An idea regarding Gunpowder units

[Jabarto]

Something that always bothered me about this game is the way gunpowder units and city defenses are handled. It makes little sense to me that the earliest of firearms can bypass walls, and that gunpowder units can't get the City Raider Promotion, seeing as infantry are the ones who take and hold ground (it even says this in the Civilopedia).

So, my idea is this; make the City Raider promotion line available to Gunpowder units, but remove their ability to bypass walls (Gunpowder-based siege units would retain this ability). This way, the infantry-based units would be the ones to capture cities, which is more realistic, but would still need artillery to bring down the walls first.

I'm thinking of implmenting this in a mod - it's easy to do - but I wanted to get a few opinions first. Is it a good or bad idea? Do you see any potential balance problems this would create?

 

[6K Man]

It's unlikely that any handheld firearms could penetrate stone or earthen walls - so I don't see why muskets ignore city walls. Obviously cannons are another story.

In ancient times, a lot of wars were won via seiges of walled cities. In modern times, most decisive land battles are not fought in/over cities. Yet in Civ4, the city is still where most battles are fought (bombard defenses, suicide seige, then CR attack), and I've wondered for some time if a more realistic simulation of modern warfare could be managed.

Tanks get CR promos - and yet tanks are less useful in cities than they are in open terrain (they give up much of their maneuverability in city streets and are much more prone to being ambushed).

So, I tend to agree that infantry units should be the ones to get CR. Having said that, unless you amend the combat model so that major battles take place in the field as well as in/over cities, you risk making tank units irrelevant.

 

[IAM]

I don't think muskets should get a city raider promotion. The logistics of firing just don't work well for close quarters. I agree about tanks being less useful in major cities but game play does seem to go well as is. I can see infantry and like units having city raider.

 

[marune]

CR3 Infantry upgraded from rifleman<-maceman are so effective that giving a direct access to CR promotion to them seems overpowered to me.

 

[6K Man]

A possible counterbalance to CR-enabled infantry type units would be to give a hefty defensive bonus to units fortified in the field, or a penalty for units defending in cities. Maybe concurrently increase the bonus for forts - it makes no sense that a city would be a more defensible than a fortress, in post medieval times anyway.

That way, we'd see more battles in the field, as opposed to what we see now, with virtually every strongpoint being a city.

 

[UWHabs]

Keep in mind that the "city" tile is a large stretch of land, not just the city itself. Maybe have a slightly different modern combat model:

Gunpowder units now get CR, but as you said, don't ignore walls.

However, to balance all this out, I think maybe add an inherrent +25% or maybe even +50% city defense bonus for gunpowder units, like they have for archers and longbows.

Tanks should no longer get CR bonuses. Tanks, though, ignore walls, castles, and forts. This makes them open-field specialists, and they can still go in to attack cities, bypassing the walls, but they don't become your elite city-takers. I think Civ just got caught up in the hype from past games where tanks and armor were the main attackers, and like the images that you always see of tanks rolling down streets.


If you take this, add on the old zones of control (so you can't just blow past all the opposing units in the field and beeline for the city), and maybe change up forts so that they can't be built on forests, and they give +50% defenses that can be bombarded (like walls), and then maybe in the modern era, you can have a new worker build (a turret or fortress, maybe?) that is a fort that's like a castle (so +100% defense, but bombarded at like 1/2 the speed of a fort).

With all this, you've got stronger defenses for units in cities, but you add on your infantry city-takers. Tanks get moved a bit more to the field (you could even give them something like in Alpha centauri when they got like a +25% bonus for attacking in the open field), but still are useful for taking cities, just not dominant. And if you beef up the forts and add zones of control, you could see a civ making a few outpost forts to protect, so that an opponent can't just blow past you to your cities.

 

[IAM]

Static defensive fortifications outside of cities seem out of place. Whether it's Napoleon or Rommel manuverability outplays static defense.

 

[mechaerik]

CR3 Infantry upgraded from rifleman<-maceman are so effective that giving a direct access to CR promotion to them seems overpowered to me.

Maybe because they currently ignore walls, which contribute lots of defense?

 

[pfo]

Ignore the term "city raider", look at the bonus it gives. The restriction was not based on semantics, it's based on the fact that CR gunpowder units are too powerful.

 

[6K Man]

Static defensive fortifications outside of cities seem out of place. Whether it's Napoleon or Rommel manuverability outplays static defense.

Of course. But that hasn't stopped nations from building static defenses - and conducting trench warfare, from the Napoleonic wars through WWII. And who knows - had the Maginot Line extended to the English Channel, it might have worked better.

 

[IAM]

Of course. But that hasn't stopped nations from building static defenses - and conducting trench warfare, from the Napoleonic wars through WWII. And who knows - had the Maginot Line extended to the English Channel, it might have worked better.

The Great Wall of China, the Maginot Line, US Mexican border

Concentration of forces always always trumps... well always except maybe WWI trench warfare with machine guns etc. But except for the exceptions it's always true!

 

[Jabarto]

It's unlikely that any handheld firearms could penetrate stone or earthen walls - so I don't see why muskets ignore city walls. Obviously cannons are another story.

In ancient times, a lot of wars were won via seiges of walled cities. In modern times, most decisive land battles are not fought in/over cities. Yet in Civ4, the city is still where most battles are fought (bombard defenses, suicide seige, then CR attack), and I've wondered for some time if a more realistic simulation of modern warfare could be managed.

Tanks get CR promos - and yet tanks are less useful in cities than they are in open terrain (they give up much of their maneuverability in city streets and are much more prone to being ambushed).

So, I tend to agree that infantry units should be the ones to get CR. Having said that, unless you amend the combat model so that major battles take place in the field as well as in/over cities, you risk making tank units irrelevant.

Hm, I didn't think about what it would do to tanks. You have a point.

Ignore the term "city raider", look at the bonus it gives. The restriction was not based on semantics, it's based on the fact that CR gunpowder units are too powerful.

I'd buy that were it not for the fact that City Raider promotions carry over to gunpowder units when upgraded. But ultimately, I'm starting to think it's a moot point. City Raider always seemed to me to be an early-game promotion, since later on in the game, it doesn't matter what you attack with since the defenders will have been shelled into oblivion by siege units anyway.

 

[TheMeInTeam]

Ignore the term "city raider", look at the bonus it gives. The restriction was not based on semantics, it's based on the fact that CR gunpowder units are too powerful.

Only against the AI. But, basic tactics are too powerful against the AI too. So is siege . Are CR II rifles really worse than easily-produced CR II cannons?

In a fight against competent opposition CR troops get totally owned by basic combat-promoted troops in the field. CR gunpowder would hardly be "too powerful" in AI hands. In fact, I'd prefer the AI go that route rather than holing up in cities with annoying CG, or using combat and/or pinch on the offensive...which will actually allow it to kill a couple units.

 

[christian_a]

It's unlikely that any handheld firearms could penetrate stone or earthen walls - so I don't see why muskets ignore city walls. Obviously cannons are another story.

<snip>.

Because the attackers dig a hole under the enemy's walls, fill it with gunpowder, and blow it up.

 

[TheMeInTeam]

Because the attackers dig a hole under the enemy's walls, fill it with gunpowder, and blow it up.

Yes yes, and it's quite easy to do while having arrows rain down on you. Especially in the case of muskets, which actually had shorter range than longbows (especially given extra height to the archer units...and cover! ). And if there's a moat...

But even in the case of say something simple: An 8 foot wall with cover for people to fire from the top. You're seriously saying that you'd be able to IGNORE such a thing just because of gunpowder? While people fire at you, or dump things on top of your position? How are you tunneling? With a shovel?

If you can actually dig a hole underneath a fortification...you probably have better odds breaching it with siege weapons, or hell using ladders.

Even RIFLES wouldn't be able to ignore such an obstacle entirely. Yes, you'd outrange longbow or musket defenders, but you wouldn't be able to do much else without siege or getting into enemy firing range. IGNORING walls my foot!

 

[IAM]

I totally agree with TheMeInTeam black powder firearms, Mosin Nagants, M-1 Garands do not penetrate even a well packed earth fortification much less masonry or, god forbid, a steel reinforced concrete structure.

As long as the AI function with limited tactical ability equally promoted units will favor the human player. As for multiplayer I'd like to see some changes that show some more realistic abilities for infantry in close quarter combat and urban warfare.