Crossbows Killing Riflemen

[tf21]

I've been playing every night after work since Tuesday when I by chance saw G&K at the store. I played last night till midnight and been playing all day today. That speaks volumes. Its been ages since I been so caught up in a game. Vanilla Civ5 didn't do that. The periods of peace were sooooo boring and the other issues killed the game.

From what I've seen so far in my 2 games-about to start another one-is the AI is better, but on the offense is not too brilliant-I'm playing on normal level so the harder levels may be a different story. I haven't been on the offensive much so I can't say how the AI does in defense.

One thing that must get changed is the crossbows with their ranged shots should not be able to stand off and kill riflemen. That's comical. I can only now wonder if I'll see them kill off tanks or Mech infantry. Brings back memories of Civ 1 where spearmen killed tanks. You would think that would be resolved after 21 years! Once muskets get invented crossbows and Archers should see their range reduced to 1. Once riflemen and beyond get invented they should become melee only units.

I've seen some other annoyances, but once again overall G&K is on the right track. I'm pleased with what I've seen so far.

Now back to another game.

[Camikaze]

I don't think their range should be reduced. They are already less powerful in that you have to be able to protect them or they'll get picked off pretty easily by said Rifleman. If they are capable of standing back and shooting at the Riflemen, this indicates that there is something that is preventing the Riflemen from attacking in return.

[Adjuvant]

I rarely think of "crossbows and riflemen" as literally such. Obsolete units later I see as "modern equivalents" but "smaller" or "less potent".

A barbarian brute in 1900AD might be "a roving band of hooligans with pistols". Of course they're not going to stand up to a great war infantry regiment, but they'll still do damage in unprotected areas. A trireme in the late 20th century might be the equivalent of a bomb-laden speed boat, and yes, it can hurt destroyers. Ask the personnel from the USS Cole.

A "Unit" is, to me, the "miltary value" in a given hex, not specifically or always expressly, literally "manned" and "equipped" by its representative icon. Some units are melee, some are ranged and I deal with them accordingly without the tired "spearman v tank" paradox.

[gunslinger6792]

i remember reading some where that general Wellington durring the peninsular war against France wrote back to England wishing for a brigade of english longbowmen in spain. his rationale being that since archers had a greater range, accuracy, faster firing rate than muskets, and that french infantry had no armor archers would be devastating. by 1810 though englishmen who knew how to shoot a bow where pretty much a dead bread. i guess my point long story is that it makes sense that crossbowmen can hurt your riflemen so badly.

[Harv72b]

Originally Posted by Adjuvant

without the tired "spearman v tank" paradox.

It was "spearman v battleship".

Civ II represent!

[jjkrause84]

It's when crossbowmen (or worse, longbowmen!) are doing 30-ish damage to my IRONCLADS that I get furious. Ranged units seem far too overpowered at the moment. It almost never seems worth making melee attacks....I avoid them like the plague. I would reduce the amount of damage ranged units do, and also give wounded units steeper penalties. There is nothing more frustrating than attacking a seriously wounded, near dead, unit and having it take 20 - 30 points out of your 100% fresh melee unit of the same type.

[smallfish]

The solution would be to pump out your melee units from a city with Barracks/Armory and get the cover promotion.

Your ironclads should be backed by mass loads of Frigates/Battleships (or better - Bombers) before going in anyway.

[nokmirt]

A man holding a rifled musket is not impervious to crossbow bolts. He is flesh, blood and bone.

[jjkrause84]

Originally Posted by smallfish

The solution would be to pump out your melee units from a city with Barracks/Armory and get the cover promotion.

Your ironclads should be backed by mass loads of Frigates/Battleships (or better - Bombers) before going in anyway.

I'm not complaining about the power of crossbowmen against my ground troops (re-read my post...), I'm complaining about using crossbowmen far beyond the middle ages because they deal so much damage and melee attacks, even against severely wounded units, are too costly.

In any case, should I really have to defend my ironclads so vociferously from...crossbowmen. Think about it for a second....

[smallfish]

Originally Posted by jjkrause84

I'm not complaining about the power of crossbowmen against my ground troops (re-read my post...), I'm complaining about using crossbowmen far beyond the middle ages because they deal so much damage and melee attacks, even against severely wounded units, are too costly.

In any case, should I really have to defend my ironclads so vociferously from...crossbowmen. Think about it for a second....

Why are you placing them in range of crossbows or any other sort of ranged unit in first place?

Is there a purpose for that other than maybe a one-turn-prelude to taking a city?

e: also, melee attacks vary depending on terrain and promotions - I trust you were attacking through some rather difficult terrain and not wide plains?

[jjkrause84]

Originally Posted by smallfish

Why are you placing them in range of crossbows or any other sort of ranged unit in first place?

Is there a purpose for that other than maybe a one-turn-prelude to taking a city?

e: also, melee attacks vary depending on terrain and promotions - I trust you were attacking through some rather difficult terrain and not wide plains?

If you attack a city....you are in range of crossbows.

Also, the melee attacks have been into open plains. I don't melee attack into jungle/hills at all if I can avoid it...too costly.

In any case, you're utterly avoiding my points, instead hoping to point out flaws in my methodology. Should crossbows be able to deal SERIOUS damage to ironclads (often more than ironclads inflict on each other!)?

[smallfish]

Originally Posted by jjkrause84

If you attack a city....you are in range of crossbows.

Also, the melee attacks have been into open plains. I don't melee attack into jungle/hills at all if I can avoid it...too costly.

In any case, you're utterly avoiding my points, instead hoping to point out flaws in my methodology. Should crossbows be able to deal SERIOUS damage to ironclads (often more than ironclads inflict on each other!)?

I think you are familiar with my thoughts on unrealism in this game, so I'll leave it at that.

Melee attacks on open plains shouldn't be a problem. Get some units to flank, a ranged or two to whittle them down a bit, and you'll be fine.

If you attack a city, you can also soften it up with frigates first before charging in your ironclads, or combine it with a massive ground push to the north/south/east/west. No need to pointlessly expose the core of your city-takers before the targeted city is in deep red.

[nokmirt]

Originally Posted by jjkrause84

If you attack a city....you are in range of crossbows.

Also, the melee attacks have been into open plains. I don't melee attack into jungle/hills at all if I can avoid it...too costly.

In any case, you're utterly avoiding my points, instead hoping to point out flaws in my methodology. Should crossbows be able to deal SERIOUS damage to ironclads (often more than ironclads inflict on each other!)?

A crossbow bolt would bounce off an ironclad, it would cause no damage, although it could kill a crewman or something.

However, this is a game and they balance the units from that standpoint, not from what would happen in the real world. They could make the crossbow get a penalty when attacking ironclads or more modern naval units. They have it so ranged units on land always have the advantage over ships. I am not sure if I completely agree with that, but that is the way it works for now.

[Adjuvant]

Originally Posted by jjkrause84

I'm not complaining about the power of crossbowmen against my ground troops (re-read my post...), I'm complaining about using crossbowmen far beyond the middle ages because they deal so much damage and melee attacks, even against severely wounded units, are too costly.

In any case, should I really have to defend my ironclads so vociferously from...crossbowmen. Think about it for a second....

Seriously, don't think of it so literally. Consider them... something other than "literally crossbowmen". Consider them a "smaller regiment artillery contingent", like the personnel in a small shore battery. That's just all that particular opponent is capable of fielding; that "value" of resistance in "said area" with "said capability", with a crossbowman significator for game mechanics.

edit: also that would need to be one lucky, jacked up crossbowman to do 30 damage to an ironclad. With so many upgrades you're probably fighting a bunch of "Macguyvers", and you're lucky to be able to sail away at all.

[Callonia]

*watches a crossbow fire its bolts at my ironclad.*

*proceeds to do an rifleman amphibious assault upon said crossbowmen.*

*offending crossbowmen is now dead and gone from the map.*

Why so mad bro?


There is a solution, don't invade technologically backward countries..

However if they're the ones doing the invading.. you could retreat whatever and ensure they can't touch your ironclads with bolts. They can't do anything about it, you can taunt them from the ocean and they sit there at the shore and rage.

[smallfish]

The Crossbowmen were clearly Ramboe!

[smallfish]

Anyways, the one good thing I really liked is that SAMs have been jacked up to become the deadly modern beasts they are meant to be. Now every time I assault a locale with a SAM or two in the area, I have to prepare 1-2 "meatshield" bombers to pave the way for the rest of my bombing runs.

And they are absurdly tough to take out with Bombers alone - you have to go Combined Arms on them.

[nokmirt]

Originally Posted by smallfish

The Crossbowmen were clearly Ramboe!

Explosive tipped armor piercing bolts.

[Adjuvant]

Play immortal difficulty so your opponent is shooting 5 artillery at your one ironclad you managed to limp close enough to his shore. Problem solved.

[jjkrause84]

Originally Posted by Adjuvant

Seriously, don't think of it so literally. Consider them... something other than "literally crossbowmen". Consider them a "smaller regiment artillery contingent", like the personnel in a small shore battery. That's just all that particular opponent is capable of fielding; that "value" of resistance in "said area" with "said capability", with a crossbowman significator for game mechanics.

edit: also that would need to be one lucky, jacked up crossbowman to do 30 damage to an ironclad. With so many upgrades you're probably fighting a bunch of "Macguyvers", and you're lucky to be able to sail away at all.

Fine. I strongly dislike thinking of all my units as just "ranged unit #3, Strength 16"....it's utterly soulless. Nevertheless, let's be "Game-y" about it:

Should a medieval era (sorry, Era 3) unit still be hugely effective against an Era 5 unit?