1. We have added a Gift Upgrades feature that allows you to gift an account upgrade to another member, just in time for the holiday season. You can see the gift option when going to the Account Upgrades screen, or on any user profile screen.
    Dismiss Notice

Archery units slaughtering firearms units

Discussion in 'Civ5 - General Discussions' started by GlobularFoody, Sep 26, 2010.

  1. hewhoknowsall

    hewhoknowsall Warlord

    Joined:
    Nov 30, 2009
    Messages:
    294
    What about the claims of crossbowmen taking out mech infantry in this game due to the unrealisfic range difference?
     
  2. Flavorable

    Flavorable Warlord

    Joined:
    Sep 23, 2010
    Messages:
    165
    The Japanese were primarily swordsmen and the Native Americans had so many factors against them beyond weaponry. Read up on your history.

    Or better yet:

    Let me google that for you.
     
  3. So?

    So? Chieftain

    Joined:
    Mar 15, 2002
    Messages:
    27
    Long story short:
    In some cases, under certain conditions, archers could annihilate musket men. Under different conditions, the reverse is true. Woo! From a gameplay perspective, there is an interesting debate. With the AI as terrible at combat as it is now, you can simply march a line of musketmen and follow with cannons. The AI will attack the musketmen, but in an uncoordinated fashion (they'll damage two instead of killing one). Humans, however, would do much better -- they'd prepare forward positions, pick off the enemy and retreat. Rinse, repeat. That, my friends, is a gameplay issue. There's a simple solution, and I won't claim credit for it, as it's been *repeatedly* proposed here before: allow ranged units to stack with melee units, and then give every bombard unit before artillery a range of 1. That reduces the power of the ranged strike then retreat option significantly, as units can march into range and hit in one turn. Of course, you'd have to give archers a "defensive sentry" action so they could have one strike, at least.
     
  4. Sock Bramson

    Sock Bramson Chieftain

    Joined:
    Sep 27, 2010
    Messages:
    96
    I honestly don't see how anybody could have a problem dealing with archers and other ranged units with the AI in its current state. Even when the AI is at its most lucid, it is pretty easy to wipe out ranged units with musketmen, let alone riflemen, etc. You simply have to use them like melee units, since they have the same attack range. In the ancient era, even warriors can destroy archers as long as they are attacking; you just have to be careful about keeping them out of range until the opportunity to attack presents itself. Why, then, wouldn't you take the same considerations when using gunpowder units? Things are even easier when you consider the fact that you have your own ranged support via cannons 'n such and the ability to flank them with cavalry. Just because you make a tactical blunder and let your unit get shot to death doesn't mean there's a balance problem. Like other posters have said before me, the fact that you can strategically use older units to beat slightly newer ones keeps things from becoming too one-sided and makes for a more enjoyable experience, especially on higher difficulty levels.
     
  5. Nutteria

    Nutteria Tzar

    Joined:
    Sep 23, 2010
    Messages:
    171
    Location:
    Sofia,Bulgaria
    You can argue all you want but the fact remains.My cavalery got SMAShed by knights to the point its not even funny.

    I can understand longbow men owning musketmen (because that was the case in the 100year war) but outside that ..sorry the game just breaks.I`ve said it enough times that Fraxis need to implement +50% damage against units frow previous era starting from industrial age onwards.This will ensure that my longsword men wont be the most brutal unit untill infantry.YES they own everything even rifles.
     
  6. Anmer

    Anmer Chieftain

    Joined:
    Sep 27, 2010
    Messages:
    1
    What about Cavalry and Artillety?

    What? Your army is made 100% of infantry? :mischief:

    And about the Swordmen owning Riflemen, this is pretty possible, once the Swordmen enter mellee with the Riflemen, and since Riflemen took 1/3 of a minute to load a weapon and they usually ended up fighting in mellee because it was far more effective, the Swordmen would just lose some guys in the first volleys...What makes a 1800's army invincible against medieval armies are the Cannons, the artilery is what makes the difference. Gunpowder infantry just became fully effective when there was no need to load each projectile and when they abandoned the line formation and the weapons became accurate enough to shoot someone from a distance, even today only sniper rifles are really accurate, guns are not like in the games.

    There's also morale, and it's not emulated in Civ...one of the reasons guns were so effective early on is because they make people :):):):) in their pants, and the fact that they need less training than a bow, and even than a crossbow, that was considered an easy-to-learn weapon.

    But, do Knights really own tanks? lol
    I usually end the game by the end of the Renaissance
     
  7. Sock Bramson

    Sock Bramson Chieftain

    Joined:
    Sep 27, 2010
    Messages:
    96
    Nut,
    Mounted units are about as bad (worse? slightly better? I don't have the actual unit stats in front of me) at defending as ranged units because they receive no defensive bonuses. (I believe ranged units just have a lower defense vs attack strength to begin with) While I agree that losing your cavalry can be really annoying, a knight that gets attacked by a cavalry will get smashed even harder. Use mounted units' mobility to keep them behind your infantry and attack the enemy when they've been softened up a bit.
     
  8. GreyIago

    GreyIago Chieftain

    Joined:
    Sep 23, 2010
    Messages:
    88
    Or, you could stop bawwwing and develop a strategy. Here's one: Two musketmen per archer. Or, a cannon. Or, your own archers. Or, cavalry. I mean, good lord.

    The units exist as they are for balance reasons. You cannot have everything long-range.
     
  9. 12agnar0k

    12agnar0k Emperor

    Joined:
    Jun 25, 2010
    Messages:
    1,556
    The crossbow unit can beat a musketman without too much difficulty, and rightly so, but the more advanced rifleman stands up against it better, and the marine probably won't take damage from crossbowman fire. (I haven't played up to rifles just yet but I know units can do 0 damage to stronger units)
     
  10. Nutteria

    Nutteria Tzar

    Joined:
    Sep 23, 2010
    Messages:
    171
    Location:
    Sofia,Bulgaria
    Ok then tell me how a tribushet can 1shot lancers and rifles(I can say for only those two from my ingame exp.)

    Srsly the more I think about it I see less and less reason to tech past late medival units.(cannons are ok to have tho) They are faster to build require resources that are most of the times abundant enough(iron) and do the same job just as good as the renessance units.So again why tech rush to have better units that are not exactly better?! Hell they are not even on par because I can just overwhelm them with numbers if loose an extra unit or two.

    That is what brakes the game.That is why I said some exceptions are ok and healthy to the game but this is just bollocks.
     
  11. GreyIago

    GreyIago Chieftain

    Joined:
    Sep 23, 2010
    Messages:
    88
    I'm going to have to go with:

    Pics or it didn't happen. You guys are coming up with some pretty extreme examples. I've watched a frigate pummel spearmen turn after turn and not kill them. I've been bombarded by archers while I charge their position. I just...don't get it.
     
  12. w00tm0ng3r

    w00tm0ng3r Chieftain

    Joined:
    Nov 27, 2009
    Messages:
    22
    Same here. I've had trebs fail to one shot musketmen and chu ko nus. Either your riflemen suffered some freak dice roll or your pulling this :):):):) out of nowhere.
     
  13. nokmirt

    nokmirt Emperor

    Joined:
    Feb 14, 2009
    Messages:
    5,088
    Location:
    Iowa USA
    I guess it comes down to the fact that musketman were easier to train. Longbowman took many years to perfect their craft. If they were killed they are awfully hard to replace. The game should reflect this.
     
  14. morss_4

    morss_4 Warlord

    Joined:
    Dec 6, 2005
    Messages:
    178
    I concur.

    I just fought a war against Elizabeth in which she fielded numerous longbowmen. Despite the fact that I had no tech lead I did not lose a single unit.

    Your infantry units are getting picked off at range before they get a chance to attack? I'm going to suggest something wild here, USE CAVALRY. You have more than one tool in your toolbox. Even horsemen will slaughter longbowmen and have enough movement points to get there before they can utilize their range attack. Once the longbowmen are dead you can march your riflemen in to attack the cities. Archery units in this game pretty much die anytime anything so much as sneezes on them. I was one shotting them with my Companions, knights would do even better.

    Now, against a human opponent this wouldn't work because they would screen their longbowmen with spears/pikes. In this case you'll have to use cannons/trebuchets or your own archery units to even the odds, but the AI? The AI ain't that bright.
     
  15. JohnRM

    JohnRM Don't make me destroy you

    Joined:
    Apr 18, 2004
    Messages:
    11,582
    Location:
    Death Star
    *Enters the ring late*

    The reality of the problem is that technological advances happen in this game based on a track or schedule, if you will. Input enough resources into the matter and you will advance in technology. In reality, advances in technology occur only as a response to some need.

    For example, the U-2 Spyplane was developed to fly at a higher altitude than Soviet air defenses could pose a threat. The Soviets developed a high-altitude missile system to counter that threat. We, in turn, developed the SR-71 Blackbird to fly even higher and at ridiculous speeds to evade the new Soviet missile system. Without the U-2, the Soviets would never have developed the new missile system and without that new missile system, we'd have never developed the new spyplane. Yet, in this game, you can leap ahead of other civilizations (your enemies) by several generations without any opposing system to have a need to counter.
     
  16. Sonereal

    Sonereal ♫We got the guillotine♫ Supporter

    Joined:
    Mar 31, 2008
    Messages:
    14,897
    A bow is an indirect ranged weapon.

    The gun is not an indirect ranged weapon.

    Actually, archers could've been used both for defense and offense. Muskets weren't really good offensively.

    Then again, the English Longbow absolutely dominated the French Knights so maybe the English Longbow had more going for it. Unlike the musket, its not a frontline unit. It is a support unit. You do not put this unit on the frontline but in the back. Realistically, muskets are better for ambushes inside forests but even then they're still pretty terrible.

    If I had a choice between a 1000 longbows or a 1000 muskets at a foritified position, I would choose the longbows. Longer range and greater penetration power which can't be matched by a musket until the target is pretty much on top. Coupled with the fact that muskets take three and a half TV specials to reload and don't even fire in the rain, the longbow is more reliable. The single and only reason why longbow use fell out of use was because longbows take longer to train and when rifling was invented, the range issue nearly died. Compared to muskets however, the longbow dominated in every possible way except feasibility which isn't even reflected accurately in Civilization anyway.

    Doesn't that completly negate....a lot of points actually. What's the point of bombarding from a safe distance if you're going to be hurt when you do anyway? And guess what. Muskets don't have indirect fire, neither do rifles. So if artillery or archers are raining down arrows from another side of the hill, there's no realistic way the rifleman can hit it.

    That has nothing to do with range differences.

    That has a LOT to do with range power. At some point, a crossbow or longbow shouldn't be able to damage a unit. Infantry? Yes but tanks and mech infantry? :lol:
     
  17. Elenhil

    Elenhil Warlord

    Joined:
    Jan 19, 2008
    Messages:
    254
    Ahem, ahem. Should I remind that the bow was considered the noble man's weapon, or that the ashigaru were mainly spearmen? Whichever you prefer, it somewhat undermines your claim of sword-dominated warfare.

    As to the topic. Get over it already. Ranged attack in CiV represents the ability to fire at a curve, i.e. to attack targets behind your frontline troops. Gunpowder weapons obviously lack this ability, hence no 'ranged attack'.
     
  18. ExCivFan

    ExCivFan Chieftain

    Joined:
    Sep 22, 2010
    Messages:
    8
    I can't believe people are trying to say that medieval achers can beat muskets in real life. The issue is not range or how quickly the soldier can fire, rather it's lethality: if you get hit by an arrow, you can still fight, and have a good chance of surviving- especially if the hit is not in the torso. A hit by a musket in the torso means death and a hit in the arm or leg means the soldier is incapacitated.

    Remember that leaders hundreds of years ago were not stupid, if longbows would have worked better than muskets longbows would have been used.

    As for the Zulus against the redcoats, that was one battle and the redcoats were severly outnumbered. Put wellington's army at waterloo against the whole Zulu nation at it's peak and see who wins
     
  19. morss_4

    morss_4 Warlord

    Joined:
    Dec 6, 2005
    Messages:
    178
    I do think there should perhaps be a renaissance equivalent to the archer unit. Currently there is none, which is the main problem discussed in this thread. The modern era gets aircraft and then the rocket artillery, but the era of muskets and rifles has no such thing. Cannons are nice, but they have to set up.

    Perhaps something like Congreve Rockets (although I can offer no reason why they would be quicker to set up than cannon).
     
  20. stoicfaux

    stoicfaux Chieftain

    Joined:
    Nov 6, 2005
    Messages:
    19
    The counter-argument would be: why can't rifles shoot two hexes using direct fire? They may not be able to fire over units or terrain in front of them, but they should be able to shoot units two hexes away if they have clear line of sight.

    And just for the record, during WWII on one of the Pacific islands (Iwo Jima?) the Japanese fired indirectly with their machine guns. The put the machine guns on the back side of hills, fired at an angle and recorded where they hit. Thus the guns were able to attack the the US marines in front of the hill while never being exposed to US return fire. (Well, the spotter for the machine guns was at risk.)
     

Share This Page