The Lancer Problem

[sam44hill]

I'm sure it has been suggested before, but the most effective way to fix Lancers would be to replace the Anti-Tank Gun with either a Tank Destroyer (modeled after the M36 Slugger) or an Assault Gun (modeled after the JagdPanther). Bumping this unit down to Combustion with the Landship would also make it competitive with other units. That leaves the AT Gun as a stand alone much like the Anti-Aircraft Gun is now.

Dunno about you folks but this would suit me just fine.

 

[MKDELTA3]

Why not just make the Lancer upgrade into Cavalry?

 

[Gyra Solune]

But the problem with that is the AT Gun is obviously meant to counter tanks, and as tanks are the modern equivalent and upgrade to cavalry, making it not part of the anti-mobile line started by Spearmen would be odd.

The problem with Lancers isn't that they're weak, per se, it's that they are awkward and subvert the role of the Pikemen they upgrade from. For most, Pikes and Spears are more or less cheap infantry, with their primary utility being their lack of need for a strategic resource, and are useful in sieges to a marginal degree. Then they suddenly upgrade into the Renaissance mounted unit even though the Knight doesn't get one, and become weak to cities and lose their primary appeal. Henceforth all they have left is their anti-mounted capability, but the problem is, the era mounted unit is themselves - henceforth you don't gain an advantage by sending Lancers against Lancers.

The problem would be solved entirely by making Lancers an upgrade of Knights, and putting some kind of Pike and Shot in their place as the Pikeman upgrade, alongside giving that an industrial Grenadier upgrade to serve as an early AT.

 

[Boris Gudenuf]

Historically, the Lancer was a very late Renaissance unit - they really weren't common in Europe (outside of Poland) until the Napoleonic Wars and afterwards, and then in the form of Uhlans and such which stayed around until the Industrial period and the replacement of cavalry with tanks/landships. There were officers in the British Army who advocated the retention of the lance-armed horseman even after WWI - talk about a flatlined learning curve...

Which means the lancer should remain the anti-mounted unit until the mounted units become landships/tanks. The problem is, antitank guns were converted artillery or infantry heavy weapons, not dismounted horsemen. Antitank and Antiaircraft Guns should be a 'lateral upgrade' from Artillery, while, if you choose to retain them, your lancers can be upgraded to Tanks. This gives the Polish player a chance to charge Panzers with Lancers, recreating one of the great myths of WWII!

The Pikeman upgrades to the Fusilier, the unit missing from all the Civ games. The matchlock musket/arquebus represented by the Musketman required the pike to defend him from cavalry, hence the military period from about 1500 to 1690 is sometimes referred to as the 'pike and shot' era. Once the flintlock musket with bayonet came in - the 'fusil' between 1690 and 1700, the pikes disappeared completely. At one battle in the 1690s, in fact, the pikemen tossed their pikes and picked up muskets from the casualties - instant Upgrade!

So, the answer is that we Upgrade both Pikemen and Musketmen to Fusiiier, which is a Melee Infantry unit that also has a bonus against cavalry (form square with bayonets, laugh at the horsemen). It becomes the 'all purpose' melee infantry until replaced by Riflemen in the Industrial era.

The Lancer is really a new Renaissance unit - a Mobile Anti-Mounted unit if you will. Otherwise, it would be a 'lateral upgrade' from Any Mounted Unit - Knights, Dragoons (another unit we've missed in Civ), Hussars, etc. BUT it shouldn't appear until after the advent of the Fusilier, and probably in the 'tier' of Technologies just before the Industrial Era.

 

[MKDELTA3]

I think that even without going into very in-depth revisions such as adding new unit types I think the following changes would suffice:

Pikemen - Riflemen
Knights - Lancer - Cavalry
Antitank Guns and Helicopters are standalone units

This would mean that Lancers have an exceptionally short shelf-life before they could be upgraded to Cavalry with the current tech tree setup though.

I think the Lancer is overall a pretty bizarre choice of an unit. As far as I know cavalry units started using pistols and other firearms as soon as the technology had sufficiently matured.

I myself like the idea of the Fusilier and would like to see some form of a ranged weapon between Crossbows and Gatlings. Gatlings should be moved up in the tech tree, as should probably be the Rifles if Fusiliers were to be introduced. I've been thinking that maybe Cannons shouldn't be siege weapons but instead an upgrade to Crossbows. Another gunpowder siege unit would take the place of Cannon. The smaller cannons which were used to shoot at infantry (Civ V cannons) and the ones used for sieges were quite different from each other as far as I know.

 

[Scirocco16V]

http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=512015

Pike->Musketman

Knight->Lancer->Cavalry

Chariot archer->Crossbow

Battleship->Missile Cruiser (& missile cruiser require aluminum)

(Keshik+Camel Archer-> Gatling Gun)

Does anyone even use anti-tank guns?
Pikemen could upgrade to anti-tank guns with something similar to the 2 of them in between.

 

[Vandal Thorne]

Better would be

Pike -> Lancer -> Anti-tank Gun
Knight -> Cuirassier -> Cavalry
Chariot Archer -> Catapult

A useful innovation would be if all gunpowder type units could make a half-strength, range 1, ranged attack. It would make them quite distinct from previous unit types.

 

[Scirocco16V]

Better would be
Pike -> Lancer -> Anti-tank Gun

The huge problem with this as it is now is the purpose/use of each of those units. Only reason to build pikemen is that you don't have iron. They are normal movement units which get terrain defense bonuses and can be dug in for more defense bonus. Dig them in in rough terrain at key locations and an attacker has to really work to kill them. Anti-tank units are similar except the melee unit during that period don't require a resource, so the only real reason to build anti-tanks is that they are cheaper. In stark contrast to those 2 units, a Lancer does require a resource, can't be fortified, doesn't get terrain defense, and is very mobile. Lancers are used very differently and are built for very different reasons than the unit before and after it in it's promotion line. THAT is the problem.

I wish the 2K forum wasn't down so I could refer to the thread where this was discussed on there, instead of retyping the same arguments.

 

[jlim201]

Battleship-Missile Cruiser is too OP. Battleships get tons of promotions, and Missile Cruisers with that will demolish anything in one shot.

 

[kaspergm]

Battleship-Missile Cruiser is too OP. Battleships get tons of promotions, and Missile Cruisers with that will demolish anything in one shot.

Well, then maybe balance Missile Cruisers, they're pretty OP as they are already?

Anyway, about the Lancer problem, changing units to be stand-alone units is not the solution imo. Look at how much play the Marine gets in the game currently, and the reasons why Lancers were added to the pike line in the first place was exactly this problem, they were a stand-alone unit and didn't get any play.

As I see it, the game is a mess when it comes to carrying unit lines through, and this is what causes the issue. Instead of having lines that alternate back and forth between melee (and slow) and mounted (and fast) units, as the Pike/Lancer/AT Gun does, or between ranged and melee (Chariot Archer/Knight), we should have well-defined upgrade lines for each of these categories. That would look something like:

		STEP 1		STEP 2		STEP 3		STEP 4		STEP 5
MELEE OFFENCE	Swordsman	Longswordsman	Musketman	Rifleman	Infantry
MELEE DEFENCE	Spearman	Pikeman		"Tercio"	AT Gun		"Upgraded AT Gun"
MOUNTED RANGED	Chariot Archer	"Horse Archer"	Cavalry*	Airship		Helicopter Gunship
MOUNTED MELEE	Horseman	Knight		Lancer*		Landship	Tank

Here I've filled in a couple of the Unique Units in "quotes" because these represent the unit that needs to be there as a standard unit but which is currently not in the game. (*I also swapped the Cavalry and Lancer, but that's just because the Cavalry fits better with a mounted ranged from the way the model looks, so that's formalism.)

The mounted ranged line should have a default range of 1 with the ability to move after attacking, to make these units less abusive than they currently are.

 

[Scirocco16V]

Battleship-Missile Cruiser is too OP. Battleships get tons of promotions, and Missile Cruisers with that will demolish anything in one shot.

And units that started as Horsemen or Cossacks, or another mounted UU and got upgraded all the way to Modern Armor or GDR wouldn't have accumulated a couple promotions? What about all the promotions Stealth Bombers can end up with if they start as great war bombers,etc.

Missile Cruisers might be too OP, but that isn't a reason to stop battleships from upgrading. Balance missile cruisers instead. I do think it's amazing that missile cruisers don't require aluminum, or at least oil.

 

[Scirocco16V]

Anyway, about the Lancer problem, changing units to be stand-alone units is not the solution imo. Look at how much play the Marine gets in the game currently, and the reasons why Lancers were added to the pike line in the first place was exactly this problem, they were a stand-alone unit and didn't get any play.

As I see it, the game is a mess when it comes to carrying unit lines through, and this is what causes the issue. Instead of having lines that alternate back and forth between melee (and slow) and mounted (and fast) units, as the Pike/Lancer/AT Gun does, or between ranged and melee (Chariot Archer/Knight), we should have well-defined upgrade lines for each of these categories. That would look something like:

		STEP 1		STEP 2		STEP 3		STEP 4		STEP 5
MELEE OFFENCE	Swordsman	Longswordsman	Musketman	Rifleman	Infantry
MELEE DEFENCE	Spearman	Pikeman		"Tercio"	AT Gun		"Upgraded AT Gun"
MOUNTED RANGED	Chariot Archer	"Horse Archer"	Cavalry*	Airship		Helicopter Gunship
MOUNTED MELEE	Horseman	Knight		Lancer*		Landship	Tank

Here I've filled in a couple of the Unique Units in "quotes" because these represent the unit that needs to be there as a standard unit but which is currently not in the game. (*I also swapped the Cavalry and Lancer, but that's just because the Cavalry fits better with a mounted ranged from the way the model looks, so that's formalism.)

The mounted ranged line should have a default range of 1 with the ability to move after attacking, to make these units less abusive than they currently are.

Yes please.
I hope Dennis is reading this.

I recently played the Into the Renaissance scenario and was surprised to find that knights upgraded to lancers and there wasn't an upgrade for pikemen.

 

[Vandal Thorne]

The huge problem with this as it is now is the purpose/use of each of those units. Only reason to build pikemen is that you don't have iron. They are normal movement units which get terrain defense bonuses and can be dug in for more defense bonus. Dig them in in rough terrain at key locations and an attacker has to really work to kill them. Anti-tank units are similar except the melee unit during that period don't require a resource, so the only real reason to build anti-tanks is that they are cheaper. In stark contrast to those 2 units, a Lancer does require a resource, can't be fortified, doesn't get terrain defense, and is very mobile. Lancers are used very differently and are built for very different reasons than the unit before and after it in it's promotion line. THAT is the problem.

I wish the 2K forum wasn't down so I could refer to the thread where this was discussed on there, instead of retyping the same arguments.

We agree to disagree.

 

[kaspergm]

Better would be

Pike -> Lancer -> Anti-tank Gun
Knight -> Cuirassier -> Cavalry
Chariot Archer -> Catapult

A useful innovation would be if all gunpowder type units could make a half-strength, range 1, ranged attack. It would make them quite distinct from previous unit types.

We agree to disagree.

You're suggestion makes absolutely no sense, however, so I would really like to hear what your motivation for this is? I mean, you *don't* change the Lancer line (which is the whole subject of this thread), and then you introduce a rather bizarre upgrade from the Chariot Archer into the Catapult (?) at the very next tech level which makes no sense apart from the fact that both are ranged of some sort? Also I don't get why we need another unit between Knight and Cavalry, these are fairly well-spaced (3 techs) and plain upgrade line with no issues?

 

[Vandal Thorne]

You're suggestion makes absolutely no sense, however, so I would really like to hear what your motivation for this is? I mean, you *don't* change the Lancer line (which is the whole subject of this thread), and then you introduce a rather bizarre upgrade from the Chariot Archer into the Catapult (?) at the very next tech level which makes no sense apart from the fact that both are ranged of some sort? Also I don't get why we need another unit between Knight and Cavalry, these are fairly well-spaced (3 techs) and plain upgrade line with no issues?

Frankly, the lancer line is a non-starter issue. The whole selection of units is very abstract. Complaining that pikeman upgrades to lancers make no sense because "HORSES!" is a silly as me complaining that anything at all upgrades to musketmen because "GUNPOWDER!".

The pikeman / lancer relationship is one of one anti-horse specialist upgrading to another anti-horse specialist. The upgrade from lancer to anti-tank gun also makes sense when the relationships a traced this way; you upgrade one anti-mobile unit specialist (anti-cavalry) to another (anti-tank). There is not a problem here. The upgrade progression is quite logical.

Less logical is that gunpowder units do not have across the board ranged attacks. Some further thoughts on this are buried in the attachements to this thread (http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=502749). Also, with respect to intermediate unit between knight and cavalry, why we need it, there was one in real life. Knights are not contemporaries to musketmen. Ironically, lancers were still used in WWI. So some in game progressions actually do manage to mirror reality.

Regarding the Chariot Archer, keep in mind that not all units are actually obsolete when the next "best" technology comes out, e.g., Warriors don't become obsolete until Metal Casting, meaning Warriors and Swordsmen are actually contemporary units until just before Longswordsmen hit the scene. Similarly, if Chariot Archers only obsolete with Chivalry then Catapults and Chariot Archers are actually contemporaries until just before Trebuchets hit the scene. The reason to upgrade Chariot Archers to Catapults is that they are both engineered war machines and it preserves your range promotions (which the Knight cannot use). I also advocate that Camel Archers and Keshik's should upgrade to...you probably guessed it...Cannons.

On the whole though, I find the whole realism vs. abstract reality thing is so passe. This is CiV not simEarth. Since unit progression seems to be a contentious issue that pops up over and over again, a best fix would be to make these unit progressions another customizable setting that players can define for themselves (or even turn off altogether, i.e., no upgrading at all) so as to personally tailor their Civ experience. I'll continue to argue against any "fixes" to the lancer line though, as I don't believe they are necessary and indeed could be damaging to overall gameplay.

 

[Scirocco16V]

Complaining that pikeman upgrades to lancers make no sense because "HORSES!" is a silly as me complaining that anything at all upgrades to musketmen because "GUNPOWDER!".

Horses are a limited resource, which has game play implications. Gunpowder is not.

The pikeman / lancer relationship is one of one anti-horse specialist upgrading to another anti-horse specialist. The upgrade from lancer to anti-tank gun also makes sense when the relationships a traced this way; you upgrade one anti-mobile unit specialist (anti-cavalry) to another (anti-tank). There is not a problem here. The upgrade progression is quite logical.

Do you actually build pikemen instead of longswords for the purpose of countering mounted units? I don't and I doubt many do. I build pikemen because I don't have iron and/or because they are cheaper than longswords.

Less logical is that gunpowder units do not have across the board ranged attacks. Some further thoughts on this are buried in the attachments to this thread (http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=502749). Also, with respect to intermediate unit between knight and cavalry, why we need it, there was one in real life. Knights are not contemporaries to musketmen. Ironically, lancers were still used in WWI. So some in game progressions actually do manage to mirror reality.

This is an odd arguement from someone who also writes "I find the whole realism vs. abstract reality thing is so passe. This is CiV not simEarth." I don't care about what is realistic nearly as much as fun, balanced game mechanics.

Regarding the Chariot Archer, keep in mind that not all units are actually obsolete when the next "best" technology comes out, e.g., Warriors don't become obsolete until Metal Casting, meaning Warriors and Swordsmen are actually contemporary units until just before Longswordsmen hit the scene. Similarly, if Chariot Archers only obsolete with Chivalry then Catapults and Chariot Archers are actually contemporaries until just before Trebuchets hit the scene. The reason to upgrade Chariot Archers to Catapults is that they are both engineered war machines and it preserves your range promotions (which the Knight cannot use). I also advocate that Camel Archers and Keshik's should upgrade to...you probably guessed it...Cannons.

I'm sorry, I missed why chariot archers should upgrade to catapults, not trebuchet? I think Crossbows make more sense, but trebuchet would still be an improvement. Going to either catapults or composite bows would be a step backward for the unit. For the Camel Archers & Keshiks, I still think Gatling guns would make more sense, but cannons would be better than cavalry.

On the whole though, I find the whole realism vs. abstract reality thing is so passe. This is CiV not simEarth. Since unit progression seems to be a contentious issue that pops up over and over again, a best fix would be to make these unit progressions another customizable setting that players can define for themselves (or even turn off altogether, i.e., no upgrading at all) so as to personally tailor their Civ experience. I'll continue to argue against any "fixes" to the lancer line though, as I don't believe they are necessary and indeed could be damaging to overall gameplay.

I don't see how fixing the lancer line could damage overall gameplay more than giving all gunpowder units a ranged attack.
Re "CiV not simEarth" we have found something we are in complete agreement on.

 

[Vandal Thorne]

Horses are a limited resource, which has game play implications. Gunpowder is not.

So is iron. Should you NOT be able to upgrade longswordsmen to musketmen because the no longer need iron. Why should we be able to upgrade warriors to swordsmen or cavalry to landships or frigates to ironclads? By your reasoning these things should not be possible, they don't use the same "limited" resources.

Do you actually build pikemen instead of longswords for the purpose of countering mounted units? I don't and I doubt many do. I build pikemen because I don't have iron and/or because they are cheaper than longswords.

How one plays the game is not at issue here. What does is matching likes to likes. Now there are a few ways one could slice the class cake. The one currently being used in-game is slice-by-role. If we slice-by-resource then most units would clearly have different upgrade paths or even not be upgradable at all. I think the current slicing-by-role makes the most sense. There isn't a good reason to change it. YMMV.

This is an odd arguement from someone who also writes "I find the whole realism vs. abstract reality thing is so passe. This is CiV not simEarth." I don't care about what is realistic nearly as much as fun, balanced game mechanics.

There is nothing inherently unbalanced with the existing anti-cav tree. The whole thing, the spearman-to-gunship progression is one of anti-cav/armor specialists. The lancer fits very neatly and directly into it. That lancers require horses or that gunships need aluminum really has nothing to do with it, those are completely coincidental requirements that in no way negatively effect game balance.

I'm sorry, I missed why chariot archers should upgrade to catapults, not trebuchet? I think Crossbows make more sense, but trebuchet would still be an improvement. Going to either catapults or composite bows would be a step backward for the unit. For the Camel Archers & Keshiks, I still think Gatling guns would make more sense, but cannons would be better than cavalry.

It's the same reason samurai upgrade to Riflemen rather than Musketeers. The same reason that Warriors upgrade to Swordsmen rather than Longswordsmen. What is really missing is a good reason to change the tree containing the lancer. I've yet to see a compelling reason...

I don't see how fixing the lancer line could damage overall gameplay more than giving all gunpowder units a ranged attack.
Re "CiV not simEarth" we have found something we are in complete agreement on.

You're assuming that the anti-cav line, of which the lancer is a part, needs to be fixed. I disagree. There is nothing inherently wrong with it and certainly nothing that negatively impacts the game. YMMV.

 

[sam44hill]

Though I appreciate the immense concern displayed, I would like to remind everyone that my idea was for a quick fix giving the lancer an upgrade that move accurately continues it's line: fast anti mounted/armour units.

 

[kaspergm]

Well if you don't want to discuss it, why open the thread?

 

[sam44hill]

I won't mind discussing it, however debating whether or not chariot archers should upgrade to catapults is a different matter.