When are mounted units most usefull

[Phukit]

Well met, Phukit!


We do not recognize babies as eligible to enter into contracts. They lack the capacity for reason and therefore cannot be assigned personhood. At the same time, we would refer to somebody that killed a baby as a murderer even though we would not if instead the person had killed a mosquito. Similarly, a trustee is the custodian of a trust fund, but he is not authorized to take from the money as he sees fit. Even though he was entrusted with the funds, we do not regard them as his because we know it will become somebody else's. I submit that what something will become is a feature of its identity.

Keep in mind that the competing claim in question referred to mounted archers as "ridiculously good." The denotes a pronounced step up from just "good." I would agree that mounted units are not as good as mounted archers. I would even go so far as to agree that mounted archers are good. However, the fact that they upgraded into non-archer units, thus wasting promotions, precludes them from being described as ridiculously good.

I've always been curious as to WHY they'd make it so that these units forget how to shoot.

.but does this logic also apply to XBs? everyone agrees that XBs are ridiculously good yes? yet upon upgrade they lose 1 range so would that not preclude them from such praise to a certain extent?

I am of the mind that when judging a units value it should only be judge during the period that the unit is relevant.Once a unit is eligible for upgrade can one assume that it is no longer relevant?





I dont think the gap between mounted melee/range units is as large as the gap between non mounted melee/range units.

 

[vesp3r1987]

well i dont always upgrade all my units right after i research the tech so i sometimes use mixed army from few eras. I can see it also apply for AI. They tend to have knights aswell as warriors and swordsmenand lots of composites

 

[Redaxe]

Sure ranged mounted units are a given. Not only those though.

Mounted units aren't great until you hit Cavalry, but are always ok for taking cities and general harassment. Once you tech Military Science, however, it all changes, and they're very worth building.

When I war in the Industrial Era, I typically have an army composition of 60% cav, 40% artillery (muskets/rifles if I'm lacking horses). Cav are excellent at killing units, as they quickly pick up charge and are up against muskets/cannons if you get them early enough. Rifles are slightly more annoying, but have 34 combat strength too and go down just fine. Well-promoted cav with charge and the correct terrain bonus also do ok against great war infantry, so they are relevant for a good 40-50 turns. Once you start upgrading high level ones to Landships+, you shouldn't have conquest problems if you have a bit of anti air too.

Another good thing amount using mounted units to attack cities is they can move out of the city once you've captured it.
So if the AI still has a sizeable army around the city and you anticipate they'll take it back , you can capture it, move out of it so you don't lose your unit which otherwise sucks if its a 100exp melee unit.
Horsemen are also good for scouting if you're running behind on that

 

[Kulu87]

Giving the medic upgrade to mounted units is worth trying out. Provides fast, mobile health regen for units particularly if you are fighting a war across large swathes of land.

 

[Gort]

Isn't this a self-contradictory claim? The major downfall to mounted ranged units is that they upgrade to non-ranged units.

The obvious answer is to not upgrade them. You'll likely have won the game (or be in an unassailable position) by the time Keshiks or Camel Archers are worth upgrading anyway.

I agree that it's stupid that ranged units upgrade to melee and vice versa without their promotions working properly, but whoever said Civ 5 was without flaws?

 

[reddishrecue]

Its like the elephant units that lose there fear promotion once upgraded to horse. The only Exception are the maori warriors because they keep fear promotion throughout their upgrades.

 

[vesp3r1987]

Giving the medic upgrade to mounted units is worth trying out. Provides fast, mobile health regen for units particularly if you are fighting a war across large swathes of land.

already doing that... works great to have a medic mounted unit stacked with great general and sitting next to 2 catapults/trebuchetes

Its like the elephant units that lose there fear promotion once upgraded to horse. The only Exception are the maori warriors because they keep fear promotion throughout their upgrades.

sounds like a bad coding to me... maybe some mod can fix that, but on other hand it makes sense for them to loose fear promotion as they no longer ride elephants. Maybe some special units shouldnt be upgraded to get the most out of them. For instance i wouldnt upgrade artillery because i kinda favor more the fact i can nuke them from bigger distance

 

[TheMeInTeam]

Mounted are good cleaners for ranged units. They're perfect for picking off that badly damaged unit and getting away, or to cap a worker then back off and let AI suicide the next unit there, or most importantly to simply be the guy that walks into a city after it's flattened by ranged units. Before you have paratroopers with good promotions, there's nothing better for land combat in terms of "this thing can take the city from outside its firing range".

Their mobility is also nice for setting up surround and pounds and threatening enemy ranged.

 

[stormtrooper412]

The obvious answer is to not upgrade them. You'll likely have won the game (or be in an unassailable position) by the time Keshiks or Camel Archers are worth upgrading anyway.

I agree that it's stupid that ranged units upgrade to melee and vice versa without their promotions working properly, but whoever said Civ 5 was without flaws?

Pretty much.