Horseman: Over-nerfed?

[Zhenon]

I'm having a lot of trouble finding uses for Horsemen these days. Let's take a look at the original Horseman versus the patched Horseman. Then I'd like to discuss the game-play of the Horseman unit post-patch.

Original Horseman:
Requires Horse Resource
80 Hammers
12 Combat Strength
No defensive bonuses, can move after
attacking

Patched Horseman:
Requires Horse Resource
80 Hammers
10 Combat Strength
No defensive bonuses, can move after
attacking, Penalty Attacking Cities -33%

The Horseman is effectively nerfed twice: both the decreased "Combat Strength" and a "City Attacking Penalty." This forces the game to put more emphasis on the Swordsman and the Iron resource. The Horseman isn't effective at taking cities, nor can he defeat the Spearman or Swordsman in a 1v1 fight. So what can he fight? Workers, Settlers, Warriors, and Scouts. The way the tech tree is set up, a player will always go for Iron Working before Horseback Riding. So what good is a Horseman these days?

Possible Solutions:
1. Decrease the beaker cost of Horseback Riding.
2. Increase Horseman "Combat Strength" to 11.
3. Increase Effectiveness of Horsemen versus Swordsmen. (i.e. +25% bonus versus Swordsman?)
4. Increase movement of Horseman from 4 to 5.
5. Lower the cost of the Horseman.

I don't think more than two of these possible solutions should be implemented, or we are right back where we started pre-patch.

Any other thoughts or ideas?

[Bantams]

Just edit the XML files and fix it ya self

[Faceplunger]

Just edit the XML files and fix it ya self

That's not a solution for people who want to play competitively or multiplayer.

My solution would be to change spearmen/pikemen bonus to 70% (effectively making them 12/17 against mounted units). They really don't need that big of a bonus anymore. Maybe get mounted units a bonus to units in open terrain like samurai, or maybe double flanking bonus?

[Taciturn Scot]

Okay, for the sake of discussion, I'm going to stick my neck out and ask, were horsemen really that influential in the classical era? The impression I get from my very limited knowledge of pre-Roman warfare is that, special units aside, they were not as powerful as they would become upon the invention of the stirrup and that was the age of the spearman/swordsman. I'm happy with the double nerf, especially against cities. That seems to be a very sensible nerf to my mind.

[mwallyn]

Okay, for the sake of discussion, I'm going to stick my neck out and ask, were horsemen really that influential in the classical era?

A reasonable claim, but then what's the point of including it then? This is still a game, so including unnecessary fluff is just that; unnecessary.

Doing a bit of research, horsemen were not very common early on in the west (sans Macedonia), but horsemen in the East were fairly prevalent. Although a great deal of the earliest horsemen were nomadic (and none nearly as famous as the Companion Cavalry), they actually had a significant tactical advantage over the armies that fielded footsoldiers almost exclusively. The main reason why horsemen were never implemented on a larger scale is simply because good horses were hard to come by in the west. What this means in gameplay terms is that horsemen should be more expensive, but in turn should be stronger and be faster given how effective they were against their contemporary units.

[NitroPhantasm]

Yep. Horses are overnerfed. Not worth all the extra steps to make em and get the bonuses.

[Sombra]

They are overnerfed. They are worthless right now. Worse people dont even have to decide if they can "risk" researching iron making first or even beeline to longswordman. Before the nerf you had to think about a human player trying a horseman rush and prepare yourself. now you will see always swordman and longsword rushes. horses are not used anymore.

[Taciturn Scot]

I use them because they're so fast and can really whizz around within my Empire and they're great for taking out Archers in particular. I don't expect great things from them for the reason I touched on above unless they're Unique Units. By the time you get to Knights, I expect them to have a bit more Oomph!

[jacypr]

The Horseman is effectively nerfed twice: both the decreased "Combat Strength" and a "City Attacking Penalty." This forces the game to put more emphasis on the Swordsman and the Iron resource. The Horseman isn't effective at taking cities, nor can he defeat the Spearman or Swordsman in a 1v1 fight. So what can he fight? Workers, Settlers, Warriors, and Scouts. The way the tech tree is set up, a player will always go for Iron Working before Horseback Riding. So what good is a Horseman these days?

Sorry but your post implies that you don't know how to use horses properly.

The main strengh about any light mounted unit is alway mobility. It's the high mobility that gives the horses advantage in battlefield. If you only use horses on 1x1 situations, then you're doing it wrong. Horses are great for flanking your opponent (yes, you can flank them and receive bonuses for it, for both the horsemen and the other unit flanking your enemy) and are not meant to be used alone as the only type of unit you have. Also they can attack and move, which is a unique ability that can save you several turns of rebuilding your army. If you attack with your horses and stand still, then you're, once again, doing it wrong.

Horses along history were used considering their mobility to engage in the flanks with speed charges during the confusion of engaged infantry or retreats, to liquidate the enemy, cos if you had a battlefield full of horses and the defending forces knew it, it would be a massacre in the horses side.

I think the only thing missing for them is a "charge" bonus when they attack on grassland.

Besides that, the horsemen are fine. I know that I'm safe in a game when I build my first 2 horsemen. Then it's a matter of time until victory, no matter what victory I chose.

[NitroPhantasm]

I use them because they're so fast and can really whizz around within my Empire and they're great for taking out Archers in particular. I don't expect great things from them for the reason I touched on above unless they're Unique Units. By the time you get to Knights, I expect them to have a bit more Oomph!

They're good scouts early game. true.

[Omuth]

Also good and charging down ranged units... I still use them.

[Zhenon]

Okay, for the sake of discussion, I'm going to stick my neck out and ask, were horsemen really that influential in the classical era? The impression I get from my very limited knowledge of pre-Roman warfare is that, special units aside, they were not as powerful as they would become upon the invention of the stirrup and that was the age of the spearman/swordsman. I'm happy with the double nerf, especially against cities. That seems to be a very sensible nerf to my mind.

This is a good point, but I don't believe that strict historical accuracy should take prevalence over balanced game play. There are two early strategic resources: horse and iron. The horseman nerf and the ineffectiveness of chariot archers effectively make the horse resource inconsequential.

Sorry but your post implies that you don't know how to use horses properly.

The main strengh about any light mounted unit is alway mobility. It's the high mobility that gives the horses advantage in battlefield. If you only use horses on 1x1 situations, then you're doing it wrong. Horses are great for flanking your opponent (yes, you can flank them and receive bonuses for it, for both the horsemen and the other unit flanking your enemy) and are not meant to be used alone as the only type of unit you have. Also they can attack and move, which is a unique ability that can save you several turns of rebuilding your army. If you attack with your horses and stand still, then you're, once again, doing it wrong.

Horses along history were used considering their mobility to engage in the flanks with speed charges during the confusion of engaged infantry or retreats, to liquidate the enemy, cos if you had a battlefield full of horses and the defending forces knew it, it would be a massacre in the horses side.

I think the only thing missing for them is a "charge" bonus when they attack on grassland.

Besides that, the horsemen are fine. I know that I'm safe in a game when I build my first 2 horsemen. Then it's a matter of time until victory, no matter what victory I chose.

I regularly use horseman for scouting and mop-up. Compared to what they were before the patch, they are ineffective and of little use. In other words, you can get away with having no horses all game. You cannot, however, get away with having 0 iron. So I think the root of the problem with the nerfing of horsemen is the side-effect of nerfing the horse resource.

I would be happy with your charge bonus idea if it were implemented. I think changing horsemen to be able to move after crossing a river would a nice finishing touch (River -2 movement for horse to cross?)