Crossbowmen until modern era (a possibile solution)

[bhavv]

Crossbows should be put back to 8 str, 12 ranged IMO, with an upgrade to something like an arbalest at 10 str 16 ranged, but a single tile range further along the tech tree.

 

[Alk3Crimson]

A simple solution is to have all ranged attacks on another ranged unit to work like how melee vs melee works now.

Melee vs melee: both sides injured
Melee vs ranged: both injured, but more damage on ranged
Ranged vs melee: defender injured
Ranged vs ranged: both injured

Which i think is what the OP is after.

Edit: forgot to add. Make all gunpowder units ranged, of 1.

This would be an ideal solution in my mind. If you have a rifle, and are close enough to a crossbowman for him to shoot at you, you would definitely shoot back. The idea that a crossbow outranges a rifle, even an early rifle, is a bit silly.

 

[Draskar]

This would be an ideal solution in my mind. If you have a rifle, and are close enough to a crossbowman for him to shoot at you, you would definitely shoot back. The idea that a crossbow outranges a rifle, even an early rifle, is a bit silly.

Yes, we need only this

 

[Zenstrive]

IF we go by the concepts found on Malazan series of novel:

Crossbowmen can be ugpraded to Sappers who are still crossbowmen but able inflict area ranged damage (but take damage if in the area of damage)

 

[Draskar]

IF we go by the concepts found on Malazan series of novel:

Crossbowmen can be ugpraded to Sappers who are still crossbowmen but able inflict area ranged damage (but take damage if in the area of damage)

Yes but upgrading is not the solution, the problem is that in some IN GAME situations (not real battles), a Crossbowmen is more usefull than a Riflemen against another Riflemen!

 

[CYZ]

the problem is that in some IN GAME situations (not real battles), a Crossbowmen is more usefull than a Riflemen against another Riflemen!

Not in real battles? There's always situations one might think of in which crossbowmen would be better.

Trench warfare for example. Riflemen can only shoot straight and if the other is in cover they cannot hit them. Crossbowmen can shoot their arrows high up to let them come down vertically and thus hit the riflemen


Ofcourse, these bizar thought projects should not be taken into account when making a game.

 

[Draskar]

Not in real battles? There's always situations one might think of in which crossbowmen would be better.

Trench warfare for example. Riflemen can only shoot straight and if the other is in cover they cannot hit them. Crossbowmen can shoot their arrows high up to let them come down vertically and thus hit the riflemen


Ofcourse, these bizar thought projects should not be taken into account when making a game.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FNhYJgDdCu4

 

[GeoModder]

I agree

Mmm... Grenade launcher (RPG)?

 

[Draskar]

Mmm... Grenade launcher (RPG)?

Why? I don't like this kind of units, they are too "zoomed-in".
Rather i'll prefeer an Anti-Tank ranged unit as Machinegun heir becouse Machinegun is an Anti-Infantry

 

[CYZ]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FNhYJgDdCu4

Epic scene!


''Why? I don't like this kind of units, they are too "zoomed-in".
Rather i'll prefeer an Anti-Tank ranged unit as Machinegun heir becouse Machinegun is an Anti-Infantry ''

Do you mean you'd prefer the crossbow to upgrade into anti-tank?

If so, that'd be bad. Archery units are anti-infatry and not anti-cavalry or anti-tank (which is ofcourse not the same, but they fulfill the same role in Civ V). Second, there's a bigger gap between crossbow and anti-tank than crossbow and machineguns.

Perhaps I'm understanding you wrong?

 

[GeoModder]

Why? I don't like this kind of units, they are too "zoomed-in".
Rather i'll prefeer an Anti-Tank ranged unit as Machinegun heir becouse Machinegun is an Anti-Infantry

The machinegun is an anti-infantry unit. But in the Modern Era infantry upgrades to Mechanized Infantry. So an RPG-unit isn't a bad compromise for a machinegun upgrade.

 

[CYZ]

The machinegun is an anti-infantry unit. But in the Modern Era infantry upgrades to Mechanized Infantry. So an RPG-unit isn't a bad compromise for a machinegun upgrade.

In my opinion infantry with an anti-tank promotion is representing RPG.

Also, isn't the ''mechanized'' part mostly about the way these units transport, don't they leave the vehicles when combat actually starts? In that case an RPG unit would not make sense.

 

[FeiLing]

Random note: In the Denmark scenario Crossbowmen have strength 10 and a ranged strength of also only 10 (instead of 15), while all other units (pikemen, knights, swordsmen, berserker/huskarl (longswordman)) have their standard strengths - and yet they still feel strong^^

 

[Draskar]

Epic scene!


''Why? I don't like this kind of units, they are too "zoomed-in".
Rather i'll prefeer an Anti-Tank ranged unit as Machinegun heir becouse Machinegun is an Anti-Infantry ''

Do you mean you'd prefer the crossbow to upgrade into anti-tank?

If so, that'd be bad. Archery units are anti-infatry and not anti-cavalry or anti-tank (which is ofcourse not the same, but they fulfill the same role in Civ V). Second, there's a bigger gap between crossbow and anti-tank than crossbow and machineguns.

Perhaps I'm understanding you wrong?

Yes, but it's my fault. When you think a sentence in Italian and then translate in your mind the result is horrible

I think that crossbowmen must be a dead end unit, and i want a method to limitate their effectiveness against moder units.
However Crossbow -> Gatling is confirmed so i'm doomed I only hope in some kind of implementation of my Scurvy-like promotion.

Machingun's upgrade path it's another issue.
I don't like the unit "RPG", and as you said, it's yet implemented with the promotion.
In the same way, i don't like the pikemen-like AntiTank unit, i'll prefeer it as a ranged unit, and so...why don't allow MG to become AA?
WWI it's a trench/infantry war and MG is the ranged unit.
WWII it's a mobile war and the AA is the ranged unit.

 

[CYZ]

Yes, but it's my fault. When you think a sentence in Italian and then translate in your mind the result is horrible

I think that crossbowmen must be a dead end unit, and i want a method to limitate their effectiveness against moder units.
However Crossbow -> Gatling is confirmed so i'm doomed I only hope in some kind of implementation of my Scurvy-like promotion.

Machingun's upgrade path it's another issue.
I don't like the unit "RPG", and as you said, it's yet implemented with the promotion.
In the same way, i don't like the pikemen-like AntiTank unit, i'll prefeer it as a ranged unit, and so...why don't allow MG to become AA?
WWI it's a trench/infantry war and MG is the ranged unit.
WWII it's a mobile war and the AA is the ranged unit.

Crossbow as a dead-end? This is very unpopular, it means you have a promoted unit that is now useless. You can either delete it (very wastefull) or suicide it (not very effective with a ranged unit).

Did your translation go wrong again? You want the WW2 machinegun to be a AA at the same time? Or does the WW1 machinegun upgrade into a WW2 AA?

Either way, I think WW1 gattling gun -> WW2 machine gun is fine, but it could promote into the AA line after that I guess (would that work with promotions though?)

 

[Draskar]

Did your translation go wrong again? You want the WW2 machinegun to be a AA at the same time? Or does the WW1 machinegun upgrade into a WW2 AA?

Yes i want to upgrade the MG to to my new ranged AA.

About the crossbowmen, yes i want the dead end and lose the OP promotions becoming a Rifleman.

 

[Rex_Mundi]

Isn't the gattling gun from the civil war era, and machine gun from WW1?

 

[Eagle Pursuit]

Yes, although there was an interesting transitionary period between the two.

 

[Alk3Crimson]

Isn't the gattling gun from the civil war era, and machine gun from WW1?

The gatlnig gun was used in the Civil War, and all gatlnig guns being used by the US Army where declared obsolete by the early 1900s, well before WW1. There's really no good way to portray a weapon that was only used for a 40 year period in a game that spans thousands of years, but I think they arrived at a pretty good compromise. "Gatling gun" sounds better than "WW1 machine gun".

 

[Louis XXIV]

Gatling Gun and Machine Gun are different units. While Gatling Guns were used towards the end of the Civil War, they're usually associated with the Americans fighting the Indians in the west and the British fighting the Indians in the east (OK, not really, more British vs. Zulu, but I just really wanted to say that).