[R&F] Civ of the Week: China

[Trav'ling Canuck]

One tile range really defeats the purpose of having ranged units.

Sort of like Machine Guns?

Honestly, the combat side of the game would be greatly improved if the entire Ranged line was moved back to the 1 tile range that Slingers and Machine Guns use, and then given an initial opportunity attack prior to melee. Then they'd take on their historical role of defensive units that were costly to attack frontally, and remove the Civ-silliness of Archer rushes. This would also improve the competitiveness of the AI. The AI rarely coordinates ranged assaults the way a human player can, and currently needs to be taught how to use both range 2 and range 1 ranged units (two very different tactical skills which should involve quite different decision trees ). It would be a lot easier just to teach it how to use range 1 units properly.

 

[Forster]

I really don't understand how machine guns ended up with a one range while archers have two. Bullets travel a heck of a lot further than arrows. If anything, the ranges should be reversed, given how much distance a hex actually represents.

 

[Trav'ling Canuck]

I really don't understand how machine guns ended up with a one range while archers have two. Bullets travel a heck of a lot further than arrows. If anything, the ranges should be reversed, given how much distance a hex actually represents.

Since machine guns, like bowmen, crossbowmen, and Crouching Tigers, are primarily defensive weapons, I don't mind their 1 hex range. It's the 2 hex range for the others that makes little sense to me. And their inability to have opportunity fire/defensive fire on enemy units attempting to execute a melee attack.

Machine guns were a big part of the reason why warfare bogged down as the rate of fire increased from the Gatling/Maxim guns to more rapidly firing equipment. You couldn't effectively use them on offense, but you could sure stop the other guy dead in his tracks (literally). Artillery wasn't overly effective as a counter. Tanks and planes were.

So you have the odd situation in Civ 6 (and 5) where one of the most revolutionary weapons in warfare, one that changed the nature of the way wars were fought and forced new technological innovation, is less important vis-à-vis its contemporaries than the units it replaces.

Heck, the inspiration for Tanks should be "have two units mowed down by enemy machine guns, forcing your generals to figure out how to deal with this new reality that attacking machine guns is suicide".

 

[KayAU]

I can understand the reason for giving Archers and other Ranged units 2 range. It serves to differentiate these units from the other classes, adding to the tactical complexity of the game. Ranged units are flexible in that they can attack up to 20 different tiles around themselves, and they also have the advantage of being able to attack without receiving damage in return. They are vulnerable if attacked in melee, and to fast-moving units. Terrain and elevation becomes a bigger factor, as Ranged units can either greatly benefit from it, or be greatly hindered due to cover and sight limitations. Rather than just smashing armies into each other, you have to pay careful attention to positioning and movement.

Of course, this would work a lot better if the AI had any tactical ability at all. As it stands, the tactical depth of the combat system just serves to make combat extremely easy for the human player.

 

[Tech Osen]

Of course, this would work a lot better if the AI had any tactical ability at all. As it stands, the tactical depth of the combat system just serves to make combat extremely easy for the human player.

Like I've said before in other threads: they made a pretty decent and fun game but their AI can't play it.

 

[Trav'ling Canuck]

I can understand the reason for giving Archers and other Ranged units 2 range. It serves to differentiate these units from the other classes, adding to the tactical complexity of the game. Ranged units are flexible in that they can attack up to 20 different tiles around themselves, and they also have the advantage of being able to attack without receiving damage in return. They are vulnerable if attacked in melee, and to fast-moving units. Terrain and elevation becomes a bigger factor, as Ranged units can either greatly benefit from it, or be greatly hindered due to cover and sight limitations. Rather than just smashing armies into each other, you have to pay careful attention to positioning and movement.

Of course, this would work a lot better if the AI had any tactical ability at all. As it stands, the tactical depth of the combat system just serves to make combat extremely easy for the human player.

You have to pay careful attention to positioning and movement in tactical table top battles, too, of which I played 1000s with miniatures in a long ago era. And in all of those, massed (non skirmishing) ranged units had an approximation of their proper, historical use of being able to deliver a first strike against units that are about to melee attack them or who are trying to move past them or to prompt the enemy to charge them or retreat by making standing in place untenable.

So while I get what you're saying, and agree this is a positive objective, I think paying attention to positioning and movement will be there every bit as much with all range 1 units as it is currently. Some of the tactics may differ (no more Archer rush, please!!) but the interest will be just as great.

If, instead, we bump Slingers and Machine Guns up to range 2, I'd be okay with that, too. Slingers had an effective range at least equal to, if not greater than, simple bows, and machine guns can outrange crossbowmen. You can look that last one up (actually, you can look both of them up) . And at least there'd be some internal consistency, which has to help when programming the AI.

And I agree wholeheartedly that part of the game design challenge should be to create a system that is simple enough for the AI to play well, but challenging (EDIT: and interesting!) for the player to master. The potential for that is there in Civ 6, with the rock-paper-scissors aspect of the unit classes combined with terrain effects and flanking bonuses. But then it's thrown off by the weird balance choices between the unit classes and complicated by unit class promotions that require you to scrutinize each unit of yours and the enemy (no obvious clues as to the promotions they have). The end result is a military system (and overall game) that is hard for newbies to pick up and understand, but easy to master (in the sense that a fairly small investment of time will push most players past the AI's capabilities).

 

[Tech Osen]

About Qin Shi Huang's ability and agenda. I'm an avid wonder builder so I'm usually at odds with him.



My issue with him is that more often than not he doesn't seem to be trying. I had a pretty mediocre start with Scythia here. I had 5 floodplains near my capital so on a whim I took Lady of the Marsh and Reeds as a pantheon, the one that gives production for floodplains. My second city had mostly desert around him but with Petra it could be decent.
First civ I encounter is China, just to the north of me and I can see that that city has desert tiles so I'm already worried but figured I just try to get it asap. I manage to pull it off so jay.
Meanwhile my capital also managed to build Oracle, Mausoleum, Pyramids and Terracotta. My third city gets the Colosseum. Non of these had particular good spots. All Qin was doing was repeated war decs on Arabia.

Giving leaders agendas and stuff looks fun on paper but with Qin it mostly means that he will never like me.

Edit: this was on Emperor difficulty.

 

[Archon_Wing]

Yea a lot of the leaders don't seem to actually follow their own agenda. Genghis will get pissed at you for building like 2 chariots, as a result.

But he seems to be doing pretty well since science is high.

 

[liv]

China is a strong civ. I think just under all the ones that gets an early powerful unit.
The extra charge for builders goes very far. More science and culture from eurekas is a nice boost.
I am not worrying so much that walls and the military unit are weaker qualities. I do build some walls on grassland if I can string them up. Extra gold and culture can be handy on those squares.
My object with China is to try to find some faith, get to golden ages so that I can buy workers, build a city with desert so I can rush pyramids. I like some of the other wonders but pyramids is important. The rest will fall in place (hopefully)