Unit missing?

jpboia · Aug 1, 2007

I think there is a big gap in this game between trebuchets and cannons (in the game, these are Napoleonic era cannons). There should be some kind of early gunpowder weapon - maybe the "bombard" - between this two siege weapons.

When the spanish arrived to America and fought the aztecs, for example, their army consisted basically of "macemans" (they actually used swords

), musketmans, conquistadores and early cannons (I'm simplifying here, of course, using the name of the units in the game). They carried no trebuchets neither Napoleonic era cannons.

Also, the cannon was invented prior to the musket - the musket is a portable cannon (miniaturization, like the evolution of the phone - cellphone). In the game, the musket always appear first.

The following is quoted from the wikipedia:

Gunpowder and the cannon were first invented and used in military combat in China before the technology was transmitted elsewhere, with advanced technological innovation during the Chinese Song Dynasty (AD 9601279).

Cannon arrived later in the Muslim world and the Iberian Peninsula in the 13th century, with gunpowder described in Europe by Roger Bacon in 1216 and 1248

Gunpowder was first used in Spain by Moorish cannon at the siege of Seville in 1248, and the siege of Niebla in 1262.

By 1415 the first "hand cannons" were deployed by some infantrymen, and the earliest small bore arquebuses, with burning "match locks" appeared on the battlefield.

The musket was originally a heavier form of the arquebus, which fired a shot that could pierce armour, though only at close range. In the 1500s, it had to be mounted on a support stick to keep it steady. The caliver was the lighter form of the arquebus. By 1600, or so, these firearms were phased out in favour of a new lighter musket.

It's ridiculous to see armies of musketmans with lots of trebuchets but NO cannons! By the time cannons can be researched in the game, there are more advanced infantry units ready to use.

What do you think about this?

Virulent · Aug 1, 2007

Actually in Vanilla it went straight from Catapults to Cannons, that was one of the reasons trebuchets were added in Warlords.

Willowmound · Aug 1, 2007

Oh, this has been a topic since the early days of vanilla's release. Several mods 'fix' it, by making cannons available earlier and at the same time making them weaker. There most definitely should be an early cannon unit in addition to the one we have.

Warlord Sam · Aug 1, 2007

In my opinion, gameplay is the most important aspect; one of my biggest annoyances is having a unit obsolete by the time I have produced a small army of it. If you could back up your argument with something other than historical relevance (not saying you can't, I'm relatively newb when it comes to Civ4 and have no idea), I'd love to hear it.

jpboia · Aug 1, 2007

Virulent,

Thanks for the feed-back!

I agree that the addition of trebuchets to the game was fundamental, because those were the typical weapons used in sieges during the midle ages (and earlier also).

But... shouldn't there be one more unit (just ONE more) between trebuchets and (Napoleonic era) cannons? Just for a little extra realism... it's a gigantic leap from one weapon to the other!!!

Catapult ------------------- since 4th century BC until 14th century
Trebuchet ----------------- since 4th century BC until 15th century
"Early cannon" -------------- since 13th century until 18th century
"Napoleonic era cannon" ------ since 18th century until 19th century
Artillery --------------------- since 19th century until present
Mobile Artillery -------------- since 20th century until present

Willowmound,

Do you know of any place where I can download a intermediate unit between trebuchet and cannon?

Willowmound · Aug 1, 2007

I don't know if one has been made, as such. I used to just change the tech pre-req and strength of the cannon in UnitInfos.xml. Pre-req Gunpowder, strength 10.

Not the best solution, and I don't do it anymore.

If you ask in the modding sub-forum, some may have the perfect unit for you, ready to download and everything. Maybe.

Soneji · Aug 1, 2007

I'd like to equip my soldiers with ladders, circumventing the walls.

Willowmound · Aug 1, 2007

Soneji said:
I'd like to equip my soldiers with ladders, circumventing the walls.

Technically, that would be "supraventing".

(A joke -- maybe not for everyone

)

jpboia · Aug 1, 2007

Warlord Sam said:
In my opinion, gameplay is the most important aspect;

Actually, my argument is precisely about gameplay. When I play the game, I don't like to see musketmans marching together with trebuchets, preparing for a siege, or the conquistadores (or any other unit of that era) attacking the barbarian cities in the "new world" with trebuchets.

It doesn't ruin my game, it's not that serious, but it gets less appealing.

I had hope firaxis would put one extra unit in this expansion. But it didn't... :sad:

Edit: Willowmound, thanks for the tip, I'm going to investigate the modding sub-forum in search of a "bombard" unit or something similar.

Warlord Sam · Aug 1, 2007

Well, Jpboia, gameplay in this situation would refer to game *balance*, as in the actual rules of the game, not that things look "off" graphically.

However, similar things tend to annoy me as well, with units becoming a bit dated graphically/realistically speaking. Seeing the Japanese Samurai walking around once the Japanese have reached the industrial age, I thought it'd be cool if their kimonos would change to a more modern business suit.

Of course, that's a terrible example since the opposite is precisely what happened, but I think you can follow my meaning?

I wonder if it'd be possible to have modders come up with something that would address some of the units increasingly archaic looking skins as technology progresses. I imagine that it would be relatively simple to change the skin of trebuchets to look like some form of bombard, without changing stats.

Unless you have an argument, regarding stats/gameplay-balance, for the inclusion of another unit? Again, I'd be interested to hear it and have no idea of how things are myself, having just reached the modern age in my first BTS game.

AlessioCerci · Aug 2, 2007

Willowmound said:
Technically, that would be "supraventing".

(A joke -- maybe not for everyone )

.... well I laughed anyway.

Willowmound · Aug 3, 2007

Oh good

GeneralMatt · Aug 3, 2007

I agree there should be one more in there. I also think there should be one type of musket unit in there to, pushing back rifles a little.

But anyways..

Here is that bombard you wanted.

http://forums.civfanatics.com/downloads.php?do=file&id=1400

jpboia · Aug 4, 2007

wow, that's perfect! Thanks, GeneralMatt. I will try to add that unit with the following stats:

"Bombard"
Tech: Gunpowder
Resource: Copper or Iron
Cost: 90
Strength: 10 (or 9?)
Damage limit: 75%
Collateral damage limit: 55%
Collateral damage (units): 7
Bombard rate: 10
Upgrades to: Cannon

Trebuchets and Catapults will upgrade to Bombards. Bombards will upgrade to Cannons.

Horse Archer: +50% and flank attack against Cats and Trebs
Knight: Flank attack against Cats, Trebs and Bombards; +50% against Bombards
Cuirassier: +50% against Bombards; flank attack against Bombards and Cannons
Cavalry: Flank attack against Bombards; +50% and flank attack against Cannons

What do you think? Is it balanced this way? I'm not sure about the strength of the Bombard (9 or 10?)

I would appreciate your opinions! :goodjob:

SkippyT · Aug 4, 2007

In the Rhye's and fall of Civilization mod you get strength 10 cannons with gunpowder. It's a lot more accurate and then when the Spanish invade Meso America they have strength 10 cannons.

GeneralMatt · Aug 4, 2007

It looks pretty balanced. Keep the bombardment at 10%, much more neater and %1 won't do much.

You could even make it 6 power %66 vs cities and one first strike. That may make it more realistic? Either way units like pikemen, macemen and swords should get a bonus vs it as it could fire what, 3 times a day? Not much of a anti-anything but building...

Tristan daCunha · Aug 4, 2007

Should bombards have a chance to explode, as sometimes happened?

Kushluk · Aug 4, 2007

As long as they aren't 5 billion gold to upgrade I'd agree with this, however I hate having to make MARGINAL upgrades to units that cost an arm and a leg. Not that this happens much in Civ 4, but in other games it does. It would be nice if some things automatically upgraded.

GeneralMatt · Aug 4, 2007

The cost to upgrade depends on the hammer difference between the two units though there is a minimum cosr (20 g I think it is.)

So no, it will not cost an arm and a leg.

jpboia · Aug 5, 2007

Ups, my mistake, GeneralMatt!

My doubt wasn't about the bombard rate, but about the strength of the Bombard unit (similar names...

)

So, it could stay like this:

Strength: 6 with +66% against city (9.96, a bit better than trebuchets - 8)
Bombard rate: 10

Thank you all for your help!

Unit missing?

Chieftain

King

Wordbug

2500 hours and counting..

Chieftain

Wordbug

Prince and Great Steward

Wordbug

Chieftain

2500 hours and counting..

Prince

Wordbug

Emperor

Chieftain

Who?

Emperor

Pacifist Aggressive

Warlord

Emperor

Chieftain

Similar threads