Well, my main issue line is the fact that there seems to be a melee unit for every little change in small arms between longswordsman and ww2, but the major change to automatic weapons with smaller ammunition isn't represented.
And the tech tree was unchanged for melee units in the demo, so...
Well, my main issue line is the fact that there seems to be a melee unit for every little change in small arms between longswordsman and ww2, but the major change to automatic weapons with smaller ammunition isn't represented.
And the tech tree was unchanged for melee units in the demo, so...
Well, Modern Infantry comes in at plastics, so I always consider them armed with AR15s, and therefor appearing an era too early in game, but the whole mess with modern small arms already filled up an older thread.
Yeah, I detect a complete lack meaningful warfare-tech path tweaks in that screenshot.
Well, Modern Infantry comes in at plastics, so I always consider them armed with AR15s, and therefor appearing an era too early in game, but the whole mess with modern small arms already filled up an older thread.
Yeah, I detect a complete lack meaningful warfare-tech path tweaks in that screenshot.
Wait a second, you were in that other thread I think. The one that hashed at length how there were no significant small arms changes for infantry between the actual WWI and II soldiers primarily carried semi-automatic large rifles in both a 20-point strength jump shouldn't happen until automatic carbines / atomic era.
Depends. Most bow tactics just spammed arrows on a given area. You might think that the kill count would be higher the more clustered the opponents troops are
Wait a second, you were in that other thread I think. The one that hashed at length how there were no significant small arms changes for infantry between the actual WWI and II soldiers primarily carried semi-automatic large rifles in both a 20-point strength jump shouldn't happen until automatic carbines / atomic era.
That's what I'm saying now: I was hoping BNV changed it so there were less main line melee units between longswordsman and infantry, as there really doesn't need to be musketman, rifleman, great war infantry (ww1) and infantry(ww2) units. As it is now, you have longswordsman, musketman, and great war infantry for a relatively small amount of time.
They need to move each one one tech later, and either combine the two WW units and add a cold war one, or change infantry to represent cold war, and great war both world wars.
I've had a think and I think this is a potentially quite elegant solution: other units block archery line of sight.
Therefore: in order to fire upon an enemy with a standard archer unit, you have to leave the space in between open and allow countering the next turn. You can still 'screen' your archers by having your melee units adjacent, just not directly in front of, as ZoC would then prevent anyone from closing the distance in a single turn.
UNLESS, of course, they had more than 2 moves. That would allow mounted units to very literally flank - moving out and around the ZoC of the screens and directly hitting the archers side-on.
It brings everything into play - flanking is more useful, position is more useful on both attack and defence since terrain is key, strong melee units will always be required for the frontline forces. All from a very small change to line of sight rules.
Your not playing the game right then. You can get away with using melee units on a prince or below AI. Instant you step into multiplayer, try to war with good player and he will respond with 4-6 composite bowmen that destroy anything that attempts to move up to them. Its the flavor of the decade strategy, if your not doing it, your not playing a fully effective game.
I have a long list of suggestions to fix useless units like melee, early naval units, fighters
Well... I invaded a civ using Gatling Guns so... I agree some changes should be made. Maybe mounted units should be even faster. And yes I'm using a lot of ranged units but I always did this (in previous civ games too).
But there is also a promotion to reduce the damage you get from ranged attacks and also you can bring your own ranged units to kill theirs. If the AI comes with lots of ranged units, my strategy is to retreat a little, just to make them move and usually I keep forest and jungle in my territory (as much as I can) so it's a "hard" terrain to fight on, for enemy units. They move and lose "first attack advantage".
If someone would invade me with only ranged units, he would lose them fast. If you talk about invading someone who got a lot of ranged units... that's still about terrain and the way you move your units. First of all, you must avoid getting hit by cities and focus on the units, as much as you can.
Last time I played, I invaded a civ like that which had like 4-5 composite archers and 3 trebuchets (I think... anyway, the artillery of that era), all near a city ... + like 3 horsemen (or again, the mounted units of that era... I don't remember because that wasn't recently). It took me a lot of turns to conquer that city because I didn't wanted to lose units. I don't like to lose units; but I did lose some. And after many turns, I managed to take the city; but I didn't force it... I just kept units around the city, at a safe distance, and did ranged attacks on their ranged units. I used my mounted units to destroy the artillery and when most of their ranged units and mounted units were finally killed, I moved my melee units in and started to attack the city.
Ummm not really. In general often melee is just finishing off the stragglers. Look at Agincourt - the French had numbers and cav but the rainy conditions and mud and the way the English set it up it was a funnel where the French got bogged down (think Marsh surrounded by forests in civ 5 terms) and the archers decimated them before they ever really reached the line. Once they did you had injured French nobles being pulled off wounded panicking horses by Archers who then used daggers and the like to kill these armored cav. The English barely needed their cav or melee units because the archers killed a ridiculous number of the French force. Had the English had no cav or proper melee they still pretty much slaughter the French at Agincourt.
Agincourts numbers are that the English had about 5000 Archers and 1000 dismounted Knights and Men at Arms whilst the French had somewhere between 12000 and 36000 people 10000 Knights and Men at Arms (about 1200 mounted) with an unknown number of other infantry, archers and crossbowmen. The French lost around 10000 people and had 1500 nobles taken prisoner the English losses were in the 100's.
It's what that whole English UU is based on but it does match up with a lot of other battles through history. You needed good ranged skills to get through. In Modern times that has become Air Support.
Ummm not really. In general often melee is just finishing off the stragglers. Look at Agincourt - the French had numbers and cav but the rainy conditions and mud and the way the English set it up it was a funnel where the French got bogged down (think Marsh surrounded by forests in civ 5 terms) and the archers decimated them before they ever really reached the line. Once they did you had injured French nobles being pulled off wounded panicking horses by Archers who then used daggers and the like to kill these armored cav. The English barely needed their cav or melee units because the archers killed a ridiculous number of the French force. Had the English had no cav or proper melee they still pretty much slaughter the French at Agincourt.
Agincourts numbers are that the English had about 5000 Archers and 1000 dismounted Knights and Men at Arms whilst the French had somewhere between 12000 and 36000 people 10000 Knights and Men at Arms (about 1200 mounted) with an unknown number of other infantry, archers and crossbowmen. The French lost around 10000 people and had 1500 nobles taken prisoner the English losses were in the 100's.
It's what that whole English UU is based on but it does match up with a lot of other battles through history. You needed good ranged skills to get through. In Modern times that has become Air Support.
I don't know why people try to justify the OPness of archers by a single battle: Agincourt. Yes longbows bested french cavalry but that was mainly because of terrain & retardness of the French. It is like saying that 40k army would easily beat up 80k army because Hannibal annihilated an 80k army of Romans with smaller numbers. And I may I suggest you checking out 'Battle of Patay', another battle of the same war.
And melee units were really important even for the ranged based armies. Look at the Mongols for example. They would soften up the enemy with horse archers, then when enemy was in bad condition, they would charge them with lancers to finish them off. That is how it worked. No doubt that most damaged was done by ranged attacks in this case but melee were still very important for finishing & the capturing the enemy. Moreover archers would loose their importance significantly when sieging a fortress. (because arrows don't pierce walls)
Now you might consider looking at the Huns. They would shoot arrows at the legions, and when the Romans took the defensive formation (some legions put shield above their heads), they would charge them with melee cavalry.
As you can see combined arms were always necessary to win battles. Using ranged units alone could be a great risk against a wise foe.
This should be reflected somehow in ciV. Diminishing returns for archers against wounded enemies could be a good change. As well as garrisoned unit taking damage when city is attacked.
Reading through this thread. I decided that best solution would be for arrows vs cities
Reduce damage to cities dealt by Non-Seige range by 50%
Cities with walls receive 25% damage immunity against Non-siege range
Cities with castles receive 25% damage immunity against Non-siege range
Babylonian Walls receive 35% damage immunity against non-siege range
Range units can choose to pick up siege promotions which cancel out out 25% each (think of it as Fire Arrows). Now with the issue of range units being too efficient at taking cities out of the way a few changes need to happen towards range vs melee combat.
We can do this as a I suggested earlier, have units fight over tiles. When a melee unit moves over on a tile with range unit, those two units are considered in melee combat. The range unit can not use its range attack, only move away or get slaughtered. Any other range units that attempt to fire on that tile risk dealing friendly fire damage.
But for changes that would work without changing the combat system which probably won't happen till the 3rd expansion.
Wounded units take 25% less damage for every 20 health they lose against range units (less men clumped together which means more arrows missing)
Melee strength reduction in range units
Range units hit by melee attacks can not attack next turn
After these changes hopefully melee units become relevant again. But for the later eras, Artillery, and Bombers still are the overpowered unit of choice for everything, along with Atomic Bombs.
Ummm not really. In general often melee is just finishing off the stragglers. Look at Agincourt - the French had numbers and cav but the rainy conditions and mud and the way the English set it up it was a funnel where the French got bogged down (think Marsh surrounded by forests in civ 5 terms) and the archers decimated them before they ever really reached the line. Once they did you had injured French nobles being pulled off wounded panicking horses by Archers who then used daggers and the like to kill these armored cav. The English barely needed their cav or melee units because the archers killed a ridiculous number of the French force. Had the English had no cav or proper melee they still pretty much slaughter the French at Agincourt.
Agincourts numbers are that the English had about 5000 Archers and 1000 dismounted Knights and Men at Arms whilst the French had somewhere between 12000 and 36000 people 10000 Knights and Men at Arms (about 1200 mounted) with an unknown number of other infantry, archers and crossbowmen. The French lost around 10000 people and had 1500 nobles taken prisoner the English losses were in the 100's.
It's what that whole English UU is based on but it does match up with a lot of other battles through history. You needed good ranged skills to get through. In Modern times that has become Air Support.
Babri answered my answer
However, the main issue is:
You need melee units to take the ground (in reality and for gameplay imo), but in Civ5 ranged units can do all by itself (exept conquering city, so peaple use horsemen for that...)
On Agincourt: most of the french casualties were actually inflicted by english sworsdman attacking the french knights who were stuck in the mud. Estimates from contemporary accounts and (IIRC) looking at the wounds on the bodies suggest that about 20% died from arrow wounds and 80% from swords/pike related wounds. The idea that the longbow did everything is a Romantic invention from the Victorians trying to make their past history look fancier.
.
Not sure that the history matters, but this is debateable, and even that finding wouldn't rule out that knights might have had their horses killed by the archers, and were then stranded in the mud. They therefore could have been helpless and killed hours later by the English swordsmen, after the French yielded the field.
In my opinion, archers and seige equipment should be a certain "one shot" kill for cavalry. This would (a) make cavalry better and (b) make archers less powerful.
Not sure that the history matters, but this is debateable, and even that finding wouldn't rule out that knights might have had their horses killed by the archers, and were then stranded in the mud. They therefore could have been helpless and killed hours later by the English swordsmen, after the French yielded the field.
In my opinion, archers and seige equipment should be a certain "one shot" kill for cavalry. This would (a) make cavalry better and (b) make archers less powerful.
At Agincourt most of the French were on foot. They had learned from previous battles that horses were vulnerable to directed arrow fire. They had an initial horse charge, but most of France's army was afoot. The horse charge turned back without even reaching the English.
The mud on the field was thick. It had been plowed deep for winter wheat and it had rained hard the night before the battle. The horse charge had also stirred the mud, making things worse.
The French were confident in their victory. The wealthiest and most noble aristocrats charged in the front of the first wave. They all hoped to be the one to capture Henry V for the ransom.
They were quite aware of the English longbows. They had armor which could deflect bodkin arrows and they had heavy facemasks on their helmets. The true power of the longbow was not its range, which was less than a crossbow, but the combination of good range and rate of fire.
The French nobles charged several hundred yards on foot through the mud with heavy armor and their facemasks down. The arrows didn't kill many, but they did knock them down into the mud. The ones in the mud were crushed by the press of nearly blind men trying to run forward. They drowned in their own helmets, being pressed down by their own countrymen.
Still many did reach the English lines. They were exhausted. Since they were motivated to capture the king and wealthy English nobles for ransom, they ignored the poor yeomen archers who continued firing. The English were fresh. Some of the archers engaged and simply overwhelmed French knights and stabbed their eyes with knives. Many French nobles surrendered. When the first wave was done, the archers picked their arrows out of the mud and did the same thing to the second wave.
At some point Henry became concerned that his baggage train was being attacked, so he ordered the prisoners killed. His nobles refused, so the yeomen did it.
The third wave of French knights on foot retreated from the field without engaging.
If the bowmen had not been present, the French would not have used detrimental armor and tactics that resulted in failure.
At Agincourt most of the French were on foot. They had learned from previous battles that horses were vulnerable to directed arrow fire. They had an initial horse charge, but most of France's army was afoot. The horse charge turned back without even reaching the English.
The mud on the field was thick. It had been plowed deep for winter wheat and it had rained hard the night before the battle. The horse charge had also stirred the mud, making things worse.
The French were confident in their victory. The wealthiest and most noble aristocrats charged in the front of the first wave. They all hoped to be the one to capture Henry V for the ransom.
They were quite aware of the English longbows. They had armor which could deflect bodkin arrows and they had heavy facemasks on their helmets. The true power of the longbow was not its range, which was less than a crossbow, but the combination of good range and rate of fire.
The French nobles charged several hundred yards on foot through the mud with heavy armor and their facemasks down. The arrows didn't kill many, but they did knock them down into the mud. The ones in the mud were crushed by the press of nearly blind men trying to run forward. They drowned in their own helmets, being pressed down by their own countrymen.
Still many did reach the English lines. They were exhausted. Since they were motivated to capture the king and wealthy English nobles for ransom, they ignored the poor yeomen archers who continued firing. The English were fresh. Some of the archers engaged and simply overwhelmed French knights and stabbed their eyes with knives. Many French nobles surrendered. When the first wave was done, the archers picked their arrows out of the mud and did the same thing to the second wave.
At some point Henry became concerned that his baggage train was being attacked, so he ordered the prisoners killed. His nobles refused, so the yeomen did it.
The third wave of French knights on foot retreated from the field without engaging.
If the bowmen had not been present, the French would not have used detrimental armor and tactics that resulted in failure.
The problem with your argument that ranged units have slightly lower strength than their contemporary units has a problem: ranged units are placed far more conveniently in the tech tree. They usually only require one or two techs off of powerful beelines like Education; in fact, Gatlings are directly along the Scientific Theory beeline (IIRC), which is arguably the second most powerful beeline in the game (after Education).
I don't buy this argument. There are extremely convenient melee tech paths during various parts of the game. Plus, If you look at the tech tree, you can see peaks and valleys for ranged units offered. Pikemen are are literally on the path to a beeline for education, while crossbowmen and composite bows are not. After you get pikemen, you open up one of two paths required to get Knights. Crossbowmen are certainly nice, but you have nothing to upgrade it to for an entire era. Melee units on the other hand have two renaissance upgrades to close the gap.
The only thing I find a little undesirable for melee is that the swordsman -> longswordman -> musketmen, happen so rapidly, that I find myself holding off on them.
Melee units aren't merely meatshields. They can be during a siege, but in a field battle, they serve as shock troops while archers etc pummel the enemy from behind.
a) getting rid of marines (just build infantry and give them that promotion!), b) getting rid of paratroopers and making paradrop a 3rd level (60xp) promotion available to all infantry units post flight, c) Moving infantry from Plastic to Penicillin. The reason for that last change is that plastic is already an all powerful tech, no need to make it even more so. Also, Replaceable Parts and Plastic are only two techs apart even if you beeline for the former - which is plain silly.
But who ever promotes melee lines? I have go out of my way the whole game to find the rare safe scrapes for my tiny set of melee units to get them promoted past II.
Yes, move Modern Infantry penicillin or anything atomic. Even globalization which is currently arbitrarily delayed an era. As it stands I rush Plastics and have tank-strength units 50 turns before I've even invented tanks
But who ever promotes melee lines? I have go out of my way the whole game to find the rare safe scrapes for my tiny set of melee units to get them promoted past II.
This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.
