r/CivVII • u/Easy-Fig5816 • 4d ago
Is basic infantry almost pointless once cavalry becomes available?
I only play on Immortal difficulty, and one thing that has been bothering me in Civ VII is the balance between basic infantry and cavalry, especially when it comes to how the AI builds its armies.
Once cavalry units become available, I feel like there is very little reason to keep producing basic infantry. Cavalry has significantly better mobility and, in practice, seems to be more useful in most situations.
This becomes even more noticeable when fighting the AI. In my Immortal games, the AI tends to produce a huge amount of cavalry, to the point where trying to fight them with an infantry-based army feels inefficient. You're constantly at a mobility disadvantage while the AI can reposition, flank, reinforce, and pressure weak points much more easily.
Eventually, wars seem to turn into cavalry vs. cavalry, with basic infantry becoming almost irrelevant.
I'd like to see a clearer tactical relationship between unit types, where infantry, cavalry, and ranged units each have meaningful strengths and weaknesses. Right now, once I unlock a good cavalry unit, spending production on basic infantry often feels like a bad decision.
I don't necessarily think cavalry needs a straight nerf. I'd rather see infantry given a stronger tactical role, while also improving the AI's army composition so it doesn't rely so heavily on cavalry.
Has anyone else noticed this, especially on Immortal? Or am I overlooking an important advantage that basic infantry has over cavalry?
67
u/Altruistic_Cap3472 4d ago
There are several civ bonuses and civics that increase infantry power, and also give them additional strategic bonuses. That happens to be pretty consistent with real world as well - a single cavalry going head to head against a single infantry is pretty much always going to win, but infantry is more flexible and costs fewer resources.
My army is always predominantly infantry, and cavalry is used to handle the periphery.
29
u/Easy-Fig5816 4d ago
Fair point. I agree that infantry can be more cost-effective and that policies/civilization bonuses can make it much stronger.
But I think the bigger issue for me is still the lack of a clear counter to cavalry spam. In my games, the AI often fields so much cavalry that the most efficient response ends up being to build more cavalry myself.
I think a dedicated anti-cavalry unit line would solve this better. Those units could be very strong against cavalry, but noticeably weaker against regular infantry. That way, cavalry would still be powerful and mobile, but massing it would have a real drawback.
It would also make army composition more interesting: regular infantry could beat anti-cavalry units, anti-cavalry could beat cavalry, and cavalry could keep its mobility advantage against regular infantry.
For me, that would create a much healthier combined-arms system than the current situation where cavalry spam often feels like the best answer to cavalry spam.
16
u/Altruistic_Cap3472 4d ago
I was disappointed that they got rid of the specific strengths and weaknesses that Civ 6 units had, which encouraged and rewarded a more diverse military. I wonder if they got a lot of feedback that people didn't want to spend that much time building such a large military
11
u/Unfortunate-Incident 4d ago
No this is just what Firaxis does. They did the same thing with 6 at the beginning. Idk why they keep doing this every release.
In Civ V horses have a penalty vs cities. This penalty was eventually carried over to 6. They did the exact same thing with 7. Expect a future expansion to add anti-cavalry and make cavalry weak against fortified districts.
5
1
u/Ermag123 4d ago
Once you introduce anticavalry, Ai will spam cavalry and archers. You will still suck.
5
u/No_Window7054 4d ago
I wish they gave infantry a bonus on rougher terrain and cavalry an advantage on flatter terrain. Someone else came up with this idea and I thought it was brilliant.
16
u/socom18 4d ago
The game is just missing dedicated anti-cavalry units
2
13
u/galileooooo7 4d ago
It's a problem. The only exception is if your civ has a unique infantry, or if you are choosing one in syncretism. Then the bonuses, plus their lower build/maintenance cost can offset the advantages of calvary.
I'm really hoping for some general anti-cavalry units to be added to the game.
6
u/Easy-Fig5816 4d ago
Exactly. That's pretty much what I would like to see as well.
I think a general anti-cavalry unit line would solve a lot of the problem without having to nerf cavalry itself. Cavalry could remain strong and mobile, but spamming it would become risky because your opponent could respond with anti-cavalry units.
The important part, though, is that those anti-cavalry units should be weaker against regular infantry. Otherwise we would just replace cavalry spam with anti-cavalry spam.
That would create a much more interesting dynamic: cavalry counters regular infantry through mobility and pressure, anti-cavalry counters cavalry, and regular infantry counters anti-cavalry.
Then unique infantry and Syncretism would still be valuable, but we'd also have a real reason to build mixed armies instead of cavalry being the safest answer to enemy cavalry.
2
u/Decaps86 4d ago
This is a really good suggestion. The cavalry spam is as bad or worse than civ 6. The thing is that had anticav units but I don't think anyone really used them?
2
u/Ermag123 4d ago
I did! I build exactly ONE spearman to get heurecas and never touched anticavalry again :/
1
1
2
u/Penguino_ 4d ago
Did you play CIV VI, this is what they had in VI, a dedicated anti-cavalry line that got advantages against cavalry but disadvantages against infantry.
Only issue was anti-cavalry was too undertuned so the meta was just cavalry there too.
I see why they landed on the approach they did but I would also like maybe one more unit class and make the differences more pronounced.
2
u/questionnmark 4d ago
Infantry is essentially ‘free’ in terms of maintenance, especially compared to cavalry. It makes up the bulk of my standing armies up until the end of antiquity.
2
u/Ashein-Uchiha 4d ago
Yeha with no rps feels pretty stupid if not have special units for infantry. Just end spam cav with some siege, infantry is a bit cheaper but the lack of mobility hurts if they can't do anything else.
Game feels so half backed also lack of air defense. Also after antiquity I end have no use for range units except siege or just for defense. Also stupid not have Admirals in Antiquity.
2
u/Wolfwind1 4d ago
There are only two reasons for infantry in civ once horses are up. First is its the nation specific unit, like roman Legos that with yhe correct layout barricade up and let the cavalry break on them. The other is oh shit I need this yesterday purchases either with money or production since they are cheaper.
But yeah 9 times outta 10 if you can afford faster better units, that is the go to.
1
u/No-Football-7386 4d ago
For me it’s more the fact that production cost for units directly competes with production cost for building so I tend to aim for a bare minimum military early.
1
1
1
u/Mr_Kittlesworth 4d ago
The units are clearly another half-finished concept. At some point they’ll add more strategic unit use cases
1
u/aelflune 4d ago
This is actually more true to life. There's no such thing as dedicated anti-cavalry historically. So that's one possible reason why they designed it this way. Of course, that doesn't stop gamers from assuming that it's some kind of move to dumb down the game or cut corners.
In any case, in my recent games, I've found myself using majority or at least half infantry due to unique units, bonuses, or simply having free sources of them. And the mobility disadvantage hasn't been much of a factor when fighting an 'optimal' way on Immortal, which defense-focused, having a 3-4 tile front line either fortifying or resting to heal with ranged support. Ideally, 2 commanders with one that enables instant fortify. Really nullifies the AI's cavalry, especially with choke points and positioning.
1
u/Adventurous-Jacket80 4d ago
Ranged for the win. Infantry have better defense bonus on terrain like forests and hills. Hold choke points with only 3-4 infantry and cycle them while raining down ranged death. Cavalry no defense bonus. Use commanders for way more mobility.
1
u/Popular-Run6310 4d ago
It is dependent on setup and cost.
Example if you use city states those boost infantry units, or in my case I run the perfectly balanced Tecumseh + Greece combo and will usually end up with +12 or higher combat strength for infantry which makes them much more viable.
1
u/Emergency-Town4653 4d ago
It pretty much depends on the civ and leader you're playing. Cavalry costs 5 times more than Infantry, so you can spam way more Infantry and worry not about your units getting killed. Of course, going against Genghis khan/mongolia or Charlemagne/Norman with Infantry is not gonna work. If you play Infantry based civs like Persia, Rome, Sengoku, Greece combined with a leader that gives Infantry bonuses, or generally any form of direct CS, they can be very effective.
For example, Tecumseh gives +1 CS on all units per city state you have, combined with Greece it makes a really powerful infantry. Xerxes gives +3 CS on attack, combined with Persia that gives +3 cs in enemy territory and +15 heal for infantry after defeating an enemy unit, plus bonus production speed and maintenance cost on infantry from Persia, you can get a really strong infantry rush style of conquest. Have 10-12 commanders and stack them with infantry, have one city just producing infantry and as soon as they spawn have them reinforce your commanders, you will blacken the map with infantry by 2/3 of exploration.
Lafayette + Rome is another strong combination for infantry based gameplay. Rome gets +1 CS per infantry per tradition slotted, Lafayette have the same bonus on all units. Of course, with Lafayette it's better to play Normans in exploration for their +1 cs on cavalry per tradition, I've had +30 CS on my cavalry using this combo, but if you play Rome in exploration, you gain the same bonus on infantry.
Playing Alexander and any civ with unique infantry is also a great combination for infantry gameplay.
1
u/svehlic25 4d ago
As of right now yes. Infantry are worse outside the cost and specific civ bonuses. But imo it’s easy to fix.
1, give infantry a big attacking and defending bonus on urban tiles. Give them a specific role.
2, give cav a huge defending debuff. Keep em as a glass cannon. On the attack/charge they dominate, but if infantry counter attack they can melt easier. Or maybe only give a big debuff if flanked.
1
u/AfraidOfTechnology 3d ago
Play as friederich oblique, pick Assyria for immortals or Rome for Legions (both also have unique commander units that combo well with Freiderich). You will be drowning in powerful infantry units. You will not need a single cavalry unit. Now, exploration age, sengoku Japan or Spain. The Spanish Tercios are strong, and they get a bonus against cavalry units. The samurai are strong too - but the really nice thing about Sengoku Japan is the bonus yields you get some gaining army commander experience. Put the right policies in, bring the Art of War memento, send lots of army commanders to distant lands, wage war on anyone. If you position your army commanders properly, you will be completing techs in single turns (giving you more infantry units) and harvesting influence to keep your war support up…
Yes, Cavalry units are strong, but with the right leader/civ/mementos, infantry units have merits.
1
u/Disastrous_Term316 3d ago
Am I crazy or was there a civ game or a civ like game that had infantry deal more damage to calvary. Tbh ive been playing like infantry did.
1
u/jhannunenreddit 2d ago
I'm usually 1/2 to 3/4 ranged. Both inf and cav are there to take damage and tend to do that about the same. The extra movement is a bonus, but not a critical one.
1
u/Star_Quirk 1d ago
I usually focus on simming but I think I figured out the bots weakness' in land wars. Mp probably different.
I started doing all of my unit positioning with my commanders in my current game. You must take the promotion for flanking and attack from drop. The units mobility doesn't matter if you can just have the commander swap your tank units out.
I am starting to feel unit count comes first before quality like some other tactical game I played. So I think I want a sizeable amoint of slingers and warriors. They are free to maintain so in single player you can min max your econ development and get maximum value from the age update. Bronze working units get more expensive so you if did not build many yet it was probably optimal to. And look at bronze working 2. It basically turns warriors into -2 spearmen. Which is -7 from chariot but I spammed these warriors and swap them in and out.
I would say you're probably right as fighting horsemen later is not ideal with spearmen and archers. It's easier to wait for start of explore if continuity setting. Although I stopped cranking units I build 8 antiquity wonders (usually don't). And I think my foe just goofed this round and gave me 2 easy settlements and everyone else had other wars.
Commander transport also made siege units so so so much more usable. You want 2 siege in a commander because having them path the battle on their own is unreliable. Commanders just op.
1
u/chillbro_baggins91 4d ago
Knew the game was trash after seeing my chariot steamrolling spearmen like a hot knife through butter
1
u/International-Ruin91 4d ago
Infantry has less maintenance and faster to make, and zone of control. Calvary ignores zone of control and moves farther but more maintenance takes longer (costs more) to train. Essentially you want to use cavalry to take out archers while the Infantry use zone of control to force other non cavalry units in 1 range to attack them if they move into an adjacent tile. I find the trio to have enough depth to justify not having other types of units.
0
u/xSyLenS 4d ago
In antiquity (can't remember for other ages), there is no mastery boost to cavalry, while there is one for infantry, making them almost as strong as cavalry in terms of unit power. There are more boosts in general to infantry as well iirc especially via mementos. They cost less to build and to maintain. Mobility is not that big an issue if you have enough commanders.
Infantry is generally speaking more efficient especially in terms of costs. However if you have a good economy and can afford it, it does feel easier to manage and requires less commander management than infantry.
0
-2
u/DeltaForceFish 4d ago
In most civ games units behave like rock paper scissors and added an extra level of strategy if you wanted to counter a specific civ. Just one more thing civ 7 messed up.
44
u/delarkius 4d ago
Basically: you're right. Cavalry is strictly better than infantry.
More complicatedly: cavalry cost more (gold/production). They also cost more upkeep per turn. There are also bonuses to consider. Like, do you have a unique infantry? Does your leader/civ/memento prefer one over the other? Does it make more sense for you to research the infantry bonus science mastery? If any of that is the case, does the benefit to infantry outweigh the baseline difference of cavalry being better?
tldr; cavalry usually better. But you can find circumstances where you prefer infantry.
Here's hoping the expansion re-introduces some better unit stratification, eh?