Lets bring back the cavalry defense bonus

[Zachriel]

Originally posted by Fitz
(Edit: Specifically, the concept archer beats pikeman is something I think you will find to be completely innaccurate if you do a little research. Feel free to prove me wrong though. )

Sure! If you insist.

One of many references on this subject:
Pike: The long spear, with a small steel head. Up to 20 feet in length, they were popular with the Scots, Swiss and Flemings during the 14th, 15th, and 16th centuries. The use of compacted pikemen was a powerful counter to cavalry, but was usually checked with arrows or missile fire.

http://www.chronique.com/Library/Glossaries/glossary-AA/arms_p.htm

Generally, mounted units had gained dominance on the battlefield. Pikemen ended this dominance.

http://www.sealedknot.org/gallery.asp?GN=20

[SpencerH]

Yes, it's not so much whether archers could have broken the Swiss pike formations, its why it didnt happen! The Swiss pikemen were not heavily armoured, and attacked in formation at the run! Disciplined archers should have been able to break their formations as cannon eventually did. It took 200 years though for the military attitudes towards infantry to change and for the weapon developments that allowed that to happen.

[Zachriel]

Originally posted by SpencerH
Yes, it's not so much whether archers could have broken the Swiss pike formations, its why it didnt happen! The Swiss pikemen were not heavily armoured, and attacked in formation at the run! Disciplined archers should have been able to break their formations as cannon eventually did. It took 200 years though for the military attitudes towards infantry to change and for the weapon developments that allowed that to happen.

In the era before pikemen, knights (horse-mounted units) were dominating the battlefield. Many armies were composed solely of knights.

Archers are generally very weak against the knights, as they usually cannot get enough rounds off before the quickly moving knights cross the battlefield. (Agincourt is an obvious counterexample, but terrain was a major factor, slowing the French knights. Indeed, we remember Agincourt simply because it was abnormal. The French should have won.) Normally the archers are protected by infantry, but the infantry was being outflanked and subject to shock attack by knights, so the archers were left unprotected and vulnerable. Why even field infantry or archers?

Then the pikemen restored "balance," that and better organization allowing the use of combined arms. That is why pike was considered a decisive change on the battlefield.

[Sprint_ST_NYC]

Originally posted by Coracle


BTW, pikemen and musketmen were designed to fight together not separately. And the primitive musketmen of 1600 were much less offensive than the faster firing, bayonet-armed musket infantry of 1800.

Ciov 3 needs more units.

But that's two hundred years. What is that in Civ terms, like 10 turns? 20? People already complain that units aren't useful for long enough.

It's a complicated enough game already. It doesn't need zillions of sub-units cluttering it up.

[nato]

Why even field infantry or archers?

That is an issue I wish was reflected better.

I think the real reasons were:

1) Mounted units are so much more expensive to make. This can be very well reflected by higher shield costs.

and

2) Mounted units eat so much more than foot units! Those horses gobble it down. I wish this was better reflected, but supply and logistics are totally missing in Civ.

Not that I am complaining ... logistics never has been in Civ, and perhaps is too hard to implement or too small for Civ's big picture view.

But logistics is so important! I wish it was in somehow. Maybe I'll just increase shield costs more for mounted units ...