Ranged Unit Upgrade Path

(This is a reposting from a thread that seems to have died to a fresh new thread.)

It's sad to see your English longbows lose their extra range advantage and have to start over as infantry. I've been thinking about the ranged hand-held weapon issue for a while now. How about this:

Archer (Antiquity) -> Crossbowman (Medieval) -> Mortar Team (Industrial) -> Rocket Team (Modern)

Both Ranged and Siege weapons cannot melee attack. Generally, a ranged unit, equipped with man-portable weapons, should have less in ranged combat value, yet we could also give them greater melee combat strength to hold a defensive line. While they would not be able to stand up to a huge pounding, they wouldn't necessarily immediately pop, and could hold off lower-tech attacks.

Ranged
Archer: 4 (6), R2, M2 (H40) - Archery
Crossbowman: 6 (12), R2, M2 (H120) - Machinery
Mortar Team: 20 (24), R2, M2 (H350) - Dynamite
Rocket Team: 40 (36), R2, M2 (H550) - Rocketry

Here are the common siege weapons, for comparison:

Siege Weapons (all have +10% vs. cities)
Catapult: 5 (11), R2, M2, set-up (H75, Iron)
Trebuchet: 6 (20), R2, M2, set-up (H170, Iron)
Cannon: 10 (26), R2, M2, set-up (H250)
Artillery: 16 (32), R3, M2,set-up, indirect fire (H420)
Rocket Artillery: 18 (46), R3, M3, indirect fire (H600, Aluminum)

What do you think?

I think it would be better if they weren't attached to the same tech as their siege counterparts. With only two additional I would put the mortar somewhere between cannon and artillery and the rocket before the rocket artillery. That tech that has brandenburg gate seems obvious for the one before artillery, I'm not sure for the other. Another way to go would obviously be to include a third unit in there, though I'm not sure that is necessary and it could be fun to have the two lines out of sync.

I disagree with the melee strength as a way to improve them as the artillery line loses its drawbacks. It leaves them with basically no weakness by the modern era since even a single bombard puts them in a position where they are probably stronger than the unit coming at them. I think cost and lack of resource would be a better way to make them appealing.

I don't really see the need for a fresh set of units, but transferring the experience gained would mostly solve the problem. Add in an extra level of experience to compensate for unique unit abilities that are lost.

This is my absolute MAIN wish.


Hand Cannoneer / Grenadier (Metallurgy) rng 2. mv:2 str: 12 (r18) H: 230 (-20% Str Vs Cities)
Mortar Team (Radio) rng: 2 mv:2 str 20 (r:25) H: 340 (-10% Str Vs Cities)

I personally don't think there should be a final upgrade, as any China UUs left still alive would be eeevil.

But it's better than having to lose all those promotions when you finally upgrade to rifleman.

What do you guys think?

Agreed, but why not just merge the rocket team into rocket artillery? Seems a bit redundant, since the rocket artillery is just simply stronger in almost every regard save for the resource cost. Basically, Archer->Crossbow->Mortar->Rocket Artillery. It seems to me that archers were primarily used to weaken other units (field artillery, basically) and had the advantage of speed over siege units like catapults, and the mortar to artillery would be what archers were catapults, but since rocket artillery doesn't have a set up time and the anti-armor role falls to helicopter gunships, I don't feel the rocket team would be necessary.

mortar teams existed before radios. i think mortars should come with Military Science. instead of rocket team, maybe modern snipers, in place with telegraph.

That nerdy kid said:

mortar teams existed before radios. i think mortars should come with Military Science. instead of rocket team, maybe modern snipers, in place with telegraph.

Click to expand...

Agreed. Those early mortars might be rudimentary, but they were still mortars and got the job done.

it's not mentioned in this thread because this is kind of a reboot of the millions of older ones, but modern snipers are not the right way to go at all. the scale and tactics are different than archers or mortars.

and just because this is technically a new thread:
i'm in support of archers upgrading to grenades and then mortars. grenadiers got their name from throwing grenades and they were a huge part of warfare, plus they add another useful unit to the game. mortars, same thing, but i feel that they should represent the more advanced mortars than the very first ones.
maybe they could upgrade to rocket artillery like somebody else suggested, but there should be at least two units in between that upgrade because if there is only one, you might as well just have crossbows upgrade to cannons.

awesome said:

i'm in support of archers upgrading to grenades and then mortars. grenadiers got their name from throwing grenades and they were a huge part of warfare, plus they add another useful unit to the game. mortars, same thing, but i feel that they should represent the more advanced mortars than the very first ones.
maybe they could upgrade to rocket artillery like somebody else suggested, but there should be at least two units in between that upgrade because if there is only one, you might as well just have crossbows upgrade to cannons.

Click to expand...

Upgrading crossbows to cannon is the lazy way out, but at least it would keep the ranged upgrades.

imho to upgrade crossbows/longbows to grenadiers, then mortars, then missile artillery makes the most sense... and enables the promotions to be consistent. I disagree with making them stronger on the melee side, they should be balanced as the other units in the series, including cost and resources.

Exactly where they fit in is secondary, but I tend to agree with TyBoy above, that they should not be identical with the cannon/artillery line, but should come in a little earlier.

i agree. most of the ranged units are much stronger in ranged attacks than they are at melee, so there should be no reason to reverse that.

I would fully support the idea of creating mortar teams and RPG's. This would preserve the ranged promotions and and make for light ranged teams in the industrial and modern era. They would not require setup. Alternatively, upgrading crossbows to cannons isn't a bad way out. The main issue for me is that the current setup of upgrading crossbows into melee units voids their promotions.

Several of these threads have been created since the game came out, and they tend to be frequented by a good number of people until another is created. And, it seems a majority consensus would favor the Grenadier>>Mortar Team>>Rocket Artillary line to continue the ranged path.

I think the arguments in favor of the line are strong enough to be taken seriously by the devs. Personally, I really like the added tactical options of a middle-strengthened ranged unit that doesn't need to be set up, versus the stronger ranged units like cats, treubs, cannons, etc which all require a set up.

So, does anybody know whether or not the devs are getting the message? Is this something we could expect with an expansion pack? In the meantime, are there any modders out there that would like to take the lead here?

Just curious.

The early game offers a strong case for archers/crosssbows vs. catapults/trebuchets because the archer lines come early and are relatively cheap to produce and properly promoted packs a strong punch. Their importance tends to be loss around the time cannons come on line because unless you have a UU like Keshiks, most players will be mass producing rifles to soak up damage and cannons for the ranged damange.

So the makeup of most armies tend to shift at this point and it is easy to upgrade the cannons up the path and i'm not sure it will make sense to continue building light bombard units unless they get something unique to them.

I also think mortar > rpg doesn't make a lot of sense as there's no 'rpg' team. So here's my proposal.

Industrial > Mortar Teams (replaces anti-Tank)
Modern > TOW Infantry (using the BGM-71 TOW) a light mechanized unit with same movement point as Mech infantry, and have a bonus against tanks. (This unit effectively replaces anti-tank)

My only concern with the above is the crossbows line doesn't have a unit for the gunpowder age.

The only thing that irks me about the RPG/Rocket/TOW as the final link in the Range Infantry line is the Indirect Fire Promotion. RPGs can be used like that, but it just kinda feels wrong to me...

I'd honestly just end the line with Self-Propelled Mortar Carrier (basically an APC with a mortar fitted in). +1 Move and maybe a few extra Strength over the foot-soldier mortar team. Simple.

Also, what's with Grenadiers as ranged units? No matter how I look at it, Grenadiers are either A) elite shock troops or B) dudes that throw grenades. Composite Bows have a combat range of about 80-100m IIRC. Modern US Soldiers usually toss grenades at a range of around 35m. The range just doesn't work.

We've had complaints about not enough microing in Civ5, so perhaps these units, lacking a strong attack attritube, can provide some sort of fire support with a bonus modifier.

Perhaps give a +5-10% non stackable benefit a unit attacking if they have a mortar team within 3 tiles or whatever the mortar range is.

I still like the idea of 'weak' run and gun mortar teams so players can move and fire on the same turn, and 'strong'(er) bombard when they are set-up in a fortified position.

I still like the idea of 'weak' run and gun mortar teams so players can move and fire on the same turn, and 'strong'(er) bombard when they are set-up in a fortified position

Click to expand...

That's exactly the tactical element lost by not continuing the line.

what's with Grenadiers as ranged units? Grenadiers are either A) elite shock troops or B) dudes that throw grenades.

Click to expand...

As a matter of precedence, reintroducing the grenadier as a ranged unit is simply a convenient way of bringing back an old unit to fill a specific role in C5 that is presently lacking (post-crossbowman).

Also, grenadiers are ranged units (dudes that throw grenades) -- sort of like the javelin throwers in Roman armies. The range wasn't far, but ranged nonetheless. And because CIV has never been a perfect reflection of reality, making grenadiers into a ranged unit upgraded from a crossbowman is just a simple way to maintain tactical choice while re-introducing a unit that was cut from C5.

A Field Cannon (as opposed to siege cannon or heavy mortars) would be a more realistic unit to replace the crossbowman with. Field cannons were small enough to accompany armies on the march -- they set up quick -- and provided the extra fire power to break an enemy line.

But, we already have cannons in the game....so I don't know how cool it would be to distinguish field cannons from siege cannons. Better to just bring back the grenadier as a ranged unit IMO.

Atwork said:

Also, grenadiers are ranged units (dudes that throw grenades) -- sort of like the javelin throwers in Roman armies. The range wasn't far, but ranged nonetheless. And because CIV has never been a perfect reflection of reality, making grenadiers into a ranged unit upgraded from a crossbowman is just a simple way to maintain tactical choice while re-introducing a unit that was cut from C5.

Click to expand...

Yeah, I'd understand the inclusion of Grenadiers as ranged units in Classical Era since grenades are thrown further than the range of a sword or a lance. However, most suggestions I've saw put ranged Grenadiers at the same period as Musketmen and Riflemen, both of which have range superior and at worst similar to hand-thrown grenades. I do get that a lot of people would love to have Grenadiers back, but I think it would be better if they were a continuation of the heavy Longswordmen rather than the Crossbows.

A Field Cannon (as opposed to siege cannon or heavy mortars) would be a more realistic unit to replace the crossbowman with. Field cannons were small enough to accompany armies on the march -- they set up quick -- and provided the extra fire power to break an enemy line.

But, we already have cannons in the game....so I don't know how cool it would be to distinguish field cannons from siege cannons. Better to just bring back the grenadier as a ranged unit IMO.

Click to expand...

True, the ideal unit to bridge the gap would be a light field gun. But it would indeed be to similar to the cannon.

Catastrophe90 said:

Also, what's with Grenadiers as ranged units? No matter how I look at it, Grenadiers are either A) elite shock troops or B) dudes that throw grenades. Composite Bows have a combat range of about 80-100m IIRC. Modern US Soldiers usually toss grenades at a range of around 35m. The range just doesn't work.

Click to expand...

well, like i said before, grenadiers got their names because they started out throwing grenades, so representing them as a wouldn't make any sense in the game. while the range isn't really 100% realistic, neither is just about anything else in the game. for example, medieval crossbows have more range than rifles.

awesome said:

well, like i said before, grenadiers got their names because they started out throwing grenades, so representing them as a wouldn't make any sense in the game. while the range isn't really 100% realistic, neither is just about anything else in the game. for example, medieval crossbows have more range than rifles.

Click to expand...

True, scale went completely out of the window, but there's still some perspective. A unit becomes ranged only if they have a much larger firing range than other units of the same era. For example, Crossbows and Trebuchets have longer reach than a sword, so Crossbows/Trebuchets are ranged units while Longswordsmen are melee. Pikes and other spears/lances have similar range to a sword, so Pikemen and Knights are also melee units. In the Renaissance Era, Musketmen/Riflemen/Dragoons, although armed with ranged weapons, are "melee" units while Cannons, who have a longer effective range, are considered "ranged" (French Napoleonic cannons had 1000m effective range, while French muskets had around 70m effective range, so big difference here). Although this does result in some screwy stuff (like you mentioned, Crossbowmen somehow out-range Riflemen), it's still better than, say, having the range of obsolete units downscaled to the era's standards ("Hey, your Crossbowmen is now a melee unit because Rome just teched Rifling on the other side of the world!"). The gradual change in scale does make sense from a gameplay perspective, unless one likes having Modern Artillery with a range of 200 tiles (100m -> 2 tiles for Archers, so 50m = 1 tile, thus 10km = 200 tiles). If you look at it this way, Grenadiers really don't fit in as a ranged unit, unless you're saying that Renaissance Grenadiers could throw grenades farther than musket/rifle effective range (70m).

A unit becomes ranged only if they have a much larger firing range than other units of the same era

Click to expand...

The definition of "ranged" in C5 has nothing to do with the relative comparative "firing range" between units in any particular era. The dev's decision to define some units as ranged while defining other units as melee are made based on gross generalities combined with considerations of gameplay.

C5 does not reflect accurate scales of things and it isn't meant to...arguing the scale of things to form conclusions about CIV gameplay is a seriously weak argument -- I'm not saying it's not an argument -- I'm just saying its really really weak. That's always been the case in the CIV series.

Grenadiers really don't fit in as a ranged unit, unless you're saying that Renaissance Grenadiers could throw grenades farther than musket/rifle effective range (70m).

Click to expand...

No, you don't have to claim that grenadiers could throw grenades farther than a musket to call a grenadier a ranged unit. In general, grenadiers fought at a distance and did not engage in direct hand-to-hand combat. There. Done. Grenadiers are ranged combatants.

Now, an interesting gameplay twist on the grenadier unit would be to give it a ranged attack of only one space, but to give the unit a strong melee defense.