18-12-2004 21:03									#1
	PBEM Mod: Cavalry Avatar Enlargement: We've got the solution

This thread is intended to discuss the Cavalry unit (and related units, Cossack and Sipahi).

History: Many feel the Cavalry unit is the single most unbalancing unit in the game, allowing someone with this unit to run roughshod over everyone - regardless of if they have cavalry or not - as it ushers in an era of Offensive Superiority, not closed until at least Nationalism. In a PBEM, this essentially guarantees the game is over shortly after the discovery of Cavalry, as there is strong incentive to attack... and forces you to research straight to Military Tactics.

Problems: The Offensive value of Cavalry - 6 - combined with the move points - 3 - give it huge advantages; you can generally strike with Cavalry within one turn from one city to the next, conceivably ending a war before it starts. It also makes all other offensive units of the time essentially worthless - who would want to attack with a 4/2/1 MI that can barely make it to the front; and the Cannon also can't be of much help when the 6/3/3 cavalry goes way out ahead.

Specifically: Offensive value and speed, for cost, makes Cavalry far superior to any other unit.

Numbers: Cavalry's 6/3/3 compares to likely defensive units Musketeer 2/4/1; to other offensive units 4/3/2 (knight) or 4/2/1 (MI); costs 80 shields compared to 70 for night, musket man 60 shields, 40 shields for the Medieval Infantry.

Possible fixes:
1. Weaken Cavalry, like in AU mod - to 5/3/3
2. Strengthen other units, or add a MI-like foot unit
3. Slow down Cavalry, to 6/3/2
4. Make Cavalry more expensive, or other units less so

	18-12-2004 21:17									#2
	Tired of ads?

One fix that could be preferable would be to make Education a prerequisite for Chemistry. This would prevent the "beeline to Military Tradition" problem without changing much else. It generally help guarantee that everyone who isn't hopelessly behind anyway to not only have Gunpowder but to likely have a fair number of Musketmen. Also it would help ensure that Riflemen will not be far off when the first person grabs MT. Asuming a well-played and balanced game, it would be hard for one person to gain MT and upgrade/build a force quickly enough to strike against Muskets, unless all players are going for MT too. You could even make Metallurgy an optional tech, for that matter. This could make the strategic choices even more interesting.

	18-12-2004 21:29									#3
	Full PM-box? Change here!

My thoughts:

Cavalry ushers in a short period where Offense rules. I'm not sure this is a bad thing. Prior to that, offense sucked; 4/3/2 knights against at best 1/3/1 pikemen and more likely 2/4/1 musketmen? The last time Offense had a decent shot was Swordsmen ...

And, PBEM needs a period in which you can build fast moving, strong offensive units - to break the tedium of not-attacking. Combat in PBEM is very different from SP; I agree with changing the Cavalry for SP purposes, as the AI doesn't play well against cavalry and doesn't build them enough. However, all humans are smart enough to build cavalry themselves, and combat in PBEM typically strongly favors the defender anyway, regardless of numbers. (See the Rise of Rome conquest PBEM i'm playing- for example - where 5/2/2 heavy cavs should be slaughtering cities defended with garrisons 1/3/1, but I have yet to take a single Roman city (as Macedon) excepting one that was a combat-settler built city and not well defended. This means the game is nearly a stalemate - we are fighting, but only a couple of units here and there. A 6/2/2 unit would make a difference - and a 6/3/3 unit even more so - in allowing either of us (or both) to "break out" and do some damage.

I think that, in PBEM, since everyone knows of the Cav advantage, it's not necessarily a problem in the same way it is in AU - so I'd prefer personally not to change it, at least on offense.

If you're going to fix anything, make Cav a 6/3/2, cutting down the more objectionable part of the Cav - how fast it can travel. Not sure cavalry should move as fast as Tanks ... albeit tanks can move pretty slowly at times, overall they are faster for longer periods of time.

It would also give an increase in the use of Combined Arms - more reason to use other units than just Cavalry...

	18-12-2004 21:38									#4
	Lose 30 kilos (of popups)

quote: Originally posted by punkbass2000 One fix that could be preferable would be to make Education a prerequisite for Chemistry. This would prevent the "beeline to Military Tradition" problem without changing much else. It generally help guarantee that everyone who isn't hopelessly behind anyway to not only have Gunpowder but to likely have a fair number of Musketmen. Also it would help ensure that Riflemen will not be far off when the first person grabs MT. Asuming a well-played and balanced game, it would be hard for one person to gain MT and upgrade/build a force quickly enough to strike against Muskets, unless all players are going for MT too. You could even make Metallurgy an optional tech, for that matter. This could make the strategic choices even more interesting.

Metallurgy an optional tech I agree with definitely.

Education, however, I don't ... The way the tech tree is drawn is to allow players to make a fundamental choice early on: Balanced tech, military tech, or civ-growing tech? They're all drawn like that, to allow you to focus more on military tech if you want to, without requiring you to go down both parts of the tree at the same time. Of course you have to eventually, but not at first. Education -> Chemistry would kill that - forcing you to take only one path, really, down the tech tree.

As it stands you can take two paths - the top path is not to be laughed at, giving you some of the great wonders - Sistine Chapel, JS Bach, etc. - and giving you Education itself, which kills a bunch of wonders and gives you Unis which helps a lot in tech races. Anyone who beelines for MT is making a tradeoff - a weaker civ culturally for a stronger civ militarily. I like that "choice". Perhaps slightly discourage beelining to MT- more expensive techs and/or metallurgy being optional would do that - but no reason to eliminate a strategic option ...

	18-12-2004 22:50									#5
	Get a bigger avatar today!

quote: Originally posted by snoopy369 Metallurgy an optional tech I agree with definitely.

I don't agree with this - you definitely need metallurgy as a civ in order to build railroads, factories, etc. Seems like it would be too unrealistic.

At first glance I like the idea of education as a prereq, but Snoopy makes a good point about the choice that the MA presents. It just so happened in history that US/western europe went through renaissance/enlightenment (top track of MA tech tree) and then cavalry really came into its own in 1800s (finishing bottom half of tree). It could have happened differently, and there is no a priori reason why eduation, etc should be required for cavalry. It might be a neat idea to make education required for military academy though, which makes some sense...

but does not answer the unbalancing nature of cavs. It seems like cavs should move more than knights but less than tanks. So probably 6/2/2 is more fair; however, could there be some sort of bonus, ie if moving through two completely flat, roaded territory (yours or enemy), you can take a third bonus movement if that also goes to completely flat roaded territory? Not sure if this is not too complex or even possible in the mod.

	18-12-2004 23:52									#6
	Lose 30 kilos (of popups)

The defensive cut to 2 is pretty meaningless imo - unless you're trying to encourage defensive units being brought with, which could be useful and beneficial.

In terms of Metallurgy, I don't believe 'realism' is ever something to be aimed for, or worried about too much. I don't consider Civ a realistic game in any manner. I'd always sacrifice realism for gameplay.

Look at Nationalism, for example. It's a "non-required" tech - but obviously very important in the real world for development of the country. Also, Literature; and look at AU Mod, which in a similar reasoning made Philosophy non-required to discourage people going down that line...