The Rider unit

[saracen31]

The Chinese unique unit, the rider, looks pretty darn powerful - attack 4, defense 4, movement 3 - wow!

[ixnay]

True, but it uses more resources (iron and horses) than earlier UU's, so that is supposed to balance out, I guess.

[Ralf]

Re: The Rider unit

Originally posted by saracen31
The Chinese unique unit, the rider, looks pretty darn powerful - attack 4, defense 4, movement 3 - wow!

They have disbanded the move-rate classification of Civ-2:

Non-mounted land-unit: Move 1
Mounted land-unit: Move 2
Modern vehicle land-unit: Move 3

A horse can run much faster if its chinese, I guess. Also, the defense-factor feels a little "over the top", if you ask me. I dont get it: the babylonian & egyptian special attack-units seems so very conservative in comparison with Civ-2. Now suddenly both the standard & special knight-unit clearly outspank the Civ-2 equivalent easily. Not particulary consistent.

Oh well, I guess I have to play the game first. Seems strange though. Anyway, one can always adjust these ADM-data with help of editors.

[Footie Mad]

I like it, actually none of the units has been a dissapointment to me so far. The only thing I could complain about is getting more anxious to play the game....

[Melios]

I can see why the Chinsese Riders would have higher Defense and Movement. A lot of Asian cultures, like Chinsese, Mongols, and Avars, were proficient horsemen and kept the horses well-bred.

The Chinese had a head-start with horses anyways over Europeans.

[Dugrik]

Surely they could have given it a spiffier name. Use the Mandarin word for 'Rider' if nothing else.

[fred]

The other reason why probably the D and M have been increased where as earlier units (chariot and hopolite and archer) were only given 1 area is because earlier units usually make a bigger differnce. Think of a phalank over a warrior and how much of a deal it was to get them defending your cities. And what a chariot ment to you offense. Later though the defense and attack became less important then the total number in your army.

Your enemy is unprepared early on, while later not so much.

[YefeiPi]

The rider? What the "beep*! Chinese's special unit is rider? Alright, it's a decision by Firaxis, I mean they are making the game, not me.

[Fiil]

Hmm, it seems once again cavalry will allmost be the only units to ever leave my cities.

But maybe the artillery will be worthwhile now that they can bombard. I just hope they will be more effective than in SMAC!
Futhermore if the pikemen will be something like 1-3*-1, then these knights and riders will be up for a tough job. This is so much better than civ2!!

Please Fireaxis
make the AI use the 3 moves to more than just getting faster from one point to another. In civ2 it's incredible how many enemy artillery and cavalry units a single cavalry unit can slay because the enemies simply move within range.
3 moves means the unit can move forward, attack and fall back (even more powerful). The AI should use these units if it wishes to defend a position without fortress/mountain, not to attack my fortified pikeman behind citywalls. If it does this right I will have to use both infantry, cavalry and artillery to clear the way. And I like that!

(It didn't really matter with the tanks in civ2 because they weren't built until there were roads everywhere and you already had secured your home territory, but earlier on this is a revolution.)

Conclusion:
Attack 4: This is low compared to the hoplite!
Defense 4/3: Attack will not be as vital!
Move 3: I hope this works out allright!

Horses and Iron to build knights! Wao, I can't wait for Iron, Coal, Oil, Rubber and Salpetre to build Panzers
Anyway I just love it all!!

[Falconius]

Re: Re: The Rider unit

Originally posted by Ralf
I dont get it: the babylonian & egyptian special attack-units seems so very conservative in comparison with Civ-2. Now suddenly both the standard & special knight-unit clearly outspank the Civ-2 equivalent easily. Not particulary consistent.

But remember, the rider unit will usually come much later in the game than the Babylonian and Egyptian special units. There is a jump here from ancient times to middle ages. We don't know yet what the unit abilities in between will be like.

I think there is a tendency to think this way because the Civs of the Week are presented in the order they are. But as far as we can guess, there may be several special units in between the Bab/Egypt and the Chinese. And certainly there will be many regular units in that space.

It looks as though unit abilities are going to rise higher in Civ III. To outclass its predecessors, a tank will probably be a 20 on attack, a 15 on defense, and have a movement of 4 or 5. And the German special unit, the Panzar will be even higher. Can't wait to see.

[Leonidas]

The special unit looks pretty cool. We'll have to wait and see what other variables are included in attacking and defending, especially in army stacks.

I can see that combining several different units in one stack will almost give you an army that will be prepared to deal with anything.

[The diplomat]

It looks like Firaxis is separating units from different ages much more than in civ2, so as to prevent the old "phalanx defeats tank" situation.

[Skanky Burns]

Im not sure if i would ever build an expensive attack 1 chariot, but the rider, however, looks very nasty indeed
It should be holding a place of honour in my military for some time... Not only that, but the ordinary knight has decent stats too

[saracen31]

If I play as the Chinese, I'm waiting for this unit to go on a conquest spree.

Seems the unique units are getting more impressive each week, but the fact that they're more modern is the reason, as stated above...

[Harlan]

I'm with YefeiPi: "The rider? What the "beep*!"

Of all the special units the Chinese could have had, a cavalry unit would have been at the very bottom of my list. The cavalry was always the Achilles heel of their military. All the good land was taken up with farms and pastures for food, so there was no land to raise lots of horses needed for a sizable cavalry (not to mention, the sedentary population didn't make excellent horse riders in the way their barbarian neighbors did, who often even slept on their horses, not getting off for weeks at a time). The situation was so bad, that at one point the Chinese staged a huge military expedition into Central Asia to get more horses. Only 1% of the army survived the adventure, but it was deemed a success cos they brought some good horses back with them.

Time and time again, the Chinese cavalry was no competition for the cavalries of the barbarian peoples to the north, like the Mongols. I agree with the statement posted on another thread: "Looks like the Chinese have "stolen" the Mongol specific unit."

But hey, that's cool in its own way. If I ever redo my Mongols scenario I'll be very happy to have a Mongol-esque horse unit graphic to use.