POLL: Is the Horseman/Cavalry-Rush too easy?

[bloodysmurf]

I just recently tried out the Horseman-Rush strategy (coupled with Tech-brokering) in a couple of games, and IMO it worked too well . I absolutely clobbered my opponents both times (on Monarchy), and it was so easy that it wasn't any fun . I'm hoping that it'll prove more of a challenge at higher difficulty levels, but regardless, it seems that horsemen/mounted warriors/cavalry are FAR too powerful... I'm really hoping that Firaxis will correct this imbalance in a future patch. Between the ability to retreat (which it far too powerful), the relatively low unit cost, and the rapid movement, these units far outclass any others of their age. I'm hoping that future patches will raise the cost of these units, and address other imbalances such as the impotence of naval units and the overpowered tech-brokering.

-ollie-

[Dis]

yep

and I had to vote the first one. I have tried swordmen rushes and such. They can be marginally effective. But not nearly as effective as mounted units because of their retreat ability.

I like my suggestion a few weeks ago. Make it only a 25 or 50% chance of successful retreat. As it is now, you only lose about 10% of your mounted units when rolling over the ai.

[player1]

While in ancient are swodmen units are alternative in medivial & later ages horse units don't have any kind of alternative.
Best attack, quick movment.


If you ask me:
Disabling retreat for attacking walled and 7+ pop cities would make them more realistic.

[player1]

Making footmen units more powerfull ofensively could be usefull.
Also making them cheaper.

Like:
Musketmen: 3-4-1 (cost 50)
Rilemen: 5-6-1 (cost 60)
Infantry: 8-10-1 (cost 70)
Marine: 10-8-1 (cost 80)

[Spatzimaus]

While I agree that mounted units are necessary, I don't think it's because of their retreat ability. To understand what I mean, you need to play the Chinese (unique unit: Rider, 4/3/3 Knight replacement).

The problem is that the AI won't just start wars for the heck of it, and when he does, he uses a general "push on all fronts" strategy.

I start wars when I want a piece of terrain, a resource, more cities, whatever. In fact, it's pretty much become an established strategy that thanks to the Forbidden Palace, the "optimal" move is to attack your nearest neighbor, wipe him out, and use your first Leader to build the FP in his capital to double your infrastructure.

But the AI rarely starts a war. I was playing Huge Earth (16 players) on Regent, and early on made contact with everyone. In the ENTIRE GAME, up until I won in 1940 (Domination), there had been a grand total of eight wars. Six of which I started (four of which ended with a civ being wiped out), and in the other two a grand total of 3 cities changed hands. Simply put, the AI needs to be more aggressive.

When I start a war, it's almost always over within a few turns, because I go straight for his cities. My mounted units (all of whom move 3 until Tanks) can go from my side of the border in, to hit his cities in one shot; the second wave bypasses and does the same to the next city. Any units he has that aren't in cities are marooned inside my road network, to be picked apart by my support wave. I can afford to lose units, because by the time they'd be healed the war would be over. In the later game, I bring along workers to run railroad lines into the new cities before I've even moved the second wave in.

The AI, on the other hand, makes large numbers of archers, swordsmen, and catapults/cannons, and attempts to attack me down the entire length of my border, taking the time to destroy roads along the way (which he'd eventually have to rebuild anyway, and only serve to hinder his reinforcements if he takes a city). How can I NOT win?

When I start a war, I have a small military until 10 turns before the war kicks off, at which point I switch every city to military production, and move all the produced units to front-line cities. The AI, on the other hand, builds units when it should be making infrastructure, and never seems to build up for offensive actions until war has already been declared.

[player1]

Also important thing:

Crossing a border should be A FULL TURN ACTION.

[Quokka]

I think that the Retreat ability is too strong in this game. If you don't have any fast movers of your own it is damn near impossible to kill any units. They should only be able to Retreat on either attack or defense but not both.
A more viable option would be to give Fast Movers another attack option called Harrass or Skirmish. This means that they attack until they lose two hitpoints and then they retreat. They could alternatively launch a full scale attack but would not be able to retreat.
Cavalry and Knights were never the meat of armies they were always relegated to some sort of support or shock troop role, they were too few and expensive to be the only elements involved. This better represents there role in warfare than their present incarnation in Civ3.

[Velociryx]

Had to vote for the second of your options. As with Civ1 and Civ2, the AI simply cannot cope with a full-on rush. This reduces the game to a slow motion version of most RTS games on the market. There's no strategy to that....build a handful of cities, pop-rush a wad of units, and mow down the AI....repeat till no one is left standing.

The AI can't, or won't pop-rush extensively, and even on the higher levels of play they've generally got their forces spread out along a wide front....they simply can't get it together fast enough to respond.

Swordsman rush works nearly as well but requires more patience and a few more replacements than does the horseman rush under the current withdrawl rules. Still, you go in, raid a border town, hole up there and wait for the predicted counter attack, and as soon as the (foot-based) AI army is in range, your healed up swordsmen blast them off the map. Works out especially well if you target a city on the plains, so you can limit his access to good, defensible terrain.

Once you whack the counter attack, just roll on thru....

-=Vel=-

[Comrade Tribune]

Originally posted by Velociryx
This reduces the game to a slow motion version of most RTS games on the market. There's no strategy to that....build a handful of cities, pop-rush a wad of units, and mow down the AI....repeat till no one is left standing.
-=Vel=-

This is exactly my #1 problem with the game. I would but add that:
1) With RTS games, Rushing is a legitimate strategy, and can be countered.
2) With good RTS games, Rushing with just one unit type is usually not possible. You need at least a combination of units.
3) Even then it is not near as easy to rush the AI in an RTS, because it builds towers etc. On highest difficulty, one must be pretty good to rush successfully, and it is not necessarily easier than Booming.
4) Also, in some RTS games, the AI WILL try to rush you.

Compare that to CivIII, where you can rush with just Cavalry, without much skill involved, and the AI rarely attacks early and dangerously. I think comparing CivIII to the best RTS games would be unfair to the latter.

[Whoha]

The idea that crossing the boarder should be a full turn event is already implemented, though you have to work for it. forests.

Now not being able to use roads was not thought out imo. You the player should similarly have to undertake an effort to place obstacles and mines or whatever on the roads that only your forces know about to prevent their use by an enemy, as opposed to the current setup.

I doubt the cav rush will pan out in mp(which is the only place it matters, if you dont like cav rushes then dont do them).
since its doubtful a game will last this long in the first place and the cavalry will outpace all defenders, so a counter attack by Knights has a good chance of suceeding(since its 4a vs 3d and a player should atleast have knights by the time cav show up...).

[DilithiumDad]

Things that balance the cavalry rush are riflemen in size 7 cities, rilfemen on mountains, effective counterattacks by the AI etc. Forcing a move into an attacked square assures that you will lose some units. Also, not being able to use enemy roads is a brake on rush tactics. Finally, there is reversion and cultural counterattack which is increasingly effective the closer you approach the enemy capital. Add to that the fact that captured cities are worthless to you because of corruption --in fact they are worse than useless because having too many cities messes them all up. On lower levels where you are ahead in tech I agree, it is too easy, but on higher levels where you are behind and they start making cavalry before you do it is fairly balanced.

[Trifna]

I say that the problem isn't necessarily that it's easy, but that it's easy when it was not like this in reality, thus non-sense.

[Hurry]

I agree with player1 and Dissident: remove the 100% retreat capability. No retreats when attacking walled cities and >7 size cities, and 50% in other cases. This makes fast units great for clearing the road to a city, but not any better than infantry attacking it. This way a good combination of horsemen and swordsmen would be vital.

[Atahualpa]

That is true! Retreat is too powerful!

Russians took one of my cities with cavalry. I had about 3-4 infantry stationed in and would have surely defeated half his cavalry force if only they would not have retreated. So I have defeated only 2 or 3 that was when my infantry was down to 1 health and the cavalry didnt retreat, but wanted to finish me of.

ata

[Dry]

The possibility to retreat all 2+ MP units too powerfull.

Why not having based the retreat possibility on battlefield experience? Looks more logical to me.
A green force will more likely flee into panic, and thus be slaughtered than a veteran one, retreating in good order.
So, here are my 2 cents proposals:

prop1(retreat possibility depends only on battlefield experience):
Elite: 100% retreat possibility, as it is now for 2+ MP units
Veteran: 50% retreat poss (or only for 2+ MP units).

prop2 (retreat possibility depends also on exp of enemy):
delta = | attExpLevel - defExpLevel |
if delta > 1 : retreat possible for most experienced troop
if delta = 1 : retreat poss. for most experienced unit only if it has also more MP
if delta = 0 no retreat poss.

[Trifna]

The system in itself of regeneration of units is not correct. By that way you're able to attack, but your dead people... regenerate!!!

[David Murray]

Please, not all of us are expert players.

Don't fiddle with every single strategy that is proven to work. The end result will be alienation of the "non-expert" players (like me).

[Velociryx]

I can totally sympathize, David, however, what I'm *hoping* is that by reining in the power of the nearly immortal mounted units, it'll prompt more combined arms forces.....:: crossing fingers::

-=Vel=-

[Dry]

Originally posted by Trifna
The system in itself of regeneration of units is not correct.

You mean the system of free regeneration.
, what about regeneration, but that cost something... I mean cost more than simply time.
What about... it cost you experience level.
You lose as much experience as half (fru? ... frd?) your wounds with a lower limit to conscript.
But then, elites will be very, very, very rare...
... need more thinking...

[Quokka]

I don't think that the regeneration is too out of whack. I take the HP total as a measure of combat effectiveness rather than a measure of alive/dead. Not all of the damage a unit takes in battle is lethal, there are many other possibilites too. For example horses could go lame after hard riding during an attack, Infantry could be shot in the arm, a tank can throw a track. With a little R&R all of these can be fixed pretty easily, which I think is pretty well represented by the skipping a move option. In warfare the actual number of people killed is much smaller than the total wounded and equipment breakage.
If the experience was done better I would agree with the losing of experience levels when a unit was damaged badly. A unit should lose a level whenever it is reduced to 1hp unless it was against a unit it had never fought before or a city. That is a type of experience too, now it knows how to fight against that type of unit. But that would require a massive overhaul of the combet system. As it is Elite is nothing very special at all so keeping it is no great disadvantage, it still has to stop and heal for at least as long or longer than other units to retain the hp advantage.

[Zachriel]

Originally posted by Atahualpa
That is true! Retreat is too powerful!

Russians took one of my cities with cavalry. I had about 3-4 infantry stationed in and would have surely defeated half his cavalry force if only they would not have retreated. So I have defeated only 2 or 3 that was when my infantry was down to 1 health and the cavalry didnt retreat, but wanted to finish me of.

ata

You should have used your cavalry to destroy his weakened units.

[Arrian]

I think, before changing a big part of the game (retreat), we might want to see if Soren can manage to enduce the AI to build barracks (vet units) and upgrade its units. THEN evaluate the power of mounted units, which may still be too powerful and need balancing. I'm just concerned that the 2-move troops will be hamstrung... and the pendulum will swing too far.

-Arrian

[Spatzimaus]

I had an epiphany.

This whole debate could be solved by one simple feature: an ADD button on the Unit tab of the editor.

You see, the thing that really kills the Knight rush, in my experience, is the Impi. Until Mechanized infantry it's the only mobile defender (Def>Att and Move>1) in the game. Attacking the Zulus with any Knight-level unit is just asking for trouble, since you can't retreat.

So, here's what I'd like to see; have all land units fall into one of the following categories.
Partisans: moderate in all categories, cheap and no resource (mentioned in other threads)
Defensive Infantry: high defense, low move (Spearman, Pikeman, Musketman, Rifleman, Infantry, MechInfantry)
Skirmishers: good defense, high move (Chariot (Impi would replace), then a few new units along the way.)
Attacking Infantry: good attack, moderate defense, low move (Swordsman, (insert a new one here), Marine)
Fire Support: high attack, low defense, low move (Archers, Longbowmen, Sniper?)
Cavalry: good attack, moderate defense, high move (Horsemen, Knight, Cavalry, Tank, Modern Armor)

See, the problem with the cavalry rush is twofold. One, there are no other good slow attacking units, since Swordsmen don't upgrade to anything and archer-types are too fragile. Second, there aren't enough defensive units that can counter retreat.
Adding more units in these two categories would help tremendously. The Partisans thing is just something I'd also add if I had the chance.

[Arrian]

Yes, it might just be that simple. A defender with 2 moves and a 4-6 defense would end the Cavalry rush pretty effectively - but only if the AI built them (and upgraded to them). Also... what middle ages/industrial "skirmisher" would you create? From a gameplay standpoint, your idea might solve the problem, although I would worry about the power of such a unit used to pillage behind enemy lines.

However, it just makes more sense, to me, to lower the % chance of retreat. Historically (yes, though I care more about balance and gameplay, I have a history degree and therefore do have bouts of "damnit, that just doesn't jive with history") pikemen did awful things to a mounted charge. Pikemen should be the defender in the middle ages, but knights shouldn't be able to run away every time. Cav should be put on the same tech level as riflemen, not musketmen, and both musketmen & riflemen should be slightly cheaper to build.

I like a lot of the ideas to re-balance the units... but I think that messing around with the units is premature - UNLESS there is no intention on the part of Firaxis to patch the AI's upgrade problems & failure to build barracks in enough cities. Soren, I hope you see the problem that I see and are trying to fix it. Once the AI is using the proper units, we can properly balance them.

-Arrian

[Atahualpa]

Originally posted by Zachriel


You should have used your cavalry to destroy his weakened units.

That was my only city on this continent and he took my city in one turn
no chance to destroy his cav
besides he had railroads so he could perfectly bring his wounded cav to his cities where I had no chance of defeating them

ata

[Zachriel]

Originally posted by Atahualpa
That was my only city on this continent and he took my city in one turn
no chance to destroy his cav
besides he had railroads so he could perfectly bring his wounded cav to his cities where I had no chance of defeating them
ata

If he took your city in one turn, then the retreat function had no effect on the outcome. ?

[Quokka]

Is there anyway with the existing editor to give the gun bearing troops ZOC(simulated range)? What I am thinking is if there is a way to have the contested square count as the start square for the retreat then any unit with ZOC would have a chance to kill the retreating unit. Then sometimes they would be able to retreat and sometimes they would get shot trying. Fairer to both that way.
Also had an idea for a swordsman upgrade. Turn them into Palace Guards in the Industrial Age. When Infantry become available (Replacable Parts) swordsmen really lose all chance of being effective assault troops. Keep the same stats but get a new uniform and abilities. They now make one person happy and increase revenues for the city they are in. They become Ceremonial type troops, think Swiss guards at the Vatican or Buckingham Palace Guards or Scots Pipers. Events such as Changing of the guards, Colour Parties and Bands for Parades and Tattoos generate extra happiness and Tourism(tax). Rather than straight tax % increase have them generate 1 gold per turn instead of costing 1. Have the gold feed directly into the treasury so that its not lost to the host cities corruption.

[Atahualpa]

Originally posted by Zachriel

If he took your city in one turn, then the retreat function had no effect on the outcome. ?

sure it had
just think:
First Cav comes gets _destroyed_ by my infantry
Second Cav comes gets _destroyed_
....
Finally my city taken THOUGH he suffered heavy casaulties

but it was like this:
First Cav came and retreated
Second Cav came and retreated
...
Finally my city taken AND virtually no casaulties on his side!!!


I think that makes a difference.

ata

[WesW]

Does anyone know for sure what the mounted flag does? I thought it was what activated the retreat option.

A good solution would be a flag which give a 50% bonus against mounted units, which civ 2 had, and a flag which gives a 50% penalty when attacking cities, which Ctp2 had but did not work (the Ctp series had so many great concepts, too bad that more didn't work).

A Medpack II concept which I am proud of is that healing units now costs production, based upon the initial cost of the unit. Thus, no more "regeneration."

[Dry]

Originally posted by WesW
Does anyone know for sure what the mounted flag does?

Not sure, but I think it is only for MP cost/move allowance in some terrain.
Mouted units spend 3 MP in jungles, units on foot only 1 or 2. Maybe someone who already played with the samurai could tell us.
Mounted units are allowed to move into mountain squares, chariots not.