Between restrictions to their siege capabilities, new anti-cavalry bonuses and already existing high production costs I can't help but feel that cavalry got overly nerfed this version. As of right now cavalry cannot do anything during a siege without siege equipment to knock down walls, not even attack units in the city. This heavily penalizes cavalry units during the early stages of the game where siege is limited to rams, while not making the later stages any easier. I don't think there was any sort of need for this heavy of a nerf since cavalry was never really oppressive during these engagements, just that infantry units in comparison were a bit worse as they lacked mobilty. Cavalry should receive the ability to damage units inside walls, even if they still couldn't cross walls without siege support, being able to damage units would allow them to at least contribute something instead of nothing.

Next is the new +5 combat strength anti-cavalry bonus. I could see this working on the pikeman unit but for the earlier eras this bonus is simply absurd. It completely negates the flanking bonus that cavalry troops tend to go for and does far too much on a unit that's supposed to be very common. The worst part is that Emblematic units were given the anti-cavalry tag, but did not have their base combat strength changed. Units like the immortal have 28 combat strength and 33 against cavalry, in the Classic age, same with the Hoplite. These units were already powerful and now that cavalry can't use their mobility to flank them, since that bonus is negated by that +5 CS, the only way to counter these units is through archers. I think the bonus Strength should be toned down, Units like Pikemen and the Halberd can receive a trait which means they do extra damage against cavalry in addition to their normal effect, but the generic Spear Infantry bonus should be lowered, and possibly have their normal Combat Strength lowered too.

Finally there's the requirements to actually field cavalry which hasn't changed much. Every single cavalry unit(except elephants) require horses to field, much more production than basic infantry or archers and have a higher upkeep cost than units of a similar tier. The movement bonus is very nice and primarily what you pay for. Chariots have a charge bonus that gets countered by spearmen completely, doing equal damage to each other, If they don't charge then the spearmen win the engagement. Horesmen do beat spearmen by 1 CS but they come online during the next era and are still very expensive. It makes building other units like warriors or swordsmen less appealing, although swordsmen at least have 25 CS against all targets while for spearmen it's only against cavalry. Again this isn't even mentioning units like the Babylonian Sabu Sa or Naginata Samurai, who didn't have their CS changed at all but now get bonus CS too against cav.  The way to fix this cost imbalance would be to implement some of the changes made earlier, so that you aren't paying 150 industry for Scout Riders+.

Agreed. I'd like to think that Amplitude is aware and this is just a product of us testing it, as implemented now. 

Anti-cavalry should have a slight bonus +2 but maybe have an additional +2 bonus specifically against cavalry if they take a "defend" action. Effectively 'formation fighting'. Or something.

I have more of an issue with how useless pikes can be at the moment. You have the strictly superior crossbows for attacking and defending, which means crossbow spam when you enter the medieval era, and knights come in relatively late compared to the other two units which means pikemen are useless up until knights come in. And then there’s great swordsmen; they’re meant, I think, to counter pikes and crossbowmen, but again you don’t have a reason to field pikes until knights come in, and with the gunner designation on the crossbows, it means it’s far too easy for crossbow units to take the high ground and defend/attack at basically the same strength as a greatsword unit. So it ends up that crossbows dominate the medieval era until either cav or the EU comes in, and in plenty of cases crossbows easily beat the EUs too - thinking about Jaguar Warriors, Shotelai, and Haras. Especially with the Haras, this isn’t something that should happen, but the crossbows beat the Haras in terms of availability (crossbows need 0 resources whereas Haras need 3 horses), production costs, and strength if you take the high ground. So aside from movement, there is no reason to take the Haras. They also have a near useless ability, if I’m not wrong. I would like someone to explain it to me if I am, however. And sorry for the lack of paragraphs; for some reason I can’t create new lines on my phone.

During the Stadia and Lucy opendev, their was a gargantuan number of players that stated that horses penetrating through fortifications ruined their immersion. It was stated that horses getting on top of the battlements during a siege and being effective only works in fantasy movies and novels. Apparently, the developers were swayed by this discussion and made fortifications cavalry proof. 

What players now have is exactly what was asked for by a section of the community. Instead of just spamming cavalry and expecting to do well, player may to have siege and construct siege engines or train infantry to scale the battlements. 

RNGZero wrote:
During the Stadia and Lucy opendev, their was a gargantuan number of players that stated that horses penetrating through fortifications ruined their immersion. It was stated that horses getting on top of the battlements during a siege and being effective only works in fantasy movies and novels. Apparently, the developers were swayed by this discussion and made fortifications cavalry proof. 

A counter to this argument is that cavalry did dismount. It was not uncommon for men-at-arms and knights to dismount in field battles (like in Agincourt and Crecy) let alone sieges. Some cultures (the Celts at least from the top of my head) also largely used chariots as a way to quickly move about heavy infantry rather than charging with the chariots themselves.

Perhaps a solution could be that cavalry units in game should be allowed to attack fortifications but have a malus when doing so and/or get rid of the charge bonus until the fortifications have been completely demolished? Thoughts?

d567 wrote:
Perhaps a solution could be that cavalry units in game should be allowed to attack fortifications but have a malus when doing so and/or get rid of the charge bonus until the fortifications have been completely demolished? Thoughts?

Much like the combat debuff on ranged units participating in close combat (-5 str.), I could see a "dismounted" debuff granted to cavalry attempting to scale the battlements without their steeds. Considering the amount of resistance fortified units have (+6 str. fortified, +1 defender, etc), I don't expected players to be satisfied with their emblematic or generic cavalry doing minimum damage (5-25) and subsequently beaten down by the Homeguards. Heavy cavalry, in particular, would lose their ability to charge said battlements since they wouldn't have steeds to break-through. 

Currently the best way to leverage cavalry during city sieges is to: 1) Rush to cities and start the siege, 2) maintain a siege until infantry/other units arrive, 3) construct siege engines in the mean time. Said city could also be taken by starving out the populace or lowering its stability so low that it rebels from under the other side's control. There are ways to make ample use of cavalry within the current constraints.

Perhaps more attention should be focused on siege engines and their current state OR different methods to take a city then riding horses through walls. 

Zolobolo wrote:

I also couldnt move cavalry into a city once hte walls ahve been destroyed and also couldnt move into city tiels if htere were no walls to begin with

The code seems to prevent them from entering the city tile no matter what as far as I have seen

Siege engines may need a couple swings at the wall to completely knock it down. By completely knocking down a wall, cavalry units can get into the city can ride down the enemy. The visual effect of the fortification crumbling does not mean it is totally gone... it  merely just got shorter. I've had a couple chances to completely take out sections of wall in Victor and it always seemed to work. 

I’ve been thinking about this thread for the past couple hours, and you definitely bring up a good point.  I too have been consistently disappointed in cavalry this entire OpenDev.  I’m to the point where I basically don’t even build melee cavalry anymore.

I’ve been wondering; do you think this problem could be solved by giving spear and pike units lower combat strength, but with bonus strength for being attacked from the front, a “pike wall” if you will, which could be countered by a penalty for being attacked from behind, perhaps plus-and-minus 10 strength.

That way, shock units, such as swordsmen, are very different from pikes, and melee cav can still overwhelm them if they have the numbers by surrounding them.

Krikkitone wrote:

I think cavalry is ok, it’s just that ranged are stronger.  Weaken ranged units, (make melee+cavalry counter them more) and strengthen walls+siege units more.  

I agree with the sentiment that ranged units are too strong. However You do realize by strengthening walls you're making ranged units stronger? Unless you mean strengthen their fortification values which has no purpose besides making walls harder to siege, but say you want to make siege better.

I think chopping down trees during a siege should create a full siege unit, the tooltip says it does already but right now sieges can still be done in one turn. Also I'd shorten the timer for chopping to 3 turns so it could be done more often and faster, and increase the rate at which defenders start dying, this should all making waiting during sieges more effective. A final thought is that fortifications need to lower the damage you take more (either by giving them a bigger bonus or fixing the damage formula), and the AI needs to use them which are two ideas that have probably been said a million times before. I did just say that making fortifications better would buff ranged units but with siege being more effective and having ranged soldiers deal less damage to units in fortifications I'd say it cancels out.

As I'm playing through the opendev a bit more I just noticed another issue related to cavalry not being able to attack units on fortifications or cross fortification districts, field battles next to garrisons and cities.

When you engage a battle on the field and there so happens to be a garrison or some other district that got into the battlezone, cavalry is still unable to do anything to units on that district, and this isn't a siege, this is a regular battle. Already I've noticed the issues with this and how easily it makes camping out cavalry since they can do nothing to circumvent this issue, especially since siege units can't exist in this scenario. I'm not even sure if letting cavalry attack units in fortifications fixes this issue, because districts can be many levels deep, and the enemy can simply wait out the fight from the safety of their multi-layered districts. I guess a solution would be having the flag spawn outside when it's not a siege battle, so cavalry could actually take it. I say allow cavalry to cross fortifications like they did back in lucy, but with a caveat, they lose all their movement on the next turn, so they require spending all their movement to enter the fortification and they cannot move for 1 turn once they get inside. This is in addition to giving back their ability to attack over walls.

I'm surprised it took me so long to notice this.

RNGZero wrote:

During the Stadia and Lucy opendev, their was a gargantuan number of players that stated that horses penetrating through fortifications ruined their immersion. It was stated that horses getting on top of the battlements during a siege and being effective only works in fantasy movies and novels. Apparently, the developers were swayed by this discussion and made fortifications cavalry proof. 

What players now have is exactly what was asked for by a section of the community. Instead of just spamming cavalry and expecting to do well, player may to have siege and construct siege engines or train infantry to scale the battlements. 

Yup. This is an improvement, a, movement in a more interesting and satisfying direction. I hope it's possible to implement an adjusted change. 

Above I suggested: Anti-cavalry could have a default +2 advantage but gain an additional +2 bonus specifically against cavalry if they take a "defend" action. Perhaps a more complex change would be better. They keep the +2 bonus but cavalry loses the - non adjacency 'charge/mobility' bonus against anti-cavalry units.

Laliloluhla wrote:
I also disagree with the sentiment that cavalry is good for sieges because they can rush ahead of the main army to start the siege early, that's essentially suicide unless the main army happens to be right behind the cavalry force in the reinforcement zone. This tactic only save you 1 or 2 turns of sieging at max benefit unless of course your opponent can't possibly fend off your siege in which case you would've won anyway without that time.

Having cavalry move ahead to start a siege before the main army has some cavorts, but what I'm recommending is not start the assault. Until the main army arrives, just maintain the siege with cavalry. This does a couple things as well as solves the issue with fortifications.

1. Stops the city from exploiting tiles and producing anything (other then food tiles within the walls). 
2. Provides ~1-2 siege engines to provide support (reduces losses as well) 
3. The city defenders will need to sortie to repulse the cavalry before the main force arrive

Laliloluhla wrote:
When you engage a battle on the field and there so happens to be a garrison or some other district that got into the battlezone, cavalry is still unable to do anything to units on that district, and this isn't a siege, this is a regular battle.

Situations were garrisoned or city tiles are included on a regular battlefield becomes more common later into the game. At the same time, the number of cavalry units drastically decreases to a point they become gunners themselves OR are an emblematic unit. 

Under these circumstances, I have never noticed the command tent to spawn within the garrisoned tile. I have seen it spawn adjacent a couple times which enables a cavalry force to win but it will likely be a pyrrhic victory. With this in mind, a player may not wish to fully commit their forces and select discretion instead of valor. This is why players are given the option to commit to an attack or retreat once they are able to view the battlefield & command tent placement.  

Zolobolo wrote:
What I meant is that I couldnt move in with cavalry even when there were no wals at all (the city hasnt built it yet)

Every city center (and connected tiles) already has fences (level 1 walls) that provide fortification without constructing palisades (level 2 walls). I believe this basic form of protection is only fair instead of saddling the defender with a tech and/or industry burden. 

It is not like the attacker doesn't have options to circumvent or mitigate fences from the start. 

RNGZero wrote:

Laliloluhla wrote:
I also disagree with the sentiment that cavalry is good for sieges because they can rush ahead of the main army to start the siege early, that's essentially suicide unless the main army happens to be right behind the cavalry force in the reinforcement zone. This tactic only save you 1 or 2 turns of sieging at max benefit unless of course your opponent can't possibly fend off your siege in which case you would've won anyway without that time.

Having cavalry move ahead to start a siege before the main army has some cavorts, but what I'm recommending is not start the assault. Until the main army arrives, just maintain the siege with cavalry. This does a couple things as well as solves the issue with fortifications.

1. Stops the city from exploiting tiles and producing anything (other then food tiles within the walls). 
2. Provides ~1-2 siege engines to provide support (reduces losses as well) 
3. The city defenders will need to sortie to repulse the cavalry before the main force arrive

The third point is critical as having the defenders sortie out solves the majority of issues cavalry face with fortifications. Instead of attacking into the walls, the defender is forced to come out and engage on a regular battle field to either kill opposing units or capture the command tent. This lets cavalry do their thing on open ground while the defender must sortie successfully or they immediately lose the city. 

Of course, ranged or gunner units do not need to come out from fortifications to do their part... but that is where tree cover can force their hand to capture the command tent instead of dealing damage. Units under tree cover cannot be target unless 1) there is an adjacent enemy unit or 2) they attacked from their position.

You misunderstand why I call it suicide, I am not recommending to start an assault, even if cavalry could scale walls there's another reason why I discourage this tactic. By doing this you split your army up, and the defender who will more likely to have their army together, will be able to easily dispatch your much smaller cavalry force, especially if they have ranged units like you said. Also the defender wouldn't immediately lose the city, they have plenty of time to dispatch an enemy force like this. I agree that in the future this could be useful for points 1 and 2, but cavalry isn't scary enough to discourage a sortie unless, like I said you are already more powerful than the enemy, in which case cavalry moving ahead of the main force wouldn't make a difference in the war.

Tree cover is not a valid argument here, on top of not being guaranteed to appear in tactically viable positions. Ranged units are too strong in the current build and always have a chance of taking down a cavalry unit in 5-6 hits due to the damage system while also hiding behind their fortifications, leaving your cavalry helpless. Peasants can be used to scout the enemy and locate their position, or the main army that likely has spearmen that's more often than not, closer to their cities than your main force is.

RNGZero wrote:

Laliloluhla wrote:
When you engage a battle on the field and there so happens to be a garrison or some other district that got into the battlezone, cavalry is still unable to do anything to units on that district, and this isn't a siege, this is a regular battle.

Situations were garrisoned or city tiles are included on a regular battlefield becomes more common later into the game. At the same time, the number of cavalry units drastically decreases to a point they become gunners themselves OR are an emblematic unit. 

Under these circumstances, I have never noticed the command tent to spawn within the garrisoned tile. I have seen it spawn adjacent a couple times which enables a cavalry force to win but it will likely be a pyrrhic victory. With this in mind, a player may not wish to fully commit their forces and select discretion instead of valor. This is why players are given the option to commit to an attack or retreat once they are able to view the battlefield & command tent placement.  

You are correct in that the amount of districts and cavalry units changes throughout time but you don't see just how often this can come into play. This allows for an exploit that can happen in any settled region, since the administrative centre is a fortified tile. What I just said also assumes the absolute least amount of development in a region which is often not the case. This is also testing against the AI, who tend to under-develop their cities in Victor. In my cities which had dozens or districts by the Classic age the ai cavalry units couldn't do anything, if they weren't busy retreating all the time.

Your next point that retreating from a bad position is somewhat valid, however retreating drains war desire and the regions where cavalry are effective has been shrunk a fair bit. Imagine fighting a player who knows of this issue and you have a cavalry army, you'd be unable to fight near their border and be forced to retreat often because you literally can't attack their troops, lowering your war desire and costing you the war.

Laliloluhla wrote:

Krikkitone wrote:

I think cavalry is ok, it’s just that ranged are stronger.  Weaken ranged units, (make melee+cavalry counter them more) and strengthen walls+siege units more.  

I agree with the sentiment that ranged units are too strong. However You do realize by strengthening walls you're making ranged units stronger? Unless you mean strengthen their fortification values which has no purpose besides making walls harder to siege, but say you want to make siege better.

I think chopping down trees during a siege should create a full siege unit, the tooltip says it does already but right now sieges can still be done in one turn. Also I'd shorten the timer for chopping to 3 turns so it could be done more often and faster, and increase the rate at which defenders start dying, this should all making waiting during sieges more effective. A final thought is that fortifications need to lower the damage you take more (either by giving them a bigger bonus or fixing the damage formula), and the AI needs to use them which are two ideas that have probably been said a million times before. I did just say that making fortifications better would buff ranged units but with siege being more effective and having ranged soldiers deal less damage to units in fortifications I'd say it cancels out.

Make walls+siege stronger by doing things like having walls block los for attackers that aren’t elevated, and preventing ranged defenders from taking extra damage from melee scaling the walls (and make siege better at taking down walls).  Make range weaker by making them more vulnerable to melee/cavalry attack...increase the -5 penalty to -7 to -9.