What do you think about Anti - Mounted upgrade path?

[joncnunn]

Other: I'd just remove the resource requirements from the Lancer (and it's UU replacements) to allow city states and the poor AI to upgrade their Pikes without interfering with the mainline horse unit upgrade path.

 

[Robbedem]

The problem is pretty deeply embedded in Civ 5.
If you want upgrade lines, which I think are needed for gameplay reasons, I would use these:
1) basic infantry:
warrior -> swordman -> longswordman -> musketman -> rifleman -> GW infantry -> infantry -> mech infantry (1)
extra: GW infantry -> paratrooper -> XCOM squad
2) ranged infantry:
warrior -> archer (1) -> comp bowman (1) -> crossbowman (1) -> gattling gun (1) -> machine gun (1) -> mech infantry (1)
3) anti-"basic cavalry"* infantry:
warrior -> spearman -> pikeman -> tercio? -> anti-tank (1) -> bazooka (1)
I would decrease archer range to 1 and give mech infantry 1 range (marked as "(1)"). Movement after ranged attack is always allowed (except for artillery units). Cities attack range evolves with artillery tech.
*type 3 wouldn't gain any bonus against ranged cavalry, since they would just keep their distance.

4) basic cavalry:
warrior -> horseman -> knight -> cuirassier -> cavalry (1) -> landship (1) -> tank (1) -> modern armor (1)
5) ranged cavalry:
warrior -> chariot archer (1) -> horse archer (1)** -> dragoon (1) -> cavalry (1) -> landship (1) -> tank (1) -> modern armor (1)
Same as with ranged infantry, only 1 range (perhaps maybe modern armor 2 range, but it would prob be too OP then)
You could have cuirassiers upgrade to gunship, but that will leave a big gap, which I have no idea how to fill.
**horse archer would come later and be stronger so it can sit together with knights.

useless units: marine and lancer

 

[sugerdady87]

The problem is pretty deeply embedded in Civ 5.
If you want upgrade lines, which I think are needed for gameplay reasons, I would use these:
1) basic infantry:
warrior -> swordman -> longswordman -> musketman -> rifleman -> GW infantry -> infantry -> mech infantry (1)
extra: GW infantry -> paratrooper -> XCOM squad
2) ranged infantry:
warrior -> archer (1) -> comp bowman (1) -> crossbowman (1) -> gattling gun (1) -> machine gun (1) -> mech infantry (1)
3) anti-"basic cavalry"* infantry:
warrior -> spearman -> pikeman -> tercio? -> anti-tank (1) -> bazooka (1)
I would decrease archer range to 1 and give mech infantry 1 range (marked as "(1)"). Movement after ranged attack is always allowed (except for artillery units). Cities attack range evolves with artillery tech.
*type 3 wouldn't gain any bonus against ranged cavalry, since they would just keep their distance.

4) basic cavalry:
warrior -> horseman -> knight -> cuirassier -> cavalry (1) -> landship (1) -> tank (1) -> modern armor (1)
5) ranged cavalry:
warrior -> chariot archer (1) -> horse archer (1)** -> dragoon (1) -> cavalry (1) -> landship (1) -> tank (1) -> modern armor (1)
Same as with ranged infantry, only 1 range (perhaps maybe modern armor 2 range, but it would prob be too OP then)
You could have cuirassiers upgrade to gunship, but that will leave a big gap, which I have no idea how to fill.
**horse archer would come later and be stronger so it can sit together with knights.

useless units: marine and lancer

Pikemen were never designed as anti-cavalry in the real world, so I could never support it being such in the game. They could only really withstand cavalry rushes in the phalanx formation as the cavalry would simply out maneuver them otherwise.

The whole lancer thing is baffling. They were actually weak against cavalry, not the other way around. They were good against ground units, but that's about it.

Another problem is archers having a range of 2, but machine guns 1? If anything, it should be the other way around. Also, machine guns were an absolute counter to infantrymen when dug in.

I hate the XCOM unit. They should have extended the late game by added drone units instead. More and more governments are utilizing them now. That is where warfare is heading.

 

[Robbedem]

Pikemen were never designed as anti-cavalry in the real world

I think you confuse hoplites with pikeman. Hoplites were never intended as anti cavalry, but pikeman certainly were. The difference is that hoplites hold their spears by hand, while pikeman put their spear on the ground and put their foot on it. Also hoplites had a shield, while pikeman generally didn't. Even when pikeman might not have been very effective against cavalry in open plain, they were very effective in preventing and stopping charges on rough terrain, certainly when they were supported with other units on their flanks. So I'ld still use them as the cavalry counter.

I agree that XCOM squad (and also giant death robot) are a bit out of place and drones might have been better, but drones are not that different from a guided missile which is already in the game.
I did notice the strange range on the nuclear missile though (only 12 compared to 10 for the atomic bomb).
It should be like Civ 4; an ICBM can hit anywhere.
The atomic bomb could be improved by giving it the range of the best bomber available.
(the range of the atomic bomb would be increased from 10 tot 20 by researching stealth)

 

[sugerdady87]

I think you confuse hoplites with pikeman. Hoplites were never intended as anti cavalry, but pikeman certainly were. The difference is that hoplites hold their spears by hand, while pikeman put their spear on the ground and put their foot on it. Also hoplites had a shield, while pikeman generally didn't.

While pikeman might not have been very effective against cavalry in open plain, they were very effective in preventing and stopping charges on rough terrain, certainly when they were supported with other units on their flanks. So I'ld still use them as the cavalry counter.

I agree that XCOM squad and giant death robot are a bit out of place and drones might have been better, but drones are not that different from a guided missile which is already in the game.

No they were not. The the "charge for horse" defensive position rarely ever worked. Google it. Horses were just too maneuverable. Also, horses weren't employed in "rough terrain". For the sake of honor, a lot of battles that employed them took place in the open field.

Pikes in formation were good against infantry, until the formation broke and close quarters combat ensued. They were also employed the watch the flanks, never really against cavalry. The real anti-cavalry of their day were other cavalry.

 

[Hemul]

No they were not. The the "charge for horse" defensive position rarely ever worked. Google it. Horses were just too maneuverable. Also, horses weren't employed in "rough terrain". For the sake of honor, a lot of battles that employed them took place in the open field.

Pikes in formation were good against infantry, until the formation broke and close quarters combat ensued. They were also employed the watch the flanks, never really against cavalry. The real anti-cavalry of their day were other cavalry.

Ok, googled it and found this:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pike_square

Says pretty much the opposite of what you say, so can you perhaps point to something better to substantiate your claim?

 

[sugerdady87]

Ok, googled it and found this:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pike_square

Says pretty much the opposite of what you say, so can you perhaps point to something better to substantiate your claim?

I like wikipedia.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pikemen#Tactics

"A common misconception is that pikes were employed for use against cavalry. Although it is true that pikes can indeed stop a cavalry charge, historically speaking, pike squares have rarely been able to withstand such attacks unsupported by friendly cavalry, especially if the opposing cavalry is armed with weapons with greater range or reach."

Let me repost what I said earlier: "They could only really withstand cavalry rushes in the phalanx formation as the cavalry would simply out maneuver them otherwise"... "The real anti-cavalry of their day were other cavalry."

To be clear, pikes were never "anti-cavalry" in the sense they were used offensively. The phalanx or squares were employed as a defensive measure. Cavalrymen also developed tactics to break up the formations of the Pikemen, which when they did, left them vulnerable.

 

[Hemul]

I like wikipedia.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pikemen#Tactics

"A common misconception is that pikes were employed for use against cavalry. Although it is true that pikes can indeed stop a cavalry charge, historically speaking, pike squares have rarely been able to withstand such attacks unsupported by friendly cavalry, especially if the opposing cavalry is armed with weapons with greater range or reach."

Let me repost what I said earlier: "They could only really withstand cavalry rushes in the phalanx formation as the cavalry would simply out maneuver them otherwise"... "The real anti-cavalry of their day were other cavalry."

To be clear, pikes were never "anti-cavalry" in the sense they were used offensively. The phalanx or squares were employed as a defensive measure. Cavalrymen also developed tactics to break up the formations of the Pikemen, which when they did, left them vulnerable.

.....an article that then proceeds with plenty of examples of how pikes are good vs melee and cavalry but weak against ranged, as in the common "misconception". I suspect the person who wrote that particular snippet is referring to shorter polearms, since cavalry armed with weapons of greater reach is mentioned, or perhaps troops who had not yet developed a proper drill for their pike-handling.

 

[blackchimes]

I think the article "forgets" that battles were fought with entire armies, not just one unit of pikemen and one unit of cavalry. How can cavalry flank a formation of pikemen when there are more units on its sides, stretching in a line for a mile, with screening forces on both ends and 1-2 units of reserve behind?

I also think that it "forgets" to make distinction between light cavalry(which should never engage pikemen), heavy cavalry(which in many cases would) and cavalry equipped with ranged weapons, which should never get close to anything.

 

[4N4C0ND4]

I think they should be more reading:

Squares could be joined together to form a battle line. If surrounded, pikes could still be pointed in all directions. A well drilled square could change direction very quickly, making it difficult to outmaneuver on horseback.

Charles did not believe that a force even twice his size on foot without archers could possibly pose him any threat. However, Charles and his forces found the pike square impossible to penetrate on horseback and dangerous to approach on foot

They were clearly intented to deter cavalry charges, at least in the mediaval aera. That's where most of the sources I found are pointed out at least.

Also, there seems to be the swiss battle of Grandson & Morat that legitimated the use of pikes vs cavalry.

 

[4N4C0ND4]

double post sry

 

[GoStu]

The problem with the "anti-mounted" line is that nobody uses it for that. I find that spears and pikes are built to be frontline infantry by people who either lack Iron or didn't tech down the bottom of the tree, but did tech to Civil Service.

After all, Pikes at 16 Strength can fight off Swordsmen (14 Strength). Longswords (21 Strength) require a commitment to teching as far as Steel. They're just too useful at what they do to bother going with the pure war technologies.

Of course, the fact that the Lancer is worthless doesn't help either. It's great at killing knights, but Knights aren't a threat any more by the time the Lancer is available. It squares off evenly against Cavalry... at the cost of requiring a Horse that could be used to build said Cavalry, and the Cavalry is better at fighting everything and has the same upgrade path.

AT Guns are worthless in the fact that they come AFTER landships, on the same technology as Tanks themselves. Ineffective as a counter, simply because it comes too late. Further, trying to catch 5-speed Tanks with 2-speed AT guns is an exercise in frustration.

My point is that it's going to take more than a change of upgrade path. It's also got to address the relative uselessness of the units on it.

 

[subtledoctor]

I think a problem might be in the underlying premise - the Civ4 rock-paper-scissor approach just doesn't work in this game. I'm thinking it would be better to think in terms of resources. Warriors, spearman, pikemen, muskets, rifles, these are the basic units that anyone can build. That should be the basic upgrade path. The iron units, the horse line, the oil line - these are specialized units that require special resources. They should be their own paths.

The problem with integrating lancers into the mounted line, is that they come a single tech before cavalry. Why would anyone ever build them? So I'm considering moving everything forward in the tech line, and making knights more special:
- Change Lancer to a basic medieval spear-on-a-horse unit. Available with Civil Service; cost=120, Str=18, move=4, can move after attack
- Reduce the anti-mounted bonus of spears and pike from 50 to ~20. These guys aren't specialists now, they're just basic infantry.
- Move the Longsword up to Metal Casting and nerf it a bit, with Str=20. Double the iron requirement to make it more special, force people to fill out their armies with pikemen (the 'normal' soldiers)
- In turn, move the Forge back to Steel, and buff it with a special promotion for Longswords and Knights (+15 xp for those units only, or perhaps reduce the iron requirement from 2 to 1)
- Make Knights very powerful but very expensive: cost=180, Str=25 (maybe 27), move=3, no move after attack. Require both horse *and* iron (maybe 2 iron). These are very heavy cavalry, slower than Horsemen/Lancers but much more powerful. They should be rare, but where they appear they should dominate battlefields. Muskets can hold their own, and have the advantage of being cheaper and not dependent on resources.
- Bump Cavalry's Str to ~40. They should dominate rifle infantry (slightly). To balance, remove the 'move after attacking' promotion (the pedia entry itself says they dismount to fight).
- From the industrial era, have the 'archery line' take over anti-mobility duty. Give Gatling Guns the anti-mounted promotion (if watching westerns ever taught me anything, it's that gatling guns destroy cavalry). Gatlings will upgrade to Anti-Tank, which become a ranged unit - sort of a proto-bazooka - doing extra damage against armored. (Machine Guns can just be eliminated.) And Anti-Tanks will upgrade to Bazooka, which will also get the anti-armor bonus for ranged use against Mech Infantry and Modern Armor.

Some UUs will have to change: Cataphracts and African Elephants, already 3-move heavy infantry, will upgrade to knights, while horsemen and companion cavalry will upgrade to the new medieval Lancer. Mandekalu Cavs, Keshiks, and Camel Archers will be variants of the medieval Lancer; Naresuan's Elephant, Samurai, Conquistador, Hakkapeliitta, Sipahi, and Winged Hussar will all be variants of knights.

I think that would play very well. Only problem now is cobbling it together as a mod, which I've never done and don't really know how to. I'm trying to copy what other mods do, but it's very slow going. I hoped to get it done this weekend but it's not going to happen.

 

[GoStu]

I think a problem might be in the underlying premise - the Civ4 rock-paper-scissor approach just doesn't work in this game. I'm thinking it would be better to think in terms of resources. Warriors, spearman, pikemen, muskets, rifles, these are the basic units that anyone can build. That should be the basic upgrade path. The iron units, the horse line, the oil line - these are specialized units that require special resources. They should be their own paths.

The problem with integrating lancers into the mounted line, is that they come a single tech before cavalry. Why would anyone ever build them? So I'm considering moving everything forward in the tech line, and making knights more special:
- Change Lancer to a basic medieval spear-on-a-horse unit. Available with Civil Service; cost=120, Str=18, move=4, can move after attack
- Reduce the anti-mounted bonus of spears and pike from 50 to ~20. These guys aren't specialists now, they're just basic infantry.
- Move the Longsword up to Metal Casting and nerf it a bit, with Str=20. Double the iron requirement to make it more special, force people to fill out their armies with pikemen (the 'normal' soldiers)
- In turn, move the Forge back to Steel, and buff it with a special promotion for Longswords and Knights (+15 xp for those units only, or perhaps reduce the iron requirement from 2 to 1)
- Make Knights very powerful but very expensive: cost=180, Str=25 (maybe 27), move=3, no move after attack. Require both horse *and* iron (maybe 2 iron). These are very heavy cavalry, slower than Horsemen/Lancers but much more powerful. They should be rare, but where they appear they should dominate battlefields. Muskets can hold their own, and have the advantage of being cheaper and not dependent on resources.
- Bump Cavalry's Str to ~40. They should dominate rifle infantry (slightly). To balance, remove the 'move after attacking' promotion (the pedia entry itself says they dismount to fight).
- From the industrial era, have the 'archery line' take over anti-mobility duty. Give Gatling Guns the anti-mounted promotion (if watching westerns ever taught me anything, it's that gatling guns destroy cavalry). Gatlings will upgrade to Anti-Tank, which become a ranged unit - sort of a proto-bazooka - doing extra damage against armored. (Machine Guns can just be eliminated.) And Anti-Tanks will upgrade to Bazooka, which will also get the anti-armor bonus for ranged use against Mech Infantry and Modern Armor.

Some UUs will have to change: Cataphracts and African Elephants, already 3-move heavy infantry, will upgrade to knights, while horsemen and companion cavalry will upgrade to the new medieval Lancer. Mandekalu Cavs, Keshiks, and Camel Archers will be variants of the medieval Lancer; Naresuan's Elephant, Samurai, Conquistador, Hakkapeliitta, Sipahi, and Winged Hussar will all be variants of knights.

I think that would play very well. Only problem now is cobbling it together as a mod, which I've never done and don't really know how to. I'm trying to copy what other mods do, but it's very slow going. I hoped to get it done this weekend but it's not going to happen.

Well thought out, I like the ideas. I especially like the idea of multiple strategics for a single unit. I find that it rarely matters how much of any strategic resource I have outside of the following situations:

- Can't find any Iron to upgrade a couple Warriors
- Still didn't find much Iron, can't build a commanding number of Frigates
- Didn't get a horse source as Genghis or Attila in my first couple cities.
- No Coal, no Factories, no quick Ideology.
- Not enough Uranium, other nations laughing at my tiny nuclear stockpile.

Note that cases 1, 2, 3, and 4 there are solved by having a 2-Iron, 6-Iron, 4 Horse, and 3-Coal source respectively. Other than that, any quantities above and beyond those are pretty unimportant to me.

I mean, really. You CAN run out of Oil if you try hard with a LOT of Battleships and a LOT of Air units (with a sprinkle of Tanks on top), but by that point you've sunk so much Production and/or Gold into your army, navy, and air force that you have other problems. Once you've got 1-2 of the "large" sources for a given resource you're pretty much set forever.

 

[subtledoctor]

Going to quantified resources was a great shift from Civ4; it's one of the things that makes it hard to go back, even when I get nostalgic for it. (Religions are another.) But it very rarely limits you any more than it did back then, because 1UPT = fewer units = units are more expensive and survive better = you'll never make 12 swordsmen from those 2 iron sources anyway.

I suppose you could just play with scarce resources, I haven't messed with that setting… but does it affect luxuries as well? It would be great if units cost 2 units of their resources (easy enough to mod) but the requirement would be cut to 1 after building a forge/stable/etc. (that last part sounds much harder). Maybe it could be done as a promotion, which would be given to units built in that city? Or, maybe just approximate it by having the building grant some number of extra units of the resource, like the building that grants aluminum…

 

[GoStu]

Going to quantified resources was a great shift from Civ4; it's one of the things that makes it hard to go back, even when I get nostalgic for it. (Religions are another.) But it very rarely limits you any more than it did back then, because 1UPT = fewer units = units are more expensive and survive better = you'll never make 12 swordsmen from those 2 iron sources anyway.

I suppose you could just play with scarce resources, I haven't messed with that setting… but does it affect luxuries as well? It would be great if units cost 2 units of their resources (easy enough to mod) but the requirement would be cut to 1 after building a forge/stable/etc. (that last part sounds much harder). Maybe it could be done as a promotion, which would be given to units built in that city? Or, maybe just approximate it by having the building grant some number of extra units of the resource, like the building that grants aluminum…

I think we're thinking on the same lines here: luxuries are traded all the damn time, but strategics are traded rarely (if ever) in a game except to extort gold from idiot AI's. I don't want to go to Scarce resources as I feel that would make the problem worse. The one player who does score a 6-iron source can still build all they ever want to or need to, but more people get shorted.

anyway, we're way off-topic here. What were we talking about again? Right! Spears and Pikes aren't "anti-mounted" in my opinion, they're your fallback for when you can't build Iron units early-game. Nobody builds them in preparation for horsemen/knights.

 

[4N4C0ND4]

anyway, we're way off-topic here. What were we talking about again? Right! Spears and Pikes aren't "anti-mounted" in my opinion, they're your fallback for when you can't build Iron units early-game. Nobody builds them in preparation for horsemen/knights.

I do agree.
The anti cavalry thingy is a bonus on top, but hardly never the one reason I build pikes in the first hand.

 

[kaspergm]

But then again, that's just because they nerfed mounted units so heavily that they no longer pose a thread. I mean, do people really use mounted units to much else than sweeping in and clearing the city that your archers took down to 0 HP?

Obviously we can have different preferences and I'm fine with that, but I personally like the rock/paper/scissor approach. For the same reason I play with mods that makes mounted units stronger, makes pike units weaker but gives them greater bonus vs. mounted, makes sword units more accessible and gives them bonus vs. cities and gives archer units a penalty vs. cities. For me, this encourages a much more varied army composition, and particularly if I'm on the defence, I find pikes very valuable to protect archers against enemy mounted units. It may not be realistic or historically accurate, but I don't really care about that.

 

[Krajzen]

Obviously we can have different preferences and I'm fine with that, but I personally like the rock/paper/scissor approach. For the same reason I play with mods that makes mounted units stronger, makes pike units weaker but gives them greater bonus vs. mounted, makes sword units more accessible and gives them bonus vs. cities and gives archer units a penalty vs. cities. For me, this encourages a much more varied army composition, and particularly if I'm on the defence, I find pikes very valuable to protect archers against enemy mounted units. It may not be realistic or historically accurate, but I don't really care about that.

Could you link these mods?

Hell, the main purpose of this thread was to gather opinions and develop a mod rebalancing unit system but it seems that Anti Mounted Path is extremely controversial and difficult problem

Although currently my favourite solution is


Pikeman - Tercio - Rifleman [which has 25% bonus against cavalry regardless of being upgraded from tercio or musketman - Bayonets promotion]
Knight - Lancer - Cavalry - Landship
AT gun being field gun with range 3, no indirect fire and bonus against tanks (upgrades to rocket artillery)
Helicopter - standalone, strong and able to fly over coastal tiles

Ranged Units: 25% against cities and Iron units (...so, swordsmen, longswordsmen)
Mounted: 25% attack bonus (hey, charge)
Melee and Anti Mounted: 25% city attack bonus
Siege: free Cover promotion
Armor: armor plating promotion which gives +25% bonus against Gun units

The end. Simple, universal and generally speaking makes sense/remains historical. Mounted kill ranged, pikes kill mounted, ranged kill pikes; panzers kill infantry, helicopters kill panzers.

Make things as simple as possible but no simpler - Einsten

 

[kaspergm]

Could you link these mods?

It's part of a huge personal mod I've made which does all kinds of other changes besides this, so I can't really, sorry. But I guess you could make those changes yourself with half an hour of coding or less.