DeletedUser5
Guest
This thread is for discussing the Horsemen rebalancing.
DeletedUser1048
Guest
I think the reason people use chariots more is also because horses don't do well defensively, I know horses are not defensive troops but still it would nice to see if they didn't do so bad defending against sharp weapons.
DeletedUser1992
Guest
I actually use Horseman quite regularly to boost attacks I am making. Their biggest drawback is their population costs which affects how many you can build and how many can be carried on your transports. They will always fall behind the Slingers in comparison if for no other reason that for the population used in one Horseman you can get 3 Slingers. This will be very hard to overcome and make Horseman even equal to Slingers for the players.
DeletedUser
Guest
I like horsemen already and believe that nothing should be changed about them.
DeletedUser2654
Guest
More attack and less pop.
DeletedUser
Guest
I second this motion.
DeletedUser13
Guest
I use them only in a start of world whnen I`m looting my island mates! 
Later.....Slinger Nukes are best!
Later.....Slinger Nukes are best!
DeletedUser
Guest
I always use horses in combination with slingers and hoplites, a fully equipped attack would be 200 horses, 350 hops and 650 slings this is much more effective than a singer nuke but they are harder to build.
DeletedUser2687
Guest
I agree with this statement as well.
DeletedUser2654
Guest
It doesn't really matter to me.
DeletedUser39
Guest
I don't think there should be any changes to horsemen, and leave them the way they are. Why, you ask? Quite simple.
Look at the defensive units we have; the most common are swordsmen, and archers. Now, lets say we have a nuke of 100 horsemen (200 population), and a deffensive wall of 150swordsmen/150 archers (300 population (people tend to even out the numbers)).
The blunt offensive force of the horsemen will be 100*55 = 5500. The blunt deffensive force of the swordsmen/archers will be (150*14) + (150*6) = 3000. Without wall, it's quite obvious who the winner will be.
Now lets take 300 slingers (300 population), against the same deffence. The distance offensive force of the slingers will be 300*23 = 6900. The distance deffensive force of the swordsmen/archers will be (150*30) + (150*12) = 6300. The slingers will still win, but it's a close victory.
Lets now take a look at the ideal deffensive scenario; horsemen will face only chariots (the best, non-mythical deffensive unit against blunt attacks.), slingers will face only swordsmen (the best, non-mythical deffensive force against distance attacks)
200 horsemen (600 population) against 150 chariots (600 population) gives us
200*55 = 11.000 blunt offensive force from the horsemen and 150*76 = 11.400 blunt deffensive force from the chariots. As you see, the defender barely wins the fight.
Now, slingers VS swordsmen. 600 slingers (600 population) have a combined distance offensive force of 600*23 = 13.800. The swordsmen, however, have a combined distance deffensive force of 600*30 = 18.000. The deffender will be, without doubt, the winner.
Just because horsemen have a 'lower' attack compared with slingers/chariots, doesn't mean they are less capable of slaughtering armies. 600 horsemen (1.800 population) is capable of much more than a nuke of 1800 slingers. Because, realistically, you will never face a deffensive force that's either 100% swordsmen, 100% archer, 100% hoplite, or 100% chariot.
tl;dr: horsemen are fine the way they are, don't change them. It's unnecessary
Look at the defensive units we have; the most common are swordsmen, and archers. Now, lets say we have a nuke of 100 horsemen (200 population), and a deffensive wall of 150swordsmen/150 archers (300 population (people tend to even out the numbers)).
The blunt offensive force of the horsemen will be 100*55 = 5500. The blunt deffensive force of the swordsmen/archers will be (150*14) + (150*6) = 3000. Without wall, it's quite obvious who the winner will be.
Now lets take 300 slingers (300 population), against the same deffence. The distance offensive force of the slingers will be 300*23 = 6900. The distance deffensive force of the swordsmen/archers will be (150*30) + (150*12) = 6300. The slingers will still win, but it's a close victory.
Lets now take a look at the ideal deffensive scenario; horsemen will face only chariots (the best, non-mythical deffensive unit against blunt attacks.), slingers will face only swordsmen (the best, non-mythical deffensive force against distance attacks)
200 horsemen (600 population) against 150 chariots (600 population) gives us
200*55 = 11.000 blunt offensive force from the horsemen and 150*76 = 11.400 blunt deffensive force from the chariots. As you see, the defender barely wins the fight.
Now, slingers VS swordsmen. 600 slingers (600 population) have a combined distance offensive force of 600*23 = 13.800. The swordsmen, however, have a combined distance deffensive force of 600*30 = 18.000. The deffender will be, without doubt, the winner.
Just because horsemen have a 'lower' attack compared with slingers/chariots, doesn't mean they are less capable of slaughtering armies. 600 horsemen (1.800 population) is capable of much more than a nuke of 1800 slingers. Because, realistically, you will never face a deffensive force that's either 100% swordsmen, 100% archer, 100% hoplite, or 100% chariot.
tl;dr: horsemen are fine the way they are, don't change them. It's unnecessary
DeletedUser
Guest
I think the problem is the resources, it cost so much to build a horse nuke.
DeletedUser257
Guest
I don't think there needed to be any changes but I'm all for making a unit I use more powerful
Also, I make a horse/slinger nuke to take advantage of the resource imbalance.
Also, I make a horse/slinger nuke to take advantage of the resource imbalance.
DeletedUser3157
Guest
I don't think there needed to be any changes but I'm all for making a unit I use more powerful
Also, I make a horse/slinger nuke to take advantage of the resource imbalance.
I don't think there needs to be a change, if I were to say a change I think would be positive, I would say resource cost should decrease.
-Vys
DeletedUser
Guest
The thing is, most people don't stack hoplites or chariots. In my year and a half of playing this game, I've rarely, if ever, seen anyone stack hoplites or chariots in a city. You usually see 1k swordsman 1k archers and maybe 800 hoplites. While 800 hoplites is close to 1,000, in order to have an effective blunt defense you need 2k hoplites (1 swordsman, 1 archer, 2 hoplites is a ratio that puts your defenses as close to even as possible). A few horseman nukes will have no problem clearing that out. I use hoplite and slinger nukes as fodder for catapults, then bring in the horseman to finish the rest off. They always slaughter incredible amounts of troops. The build times aren't that long. If you min/max your island resources for your nukes, and research conscription and trainer, you can pop out a nuke, without gold (just a bit of favor) in 2-3 days on speed 2. I always build up my barracks to 30 for horse nukes anyway, so build speeds are irrelevant.
I think people look at the numbers of simulated battlefields too much, and don't look at the actual circumstances. Next time you have a city under siege, look at the spy reports. Add up the defenses. The weak point will most likely be blunt. Granted the attack per population is quite a bit lower than slingers, but if you had equal numbers of swords, archers and hoplites (I dislike chariots, they aren't bad, but not for me, personally), say 100 of each, you'd have:
Blunt is the weakpoint in the defense at this point. Granted, if you used 100 pop's worth of chariots instead of hoplites, it would look like this:
Now, you have weaker sharp defense, but the blunt defense is still quite low, and has only gone up 100 points.
So you have 300 population of defense, so let's look at 300 population of horseman:
55 blunt damage * 100 = 5500
This absolutely slaughters the above troops. If the target had appropriate defensive ratios and the correct numbers in their city, they could close that gap, and then if the numbers are even, you aim for the most damage per population, which goes back to the slinger.
It all comes down to attacking the weakness, and taking advantage of the situation. If you face an alliance that always has tons of chariots or hoplites defending the city, you need to do the math to figure out the best course of action. Attacking swordsman nukes with slingers is foolish, and attacking chariot/hoplite nukes with horseman is madness.
tl;dr
Horseman are fine the way they are. Unless you plan to make all units have the same values per population, and make the game less about strategy and more about brute force, they are appropriately strong.
I think people look at the numbers of simulated battlefields too much, and don't look at the actual circumstances. Next time you have a city under siege, look at the spy reports. Add up the defenses. The weak point will most likely be blunt. Granted the attack per population is quite a bit lower than slingers, but if you had equal numbers of swords, archers and hoplites (I dislike chariots, they aren't bad, but not for me, personally), say 100 of each, you'd have:
| Blunt | Sharp | Ranged | |
| Swordsman | 14 | 8 | 30 |
| Archer | 6 | 25 | 12 |
| Hoplite | 18 | 12 | 7 |
| Count | Total Blunt | Total Sharp | Total Ranged |
| 100 | 3800 | 4500 | 4900 |
Blunt is the weakpoint in the defense at this point. Granted, if you used 100 pop's worth of chariots instead of hoplites, it would look like this:
| Blunt | Sharp | Ranged | |
| Swordsman | 14 | 8 | 30 |
| Archer | 6 | 25 | 12 |
| Chariot (Divided by pop) | 19 | 4 | 14 |
| Count | Total Blunt | Total Sharp | Total Ranged |
| 100 | 3900 | 3700 | 5600 |
Now, you have weaker sharp defense, but the blunt defense is still quite low, and has only gone up 100 points.
So you have 300 population of defense, so let's look at 300 population of horseman:
55 blunt damage * 100 = 5500
This absolutely slaughters the above troops. If the target had appropriate defensive ratios and the correct numbers in their city, they could close that gap, and then if the numbers are even, you aim for the most damage per population, which goes back to the slinger.
It all comes down to attacking the weakness, and taking advantage of the situation. If you face an alliance that always has tons of chariots or hoplites defending the city, you need to do the math to figure out the best course of action. Attacking swordsman nukes with slingers is foolish, and attacking chariot/hoplite nukes with horseman is madness.
tl;dr
Horseman are fine the way they are. Unless you plan to make all units have the same values per population, and make the game less about strategy and more about brute force, they are appropriately strong.
DeletedUser
Guest
I use horsemen almost exclusively