lead 'bullets' with much higher velocity than rocks. They could outrange archers and knock someone sprawling even through armor: a pellet hitting a helmet literally rang the soldier's bell and concussed him.

Including a Society mechanic to obtain certain types of troops in any number would be more accurate (for whatever that's worth) but also restrict player choices in ways never done before to my knowledge, so would probably be a hard sell. On the other hand, Uniques in the form of 'special recruits' like tghe slingers and horse archers could only be available from certain Minor States and therefore have to be hired, which would at least be a start.