Archers, Attack or Defence?

[Tlalynet]

Civ 4 put archery units in the opposite role of the other civ games, they went from having double or quadruple attack vs defense to having poor attack skills and a city defense bonus. How do people think archers will be implemented in 5? The strong attackers that cant take being attacked themselves, city defenders again, or do you think they will be relegated to a support role that can't effectively engage in direct combat at all?

[azzaman333]

I would be very surprised if archers were merely support troops that can't directly engage in combat. It'd be like going back to Civ3 style siege weapons, except as foot soldiers that would only be able to hurt units rather than bombarding land.

[Tlalynet]

I didn't mean that they couldn't actively engage in combat, just that they would be comparatively bad at it. Civ3 longbows could defend a city, but you wouldn't want them too, and civ 4 longbows could take cities, but they really need extensive seige support to do it effectively.

[azzaman333]

If you didn't mean it you shouldn't have said it.

[Tlalynet]

Originally Posted by Tlalynet

or do you think they will be relegated to a support role that can't effectively engage in direct combat at all?

This.

[azzaman333]

Which could easily be interpreted in either manner.

[Windsor]

Support units important on both offense and defense. You will want to keep archers in the 2nd line and use their bombardment ability. Head2Head they will be weak like in civ4.

[Tlalynet]

Azzamans post inflating aside, I tend to think that if they actually do ranged bombardment as depicted archers will either be primarily ranged units or ranged units with decent attack and bad defence.

[grant2004]

What you said seems clear enough to me. I'd imagine that they'd be more of a support troop. If they were decent at either attack or defense, and were also able to carry out a ranged attack, I think they'd simply be too strong. I expect that any serious unit that manages to get close to an archer will defeat them easily, as long as the archer hasn't weakened them substantially with the ranged attack.

[Wodan]

All of the above.

[Ellestar]

Support, like in Fantasy General

[Skyre Noktis]

I expect there won't be much distinction between attack and defence in Civ 5, with the redesigned combat system. The real difference will be between close range fighters (e.g. melee and mounted troops) and ranged support units (archers and siege).

[Tlalynet]

Not even city defense bonus units and units with no terrain bonus and other things that specializes a unit for attack or defence?

I suppose you think it will be archers\infantry in the ancient era and seige\gunpowder infantry in the more recent times? That and various Calvary for trying to hit the ranged units directly?

I'm just thinking that riflemen don't really count as ranged support units in their own era even though they have a longer range than archers, artillery\cannons are more the ranged support in that time.

[Takhisis]

Whatever, as long as it's moddable. Epic games suck, as they have to compress several millennia into one single game. I'd rather play scenarios

[Tlalynet]

Originally Posted by Takhisis

Whatever, as long as it's moddable.

Of course that could be said for anything

[Ikael]

Archers have been historically a support unit, they couldn't do a thing once infantry / calvary reached them, as it happens with catapults. So this is where my vote goes.

[Takhisis]

Yes, but defensively they were great if they had long range bows, as you'd walk up to them and they' just shower you with arrows, and they could also attack you from a distance without you being able to hit back.
I'd go for an option on all three (mainly support missile troops) but this would require having two or more stats (Attack-Defense), which I'm not sure has been confirmed yet.

[Tlalynet]

I always thought the old civ was a good representation of that, when they attacked they got their distance advantage and when they where defending that was like them being ambushed or rushed. I can understand how they get bonus str behind city walls or on a hill in Civ4, but I thought it was strange how they became general city defenders with poor attack capability.

I think it would good to see them in a support role, but I do hope they aren't to helpless on their own as long as they have distance.

[Takhisis]

The problem is that all 'combat' in civ is mêlée combat, and that ranged combat is completely underrepresented.

[Souron]

Rightly, I think they should have no advantage attacking or defending, except for being weak defending against horse without walls. They should also get a greater advantage defending hills, and greater penalty attacking hills. They should be pretty ineffective in forests and jungles either way.

I suspect that they will be support troops in Civ V. Poor in defense, but effective in bombard.