Is Cavalry Overpowered?

[pcasey]

I'll admit right off that I believe it is, but I'd like to hear other people opinions on the matter.

In my recent games, I've been finding I play the same strategy over and over. Early game rush to kill my closest neighbor. Then farm/tech rush to cavalry, then rush everything on my continent with cavalry. This ultimately works so well because if you're the first one to cavalry and have 10 vetran cavalry units, you can mop the floor with any AI managed civilization.

The case for it being overpowered:

1) Its too fast. Cavalry is 6/3/3. You won't see another move 3 unit until modern armor comes into the game in the late modern age. IMHO it should be speed 2. I mean really, mech infantry and tanks move slower than cavalry?

2) It outmatches its comperable defensive unit. Musketeers defend at 4, cavalry attacks at 6. Cavalry can disengage. A pack of cavalry can take any city in the game if it outnumbers the defenders by about 1.5 to 1. Knights vs Pikemen was a 4/3 attack/defense. Cavalry/Musketeers is a 6/4.

3) The speed issue comes to the fore in assaults against conscript troops. Since cavalry withdraws, rather than fighting to the death, you can whittle down defensive units without taking losses on your own part. Additionally, since the defenders never actually kill anything, they don't get a chance to get upgraded in rank.

I'd make it a 5/3/2 if it were up to me, or alternately make it a 6/3/2 and make musketmen a 2,5,1.

Thoughts?

[Velociryx]

Cavalry is supposed to be paired up with riflemen, IMO (6/3/3 cav and 3/6/1 Riflemen). Still, I'm of the opinion that ALL mounted units in the game are overpowered, and should be more expensive to reflect the power they give you to control the tempo, place, and time of any given battle.

For me, the reason that they're overpowered lies not so much with the move of three, but the fact that unless they're facing another fast unit (and let's face it, when you're assaulting cities, you rarely see a fast unit defending the town), the battle is not "resolved" even if the cav is chased off by the defender, meaning the defender gets no chance for a morale upgrade....meaning further that a massed cav strike WILL wear down a city and that the attacker will take zero losses (or sometimes one loss...if the cav "hangs in" the battle trying to nab the last hp from a defender). This gives cav users a higher percentage of elite troops, gives a correspondingly higher percent chance for great leaders (more elites fighting, more chances in general), and, adding the 3 moves and ZOC on top of all that makes them too powerful for their cost, IMO.

-=Vel=-

[eMarkM]

I don't think they're overpowered. They match up w/ riflemen. And Cavalry can't touch infantry, which usually comes before tanks replace cavalry as main offensive weapon. You need several Cav to displace the dough boys.

e

[Arrian]

I hear what you're saying. Mobile units are pretty powerful toys. The key problem, however, isn't their a/d/m stats or their ability to retreat, or ZOC. It's the AI's inability to use them (and other units, like bombard units) properly. Basically, the AI can't defend itself. It has no concept of occupying the high ground, using bombard units, or using mobile units. Unfortantely, we can't fix that part (maybe, just maybe firaxis can). But no matter what you change the stats to, or increase the cost by, the AI will still not know how to use the units as well as you can.

-Arrian

[MadWombat]

Hmmm... Well, yes, 6v4 favours the attacker. BUT, defenders get City bonuses, and really, but this time every serious city is giving an automatic +50% defence, so you're at 6v6. Further, terrain gives bonuses, and so do fortications. So, let's imagine that you're defending on a low def square, 10%. So, that's an automatic +30% for the defence (more if the bonuses multiply), and you're up to 6v~8, defender's advantage.

Now, it is valid to say that the cavalry retreat, and that that is a major advantage. HOWEVER, if you have barracks in your city, (and you should), defenders are likely all veteran (as the attacker's cavalry probably are too), AND they heal fully every turn.

If you defend your border cities appropriately, like, 4 or so musketeers, then you shouldn't have THAT much difficulty holding off a fair number (say 6) of cavalry for at least one turn. If you don't reinforce immediately, then of course you're going to lose. His cavalry will immediately try to retreat into his own territory to heal. Knights are very good for mopping up cavalry that is trying to heal, especially since the cav can't retreat. Since you can take advantage of your roads in your territory, you should be able to catch the faster cavalry with your knights, and smack 'em down.

The reason the AI is so easy to kill is because they don't defend their border cities effectively, and they don't place enough emphasis on killing cavalry that are attempting to heal. Additionally, they seem to keep trying to build improvements when at war, whereas the human is highly likely to put every productive city into pumping out military.

[Allemand]

Cavalry's speed seems a bit high but I wouldn't want them to be the same speed as knights and there is no easy way to give them 2.5 movement points (although it could be programmed into the game). Their offensive power of 6 seems about right. A fortified musketman in a city is a match for cavalry, except that cavalry can retreat. But when it retreats it becomes vulnerable to counterattack, and the cavalry defensive power is not remarkable. Riflemen will beat cavalry, and a small force of mobile units can finish them off. Or use stacked riflemen so that you can have serviceable units to counterattack.

Tanks are slower than cavalry, which means the cavalry does not become obsolete when tanks arrive. Tanks and cavalry work well together. The German panzer (3 movement points) does make cavalry obsolete, but you can still find uses for existing cavalry units until you build lots and lots of panzers. The AI often has obsolete units in the field, which cavalry is very good at eliminating. This allows more tanks/panzers to concentrate on the hard targets.

[Allemand]

MadWombat, I like your analysis. One thing that makes combat so interesting is the inability of the invaders to match the mobility of the defending forces.

[Comrade Tribune]

I agree with Vel. The whole Horseman/Knight/Cavalry line is overpowered, because they are the Undead. Mass them, and you can overrun an entire civ, nearly without loss. The retreat ability is so powerful it defeats the concept of combined arms.

[Comrade Tribune]

And even worse: Combine Fast Units with Forced Labour, and you become unstoppable. If playing competitively (for points, or MP), Despotic/Communist Conquest is probably the only strategy that is viable.

[Ninot]

Now, im just a civ newb (never played anything but civ3, but play civ3 religiously since the day it went on shelves)... but from what i observed, the computer isnt THAT incompetent with their units.
I had a war against the Russians, and their cosacks seemed to be doing their damage.

I never once saw a cossack purposefully being used for defence, and although i noticed that the computer only foccussed troops on one front at a time, i found that it was almost by luck that i was able to not take any serious losses, cuz the cossacks always knew what to attack first to hurt the most, and they eventually led to me getting my conquest of Russia completely denied, cuz my war effort wasn't completly devoted to pushing back their borders, but fighting for my own cities, that only a pesky cav/cossack unit coult take, and did.

As for cavalry being too quick... well, at a good speed gallop, i would like to argue that a horse should easily get ahead of a tank in many cases. Heck, if a person can ride a bike for any money, they would be able to keep pace with almost any tank (with the exception of the Panzer) before or during the early years of WW2.

so the speed of cavalry isnt THAT outrageous realistically, but for gameplay issues, i can see how it may seem out of place. I would tend to think that if a horse would be going full speed for even a year, never mind 5 (i dunno, the length of a turn?), that it would die of exaustion.

But actually, i see the speed of 3 as a disadvantage to the Cavalry. As i like to have my cannons/artilery at my front lines, i find it annoying that my cavalry get so far ahead, if they aren't slowing down to keep pace.

So, what if they intended the movement range of 3 just to be an "in case you need it" speed? What if they intended you to keep your cavalry going at the same pace as your artilery(slow) untill you really, REALLY needed to get him moving? So, they give you the OPTION to go fast if ya need it, but the handicap of slower bombardment units, so that ya dont use it all the time?

I dunno, im just thinking of excuses, don't shoot the... uhh, messanger? Village idiot?

On another point, i fail to see the value in taking out the whip. I spent a good deal of time in Communism just so i wouldnt have to pay for my millitary units, but i absolutely detested rushing at the cost of people. I find paying with cash a much better method. Generally, i like my people happy, and i like a lot of people. Something wrong with me?

I find i always have so much extra cash that its nothing to waste it on a couple of new cultural improvements. But with despot/communism, i find wasting a person, to make a person unhappy, to make a person happy... its not only pointless, but without point. Ok, i could PERHAPS see a point to it in the ancient era, but in the modern era, with so much intake of gold, why kill people? (also, i never rush military unless im VERY concerned about that city being attacked soon)

Your friendly noob/newb

Ninot

[Dis]

the retreat ability is too powerful, plain and simple.

The chance to retreat should be restricted to 50%. This will make the game more than a horseman/knight/calvary rush.

[MadWombat]

Naw, retreat is fine. Possibly just downgrade Knights and Cavalry to 3/3/2 and 5/3/2 respectively. Really though, I don't feel it's necessary. If you're that worried, try upgrading your musketeers to 5 def, and riflemen to 7.

[pcasey]

A couple comments :

1) I'm inclined to agree with the people who think the real problem is retreat rather than combat factors. I almost never lose cavalry, they just retreat and I can heal them up later. That means I save on production costs, and I get more elite units and a better shot at a still absurdly rare great leader. Perhaps equally importantly, it starves defending units of a chance at a morale upgrade.

2) Cavalry's 3 movement factor is strategic rather than tactic movement. They move across the map at that rate, year after year after year. Historically, horse cavalry units were limited to about 50 miles a day over good roads becaus the horses can't handle being ridden at anything faster than a walk for extended e.g. weeks at a time. In contrast, even primitive armored vehicles could do 10 miles an hour, 12 hours a day over lots of different terrain. There's really no excuse for cavalry being faster than tanks or mechanized infantry.

[Thunderfire]

Riders are even worse. Everyone can get cavalry
but only the chinese have a speed 3 unit for many turns.

[Grim Legacy]

Originally posted by MadWombat
Hmmm... Well, yes, 6v4 favours the attacker. BUT, defenders get City bonuses, and really, but this time every serious city is giving an automatic +50% defence, so you're at 6v6. Further, terrain gives bonuses, and so do fortications. So, let's imagine that you're defending on a low def square, 10%. So, that's an automatic +30% for the defence (more if the bonuses multiply), and you're up to 6v~8, defender's advantage.

I thought defense bonuses were calculated with the base number in all cases, cumulatively.

So 10% terrain bonus + 50% city bonus for a musketeer equals 4 * 1.6 = 6.4 defense, unfortified.