Numidian Cavalry Weaker than Horse Archers?

[Ghengis-Sean]

I'm playing a game as Carthage and I have to say I'm not too impressed with their unique unit, Numdian Cavalry. It starts with Flanking I, which isn;t too shabby, but the +50% melee doesn;t offset the fact that they only have a strength of 5. Chariots with a strength of 4 have a +100% attack against Axeman, which makes them better for dealing with that threat. That means the only melee unit you'll really be tangling with will be swordsman or spearmen. Given that spearmen have a +100% bonus versus mounted units, attacking them is probably a bad idea even with a +50% attack bonus. That leaves swordsmen. So essentially carthage gets a horse to kill swordsmen with. That's Great. What about archers and other mounted units? Against other cavalry Numidians are at a slight disadvantage. Other civs with cavalry UU's have much better units,

Mongol Keshik,
Strenght 6, cost 50
1 first strike
Doesn't receive defensive bonuses
Ignores terrain movement costs
+50% attack vs. Catapult

Persian Immortal,
Strenght 4, cost 25
Can withdraw from combat (30% chance)
+50% vs. Archery Units

War Chariot,
Srenght 5, cost 25
Immune to First Strikes
Doesn't receive defensive bonuses
Can withdraw from combat (20% chance)

So Egypt and Persia get units that are almost as good, but cost half as much. The Mongols have a unit that is much better, with a first strike and it ignores terrain costs (a lvl 3 upgrade). Numidian cavalry get Flanking I ( a lvl 1 upgrade) and +50% versus melee. So break it down this way,

Numidian Cavalry with 2 upgrades, Flanking I, Flanking II, Mobility. now has the same movement as a Keshik. Against archers and mounted has a strenght of 5, against melee has a strength of 7.5.

Keshik with 2 upgrades, Combat I, Shock. Against mounted and archers has a strenght of 6.6 and against melee has a strenght of 8.1.

Horse Archer with 2 upgrades. Combat I, Shock. Against mounted and archers has a strenght of 6.6 and against melee has a strenght of 8.1.


might be missing something, but it seems that Carthage has gotten shortchanged. I'm not saying that they should have a unit just like the Keshik, but they should have a unit better than the standard horse archer. Give Carthage a real unique unit, some gimped half ass version of a normal version.

[UnOrthOdOx]

Well, to be perfectly fair, if you're judging pures strenght, you need to give them all the same promotions there.

Numidian Cavalry with Flanking 1, combat I and shock. Which would put it at 5.5 vs archers/mounted and 8.75 vs melee.

Clearly, they are better vs melee than the others, even getting slight odds vs spears without a defensive bonus.

They had to reduce the str if they wanted that bonus vs melee. A theoretical 6 str Numidian Cav with combat I and shock would be 11.1 vs melee, and just eat everything in the age alive.

[Will9]

When I played as Carthage I gave 1/3 of my Numidians Combat 2, 1/3 Combat 1 and Shock, and the other third Sentry and Combat 1. Sentry can be a first promotion for Numidians so they are great scouts. The ones with Shock are good against Melee. The ones with Combat 2 are good agaist everything else, plus they can get formation soon (Horse Archers are the best conter against Numidians).

[Arrian]

I agree the unit isn't spectacular. It's no Immortal. But it ain't bad.

-Arrian

[Martinus]

Killing swordsmen is not as bad as you describe it, if you consider that the best UU of ancient era - praetorian - is a beefed-up swordsman. So basically you get the only ancient UU that can stand its ground against Romans. Not too shabby, and quite appropriate for Carthage, imo.

[Blake]

An attack bonus is worth more than a straight strength bonus, it's not right to say that 5 + 50% = 7.5

Take for arguments sake a CombatIII Sword, 6 x 1.3 = 7.8 - that would be stronger than a Numdian cavalry, yes?
No.

Attack bonuses subtract, so the Sword gets -20% strength (50% - 30%), calculated as 6/1.2, Sword strength = 5, NC strength = 5.

I know it's a fairly small difference, but it does turn out to be significant at times - going from weaker, to equal, to stronger, are significant (~12% odds, going from just weaker to just stronger is over 20%).

Also the bonus against spearmen is not insignificant - they eliminate the spears with significantly lower losses and can then get to butchering the vulnerable units.

[Randolph]

Well the attack bonus vs. combat bonus thing isn’t a clear “one is better then the other.” If the Numidian is attacking a spearman (or anything with <5 strength) a +50% attack bonus will come out to less then a +50% combat bonus. At least if I understand the system correctly, which I may not.

I haven’t played as Carthage yet, but I don’t like the idea of having a horse archer that is ineffective against enemy horse archers. That would mean I’d have to build spearmen to defend against pillaging horse archers, and I don’t like building many spearmen because they’re useless at everything except killing mounted units.

[MasterDave]

Originally posted by Martinus
Killing swordsmen is not as bad as you describe it, if you consider that the best UU of ancient era - praetorian - is a beefed-up swordsman. So basically you get the only ancient UU that can stand its ground against Romans. Not too shabby, and quite appropriate for Carthage, imo.

Axemen have the same combat stats as numidians vs. swordsmen, with the exception of combat I. They, too can stand up to praetorians, and are significantly cheaper.

I played a couple of games as the Carthies, and their UU is nothing remarkable. Their strength is the Cothon, when combined with Great Lighthouse and Temple of Artemis, they get a scary amount of trade with some coastal cities.

[Qwertqwert]

Since they are so costly shieldwise, I think it deserves the 6 strength instead of 5, but it's an okay UU.

[Kuciwalker]

The trick is that Carthage is rolling in gold, especially on a watery map (where Financial really kicks in). If Hannibal were organized instead of charismatic it'd be crazy.