What is better with Cannons?

[Artingel78]

Musketmen
Cannon is very good like backup for musketmen.
Maybe the best proportions is 2:1.
That means for every 2 musketmen build 1 cannon
If you do that 3 times that mean you will have 6 musketmen and 3 cannons.
Combat Strength:16x6+13x3=96+39=135
Ranged Combat:26x3=78
Ranged Combat(vs cities):33.7x3=101.1


Musketmen Cost:150
so 2 cost 300
300x3=600

Cannon cost:185
185x3=555
Final Count is:1155

Lancers
Proportions: 2:1
3 times:Lancers 6 cannons 3
Combat Strength:22x6=132+39=171
Ranged Combat:26x3=78
Ranged Combat(vs cities):33.7x3=101.1

Lancer Cost:185
185x6=1110

Cannon cost: 185
185x3=555
Final Count:1665

Lancer Speed and strength is higher of Musketmen's but he cost 35 more than Musketmen and he has penalty on defense.

So if you want both offensive and defensive, but slower unit with your cannon,Use Musketmen.
If you want more expensive, but, faster and offensive unit ho is not good on defense,Use Lancer

Knight

Proportions:2:1
3 times: 6 Knights 3 cannons
Combat Strength:18x6+39=108+39=147
Ranged Combat:26x3=78
Ranged Combat(vs cities):33.7x3=101.1

Knight Cost:120
120x6=720

Cannon Cost:185 :c5prdouction:
185x3=555
Final Count:1275

 

[insaneweasel]

Lancer is crap anyway. Has about as much staying power in its time as a warrior. Always better with muskets.

 

[stealth_nsk]

Cannons are too slow to use them with any mounted units. Take the most advanced infantry you have.

Also, I usually go 1 to 1. 2-3 rifles and 2-3 cannons are enough to take city, rest and go to next one if you have slight technological advance.

 

[Artingel78]

Lancer is crap anyway. Has about as much staying power in its time as a warrior. Always better with muskets.

Cannons are too slow to use them with any mounted units. Take the most advanced infantry you have.

Also, I usually go 1 to 1. 2-3 rifles and 2-3 cannons are enough to take city, rest and go to next one if you have slight technological advance.

Lancers are not a crap because they are faster and stronger than normal Knight.
They have penalty on defense but if you are tactician they can be useful.
Yeah i go with Rifles to but Rifles are to stronger than these units. I think of these Musketman is best.
He is cheap,slow,without resources and strong.

 

[wcbarney]

Lancer is crap anyway. Has about as much staying power in its time as a warrior. Always better with muskets.

This is a long-standing and undeserved criticism of Lancers. Yeah, I'll admit that Lancers are pretty useless. BUT, Here's what you should do:

1. Check the "Save Promotions" box in the game set-up screen before you start.

2. When you have the Metallurgy and Military Science techs, build the barracks, arsenal, and military academy in one of your production cities. Then build about four Lancers -- before they become obselete with the Combustion tech.

3. Don't promote them! Just have them fortify in a cornfield somewhere out of danger.

4. Once you have the Rocketry tech, and hopefully about this time you build The Pentagon wonder, then upgrade your Lancers to Anti-tank Guns (but don't promote), and then to Helicopter Gunships.

5. Now, you have 45 promotion points: Promote your new Helo-Gunships with Mobility I & Mobility II. Use them a few times (get to 60 promotion points) and then give them the Air Repair promotion -- which is the last promotion they will really need, although at 100 promotion points you can give them Double Attack.

These helos are about your most dangerous weapons -- they will do more damage to a city than a stealth bomber, and can retreat out of range & heal afterwards. What makes them so good is the "May move after attack" promotion that comes with the Lancer -- if you build the helos from scratch they will attack & then just stay in place to get creamed during the turn change.

 

[Roxlimn]

Lancers don't have the movement points and the ignore-terrain property, which they need in order to perform their function. They're already deadly against mounted troops. Increasing their movement while lowering base CS should not make them problematic in the same way Horsemen used to be.

 

[doomdg]

You need to ask yourself the question in reverse.

What is the purpose of cannons?

A cannon is a siege weapon that has low mobility and takes time to set up. It is most effective vs cities and unarmored units. It is weak to flanking mounted units and requires protection. It is ranged, so it cannot take out cities.

With all these in consideration, we want tough ground troops that protect the cannons from flanks, to soak up hits from cities(and the troops they build), if you are going the bottom tree, the logical sense is long swordsmen which should have some promotions, to tank hits and take towers.

 

[ShahJahanII]

Lancers are not a crap because they are faster and stronger than normal Knight.
They have penalty on defense but if you are tactician they can be useful.
Yeah i go with Rifles to but Rifles are to stronger than these units. I think of these Musketman is best.
He is cheap,slow,without resources and strong.

Thing is, you have to build them.
I usually upgrade horsemen to knights.
The Ottoman Sipahi is awesome though.

 

[Kokunai]

Your math is wrong for 6 musketmen it is 900 hammers not 600 so total cost is 1455 not 1155. Still cheaper than lancers but not cheaper than knights. Still better on defense though so musketmen may still be the best choice.

 

[Kokunai]

The best answer is probably somewhere in between because you are going to have to be able to outflank horse units trying to take cannons down but you don't want to lose the defensive bonuses of terrain along the way to a city. So probably 4 muskets 2 knights 3 cannons for a total cost of:

150x4=600
120x2=240
185x3=555

1395

Without losing any combat power and bulking your defense while moving to objective

 

[insaneweasel]

Lancers are not a crap because they are faster and stronger than normal Knight.
They have penalty on defense but if you are tactician they can be useful.

Lancers are crap because they don't really have enough strength to insta-kill most units of the age AND they die to counter attacks very easily. I once had one get killed by two ARCHERS.

This is a long-standing and undeserved criticism of Lancers. Yeah, I'll admit that Lancers are pretty useless. BUT, Here's what you should do:

I think its better and easier to just not build lancers and wait for cav

 

[Vo01985]

Lancers arent great, they are very situational, sometimes I use them and they rock though.

 

[Roxlimn]

Vo01985:

How? This is not rhetorical, not a rant, not a diss. I'm really curious. I have been trying forever, it seems like, to use Lancers in some way, and I can't find any use for them whatsoever. Anything I can use a Lancer for, I'd prefer to use a Knight instead, since the Knight may survive the counterattack, whereas the Lancer definitely won't. It really needs more movement, IMO.

 

[Johan de Witt]

Vo01985:

How? This is not rhetorical, not a rant, not a diss. I'm really curious. I have been trying forever, it seems like, to use Lancers in some way, and I can't find any use for them whatsoever. Anything I can use a Lancer for, I'd prefer to use a Knight instead, since the Knight may survive the counterattack, whereas the Lancer definitely won't. It really needs more movement, IMO.

Because the Lancer doesn't need to survive the counterattack. 5 moves means moving in, attacking and then retreating. Don't attack in rough terrain though, because then even Lancers don't have enough movement. All cavalry is great in open terrain, knights suck in rough too.

Don't use them to escort your cannons, use them to do hit and run attacks or have them stand-by in cities to lash out at attackers.

 

[Roxlimn]

The Lancer only has 4 movement, IIRC. If it had 5 moves, it would be worth having.