Why are riflemen only +25% against mounted?

[A+ombomb]

I am just a little curious about this. It is my understanding that riflemen are supposed to counter mounted units, but I would say they do a fairly abysmal job of this. If you look at the new cavs coming out of stables and capable of triple promotion, the only riflemen that have a shot at countering cavalry at all are aggressive rifles with mounted promo. Wouldn't it make more sense if rifles were +50% against mounted, at least? It seems like the later the eras get, the more "watered down" the counters get - riflemen can't even be considered a proper counter unit as they really have little or no advantage over a cavalry.

In multiplayer this is a big deal, especially in ren era starts. Everyone goes cavalry cavalry and more cavalry. The only counter for this is more cavalry, and maybe some catapults if they are stupid enough to raid your territory with a smaller army. Rush rifles to counter cavalry? Doesn't work at all, aside from defensively. If you try moving any sort of stack into enemy territory, catapults and cavalry EASILY beat it, since a weakened rifle loses to a cav basically 100% (so much for a counter unit).

I suppose in the expansion I just expected a little more ren era balancing, but the only balancing that happened was the uus (this was necessary but ignoring the real problem). At least when the old redcoats were around they actually countered cavs....

 

[KrikkitTwo]

a Cavalry Triple promotion is almost as easy as a Rifle Triple promotion (requires Stable, Westpoint and a General or Vassalage or Theocracy... remove the Stable and you just need one more General, or Vassalage, or Theocracy)

A Cavalry Double promotion however (standard in any city under peace conditions) is easier than a Rifle Double promotion. So your point is overall correct.

One option might be to have Military Tradition obsolete Stables.

 

[A+ombomb]

Charismatic civs can have triple promo cavalry with stable/barracks/theocracy/vassalage.

 

[KrikkitTwo]

Yes but Aggressive or Protective Civs get 3/4 promotion Riflemen with just a Barracks and Theocracy

Maybe make Cavalry require Chemistry instead of Gunpowder [and Grenadiers require Military Tradition as well] This would push them both back a bit, giving them less of a tech edge on Riflemen... also giving a longer period to Muskets+Knights, say increase the cost of Cavalry a bit

In any case a Rifleman with CII v. a Cavalry with Pinch the Rifleman still has the edge

Rifle=14+20%=16.8
Cavalry=15+10%+25%-25%=16.5
as long as the Cavalry is a bit more expensive, it will balance towards the Rifle (plus it can't face the Rifleman in a City at all, only in the field)

 

[A+ombomb]

Your scenario of rifleman vs cavalry is completely excluding the fact that cavalry have 2 MOVES!! That's an enormous deal....and the largest reason why ren era is a cavalry fest. And besides, .3 higher strength is hardly an edge....the gap needs to be more like spears vs horsearchers for it to be any sort of real counter.

 

[kristopherb]

riflemen are 17.5 vs mounted (unpromoted)
redcoats was 20 vs mounted (unpromoted)
redcoats are 17.5 vs mounted (unpromoted)

riflemen are 18.9 vs mounted (combat 1)
cav are 16.5 (combat 1)
redcoats was 21.6 vs mounted (combat 1)

cav are 20.5(combat pinch )vs riflemen are 19.9(combat,fomatoin)

yes cavary are over powered
looking at these stats

 

[shivute]

During this period of history cavalry was more powerful than footsloggers, however it was also more expensive.
Cavalry always lost its power against fortified or dug in infantry but was superb in the open field really until the machine gun came along.

 

[Zavior]

During this period of history cavalry was more powerful than footsloggers, however it was also more expensive.
Cavalry always lost its power against fortified or dug in infantry but was superb in the open field really until the machine gun came along.

True.

And what if there were no offensive units that could beat ones defending, this would make warfare stupid, only basing on unit quantiny.

 

[Proteus]

You had this during WW I.
The so called trench warfare which cost the lifes of millions but didn´t accomplish much in terms of land gain because neither side had a decisive weapon with which they could penetrate and hold the fortified positions of the enemy (even if they were able to seize the enemy ppositions during a frontal assault it would soon be in the hand of the enemy again, as the assaulting troops were too weakend to withstand the following counterattack).

 

[shivute]

Its not about what units you have, it is how you use them. Tactics rules warfare.

Think about Wellington and his squares, The BEF at Mons, German stormtroopers in 1918, blitzkreig in 39, 40 and 41, the 300 Spartans against the Persians (can't remember the name of the battle).

Ok Civ isn't really suited for detailed tactics but any sensible player tries to use his units to get the best result, therefore when using riflemen against cavalry you would try and encourage the cavalry to attack you on favourable terrain.
I think that cavalry should be able to defeat riflemen on clear ground and should still have an edge when the rifleman is on a hill, however the rifleman should rule when in a forest or when at maximum dug in level.

Riflemen shouldn't be a counter to cavalry at all, it should be the machine gun or possibly the cannon (i'm pretty sure military doctrine at the time stated that it was suicide to attack cannon head on with cavalry.)

 

[Speaker]

Sometimes in war you need to rely on good old Miss lady luck.

 

[Palantir30]

Sometimes in war you need to rely on good old Miss lady luck.

Successful warriors win the battle and then begin to fight. Unsuccessful ones fight and then try to win the battle.

 

[Jaca]

... the 300 Spartans against the Persians

The battle at Thermopylae! Sorry, I couldn't resist.

Riflemen shouldn't be a counter to cavalry at all, it should be the machine gun or possibly the cannon (i'm pretty sure military doctrine at the time stated that it was suicide to attack cannon head on with cavalry.)

Makes sense. I've seen some documentaries about the ammunition used in some canons at the battle of Waterloo. Then realising people running into that. Awful, terrible.

Jaca

 

[KrikkitTwo]

cav are 20.5(combat pinch )vs riflemen are 19.9(combat,fomatoin)

yes cavary are over powered
looking at these stats

A cavalry with C1, Pinch is not 20.5

its 15+35%=20.25


A Rifle with Combat TWO and formation is
14+70%=23.8

A Cavalry with Combat 2 and Pinch (same level... almost as easy to reach level 3 even with stables) is
15+45%=21.75

If the two are in combat, the Formation and Pinch will cancel each other out
for
14+45% v. 15+20%= 20.3 v. 18 = 1.14

OR

14+20% v. 15 /(1+5%)= 16.8 v. 14.3 = 1.18


Not game breaking but an edge

The key thing then is the mild hammer advantage and the tech disadvantage of Riflemen
If Cavalry required Chemistry instead of Gunpowder, and cost 130-150 instead of 120 hammers, they would definitely Not be overpowered.

 

[DigitalBoy]

The problem I have with Riflemen being a hard counter to cavalry is that Riflemen are a bread-and-butter unit. You always want to have a lot of them. Thinking back to the ancient/medieval era, did spearmen and pikemen comprise the majority of your foot soldiers, or was it axemen, swordsmen, or macemen? The reason why it's OK for spearmen to be a hard counter for mounted units in their era is because spearmen suck against anything that's not on a horse, while riflemen are good all-round units.

 

[TrailblazingScot]

Machine guns are the counter to cavalry and then some...at least if decently position and if you give as many first strike promotions as possible.

In my current emperor game Napoleon has had dozens of cavalry killed by the same machine gunner which hasn't even taken damage. Oooh I love first strike

 

[Colossian]

If Cavalry required Chemistry instead of Gunpowder, and cost 130-150 instead of 120 hammers, they would definitely Not be overpowered.

Rifle vs Cavalry doesnt have any problem. This is the problem that MT(Military Tradition) is faster than Rifle.
For instance, Spearman is faster than Horse Archer. Thats right. Calvalry is faster than Rfileman is wrong.
On view from a different angle, Musketman has to have + 50% vs Mounted Units and Rileman would have +25% vs Melee Units.

vs Mounted Units : Spearman - Pikeman - Musketman
vs Melee Units : Axeman - Maceman - Rifleman
vs City : Swordman - Granadier - Machinegun

 

[yavoon]

hard counters are annoying and I see no need to add more of them to the game.

 

[jimbob27]

hard counters are annoying and I see no need to add more of them to the game.

Agreed. The way it is now gives you lots more variation in tactics. You can specialise your promotions so they do become hard counters, or you can go the other way, and give cavalry the pinch promotion, to creat anti-counter units.

 

[Danicela]

No %25 is enough.