AU mod: Cavalry

[alexman]

Originally posted by lockstep

Yes, but if it alleviates the problem and does not require a new unit, I'm all for it.

If that's the case, with no side effects, I'm all for it too. But if this solution also shortens the lifespan of Knights (which have a short lifespan to begin with), I'm not so sure.

Is the Light Cavalry proposal already sort of a 'beloved feature'?

Not really, although I like it because it does kill two birds with one stone (Nationalism + Cavalry). If we can accomplish the same thing without adding a unit, I would be the first to embrace the idea.

If I get Military Tradition before the AI gets Gunpowder, this means at least a 4-tech lead in the Engineering branch. Unless the AI has a 4-tech lead in the Monotheism branch, I am ahead in tech.

I didn't say anything different. If you beeline for MT, and don't trade anything with the AI to keep them from Gunpowder, the AI will often get to Education/Chivalry before you get MT.

[alexman]

Originally posted by Risa

Interesting. Perhaps Education to Chemistry? There doesn't seem to be strong relation between any two of other techs.

Or replace the Chemistry requirement of Metallurgy with Physics. But this might be a bigger change to Civ3 than adding a new unit.

[donZappo]

Looking at the tech tree I can see how making chemistry require education would work to reduce the power of cavalry and really extend the age of knights. Would this actually be a workable solution that the AU would consider? I noticed that when you change around the tech prerequisites that the arrows on the tech tree don't actually change at all, so this might not be such a great change as it may cause a good deal of confusion to newer players and make it obvious that you're playing a mod. I remember some discussion in the past about changing tech prerequisites, or maybe just required techs (I believe it had to do something with Astronomy/Navigation but I can't recall the details), and wondered if this problem has been solved before. Has the AU ever incorporated this into one of their mods, or has it just been left as a theoretical discussion?

[TheArsenal]

Haven't thought this through but - perhaps the saltpeter requirement for Musketmen can be removed, which might increase their appearance earlier in the game by the AI, and the saltpeter resource moved to a point on the Theology branch of techs, making that tech a requirement to build Cavalry.

[Mad Bomber]

Originally posted by alexman
That's what I was thinking too.

A possible upgrade of the msketmen could be in order also.

New units:

Flintlock Musketman: 4/5/1
Arbusquer: (old musketman) : 3/4/1

[nbarclay]

Keep in mind that misketmen play a role in knight-era warfare as well as cavalry-era warfare. In the knight era, being able to avoid facing musketmen by cutting off a rival's saltpeter is a useful tactic, as is looking for a target that doesn't have saltpeter to begin with. Eliminating the saltpeter requirement for musketmen would make it a harder to find a way to stretch out knights' usefulness.

Adding a unit to the musket line poses most of the same problems as adding one to the cavalry line. If we're going to add a unit, I think the "light cavalry" approach makes the most sense bceause it reduces the power of cavalry-vs.-pike as well as cavalry-vs.-musket.

Nathan

[Stuie]

Good discussion.

I would just like to point out that the problem is "Cavalry and the human beeline to Military Tradition". I do not think we should deal with the problem by tinkering with other units (such as the Musketman). Up until Cavalry is introduced, I feel the game retains some semblance of balance. I would hate to ruin that balance to fix a problem that has not yet occurred until Military Tradition is researched. So I am in favor of one of the following solutions already proposed (until something better comes along)...

Either:
1. The Light Cavalry/Cavalry idea. I still think this is the better idea having used it for the past month and a half. Most importantly, it still feels like Civ3.
2. Making a Monotheism branch tech a pre-requisite for Military Tradition (or Metallurgy or Chemistry). The major problem with this is graphical - the tech tree will look like crap. Maybe not a "big" issue, but an issue none-the-less.

[vulture]

One of the big problems with the tech-tree-change approach is (much like the light cavalry) either the user has to install some new graphics along with the mod (although installing a new tech tree graphic is probably less work than a new unit), or we stick with the not changing graphics approach in which case the average user could easily get confused. I'm not sure there is an easy way to get around this problem.

The suggestion of playing around with resources to get the same effect is a good one, if we can find a good way of implementing it. Making gunpowder appear with Education, for instance, would have the desired effect re cavalry, but would mess up the musketman balance I suspect - unless we find that the vast majority of the time the AI gets Education before or around the same time as gunpowder normally.

One alternative (which is probably a can of worms) would be to create a new resource, available with education, that is necessary for cavalry (we could have 'schmorses' - like horses but they can run 50% faster ). Again, there could be the need for more graphics, and it could arguably change the feel of the game. Is it possible to make a resource invisible (no graphics problems) and have no food/shield/trade bonuses? Then all we have to do is make it abundant enough so that everyone with more than 1 or 2 cities is certain to have the resource, and we have forced education to be a pre-requisite for building cavalry, without screwing with the tech tree.

One very possible problem with this is that the resource has to be pretty common, or else even fewer civs will have all the resources to build cavalry than they do at the moment - which I suspect would weaken the AI relative to the human in practise. But if we have the resource very common, then there is a danger that we mess up the allocation of other resources. We don't know which order bonus, strategic and luxury resources are allocated on the map, but I suspect that luxury resources are allocated last (on standard, 5 billion year old maps, mountains are rare, and consequently, it is quite common for only one or two gems resources to exist) - and adding in a new common resource could throw the balance of other resource types out of whack by leaving them with too few locations.

[Myrddin]

I support reducing the cost of musketmen as they appear expensive compared to riflemen and pikemen

Another way would be to increase the research cost of military tradition to delay the arrival of cavalry on the battlefield

[lockstep]

One more thing about the Light Cavalry approach: Even if we don't use distinct graphics for the sake of accessibility, we are still adding a new mounted unit and changing the upgrade chain to Chariot - Horseman - Knight - Light Cavalry - Cavalry. Therefore, we have to decide - in my opinion - if the two cavalry-based UU's (Cossack and Siphai) should now be based on the new Light Cavalry unit (and still come with Military Tradition) or still be based on Cavalry (and only be available with Nationalism). I strongly dislike a 'Light Cossack / Light Siphai' approach, because this in fact means creating a second UU for two civilizations, which is IMO 'too far from stock Civ3'.

Personally, I'd base the Cossack and the Siphai on Light Cavalry, and give them 5/3/3 (blitz) and 7/3/3 stats.

EDIT: And looking at these stats, I still vote for changing the shield cost of the (Nationalism) 6/3/3 Cavalry from 80 to 90.

[Strollen]

This is a very apropos discussion. I was playing Emperor as the Greeks and having a difficult time making progress against the Carthage. This despite having Zesus (awesome wonder 25+ ancient cavs) a Golden Age, and allies.

Than I got Cavalry. I upgraded all my Knights took out 2 cities. Than I got an army and my Cav army took out a city rested a turn, took out another rested... . Eventually I captured Carthage and Leonardos, and soon Carthanians were down to handful of cities and I made peace.

We all know that Cavs are way too powerful. I think the sure sign is what people build. Once I discover Military tradition, I build Cav and basically only cav (and maybe some artillery in cities without barracks) until I discover motorized transport. Even after tanks are in the field Cav and (especially Cav armies) are still useful until modern armor is discovered. So Cavs are still viable for almost 2 full eras. The only non UU unit that is good for so long.

Adjusting the Musketman cost to 50 helps but not enough. I played most of my PTW games with a 50 cost but as other have pointed out only the first defender is likely to be a musketman. Than the Cav starts attacking regular pikeman, and spearman and cities fall blitzkrieg style.

I think the idea of having a separate nationalism Cav is too complicated. Lets simply reduce the attack factor of Cav to 5 (and subtract one from the Civ UUs). In no war game are Cav considered better at attacking cities than infantry. Yet a 6-3-3 Cav is a much better offensive unit than a 6-10-1 Infantry. Despite being 30-60 turns less advanced.

At 5-3-3 for 80 Shields I will still build Cav's rather than Rifleman
I'll probably buy a mix of Cav and Infantry, basically I'll build Cav if they take less turns than infantry, and Infantry if they are the same turns.

In fact, I'd even argue for making Cav 4-3-3 and maybe 70 shields, (i.e. Chinese Rider) which would make them useful for pilliage, killing weakened units and retreating to avoid the counterattack but not great city killing units.

The thing I had hoped that conquest had provide was a line of improvements to the 1 move swordsman, medieval infantry line.
Marines are now an almost viable alternative to tanks.

But there is a long gap between a medieval infantry and Marine for 1 move assault troops.

[Kuciwalker]

Originally posted by pvzh
Thus:
Musketman -10 or -15 to cost, same stats.
Consider, dropping saltpepper requirement and/or increase in defensive bombardment.

Wouldn't that make saltpeter pretty worthless?

[Stuie]

Originally posted by Strollen
Yet a 6-3-3 Cav is a much better offensive unit than a 6-10-1 Infantry. Despite being 30-60 turns less advanced.

Just one point...

The PTW AU Mod increased Infantry to 8.10.1, and I think the C3C AU Mod is probably heading in the same direction. See this thread: http://apolyton.net/forums/showthrea...hreadid=102901

[Dominae]

Originally posted by Strollen
Lets simply reduce the attack factor of Cav to 5 (and subtract one from the Civ UUs).

I've been considering this idea for a while now, but never had the guts to suggest it (I believe Theseus was the first to throw it out there).

Would it really hurt so much just to flat-out reduce the Attack of Cavalry to 5 (without adding a new unit at Nationalism)?

I bet we could all still do some serious damage with it. The major difference would be that once Riflemen show up, it's time to look toward Artillery/Infantry for offense. I bet the AI would benefit from this too, since I'm doubtful it would upgrade Light Cavalry all that often.


Dominae

[geniemalin]

They still represent a significant upgrade to Knight (+1 Atk, +1 Move) for a little extra cost, but won't completely dominate.