From my point of view the "no defensive bonus" trait of mounted really, really makes them unattractive. Especially when we have civs/races that start with guerilla and woodsman, and ancient forests that give even more defensive bonuses. Lets be honest... 90% of non-siege battles are won by luring the AI into attacking you on that forested hill. To have units whose only purpose is to attack in non-seige settings is useless... especially if other then movement they gain no other strength or advantage over a similar recon or melee unit. How can this be corrected?
1. Base mounted units should be +1 or +2 strength to comparable melee units.
2. There should be a "mounted infantry" unit in the tree that retains its ability to defend (similar to the royal guard).
A few other points. Woodsman works on offense too? Since when? Also, I agree that city defenses are weak. Having a city have less of a defensive bonus than a forest is silly. Likewise, walls is such a useless upgrade, since the cultural bonus of the city very quickly matches and exceeds the wall bonus. Perhaps if they could stack?
Pel
1. Base mounted units should be +1 or +2 strength to comparable melee units.
2. There should be a "mounted infantry" unit in the tree that retains its ability to defend (similar to the royal guard).
A few other points. Woodsman works on offense too? Since when? Also, I agree that city defenses are weak. Having a city have less of a defensive bonus than a forest is silly. Likewise, walls is such a useless upgrade, since the cultural bonus of the city very quickly matches and exceeds the wall bonus. Perhaps if they could stack?
Pel