Archery units slaughtering firearms units

[dannythefool]

Probably because most people in their right minds don't use rifles or muskets for indirect fire like you do with archers and x-bows.

I understand that, but it means there's not really much choice wrt. late game ranged combat. Maybe a sniper unit is what's missing. I'd actually like that.

 

[HannibalBarca]

I understand that, but it means there's not really much choice wrt. late game ranged combat. Maybe a sniper unit is what's missing. I'd actually like that.

A sniper should not under any circumstances be a "unit" on a strategic scale.

 

[Rusty Edge]

I think the game would improve were it to differentiate ranged attack from indirect fire.

 

[Sonereal]

I understand that, but it means there's not really much choice wrt. late game ranged combat. Maybe a sniper unit is what's missing. I'd actually like that.

Yes there is. Artillery. Sniper units don't fit on a strategic level. Unless you have a full division of snipers of course but unlike archers, you run into a key problem.

Snipers aren't meant for indirect fire. If the target is in the forest, good luck doing much against them. At least with archer volleys it makes perfect sense if the unit in the forest is hit.

I think the game would improve were it to differentiate ranged attack from indirect fire.

Had it been called Indirect Fire in the first place, nearly 90% of all the complaints levied against it would've gone up in smoke.

 

[Darkhon]

People with bows killing musketmen in unrealistic?

wow, I guess all those Zulu Dawn and movies about Indian raids on settlers are unrealistic as well.


The game isn't perfect, it definitely needs some tweaking, but the way I look at it also is a Knight on the battlefield in the modern age, isn't the old time chivalry knights, but rather the kind of Horse mounted Partisans of Afghanistan who drove the soviets out.

The game has to take some poetic license, a Knight you built 500 years early isn't the same "Guy", that originally signed up. It's an abstract representing relative combat values.

 

[pcasey]

People with bows killing musketmen in unrealistic?

wow, I guess all those Zulu Dawn and movies about Indian raids on settlers are unrealistic as well.


The game isn't perfect, it definitely needs some tweaking, but the way I look at it also is a Knight on the battlefield in the modern age, isn't the old time chivalry knights, but rather the kind of Horse mounted Partisans of Afghanistan who drove the soviets out.

The game has to take some poetic license, a Knight you built 500 years early isn't the same "Guy", that originally signed up. It's an abstract representing relative combat values.

You're taking a historical anomaly and trying to claim its the norm. Even at isandlwana, among the only "successes" of a primitive army against a firearm army, the zulus had a 10:1 numerical advantage in the main battle and still manage to lose 3,000 men to the british 1,200. If you want to model this properly in game, then you'd need 10 units of primitive infantry to defeat one unit of riflemen and you should expect to lose 3 of them. In game, 10 crossbows cut up 1 rifleman without getting scratched.

For every Isandlwana there were hundreds of cases where primitive people armed with pointy sticks or bows were butchered en-mass by more advanced armies using muskets or rifles.

Not two days after Isandwana, for example, 139 british soldiers armed with single shot rifles defeated 3500 zulus at a place called Rorke's drift.

The fundamental fact is that the game decided to model muskets, mini rifles, bolt action rifles, and armor as melee (shock units), while modelling bows and arrows as ranged units.

This is silly, and we all fundamentally know this.

There may well be a good *gameplay* reason for doing this (I suspect mass industrial age warfare with lots of ranged infantry wasn't very fun to play), but as a model of reality its insanity that a crosssbow outranges a bolt action rifle.

 

[gunter]

It is clear also to stones this issue have to be fixed altering the balance in a favour of musketeers and even more for rifle ones.

 

[andrewlt]

That's nothing. My stealth bombers would routinely take damage bombing units such as longswordsmen. There's actually animation of them throwing torch-sticks in the air and hitting the stealth bomber.

 

[Saarud]

I guess most people are thinking that a unit of crossbow men actually are a number of crossbowmen and a unit of riflemen actually are a number of riflemen. Right?

Well I look at the units as regiments/divisions/corps or even armies (depending on what the year are in the game) and a unit of crossbowmen instead are a division that has a strong part of crossbowmen or something similiar. So I think anyting that happens isn't that unbelevieble.

That being said I do agree that archers has a ridiculously strong range attack. I would rather have a range of 1 for them and make them be able to move after they attacked. I would also lower there range strenght and I would include range of 1 for riflemen and similiar units... it should ofcourse be much lower than their melee attack.

 

[gunter]

That's nothing. My stealth bombers would routinely take damage bombing units such as longswordsmen. There's actually animation of them throwing torch-sticks in the air and hitting the stealth bomber.

LOL

that's romantic indeed

 

[HeavyTwenty]

Boy then they were really effing stupid to put down their bows and use guns instead if the bows are so much better.

And the British for abandoning their bows and going with guns. Oh and the Japanese who got pwned by guns. And the Native Americans.

The fact is, yeah if a troop is ultra experienced, they may win with clearly inferior technology. That doesn't mean that bows are better than guns does it???

I think it's time you took a step back and looked at exactly what you're defending and asked yourself if it looks rational from an objective viewpoint.

Firearms were in use since 1260 (chinese hand cannons) but didn't overtake archers until around ~1500-1600, only because they were easy to mass produce and required little training, compared to English longbowmen who were trained over several years.

"The longbow was the machine gun of the Middle Ages: accurate, deadly, possessed of a long range and rapid rate of fire, the flight of its missiles was likened to a storm." This rate was much higher than that of its Western European projectile rival on the battlefield, the crossbow. It was also much higher than the standard early firearms (although the lower training requirements and greater penetration of firearms eventually led to the longbow falling into disuse).

 

[Sonereal]

That being said I do agree that archers has a ridiculously strong range attack. I would rather have a range of 1 for them and make them be able to move after they attacked. I would also lower there range strenght and I would include range of 1 for riflemen and similiar units... it should ofcourse be much lower than their melee attack.

A range of 1 is useless because that would put archers in the way of actual frontline units.

 

[enfo]

The OP is almost as bad as General Custer, who lost his calvary and riflemen to archers and warriors.

But yeah, as others have said-- early gunpowder units suck. A rain of arrows like what you would see in the movie 300 would still deal significant damage from afar.

As for longswordsmen against stealth bombers, that's something that needs to be looked into.

 

[TheMeInTeam]

God, just stop with the excuses people. An archery unit is not going to survive combat with a regimented rifle unit. That's ludicrous and you're making yourselves sound like apologists.

You're making yourself sound ignorant. Early firearms had less range and a lower fire rate than archery units. It wasn't until rifled barrels gave the guns range and cannons some devastating field oomph that gunpowder-based armies were markedly better. Of course, archery training took years and years, while just about anyone could be drilled on basic musket use and then sent to the field to fire in volleys.

Crossbows had enough power to penetrate anything but the heaviest armor, too. Look up the physics on how they were launched - the forces involved when a bolt was fired/struck were incredible.

Now, as guns became more modern, able to hold larger chambers, more accurate, increased range, automatic capacity, etc their abilities went so far beyond that of archery that it got ridiculous, but 1700's gunpowder? Keep dreaming.

I've murdered the AI's archery units using knights, so there's no reason they're smacking you silly when you're fielding later stuff anyway. When you have the advanced units, you *do* have an advantage, and if you play better tactically you'll win handily.

Or just tech infantry and laugh at their damage.

Other issues are a question of gameplay > realism, which is the RIGHT decision, by the way. If the game was set up such that 1 modern unit could just mow down everything, it would be imbalanced to the point of everyone either rushing that unit or trying to time out a KO on the other civ before they can field it...a lot less dynamic than what we have currently. Troop spam does NOT win in this game like it did in the others, and that's a big step forward.

Civ V has tons and tons of flaws such that it plays more like a beta than a finished product, but OP complaint isn't one of them.

 

[Arkad]

All of these historic examples show just how stupid this is. Gunpowder units losing to archers. It is almost as bad as this one game I played, were the "Knight" was nowhere near a strong as the "Queen". I mean, here this civilian royalty unit could basically fly across the screen unchecked, and the armored "Knight", on a horse no less, couldn't keep up (or even go in a straight line).

The lack of realism in these games kills the enjoyment.

 

[Sonereal]

All of these historic examples show just how stupid this is. Gunpowder units losing to archers. It is almost as bad as this one game I played, were the "Knight" was nowhere near a strong as the "Queen". I mean, here this civilian royalty unit could basically fly across the screen unchecked, and the armored "Knight", on a horse no less, couldn't keep up (or even go in a straight line).

The lack of realism in these games kills the enjoyment.

I mean, if you just ignore the fact that a trained archer, up until rifling, was vastly superior to equally trained musketmen, your cries for realism would make sense.

 

[digitalcraft]

that has to be the worst comparison yet. Thanks for that. Are we playing civilization or not? Are we supposed to have incentive to advance our tech or not? Come on, wake up and stop trying to defend the indefensible.

 

[bestbrian]

The OP is almost as bad as General Custer, who lost his calvary and riflemen to archers and warriors.

But yeah, as others have said-- early gunpowder units suck. A rain of arrows like what you would see in the movie 300 would still deal significant damage from afar.

As for longswordsmen against stealth bombers, that's something that needs to be looked into.

Custer was outgunned, as well as significantly outnumbered (and outgeneraled). The Seventh Cavalry was armed with single action revolvers, and single-shot Sharps carbines, while the Sioux and their allies were armed with Henry and Winchester repeating rifles. Another fine example of the US Army Ordnance Bureau at work.

 

[Sonereal]

Custer was outgunned, as well as significantly outnumbered (and outgeneraled). The Seventh Cavalry was armed with single action revolvers, and single-shot Sharps carbines, while the Sioux and their allies were armed with Henry and Winchester repeating rifles. Another fine example of the US Army Ordnance Bureau at work.

People have a bad habit of assuming Sioux=Archers always.

 

[Acoustic]

If you are using musketmen than you should have some cannons.. right?

18th century warfare was based around the use of cannons and muskets. Not just muskets, or just cannons. So what you need to do is bring some cannons to the fight. When you do have battle where there is some infantry men, make sure your musket men are at a distance and fire their asses away.

Very simple.