Archer vs rifleman
- Thread starter cembandit
- Start date
Modiga-Disabled
Warlord
- Joined
- Feb 23, 2010
- Messages
- 129
The problem is you'd get to a point where every unit was ranged and it'd sort of defeat the purpose. It might not be particularly realistic, but it was probably the better option. You would end up with every attack being a ranged attack, which would either require a new mechanic to be thought up (can ranged units fight back in ranged attacks?) or you'd end up with very back and forth combat.
Modiga-Disabled
Warlord
- Joined
- Feb 23, 2010
- Messages
- 129
Looking at the preview videos, gunpowder units shouldn't have too much problem dealing with ranged ones. They might lose a health point in the initial volley as they move in, but they're going to overwhelm archery units in direct combat.
. lol.migkillertwo
Prince
- Joined
- Mar 14, 2010
- Messages
- 404
I think there are plenty of good reasons from a realist perspective why riflemen and infantry would not be ranged, but archers would be.
For one, riflemen are direct fire units. That means that if one rifleman can hit another rifleman, then that rifleman, necessarily, can shoot back.
Second, even though its possible to hit a man from 600 meters away with a rifle, combat shootouts almost always happen way under 100 meters. It makes good sense that riflemen and infantry would have to move in close to engage enemy units.
Historically its accurate
Archers had longer range and were standing behind the front troops this allowed them to attack the enemy and weaken them.
Gunpowder units like musket-man couldn't fire the same distance and this led to the evolution of guns being front line weapons on soldiers.
If a gunpowder weapon did exist that could do the same as what bows could, soldiers would still be fighting with swords on the front-lines.
Archers had longer range and were standing behind the front troops this allowed them to attack the enemy and weaken them.
Gunpowder units like musket-man couldn't fire the same distance and this led to the evolution of guns being front line weapons on soldiers.
If a gunpowder weapon did exist that could do the same as what bows could, soldiers would still be fighting with swords on the front-lines.
The only weirdness is when Riflemen are taking the field while there are still Archers around, when Archers can shoot them and they can't return fire without charging. And even that isn't actually all that unrealistic, really - Archers bombarding are doing something that Musketmen literally cannot do. Early musketmen weren't accurate at hundreds of yards of range; they had to be practically up in the faces of the enemy in order to expect to hit anything at all.
Think what even early gunpowder battles looked like. In the 18th century, standard practice for armies equipped with muskets was to line up across a field from each other and blast away at close range. Assaulting a position (e.g. Bunker Hill in the American Revolution) was as likely to be a melee combat as it was any kind of long-range engagement.
And this doesn't change much in modernity. Yes, snipers have scored confirmed kills at thousands of yards range, but it's not like that kind of stuff is standard practice warfare even now. Most infantry are trained and outfitted for combat at a range of a hundred yards or less.
There's a very serious argument to be made that this is a more realistic approach than allowing Riflemen to bombard.
Think what even early gunpowder battles looked like. In the 18th century, standard practice for armies equipped with muskets was to line up across a field from each other and blast away at close range. Assaulting a position (e.g. Bunker Hill in the American Revolution) was as likely to be a melee combat as it was any kind of long-range engagement.
And this doesn't change much in modernity. Yes, snipers have scored confirmed kills at thousands of yards range, but it's not like that kind of stuff is standard practice warfare even now. Most infantry are trained and outfitted for combat at a range of a hundred yards or less.
There's a very serious argument to be made that this is a more realistic approach than allowing Riflemen to bombard.
Giant Dwarf
Chieftain
There are gunpowder weapons that stand behind the front troops and that can attack and weaken the enemy. Those weapons are called artillery.
But what about crossbows. What I know is that crossbows are bad at arcing & firing from behind. It makes sense for shortbows/longbows but not for crossbows. Crossbows were more effective if they fired straight instead of arcing their fire.
slaze
Deity
ranged units cannot melee attack
revengeofmakno
Eclectic Enigma
Correct. Handling a crossbow for real makes that immediately apparent. The other thing to consider is that indirect fire by short, composite and longbows is considerably less accurate and effective than direct fire. (Try it!) That should be taken into consideration.
Range attack by bows in older time periods makes sense (although doing it from what amounts to many kilometres away is strange), but against rifles it is very strange especially across unblocked terrain. The game system makes this possible without immediate consequences. They could change this by making a ranged attack across open terrain vs rifles either impossible or the equivalent of a direct engagement.
Rusty Edge
Deity
Make a mod. New troop called snipers and give them 2-3 range
Most gunpowder units not having ranged is a good thing.
Yes, I wouldn't be surpised if there were a Mod developed that diferentiated indirect fire from ranged attack.
Shurdus
Am I Napoleon?
Let me put it this way:
Similar threads
- Locked
