Weapons & mounted units

[Thennorin]

Should mounted units get weapons?

I liked it when the weapons system was introduced but it's changed a lot since and now feels incomplete. Initially, metals showed up a tech later and a forge was needed (for most civs, anyway), so there was significant development needed to get weapons. There were good reasons for the changes (less micro, AI friendly) but now weapons require no effort to get, so long as there are metals available.

I feel the changes have really lessened the value of mounted units. Melee units upgrade naturally as better metals are revealed. But not mounted units...

Consider a match up of early melee & mounted units: the axeman/swordsman vs the horseman. At base value, the horseman has an edge in the field (withdrawal). If copper is found, it's fairly even. But if iron is found, the difference is big enough that there's little point in building mounted units for direct combat.

It seems weird to me... Mounted units use the same weapons as melee units but can't use the weapon mechanic. Meanwhile, melee units end up being stronger than a charging mount. Maybe it's best for gameplay (?) but it's all wrong thematically. I think mounted units could at least get some weaker upgrade so they remain viable. Maybe +1 attack with copper, +1 defence with iron.

 

[ydejin]

Chariots and War Chariots get them, as do Knights. I agree that Horsemen should get them logically. However, if Horse Archers really are Archers, logically it doesn't make sense for them to get bronze, iron, or mithral weapons.

If Horsemen get weapons and then are upgraded to Archers, do they still get to keep the weapons?

I wouldn't mind seeing them on Horsemen, but it does seem like adding +1 or +2 Horsemen really overlaps a lot with Horse Archers.

 

[Thennorin]

Chariots and War Chariots get them, as do Knights.

Oops, that's true. Still, except for chariots they're far down the mounted tech line and the early mounted units as they are may not be enough to survive until then. The horseman can't use weapons, so it can quickly become obsolete. On the other hand, its tech isn't too expensive and has other uses. Is it just there for early rushes? It feels a bit slim in practical uses.

Next up, the chariot needs a siege workshop but it has a higher base strength than axemen/swordsmen. Fair enough. I guess this is the mounted unit counter to the melee line.

But then there's the horse archer, which because it's an archery unit can't use weapons. So the progression is from a 7/5 chariot (assuming you have iron) to a 6/6 horse archer. Champions with weaponry will dominate combat at this point.

I don't understand the intended role of horsemen and horse archers. If they're only intended to be used briefly, they need a higher base strength (even just +1 attack would help). Otherwise, they should be able to use weapons in some form to keep parity with melee units.

 

[ydejin]

I don't understand the intended role of horsemen and horse archers. If they're only intended to be used briefly, they need a higher base strength (even just +1 attack would help). Otherwise, they should be able to use weapons in some form to keep parity with melee units.

Personally I tend to use my horse units for two things. First they act as a quick mobile force which can quickly reinforce any part of my border. Second, I give them lots of flanking and then use them to soften up tougher enemies before committing my melee units.

Horsemen and Horse Archers work slightly better as a mobile force since their defense is higher, although that's less true once you've upgraded Chariots with Iron Weapons. I could have also sworn Horsemen had a speed of 4 and Chariots were speed 3, but I don't see it in the Civilopedia and my last saves with Horsemen were 0.30b and I've upgraded to 0.30c so I can't check. Horse Archers also have slightly higher retreat chances. On the other hand Chariots pack more of a punch.

Were it up to me, I'd probably have some races use Chariots and others Horses but not have any using both. There does seem to be considerable overlap between the two lines. Did any real-life armies use mixes of Chariots and Cavalry? I thought Chariots went away relatively early on. It seems if nothing else, Chariots would only operate well on open plans and desert and would do quite poorly on rough ground or woods. I can't imagine any Civs actually kept Chariots post stirrups.

 

[westamastaflash]

Horsemen are great for pillaging, they move so fast.

 

[Grey Fox]

Horsemen don't need the weapon promotions to be useful. They are harassment and raiding units. Use them to pillage, weaken units (with high withdrawal), steal workers, and kill of weak units.

The chariots (and knights) are the ones you use for effect. Just like in the real world.

So Light Cavalry for harassment, Heavy Cavalry for the "Here comes the Cavalry" effect.

P.S. Personally I often use the Horsemen as fast make-shift catapults, since they survive so easily with their high potential Withdrawal rate.

Were it up to me, I'd probably have some races use Chariots and others Horses but not have any using both. There does seem to be considerable overlap between the two lines. Did any real-life armies use mixes of Chariots and Cavalry? I thought Chariots went away relatively early on. It seems if nothing else, Chariots would only operate well on open plans and desert and would do quite poorly on rough ground or woods. I can't imagine any Civs actually kept Chariots post stirrups.

In my opinion there should be two lines of cavalry for most if not all civs, and that is a Light and a Heavy line. Almost like it is now, but Chariots could be replaced for some civs perhaps.

 

[Mortenart]

But then there's the horse archer, which because it's an archery unit can't use weapons.

It would be good if you could research a tech to give you a better, more powerful type of bow, so that archer units could gain extra strength in the same way as melee units. Maybe this could be tied in with ancient forests, or a new, rarer wood resource. With the restriction on crossbowmen now, archery feels like a bit of an afterthought.

 

[reverend oats]

Horses are powerful because they move 4x as quickly then infantry. It means you can mass your entire army for defence or offence very quickly, and pillaging metals is easier because your see your forces coming and defend their resource better. And Tansuke's combat 1, commando, +1 move, +10% withdraw horses are just obsene.

 

[Breunor]

I can't say a lot about FfH history, but I can talk a little about military history in this world ....

Chariots were largely effective before modern horsemanship. Needless to say, a good horseman is always going to be more maneuverable than a chariot.

Chariots did dominate warfare for some time; the Hyksos invaders of Egypt brought them. They were used by the Greeks in the Epic period and the Celts up until Roman times. The Hittites were famous for their chariots.

The famous batle of Kadesh was largely a chariot battle between the New Kingdom Egyptian two-man chariots and the traditional Hittite chariots. Archers also played a large role.

Chariots could be used for shock or for mobility or both. The Greek Epics had warriors riding chariots to throw javelins, and then they usually left the chariots to fight on foot. They had specialized chariot drivers.

The Egyptian small chariots are usually considered superior, beacase they were more maneuverable.

The Persians used both chariots and cavalry. Indeed, Darius III's reliance on his scythed chariots may have been THE decisive error in his battle plans. He used his spiked chariots as his strike force, but the professional Macedonains simply moved out of the way (an impossible tactic for a non-professional army; the Persians wouldn't have fought too many). Once the chariots lost their momentum, they were slaughtered.

So, chariots were supplanted by professional armies that learned how to handle them and by real cavalry, as horsemanship developed further.

So, in game terms, would chariot warriors have benefitted from advances in metal weaponry? Probably, although not the 'chariot' part. The chariot, though, carried a warrier, who fired arrows, threw a javelin, or went out and fought with a hand-held weapon.

In the real world, though, good horsemen were always superior. There are two main types of horsemen from that era, bow firing horsemen and shock based horesmen (and of course infinite combinations).

It is hard to justiy that archers and horsemen don't improve with metallurgy. The penetration power of an arrow was dependent on the tip. Horse archers of course had similar benefits, and shock horse troops used weapons like spears.

One counter-argument, however, would be that there are a lot of other developemnts outside of metallurgy that defined the effectiveness of horsemen and archers.

So, for archers, we have both metals and the design of arrows. The Mongols carried many different types of arrows. In medieval times, Bodkin arrows had softer tips (iron instead of steel) but were good as armor piercing arrows. Development in bow design and in fletching technique, as well as arrow length and shaft design were also important. There were developments in stringing,etc. Of course, we arlso had the invention of stirrups, which is a technology in FfH.

Crossbows were developed as a weapon that had fairly strong penetration power that was not dependent on the strength of the firer. A strong man firing a longbow would be more effective.

For horsemen, training in fighting on horseback, which is second nature to the steppe nomads, had a large impact on their effectiveness. Horses themselves were also important. For instance, in medieval times, the European horses were drastically inferior to the eastern horses of their Moslem opponents, with the exception of the fine Spanish steeds. However, European horses were large and strong, so were good for heavy cavarly tactics. Eastern horses were more maneuverable. And we see that the tactics of these areas mimiced the horses.

So, both bowmen and horsemen benefitted from improved metals, but again it can be conditional. Pre-iron tipped arrows were really rather poor against an armored opponent but would less to an unarmored opponent.


So, what does this mean in the game? I think as usual our designers did an excellent job. For both horsemen and archers, we have developments represented by techs (Boyers and stirrups). We have more advanced horse types.

I would probably mimic the regular Civ game and make chariots an older, easier technology than horsemen. Horsemen and then knights make sense. I would also probably make them improved with metals but it may make less sense from a game standpoint.

Also, horsemen are probably not strong enough in either real Civ or FfH in the early period and maybe too strong (cavalry) in later times, probably because Civ and its incarnations are very 'city combat' intensive.

As far as bows go, I think that crossbows should remain very powerful but should be limited in gaining in experience points. So a green unit of crossbows should be superior to green longbows, but experienced longbowmen would get promotions and pass the crossbowmen.

Best wishes,

Breunor

 

[Don Pelayo]

Very interesting. Have you studied Ancient History?

 

[Basil II]

I can't say a lot about FfH history, but I can talk a little about military history in this world ....

Chariots were largely effective before modern horsemanship. Needless to say, a good horseman is always going to be more maneuverable than a chariot.

Chariots did dominate warfare for some time; the Hyksos invaders of Egypt brought them. They were used by the Greeks in the Epic period and the Celts up until Roman times. The Hittites were famous for their chariots.

The famous batle of Kadesh was largely a chariot battle between the New Kingdom Egyptian two-man chariots and the traditional Hittite chariots. Archers also played a large role.

Chariots could be used for shock or for mobility or both. The Greek Epics had warriors riding chariots to throw javelins, and then they usually left the chariots to fight on foot. They had specialized chariot drivers.

The Egyptian small chariots are usually considered superior, beacase they were more maneuverable.

The Persians used both chariots and cavalry. Indeed, Darius III's reliance on his scythed chariots may have been THE decisive error in his battle plans. He used his spiked chariots as his strike force, but the professional Macedonains simply moved out of the way (an impossible tactic for a non-professional army; the Persians wouldn't have fought too many). Once the chariots lost their momentum, they were slaughtered.

So, chariots were supplanted by professional armies that learned how to handle them and by real cavalry, as horsemanship developed further.

So, in game terms, would chariot warriors have benefitted from advances in metal weaponry? Probably, although not the 'chariot' part. The chariot, though, carried a warrier, who fired arrows, threw a javelin, or went out and fought with a hand-held weapon.

In the real world, though, good horsemen were always superior. There are two main types of horsemen from that era, bow firing horsemen and shock based horesmen (and of course infinite combinations).

It is hard to justiy that archers and horsemen don't improve with metallurgy. The penetration power of an arrow was dependent on the tip. Horse archers of course had similar benefits, and shock horse troops used weapons like spears.

One counter-argument, however, would be that there are a lot of other developemnts outside of metallurgy that defined the effectiveness of horsemen and archers.

So, for archers, we have both metals and the design of arrows. The Mongols carried many different types of arrows. In medieval times, Bodkin arrows had softer tips (iron instead of steel) but were good as armor piercing arrows. Development in bow design and in fletching technique, as well as arrow length and shaft design were also important. There were developments in stringing,etc. Of course, we arlso had the invention of stirrups, which is a technology in FfH.

Crossbows were developed as a weapon that had fairly strong penetration power that was not dependent on the strength of the firer. A strong man firing a longbow would be more effective.

For horsemen, training in fighting on horseback, which is second nature to the steppe nomads, had a large impact on their effectiveness. Horses themselves were also important. For instance, in medieval times, the European horses were drastically inferior to the eastern horses of their Moslem opponents, with the exception of the fine Spanish steeds. However, European horses were large and strong, so were good for heavy cavarly tactics. Eastern horses were more maneuverable. And we see that the tactics of these areas mimiced the horses.

So, both bowmen and horsemen benefitted from improved metals, but again it can be conditional. Pre-iron tipped arrows were really rather poor against an armored opponent but would less to an unarmored opponent.


So, what does this mean in the game? I think as usual our designers did an excellent job. For both horsemen and archers, we have developments represented by techs (Boyers and stirrups). We have more advanced horse types.

I would probably mimic the regular Civ game and make chariots an older, easier technology than horsemen. Horsemen and then knights make sense. I would also probably make them improved with metals but it may make less sense from a game standpoint.

Also, horsemen are probably not strong enough in either real Civ or FfH in the early period and maybe too strong (cavalry) in later times, probably because Civ and its incarnations are very 'city combat' intensive.

As far as bows go, I think that crossbows should remain very powerful but should be limited in gaining in experience points. So a green unit of crossbows should be superior to green longbows, but experienced longbowmen would get promotions and pass the crossbowmen.

Best wishes,

Breunor

I always considered the basic Civ/Ffh horsemen as equivalent to pre-Alexander horse: no stirrups so very limited charging capability. THese would be scout/skirmisher units with mostly javelins and/or longspears. They would be of limited impact in a charge and in fact would be useless against heavy infantry (Hoplite/Phalanx) unless attacking from the flanks. So it would make sense that they would be relatively weak. Elite forces like the Macedonian horse can be considered to simply be horsemen with combat upgrades. (Experienced riders overcoming the limitations of riding with no stirrups)

Good point about quality of horses, this was the case all over Eurasia. Another example: in Han China the emperor reputedly sent a 100,000 man expedition west into the steppes for the sole purpose of securing breeding stock from the heavy horses native there: in China they had only hill ponies so this was of great strategic value. Only a few thousand men finally returned with the horses but the mission was considered a success.

 

[Breunor]

I always considered the basic Civ/Ffh horsemen as equivalent to pre-Alexander horse: no stirrups so very limited charging capability. THese would be scout/skirmisher units with mostly javelins and/or longspears. They would be of limited impact in a charge and in fact would be useless against heavy infantry (Hoplite/Phalanx) unless attacking from the flanks. So it would make sense that they would be relatively weak. Elite forces like the Macedonian horse can be considered to simply be horsemen with combat upgrades. (Experienced riders overcoming the limitations of riding with no stirrups)

Good point about quality of horses, this was the case all over Eurasia. Another example: in Han China the emperor reputedly sent a 100,000 man expedition west into the steppes for the sole purpose of securing breeding stock from the heavy horses native there: in China they had only hill ponies so this was of great strategic value. Only a few thousand men finally returned with the horses but the mission was considered a success.

That's reasonable, but I had a different view of the horsemen. I guess I viewed the horsemen as a little more powerful, I viewed them as pre-knights. So I'm viewing the horsemen as the Scythians, Sarmatians, Parthians, Huns, etc. Pre-Alexander would essentially have the Persian cavalry and Scythians and other Eastern horsemen. They could dominate war on open terrain.

But pre-Alexander, we clearly had horse archers (Scythains) and standard light cavalry. I disagree about the phalanxes, though -- despite the game, their weakness was a cavalry attack on their rear. They couldn't maneuver and this was their weakness. Hansen (A Different Kind of War) talks about how the tiny Athenian cavalry (maybe 100! horsemen) kept the Spartans from sacking the Athenian silver mines.

Note even the mighty Romans always had trouble against the horsemen on the plains, when the Persians overthrew the Parthians in the early 3rd century they had a sophisticated and powerful enemy. But even the Parthians had given them trouble before then, and although the Romans usually had an upper hand, they could never defeat the Parthians for good.

We can see Carrhae as an example of what happens even to even the Romans run into a horse archer army (the key to Carrhae was that Surenas had brought extra arrows. The usual Roman tactic for dealing with horse archer armies was to go into tight formation and wait for them to run out of arrows. Since Sureras had brought extra arrows, it led to a disaster. This gets into the core of the discussion, if the Parthians had more modern arrows .....) . Note that this was also before stirrups.

Alexander's companion cavalry is hard to simulate in a game like Civ where combat is one on one, since the Companion unit was so small; but in a large battle it usually caused the decisive breach. They were clearly a heavy cavalry unit. I agree that they may be a unit with 5 upgrades or so.

To simulate horsemen strength in the open, there should probably be a rule that horse units are stronger (+ 50%?) in good terrain and weaker in poor terrain, but this would make them weaker in Civ unfortunately because Civ is overly oriented toward city conflict.

So, I viewed that the cavalry armies of the East as being very powerful on open fields. Even at that time, the steppes were dominated by horsemen.


I didn't know that story about the Han, that's GREAT! (Wow, even an old guy like me can learn history from this board!!) I think the horse from Fergana were considered among the best in the world. Maybe this event is when they got them! GREAT to know!

Best wishes,

Breunor

 

[Basil II]

That's reasonable, but I had a different view of the horsemen. I guess I viewed the horsemen as a little more powerful, I viewed them as pre-knights. So I'm viewing the horsemen as the Scythians, Sarmatians, Parthians, Huns, etc. Pre-Alexander would essentially have the Persian cavalry and Scythians and other Eastern horsemen. They could dominate war on open terrain.

But pre-Alexander, we clearly had horse archers (Scythains) and standard light cavalry. I disagree about the phalanxes, though -- despite the game, their weakness was a cavalry attack on their rear. They couldn't maneuver and this was their weakness. Hansen (A Different Kind of War) talks about how the tiny Athenian cavalry (maybe 100! horsemen) kept the Spartans from sacking the Athenian silver mines.

Best wishes,

Breunor

When I said "unless from the flanks", the rear was implicit, especially the phalanx was unwieldy as you say and vulnerable to attacks by horse. Particularly if already engaged from the front by friendlies.

 

[Basil II]

As you say as well, any army was vulnerable to horse in open terrain. This held true for thousands of years up until WWI. The other Roman counter to horse was to hire as many local tribesmen as possible as mounted mercenaries to support the legions In the later periods especially, a third of any given army might be mercenaries.

The story about the Han expedition was rather interesting: Looking at my map here it was indeed 'Ferghana' that was the related destination. The horses were described to be of great size and toughness: proving immune to the great biting flies of the region that could cause open sores on the flesh of lesser beasts. The locals refused to trade them with any outsiders, prizing them too highly, thus the cause for the expedition. This was around the high point of the Han empire when they had established forts along the eastern end of the silk road to guard against bandits and raiding tribesmen.

 

[Breunor]

When I said "unless from the flanks", the rear was implicit, especially the phalanx was unwieldy as you say and vulnerable to attacks by horse. Particularly if already engaged from the front by friendlies.

Yup, right you are, sorry. I guess my point is that light cavalry ALWAYS goes after flank and rear while horse archers maneuver for the best shot and retreat possibility. Unlike the regular game, phalanxes should probably be halved against cavalry and doubled against mêlée units. No sane cavalry would ever charge a phalanx from the front, even medieval heavy cavalry didn't do that (although they did occasionally and usually got slaughtered, that's the sane part)!

Best wishes,

Breunor

 

[Breunor]

As you say as well, any army was vulnerable to horse in open terrain. This held true for thousands of years up until WWI. The other Roman counter to horse was to hire as many local tribesmen as possible as mounted mercenaries to support the legions In the later periods especially, a third of any given army might be mercenaries.

The story about the Han expedition was rather interesting: Looking at my map here it was indeed 'Ferghana' that was the related destination. The horses were described to be of great size and toughness: proving immune to the great biting flies of the region that could cause open sores on the flesh of lesser beasts. The locals refused to trade them with any outsiders, prizing them too highly, thus the cause for the expedition. This was around the high point of the Han empire when they had established forts along the eastern end of the silk road to guard against bandits and raiding tribesmen.

I think we are in agreement here!

Best wishes,

Breunor