Why are Swordsman so weak to Pikemen?

[Zenstrive]

Finally, Bismarck could be more valuable...

believe or not, I can not win with Bismarck on King, no matter how much I reroll...

 

[Big J Money]

I agree with folks who see this change as undesirable. The techs toward CS are ones you'd be silly to forgo in an effort to beeline iron.

If anything, making the catapult not require iron made this even worse. There really seems to be no reason to get it unless you want to dedicate to longswords.

 

[woodshadows]

I don't think horse units are useless at all. Pikes hard counter them, but pikes are slow so ranged units destroy pikes; ranged units are hard to kill unless you can close fast, so horse men kill ranged units. Pretty sure that's how it's intended to work at this point, the rock-paper-scissors of early warfare. Does make you wonder where swordsmen are supposed to fit into this though.

This would make more sense if archers/comps/xbows/chariot archers could shoot then move, right now if you want to shoot you leave yourself vulnerable to even the slowest moving unit, which is why pikes end up not having any viable counter and why mounted units don't really have much of a role to play. Even a ranged bonus vs pikes would be better than the imbalance that exists now.

 

[loki75]

I agree with folks who see this change as undesirable. The techs toward CS are ones you'd be silly to forgo in an effort to beeline iron.

If anything, making the catapult not require iron made this even worse. There really seems to be no reason to get it unless you want to dedicate to longswords.

With this new tech tree, I usually get iron working when I'm in the renaissance era, stealing it from the AI.
This is a complete change from my vanilla strategy where I teched to steel to give me a military edge. Now I just build archers, upgrade them to CBs, catapults, and take cities with a warrior when it's close to zero HP from ranged attacks.
This feels a bit weird though, because of my tech tree, my warrior are usually upgraded directly to riflemen or even gw infantry.
I don't use pikes either unless I have to.

 

[The QC]

Isn't that why the medieval ages in Europe are also known as the dark ages? Because it was a time in which no major advances were made in terms of philosophy and warfare/military science?

Actually, the concept of "dark ages" has been discredited by historians. At most, it is considered that, after the fall of the Roman empire, Europe took a slight turn for the worse, then slowly came back. There was also the Black Death, which had a profound and disastrous effect on Europe and added to the bad reputation of the era.

Still, significant technological advancements were made through the middle ages. Weapons and armor definitely improved in quality and were much, much better than what classical Romans had. Shipbuilding also saw huge advancements, which allowed the discovery and colonization of the Americas. Windmills and watermills boosted agriculture. Wheelbarrows were invented (I Wiki'd this one ).

And so on.

The concept of a "dark age" were the church repressed technological advancement in Europe, at least, is a complete fabrication.

 

[krc]

This would make more sense if archers/comps/xbows/chariot archers could shoot then move, right now if you want to shoot you leave yourself vulnerable to even the slowest moving unit, which is why pikes end up not having any viable counter and why mounted units don't really have much of a role to play. Even a ranged bonus vs pikes would be better than the imbalance that exists now.

It's not just rock-paper-scissors; it's combined arms. Put your own pikes (or swords) in front of those ranged units to keep the other side away from them. Something has to slow the enemy footmen down long enough for the archers to destroy them.

One alternative would be to fiddle around with movement points. Pike formations were slower and more awkward to move. If they only had one movement point, they'd have to take two hits before they could get to your ranged units. An even better alternative, now that I think about it, would be to make pikes more susceptible to flanking attacks. They were worthless when attacked from any direction other than the one where their big sticks were pointing. This might negate the strength they have against horses, as long as the horses could make a flanking attack.

A problem with horses in this context is that if enemy armies confront one another in this configuration, there is rarely enough room to move around the flank of the enemy pikes to attack their ranged units. That's probably a consequence of trying to implement tactical formations via 1UPT on a strategic-scale map.

 

[krc]

While I agree that pikes are currently stronger than swords (and probably should be), I find it interesting that no one has pointed out their major weakness. They upgrade to lancers...

 

[Furycrab]

It's a good rebalancing, but (if the tech tree hasn't changed) it makes libbing CS with the great Library a tod more powerful too. And it already was quite powerful, especially when playing Korea/Babylon.

If you are bulbing Civil Service with the Great Library... Consider playing at a higher difficulty?

 

[Andy06r]

I like to think of the Swordsmen as Short Swordsmen - the graphics look like Hastati from Rome Total War, with a foot long sword and a large shield. The length of swords, as I understand it, didn't lengthen until steel was invented because cast iron and bronze couldn't support a long blade.

Pikes were relatively easy to create compared to longswords - thats why they are resourceless and mainline units - you could mass produce pikes and hand them to recruits, much the same was as crossbows.

If Medieval Total War is historical at all, you get pikes before you get Knights covered in head to toe steel with steel barding. Many of the horsemen wore chain or leather, which can still be compared to a Horsemen in civ.

 

[Callonia]

I present you the medieval swordman.

I present you the medieval pikesman.

Somehow, I suspect swordmen will quite have hard time making sure those pointy ends don't give him new ventilation holes in order to stab those pikesman.

I even find myself intimidated by the thought of charging in the frontal assault on those pikesman.

 

[qemist]

Actually, the concept of "dark ages" has been discredited by historians. At most, it is considered that, after the fall of the Roman empire, Europe took a slight turn for the worse, then slowly came back.

The turn for the worse could be called a dark period. Why not?

There was also the Black Death, which had a profound and disastrous effect on Europe and added to the bad reputation of the era.

That's nonsense. The Black Death was in the 14th century, 900 years after the fall of Rome and long after the period known as the dark age.

Still, significant technological advancements were made through the middle ages. Weapons and armor definitely improved in quality and were much, much better than what classical Romans had. Shipbuilding also saw huge advancements, which allowed the discovery and colonization of the Americas.

None of those things happened in the dark age circa 500-700 AD. The permanent colonization of the Americas didn't even happen in the mediaeval period.

It's not just rock-paper-scissors; it's combined arms. Put your own pikes (or swords) in front of those ranged units to keep the other side away from them. Something has to slow the enemy footmen down long enough for the archers to destroy them....

The problem isn't so much that archers can't destroy pikes but that many players now think good strategy is to go through a game without building a mounted unit (or a sword unit). Even most AIs hardly build mounted units but they love to spam pikes. Mounted units have some utility for taking reduced cities and playing peekaboo with the enemy, but that's about it.

While I agree that pikes are currently stronger than swords (and probably should be), I find it interesting that no one has pointed out their major weakness. They upgrade to lancers...

That's their weakness: they upgrade to a mounted unit! Kind of makes the point that mounted units are UP.

I present you the medieval swordman.

I present you the medieval pikesman.

Somehow, I suspect swordmen will quite have hard time making sure those pointy ends don't give him new ventilation holes in order to stab those pikesman.

I even find myself intimidated by the thought of charging in the frontal assault on those pikesman.

Yeah, one swordsman against 100 pikes would be pretty intimidated. One on one that sharpened stick would be much less intimidating if I had a sword and decent armor.

 

[Yzman]

The problem I find with mounted units is 2-fold

1) They have a penalty against cities, which makes me not want to build them, since to progress in a war, you are usually taking cities.

2) Especially around the time of cavalry, they are almost always weaker than the land unit counterpart. Why build cavalry when GW infantry are so close? Why build knights over longswords etc etc

 

[ambill10]

The problem I find with mounted units is 2-fold

1) They have a penalty against cities, which makes me not want to build them, since to progress in a war, you are usually taking cities.

2) Especially around the time of cavalry, they are almost always weaker than the land unit counterpart. Why build cavalry when GW infantry are so close? Why build knights over longswords etc etc

I had played with the same thought process, but I am playing a game as China where I tried using horsemen/knights/cavalry for the first time in any real numbers and I'm loving them. I'm thinking about playing my next game as a Civ with a UU in that lineage now.

They are great for taking cities that are depleted from a position outside of the city's defenses. They are also great at picking off enemy units coming to defend so that the range and siege units can focus on the city without having to worry about the counter attack.

 

[Awsome Sause]

I think that the solution should be either being able to get swordsmen earlier or pike men later.
Historically swordsmen using iron were very common around the 13th century BC and Pike men were not used until the 14th century AD. I think in the game the techs are to close together and since the path to civil service are very important techs many people skip iron working, until later and just use pike men armies which makes cavalry even less useful.

 

[Rooftrellen]

I have to agree there, I always thought pikes were a reaction to knights (heavy cavalry as opposed to just Horsemen) not a precursor to them.

Writing came more as a reaction to poetry, rather than leading to it (and drama), so historical accuracy is certainly secondary to balance.

That being said, there's no real reason CS has to give pikemen (this isn't like sailing gives us boats!) I'd be in favor of moving them to physics or steel, down to the more aggressive end of the tech tree, or simply making them weaker and giving them a stronger bonus against mounted units.

The real issue is that they require 11 techs to be researched before building, right down the middle of the tech tree, meaning its all time well spent, regardless of what strategy you have, and puts you only 3 techs away from getting education.

Knights require 13 techs (one a tier deeper than CS) and horse to build, and, as such, are countered before they hit the field.

Longswordsmen require 12 techs (one a tier deeper than CS) and iron to build. With that, those techs tend to the bottom of the tech tree. You'd need 14 techs to get there with writing! Beelining steel leaves you needing 11 techs before education is done! LS are likely to come far too late, given not only the number of techs (and resources) required but also the tech path to get them.

Crossbows require 11 techs (one a tier deeper than CS), but, like Longswordsmen, push you away from the top of the tech tree where we'll get writing and education.

There are two problems then with pikes, with regards to their strength. First is that they come along a good tech path, while no land unit is as much or further to the top of the tech tree until GW infantry. Because the top of the tech tree has your beakers, culture, and navy, it's hard not to work the top more until the industrial era.

Second, they come too early for a unit of their power. Units that should be their contemporaries require more techs, require going deeper into the tech tree, and avoid techs that can increase beaker production, making them get out considerably later.

 

[Callonia]

Yeah, one swordsman against 100 pikes would be pretty intimidated. One on one that sharpened stick would be much less intimidating if I had a sword and decent armor.

Congrats for failing IQ test.

Its not 1 swordman its 100 swordman vs 100 pikesman and i'm now done with this thread.

Moderator Action: A response like this is only going to produce a negative reaction. Please be more polite in future.
Please read the forum rules: http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=422889

 

[Priah77]

Actually, the concept of "dark ages" has been discredited by historians. At most, it is considered that, after the fall of the Roman empire, Europe took a slight turn for the worse, then slowly came back. There was also the Black Death, which had a profound and disastrous effect on Europe and added to the bad reputation of the era.

Still, significant technological advancements were made through the middle ages. Weapons and armor definitely improved in quality and were much, much better than what classical Romans had. Shipbuilding also saw huge advancements, which allowed the discovery and colonization of the Americas. Windmills and watermills boosted agriculture. Wheelbarrows were invented (I Wiki'd this one ).

And so on.

The concept of a "dark age" were the church repressed technological advancement in Europe, at least, is a complete fabrication.

Wasnt a history major but I do believe there is a fairly respected theory that the black death reducing the population in Europe to such a large extent was in many ways responsible for the begginings of the industrial revolution. Loss of cheap labor = incentives to create machines to do it, etc.

 

[ahawk]

The problem isn't so much that archers can't destroy pikes but that many players now think good strategy is to go through a game without building a mounted unit (or a sword unit). Even most AIs hardly build mounted units but they love to spam pikes. Mounted units have some utility for taking reduced cities and playing peekaboo with the enemy, but that's about it.

I don't know so much about mounted units (I still build them, and they are helpful in situations where an opponent has marsh/jungle/hills/Great Wall to slow other units down), but I agree whole-heartedly with the part of this about swords. I don't build swordsmen now unless I'm Rome or Iroqouis, and I don't build longswords unless I'm Japan (Denmark's Berserkers aren't phenomenal unless you're on a map with tons of water.)

This is a huge change from vanilla, where I'd build swordsmen right away, and would rush to IW a decent number of times. Now, as someone else pointed out, I'll drop cities to zero via composite bows, catapults, and chariot archers, then I'll take it with a horseman.

Catapults not needing iron, again, as others have pointed out, has made IW even less useful. I find it strange that often, I pick up IW just so I can build frigates. Quite a difference from vanilla.

 

[Boris Gudenuf]

Technology had little to do with Pikes or pikemen. Phillip and Alexander of Macedon had 'pikemen' by 340 BCE and, rather than slow moving, they could charge and maneuver at a fast trot or run. The pikes of the late middle ages/renaissance were a combination of 'answer to heavily-armed horsemen (knights)' and 'relatively cheap infantry that city states facing knights can afford'.
The answer to the current pike/sword/mounted conundrum is to give each their historic strengths and weaknesses in game terms.
First, swordsmen had the great advantage that they could operate in virtually any terrain. They don't require deep, thick formations to be effective, and they can face to the flank against a threat relatively easily. Also, using (usually) only one hand for the weapon, they can carry shields to enhance their protection - especially against missiles.
Second, if a deep pike formation (Alexander's were 16 ranks deep, with at least 5 pike points ahead of each man in the first rank) is coming at you ON LEVEL GROUND at a trot, nothing short of a brick wall (or another pike formation) will stop them. Note the key point: pike formations require open, level ground to be effective. In forest, jungles,hills, they cannot move without breaking formation and becoming vulnerable to anyone with a shorter weapon. Caught in the flank, especially by lighter troops or mounted, they change title from Pikemen to Dog Food.
So, keep the factors as they are, but Pikemen get a negative modifier on Rough Terrain, Marsh, Jungle or Forest. The Flanking bonus against pikemen is Doubled.
Swordsmen have no such negatives, so if you have a civilization deep in the forest (like Gauls, furinstance) you will build swordsmen, not pikemen unless all the horses in the world are bearing down on you.
Knights, the heavily armed and armored horsemen of about 1000 CE and later, were actually a military and Social response to fast moving raiders - the Vikings and Magyars who bedeviled western Europe from about 800 CE on. The combination was castles to secure the countryside and provide bases for horsemen armed to the teeth to catch and destroy any raiding parties. In turn, the rest of the economy supported the horsemen so they didn't have to take time out from practicing the fine art of Slaughter From Horseback. Pikes were a response to knights who had become the chief weapons of kings and aristocracy against revolting cities and peasants.
So, the technological series should be:
Berserker/Horse Archer
Knight
Pikeman/Longswordsman

The 'Longswordsman' is really the heavily armed professional infantry of the late middle ages - frequently dismounted knights, and just as frequently armed with maces, two-handed swords, shortswords, or battleaxes as 'longswords' (which, by the way, were being used by Gallic warriors in 500 BCE and Roman auxiliaries in 100 BCE, despite the supposed inability of wrought iron to make them).

As for the 'promotion' of pikemen to lancers, the problem is that pikes actually stayed around until about 1690 - 1700 CE, long after gunpowder had taken over seige weapons and long range missile work (cannon), and were only discarded when the musket could carry a bayonet and take over the pike's last purpose - defense against mounted troops. The musket with a socket bayonet has been missing from Civ since at least Civ 2, and needs to be added - the 'musketman', from the graphic and its place in the tech tree, is actually closer to the matchlock Hackbuss or musket of the 16th and early 17th century, which was almost defenseless against mounted and only effective as a clumsy club in melee. He should upgrade into a 'Fusilier' - the classic tricorn-hatted infantry of the Seven Years War and American Revolution - which has somewhat better melee factors and also a + modifier against mounted. At that point, both 'Musketman' and 'Pikeman' can upgrade to Fusilier, as happened historically. From this point on all melee infantry is of one type, relying on firepower and 'closing with the bayonet' to destroy the enemy, whether you call them Riflemen, Great War Infantry, or Infantry.

Sorry for the length of this post, but the thread ties together several broken features that have bugged me in Civ V for a while...

 

[Zaimejs]

I like reading these arguments.

I like German Lonschknedkchters. They only cost 5 gold to upgrade from Spearmen and they kick butt!

On another note... based on what someone said here about pikemen in the Civil War... why didn't anyone build a shield that could stop a musket ball? You'd think that it wouldn't take much to stop a primitive musket ball... then you have a sword or pike and rip people apart while they are reloading. Several men could carry some kind of thick iron shield and just plow into the musket line... emerge from behind and BOOM. Even have oxen or mules pushing the iron plow.