Will We Get Better Balanced Units?

[Old Git]

Note: I always play on huge maps, on Emperor or Immortal level, und using fractal map (or occasionally archipelago for variety and naval warfare). These comments may not apply to people playing different styles of game.

In Civ V there are two unit types which may as well not exist: the Spearman / Pikeman / Lancer / Anti-tank / Helicopter Gunship progression, and air units (fighters and bombers). These are always weak, and not worth the cost of building or promoting. Additionally, the foot soldiers (swordsmen through mechanised infantry) are useful defensively, but never for offensive war, so become redundant if/when you become strong enough to no longer fear invasion..

There is also the problem that from the early Mediaeval era through to the atomic era all available units are too weak to successfully carry out offensive warfare at these difficulty levels. There are effectively only two periods when effective offence is possible: the Classical era using composite bowmen / sworsdmen / horsemen, or occasionally the Mediaeval using crossbowmen / longswordsmen / knights. At this point the window closes until the late atomic or information era, when rocket artillery / mobile SAMs / modern armor / XCOM are (properly wielded) always successful. The implication of this, therefore, is that the size of your empire - whatever victory type you are aiming for - is totally fixed from about 1AD, unless you manage to find a useful uncontested piece of offshore real estate (pretty rare).

In Civ III, despite its totally different combat mechanics and units, similar considerations applied.

I haven't seen much about Civ VI combat. I fully expect the AI to remain reliant on spawning lots of units rather than using brains, but I really hope there are no more useless forces, nor the long period where no offensive warfare is possible.

 

[Japper007]

First of all spears and pikes are extremely usefull blocker units in civ 5, especially since they dont require iron and unlock at key early game (Bronze Working) and mid game (Civil Service) techs.

And no, I dont see much change on the way in terms of combat. You are probably still better of primarily fielding ranged units, since they can attack without losing hitpoints themselves and make focus-firing easier. Maybe the re-vamped move mechanics will change the role of cavalry, but I doubt it

 

[Makenshi]

I lost count of how many times I save myself by using Pikes, so I don't understand the complaint. They kick some serious Swordsman ass and are in a key growth/science tech; also, they perform very well vs ranged and mounted until Longswords hit the field.

Upgrading them is another history, but that's because Lancers lose to Cavalry instead of countering them [Pikes counters Knight with solid efficiency if well positioned].

 

[Big J Money]

I don't think you'll find much agreement on civ fanatics. I truly don't understand how you're playing the game to get these results. Pikemen are great! However, this statement specifically doesn't compute:

"There is also the problem that from the early Mediaeval era through to the atomic era all available units are too weak to successfully carry out offensive warfare at these difficulty levels"

Difficulty levels have nothing to do with the effectiveness of units at a given era. Literally the only stat they change is how your units perform against barbarians. Otherwise they have the exact same performance from chieftan to deity. And anyway if this statement were true, Civ V would have been an unplayable mess and conquest victory would be broken.

I suggest you dig around the civ fanatics site and find more information on strategy for Civ V and tips you can learn to play military more effectively.

 

[CaiusDrewart]

I agree with the other posters saying that pikemen are better than swordsmen--pikemen are stronger, resourceless, dominate cavalry, more conveniently located on the tech tree, and not that much more expensive. Swordsmen are more or less worthless in Civ V.

However, the broader point, which is that Civ V's units are atrociously unbalanced in favor of ranged units, is true. But fortunately I think this is fixable. While 1UPT does naturally tilt a bit towards ranged units (which take no damage when they attack and can really easily focus fire), simply giving ranged units low enough strength to offset these advantages should work fine. Having cavalry units ignore ZOC, and ranged units not impose ZOC at all (as Civ VI is going to do) is another smart move. I also wouldn't mind a city attack penalty for archer-class units--I think it makes the most sense for them to be geared towards defense, like they were in Civ IV.

 

[DWilson]

I'm so confused- what are you doing such that bombers (stealth bombers especially) aren't useful on emperor? Crossbowmen are probably the easiest rushing unit, not merely an occasionally useful set, and waiting for rocket artillery when normal artillery will do the job extremely efficiently?

Agreed, also, that pikemen are fantastic, even if they're no longer useful (except as city sniping after bombarding away all defenses units) after their time.

Moreover tanks are not very good, and modern armor are bad because they take precious aluminum and are less efficient than XCOMS at cleanup.

I think we play the combat in this game very differently...

 

[dturtle1]

Ikr, Bombers and arty and sacrificial Calvary(to take the city at 0 health, pretty easy to run them in pairs and heal off pillaging.) is my goto late War Mongering. I have never actually used Xcom or GDR, I Nuked someone for the 1st time only last Game( as Gandhi, cos i was bored and couldnt help myself ). I need to play more late game War mongering it seems

 

[pholtz]

Personally I find air units very useful. They were so overpowered that in BNW they finally nerfed them by reducing the number that could be stacked in a city. Even so, they are an important part of any modern combat.

 

[kaspergm]

In Civ V there are two unit types which may as well not exist: (...) air units (fighters and bombers). These are always weak, and not worth the cost of building or promoting.

Is that a joke?

 

[NukeAJS]

Swordsmen can be good if you do it right. But you pretty much have to plan for war from turn 1 and you usually need other, military techs (which puts you behind in the cultural/scientific/food techs).

Pikes, on the other hand, sit on a tech that is ridiculously good no matter what strats you are pursuing.

Their upgrade path is, well ... schizophrenic I think is the word used most often, but there are certainly very useful units along the way. However, most of these units have the exact same problem as swordsmen. It's not that they aren't good, they just sit on techs that only give a unit (these are generally on the bottom of the tree). Meanwhile, the top of the tree unlocks multiple things at once -- units, more science, more culture, wonders etc.

As far as air units, triplanes and great war bombers generally have such short range, that they're not so useful; however, fighters and bombers are great units -- especially bombers. Getting air superiority and then bombing an opponent's units makes a huge difference. It unlocks completely different tactics like blitzkrieging.