One thing I find odd about this game is that archer units are mainly defence units and yet archers have swung many a battle.So my idea would be any attacking unit ie axe man etc would get a 15% bonus to attack if an archer was also in the same tile.This would simulate the archers laying down suppressive fire on the target as the axeman attacks.
Archers as support units
- Thread starter Sobsob
- Start date
Raisin Bran
Cereal Killer
good point
Its like the army in civ 3 ... more realistic .... we should be able to combinate up to 4 units in one ..... whoa! ... many many many combinations !!!!
Its like the army in civ 3 ... more realistic .... we should be able to combinate up to 4 units in one ..... whoa! ... many many many combinations !!!!
automator
King
Multi-unit attacks? Cool, but only if the archers are put in some sort of jeopardy (for balance), like, if the axe loses the attack, the archers are damaged by 50% or something.
Chamaedrys
Emperor
archery units should also get an advantage if they stand on a higher position as their enemy.
If f.e. the archer stands on a hill and shoot at an warrior on the flatland, the warrior has to run up the hill.
If f.e. the archer stands on a hill and shoot at an warrior on the flatland, the warrior has to run up the hill.
SK138
Warlord
This is a very interesting idea. I think Firaxis should really look into something like this.
Is it possible for someone to mod this in? However, would they AI use it as well?
Is it possible for someone to mod this in? However, would they AI use it as well?
Willem said:
Isn't this only while defending? Archers should get a bonus when they attack from a hill to a flatland as well. Melee units have to run down the hill to fight on the same terrain as the defending units; so shouldn't get that bonus -- but archers can shoot from up here more effectively than from another flatland.
BD
DeathsHead
Chieftain
- Joined
- Oct 15, 2005
- Messages
- 81
The problem with that Barmer is that a hill tile does not represent one single hill, but a region of hills. Its reasonable to say that the defender chooses the high ground I think, and therefore gets the bonus.
Attacking from a hilly region into a flat area means you leave the hills behind and meet the enemy somewhere in the plains ( or whatever).
My two cents.
To the OPs idea, I agree, but its not really a part of civ combat system. Those kinds of details are available in more combat oriented strategy games and would need be applied to a whole host of units other than just archers IMO.
For example, cavalry has its unique position on the battle field, as skirmishers/ screeners ( light cavalry ) or as shock troops ( heavy cavalry ) to break an enemy line.
Civ doesnt really get into these battlefield dynamics. Thats more of a Rome Total War kind of thing isn't it?
Attacking from a hilly region into a flat area means you leave the hills behind and meet the enemy somewhere in the plains ( or whatever).
My two cents.
To the OPs idea, I agree, but its not really a part of civ combat system. Those kinds of details are available in more combat oriented strategy games and would need be applied to a whole host of units other than just archers IMO.
For example, cavalry has its unique position on the battle field, as skirmishers/ screeners ( light cavalry ) or as shock troops ( heavy cavalry ) to break an enemy line.
Civ doesnt really get into these battlefield dynamics. Thats more of a Rome Total War kind of thing isn't it?
5cats
Warlord
It would be nice, but would have to have a big revision to combat. I wouldn't want just 1 type of unit to be used in this way. It'd be nice to see tactics, an option to play out combats & etc.
If you give Archers some extra First Strikes they do way better at attacking, and defending too, but it isn't reflected in the Combat Odds display.
If you give Archers some extra First Strikes they do way better at attacking, and defending too, but it isn't reflected in the Combat Odds display.
Sobsob said:
Ok, this is a decent idea except for one thing. Most of us defend cities during this age with at least two archer/longbowman/crossbowmen units. If you're at war, you're going to put a few more defenders in border cities.
So, if the attacking Axemen get a +15% attack bonus, shouldn't the defending unit get a +15% defense bonus? In fact, if it is a city shouldn't every archer add his +15 defense bonus to the defending unit?
I guess my point is that if you're going to have a bonus for the attackers you need to add that bonus to the defenders.
Looking at it from a realistic point of view, most archer units would cancel each other out. Yes, the English Longbowman was an elite example, however they're not in the game.
Teg_Navanis
King
- Joined
- Jan 21, 2006
- Messages
- 737
salty mud
Deity
One thing I find Civ IV lacks is battles. RTW's (Rome: Total War, but you knew that) battles were spectacular, and I was addicted for MONTHS. I still play it occasionally now. Every minor detail was covered, e.g heat affects stamina, rain affects archers and bowstrings, snow affects speed and stamina. The list goes on. Civ IV should have more cobat and battle posobilaties.
pholkhero
Deviant Mind
yes, a Civ: Total War would be an excellent (if HUGE) game
salty mud said:
It's not really a battle game, though. It's not even technically a war game. I'm glad that the Civ people didn't give the game that much detail. It makes it simpler, since there are so many other things to worry about.
When I play Hearts of Iron or something like that, then that is when I'll think about this stuff. Civ has always been a game that you could play without being a military buff. I think that is why the game is so popular. They make combat so simple that anyone can do it.
Not saying it's wrong to want that, as others do, as well. I'm just saying that I'm glad that they didn't add it. To each his/her own.
