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]

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]

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.

[Transcend]

Originally posted by 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."

Contrary to your belief, Cavalry was the backbone of all successful Chinese armies. Also your assertion that China was no match for steppe nomads was false. The power relation between Chinese and steppe Nomads was a never-ending cycle from 221BC until 1697.

During the early phase of Han Dynasty, from 202BC to 145BC, Huns were indeed dominating in the North. After Emperor Wu of Han took power, China embarked on a 40 years long offensive against the Huns, which broke their power and extended Han influence to the Parthian border. From 100BC until 300AD, China was dominating over the steppe nomads. For example around 210AD, a Chinese Warlord named Cao Cao demanded that the Hun king to surrender his wife to China, and the king complied.

After a major civil war destroyed the Western Jin empire in early fourth century AD, steppe nomads again gained the upper and sacked Chinese capital Loyang in 310AD, exactly 100 years before Rome's fall. For the next 200 years, wave after wave of people immigrated into North China and became assimilated. By 550AD, there were almost no distinctions between immigrants and native Chinese population in the North. A second Chinese Empire had been formed.

Tang Dynasty defeated steppe Nomads once again in 620AD and dominated the steppe until it fell apart in a series of civil wars. From 907AD on, China was once more on the defensive until the Ming Emperor Zhu Yuanzhang ousted Mongols in 1368AD. Manchus replaced the corrupt Ming rule in 1644AD and conquered Mongolia in 1697AD. In 1757, Qing Dynasty would wipe out the last Mongol resistance in Central Asia.

In the alsmost 2 thousand years contest between Chinese and steppe nomads, they dominated the other side about 1000 years each. In all the eras during which Chinese dominated, cavalry was essential to their success, and only cavalry can control the vast area of Central Asia. I'm totally fine with Firaxis's choice of the Chinese unique unit.

[TechWins]

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.

Just a little while back (I think about two weeks ago) I stated my therory as being the same exact thing as what you believe. There will be a greater spread in power between ages. Which in my opinion does more than stop the "phalanx defeats tank" situation. It requires you to now build units in all ages because if you try to skip an age of units in building then you will be a giant disadvantage. Before in Civ2 you could build your ancient units and they would be sufficient enough until the Renaissance or Industrial age of units that you wouldn't have to build any Middle Ages units. Having a big spread in power between ages will force you to build units in all ages, if you want to be succesful of course. More strategy will also be included with the diversity in units powers. If a Rider can move 3 then most likely a tank will be able to move something around 5. Then artillery will also have it's powers increased. Plus it will be much more fun having wars in the middle part of the game with units being stronger. I'm so happy that it is (at least I think so) this way in Civ3. War will now have an increased amount of fun by having more strategy and requirements (more less forcements to have success than requirements).

[Transcend]

I think the Rider is an excellent defensive unit. Its attack is too low to go against any unit with a defensive value greater than 2. However, it is optimal in picking off catapults and cannons which should have a range of 2. The Rider can then move forward one square, attack, and retreat to safety. Chinese cities will be difficult to attack if this unit is garrisoned inside.

[saracen31]

Great point, Transcend. These units will help keep China isolationist till the modern ages.

The 3 movement will provide an excellent hit & run defense strategy.

[Harlan]

Okay Transcend,
Since you've put up a good argument, I'm going to have to put up a good argument against it.

You are partially right - cavalry was important to China's defense, and they use cavalries at times. But the cavalry was made up of largely non-Chinese barbarians riding horses from outside of China. I draw from several reference books and sites:

"Another important aspect of the relations of the Chinese with the barbarians around them was their use as military auxiliaries and their settlement in large numbers within the confines of the empire. As early as 27 AD the Han rulers had found it convenient to bring in barbarian cavalry to crush internal revolts. Later in the same century the greater part of the forces so successfully led against the Xiongnu barbarians were non-Chinese cavalry. Similarly, many of the crack troops of Cao Cao in the 3rd century AD were barbarian mounted horsemen... This strategy created a danger, namedly a much greater threat of internal instability. The most famous case in which the threat materialized was the rebellion started in 755 AD by An Lushan, a Sogdian general."

There was a frontier zone to the north with large non-Chinese populations in it, and only this semi-steppe zone was amenable to the raising of large numbers of horses. For instance this text:

"The Tibetan king decided to take advantage of China's problems by first encroaching on present-day Gansu and Qinghai and then moving on into Shangxi. In so doing he deprived the Chinese of the horse-breeding and pasture lands essential for the maintence of cavalry forces."

These border peoples would typically lose their cavalry skills as they became more Chinese, and then often a new wave of barbarians would conquer northern China bringing lots of new cavalry expertise, and the process would repeat.

These areas were only occupied by the Chinese when various dynasties were at their peak, for instance the Tang in the 700s, or when barbarians successfully invaded and set up their own dynasties. They were outside the Great Wall. Normally, the Chinese had to trade for their horses:

"Turkistan had little else to give but horses, and in truth, except for control of that part of the Silk Road, nothing else was wanted from this area. The T'ang Emperor Hsuan Tsung once remarked to a Turk envoy, 'My country buys Turckic sheep and horses; Turks receive our country's silks. Both sides are abundantly supplied.'"

The Chinese did not have the ability to breed their own, due to geography:

"Domestic horse breeding programs were rarely successful. As a result, China was forced to spend vast sums to purchase horses from its nomadic neighbors throughout most all of the imperial period."

And, in discussing the conquest of China by the Mongols, again that geography comes in:

"The Mongol cavalry forces were not accustomed to the temperatures and lands of China proper. The Mongols' horses faced innumberable obstacles. The warm temperatures and the forests were far more difficult environments than the steppelands, and the steeds could not really adjust to the heat. There was hardly any fodder for them to graze on, since in the South crops were planted on every available plot of arable land."

And again:

"How to achieve the conquest of China meant overcoming the problems which restricted the Jurchen and later greatly troubled the Mongols: the complete unsuitablity for cavalry except in the northern border zone."

The main line of defense against the horse riding barbarians was diplomacy, keeping them divided:

"Throughout much of the imperial period, China's salvation rested with the inability of the nomadic tribes to unite into an effective fighting force."

When that failed, except for the times barbarian cavalry was heavily used, the main lines of defense were non-cavalry forces:

"The main problem, as always, was how to keep the nomads across the northwestern frontier from raiding settled Chinese landscapes. Nomad cavalry could outstrip Chinese footsoldiers; but footsoldiers, armed with crossbows and stationed in fortified garrison posts thickly scattered throughout the frontier zone, could hold off cavalry attacks quite effectually."

Note the mention of fortifications. The Chinese built so many walls (the Great Wall being a loose term referring to many walls put up in many different centuries) precisely because they were no military match to an organized nomadic cavalry. Their efforts to go into the steppes and meet the nomads on their own terms were almost always complete disasters, unless the "Chinese" army was made up mostly of nomadic mercenaries.

The Chinese cavalry was like the Egyptian navy. Yes, they had to have one to survive (few ancient armies anywhere could succeed without any cavalry arm), but it was manned almost entirely by people outside their civilization, and the raw materials (horses for cavalry, wood for navy) came almost entirely from the outside, and neither were very good at it.

[Transcend]

You certainly are very knowledgeable, Harlan. But why should I bother with ethnic compositions of the Chinese military? If these people were integrated into the Chinese army, then why shouldn't they be considered Chinese? That was exactly what made China such a long lasting civilization: tolerance for other races and willingness to assimilate them. Anyone who adapted to Chinese culture or joined Chinese cause was considered one. No wonder European nations remained small to these days: they are too intolerant against outsiders and view the "Blood" as too important.

As for wall-building efforts, all strong dynasties didn't build walls while the weaker ones certainly did. There were actually only two main wall-building periods: pre 145BC and Ming era. During most of the Hand and Tang Dynasties walls weren't needed because they lorded over steppe people. Ming was extremely isolationist and doomed due to both internal and Manchurian pressures. The last dynasty, Qing, specifically let the walls decline because it represented weakness.

[fred]

One thing I find that contrasts your arguement is that the first Qin emperor was barried with his terracotta chariots and calvary. that was 208 bc. That contridicts some information you might pose. Also taking to acount he was from Shanxi province\kingdom which was surrounded by other chinese kingdoms, yet had horses. I also find it unlikely the Emperor would barry himself with mercenaries. So I am lead to believe that the Emperor did have chinese horse divisions in his actual army. This also means the Emperor used chinese calvary to take over all of China. Which also means Chinese could use horses effectively without needing mercenaries.

Also the silk road and contact with the Middle East had not been established. Yes they knew of each other but trade between the two was not supported.

Then even if mercenary style troops were employed by Chinese Emperors, does that not make them Chinese units?
Persians used the same thing, very few units in the Persian army were actually Persian, but they did make up the Persian Army. And it is looked back upon as the Persian army. So if Chinese conquest gave them heavly armed horses and were used by the chinese army, I see them as a chinese unit.

Then the "Chinese" use of the units. Yes you can have a unit made of mecenaries but who is in control, who marshals the troops? Chinese people. It takes chinese generals to use the units to effectiveness (Which is shown by chinese conquest, and size of the empire).

[Harlan]

"But why should I bother with ethnic compositions of the Chinese military?"

A. Their presence was always fleeting and undependable. There wasn't a regular system, comparable to say, what the Byzantines set up for several hundred years to have a Varangian Guard made up of Vikings. Sometimes there would be a strong (non-ethnically Chinese) cavalry, most of the times not. Because of this ebb and flow of fortunes, North China was successfully invaded alot.

B. Not being Chinese, they were undependable and prone to rebellion. Most dynasties were playing with fire, having to rotate troops and generals constantly before any group could coalesce and march on the capital. The Romans faced a similar problem in their late empire phase with a largely barbarian army. Even when rebellion was avoided, this system kept the military weaker than it otherwise would have been, and tended to break up dynasties into warlordism (as with the late Romans).

C. When ruled by ethnically Chinese generals who usually didn't understand nomadic ways and didn't personally head the troops in battle, and being intergrated into the Chinese military, man for man even the barbarian Chinese cavalry wasn't as good as the real barbarian cavalries they were facing.

D. You're only talking about one border, although the most important one. On other fronts and in internal wars, cavalry had a much reduced role compared to most armies elsewhere in the world (again, with a few barbarian importation exceptions). It was sheer folly to use cavalry in the many wars in the jungles of Vietnam, for instance.

In a perfect Civ3 world, the game would have a mercenary or bribe feature (Civ2 had a crude form of this, so lets hope Civ3 betters that). The game would also have the Turks and Mongols as civs. Then the Chinese could bribe their special units repeatedly to keep up their defense. The Chinese could then have a more appropriate unique unit of its own, like the Crossbowman (which, BTW, is their Age of Kings unit. That game seems to have a more sensible selection of unique units than Civ3 so far).

Regarding walls, the Sui and Jin dynasties also built extensive wall systems. The Han didn't need to build walls because the Chin dynasty had conveniently built very extensive ones only a year or two before the start of the Han. They were mostly on the defensive for the first half of the Han, and those walls came in handy. The costs of defeating the barbarians in the second half is considered a major reason why the dynasty fell, because it emptied out the treasury.

[Ralf]

Originally posted by TechWins
It requires you to now build units in all ages because if you try to skip an age of units in building then you will be a giant disadvantage. Before in Civ2 you could build your ancient units and they would be sufficient enough until the Renaissance or Industrial age of units that you wouldn't have to build any Middle Ages units. Having a big spread in power between ages will force you to build units in all ages, if you want to be succesful of course.

Good point. I didnt thought about that.

If a Rider can move 3 then most likely a tank will be able to move something around 5. Then artillery will also have it's powers increased.

Tanks moves as fast as racing horses - around 70 Kmh (45 mph). I think the move-rate for tanks should remain 3, max 4. Also, a general speed-increase of slower modern land-units should only come along with the discovery of mech-infantry (then troops/equipment is mostly transported/towed with petrol-engined vehicles). This would make the introduction of mech-Infantry more powerful and worthwhile then it was in Civ-2.

Also, I hope modern railroads should give ALL land-units a fixed, but editable move-range per turn of lets say 12 squares, but without move-point costs. No more infinite RR:s.

[Bleyn]

Originally posted by Ralf

Tanks moves as fast as racing horses - around 70 Kmh (45 mph). I think the move-rate for tanks should remain 3, max 4. Also, a general speed-increase of slower modern land-units should only come along with the discovery of mech-infantry (then troops/equipment is mostly transported/towed with petrol-engined vehicles). This would make the introduction of mech-Infantry more powerful and worthwhile then it was in Civ-2.

Ah, yes. Tanks do move as fast as racing horses. But there is a difference between a tank and a racing horse. The difference is that a tank can sustain reasonably high speeds for hours at a time. And to me, the measure of the speed of a unit should be based at least in part on its ability for sustained speed of advance, not just the top burst speed.

In fact, the only real limitation on the sustained speed of advance of the tank/mech infantry is how well the fuel portion of the supply line can be sustained. And when a tank needs fueling, a few minutes at a fuel bowser, and its ready to go again. Yes, it might take several hours to cycle an entire Armored Cav Regiment through a refueling evolution, but a good ACR will know how to do it efficently and with minimal impact on the speed of advance.

A horse on the other hand can not to my knowledge sustain its fastest speeds for more than a time most likely measured in minutes, not hours. (I would be happy to be corrected on this by a horse-knowledgeable person). And when a horse has reached its limits, and is blown(as the grognards would call it), that horse has to be handled properly or its dead. And so far as I know, it can take a fair amount of time to walk and run down a blown horse, and it may even be a day or two afterwards before they are really usable again in battle. Which is why horse-cavalry had to have at least 2-3 horses per rider. Without remounts, cavalry had to be husbanded carefully in a long battle. Sure they can ride at slower speeds for hours at a time, but I would be surprised if those speeds are anywhere near what modern mechanized units can sustain. And as for the horse's down time for "refueling" and rest, I'm sure they are longer also.

I will admit however, that one thing I hope not to see is a Panzer with a higher movement rate than the standard tank. Yes, their attack rate and defense rates should be higher, at least compared to the tanks they were fighting against. (We won't try comparing the WW2 Panzer to a modern M1A2. The M1A2 would spank on the Panzer every time) The Panzers were better armed, and better armored. But when it came to maintainability, they stank. They were over-engineered, expensive to build, and took forever to repair. When an Allied tank broke down the crew could often repair it in a couple hours. When a Panzer broke down it typically had to be pulled off the line and might be down for a couple days. So they really shouldn't get any sort of movement bonus, and in fact they should probably also cost more to build.

[Ralf]

Originally posted by Bleyn
But there is a difference between a tank and a racing horse. The difference is that a tank can sustain reasonably high speeds for hours at a time. And to me, the measure of the speed of a unit should be based at least in part on its ability for sustained speed of advance, not just the top burst speed.

Hmm. OK, I see your point. I just dont want them go over the top with those land-unit move-radiuses. It can easily become inflationary. Remember that everything gets multiplicated with 3 on roads. Also, AI-units cannot "see" beyond its closest surrounded squares very far. The human player generally have a huge tactical battlefield-overview advantage, and too generous move-radiuses, easily becomes very HP attack-beneficially onesided - especially in turnbased games. The latter is also one of the reasons why I also dislike the idea of infinite moves along railroads. I dont care about the "1 turn = 1 year" argument - its only a passive timeline backdrop anyway.

[Fiil]

I completely agree with Ralf!

Giving modern units 5 or so moves makes the map a giant chess board. The AIs in civ2 weren't ready for that.

This will make the ground battles much like naval battles in civ2. You won't see the enemy until he hits you, and if he is lucky and knocks out your first line of defense, he will have enough moves to attack artillery and other weak spots.
In Civ3 you will need more defenders in your cities, and several lines of defensiv units ahead of your artillery when you march upon an enemy empire.

I hope workers will be able to contruct watchtowers or your armies will have scouts (not the unit) send further in advance, to tell were the enemy is hiding (giving it a better 'sight'-radius)!

[Sun Zi 36]

YefeiPi and Hralan: If you don't like the rider, what unit do u suggest?

What I don't like about the rider is that it doesn't symbolise the Chinese as much as the other ones. Egyptians: war chariots, Babylonian: bowman and Greeks: hoplite all correlate better than Chinese: rider.

Another reason I don't think the rider is good for the Chinese is that they might make the Chinese more expansionist than should be. Even though it probably couldn't defeat enemies in city, they could comfortably wipe out units outside cities and comfortably surround the cities with riders or cut off resources.

And once the Chinese acquired the rider, they might probably only mostly build riders, unless there are other units in the same period which has def 4 or more in civ3. The effect of this might be pretty ungly.

So I probably might customize this but I don't know what unit I should change to. Any suggestions?

[Fiera]

Harlan already suggested the crossbowman. I agree with him.

[Transcend]

For Harlan. Where did you get the source that the majority of Chinese cavalry force were of ethnic minorities or immigrants? Did you get it from multiple sources or just a single one?
Your assumption that immigrants must be less reliable and more rebellious sounds a little racist to me. Do you have any examples beside An Lushan's rebellion?

As for the comparison of speed between horses and tanks, here are actual numbers. Horses have a maximum speed of 25 meters/second, translating into 90 km/h. With armor and rider, I doubt horses can go faster than 50 km/h. Cavalry charges probably lie around 30 km/h and 40 km/h. But the traveling speed of horses is not much faster than walking. 10 km/h to 15 km/h would be a reasonable estimation. In WWII, Panzer Kpfw IV(the backbone of German tank forces) had a maximum road speed of 38 km/h and maximum cross-country speed of 16 km/h. Its operating range was 210km on road and 130km on rough terrains. Thus the early tanks had no real speed advantage over horses in combat, but would travel faster. Since tanks are notoriously high maintainance, repair, refitting, and refueling time must be further added.

Modern Tanks are actually so advanced that their cross-country and road speed difference are greatly reduced. M1A2 has a maximum road speed of 72 km/h(with speed limiter built in) and cross-country speed of 48 km/h. It has an operating range between 450 and 500 km. We can safely conclude that M1A2 shows 2x improvement over Panzer IV in any mobility category.

I would place early tanks at speed of 3 and later tanks at 5. Remember, most cavalry still has the movement of 2.