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

Longbows crush rifles

Discussion in 'Civ5 - General Discussions' started by Toulouse, Sep 24, 2010.

  1. gunnergoz

    gunnergoz Cat Herder

    Joined:
    Jul 16, 2002
    Messages:
    2,227
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Southern California
    So after all the hoopla, we end up with another Civ game that is basically fantastical. All the talk about emulating Panzer General just shows that the people who design and beta test these games never read a single history or physics book. Longbows sinking destroyers and decimating tanks indeed! What were they thinking?
    Someone please mod the hell out of this game as soon as they fix the mod download BITES bug and the mod directory bug... :(
    And don't even get me started on this STEAM crap...
     
  2. Popish Frenzy

    Popish Frenzy Chieftain

    Joined:
    Aug 13, 2009
    Messages:
    19
    So from your post, its ok to argue 'from a standpoint of what is realistic' so long as you're just using that as shorthand for what breaks your sense of immersion. Now i dont doubt there really are some few people who actually think civ should a 'historical simulator' but i think the reason i hear the accusation ring out quite a lot in these forums is that people have very different thresholds for what breaks their sense of immersion. And some people un/fortunately have quite a low thresholds. But i guess thats what modding is good for:D (yay! modding)

    Anyway my point is i'm sick of seeing this accusation flying around, civ has always been a healthy mix of game and history. Its just that some people prefer less or more of one or the other than what the developers do.
     
  3. stoicfaux

    stoicfaux Chieftain

    Joined:
    Nov 6, 2005
    Messages:
    19
    To expand on the idea, cities with advanced buildings (e.g. forge, or even forge+university/workshop to represent the complexity of metal forging) should produce riflemen cheaper than archers. A city building a riflemen without a forge should pay the full 200.

    That would help represent the "guns are easy to use, but require a significant infrastructure to build en masse" concept versus the "anyone can make a longbow, but archers are tough to train."


    That's an excellent idea.


    Vehicle units (such as ironclads) really should take reduced damage from lower age units to reduce the longbow versus ships problem. Alternatively, vehicles/ships should take reduced damage from "anti-personnel" type weapons.


    Ranges. Archer units really shouldn't even have two hexes of range (one hex is enough.) The only reason for multi-hex range is to represent the idea of archers in the rear ranks firing over friendlies and into the enemy ranks. Some alternatives would be:
    * the Civ IV first strike ability. You would rely on the Archer's two movement points to attack and retreat. Plus you have to remember that archers can be right next to a melee unit and can attack that melee unit without taking return damage.
    * Defensive First Strike. Allow one first strike attack per turn on an enemy melee unit that attacks an adjacent friendly melee unit.
    * Flanking bonus. An archer unit next to (aka "behind") a melee provides an additional bonus to the melee unit to represent archers attacking the enemy melee unit right before it attacks the friendly melee unit.

    Even so, a one-hex range Archer would be difficult to use effectively since it would be so vulnerable standing right next to the enemy. So how about:
    * Melee/Archer "mini-cities" or Garrisons in a unit. A melee unit can act as a "city" to an archer unit. The archer unit would "garrison" "inside" the melee unit. The archer unit could still the attack the adjacent enemy unit, but when the enemy unit attacks the archer it would instead attack the friendly melee unit. This would require setup just like a siege weapon would need.

    * Expand the Unit Stacking from Combat unit + Support unit (e.g. Worker) to Combat Unit (spearmen) + Ranged Unit (archer) + Support Unit (worker.) Melee attacks would hit the melee unit first.
     
  4. Melchizedek

    Melchizedek Chieftain

    Joined:
    Jun 26, 2007
    Messages:
    149
    I don't get it. What about killing inferior units that have no chance against you regardless of either player's tactical choices is interesting? If you think _insert-newer-unit_ should be guaranteed to always beat _insert-older-unit_, why even play it out? Why not just declare victory when you have a tech lead? In a world of balance, Karate Kid would've lost as soon as he hurt his knee, and 300 would be the story of a Persian triumph.

    Anyway, it's a matter of taste. My point is that we players should have some power over what modifications we install or don't install, so that we can play whatever type of games scratch our peculiar itches. :)
     
  5. duxup

    duxup Chieftain

    Joined:
    Dec 31, 2001
    Messages:
    385
    I did not propose that :confused:
     
  6. Popish Frenzy

    Popish Frenzy Chieftain

    Joined:
    Aug 13, 2009
    Messages:
    19
    ooo i like:D..to the Modmobile!
     
  7. Nessin

    Nessin Chieftain

    Joined:
    Nov 4, 2005
    Messages:
    13
    Archers should have a ranged of 1, that would solve most problems because you'd be forced to limit their exposure to the enemy or leave them wide open to counter-attack. Anything but a cannon and rifles+ should have a range of 1 for that matter.

    Plus Archers are ridiculously powerful. People always love to look at the few times archers proved to be a significant advantage in killing the enemy, but those few times are outweighed by the millions of battles where archers were innaccurate to uselessness, used only as a harassment, and generally had no impact on the battlefield at large. Bows only make the difference in weight of numbers.
     
  8. anti_strunt

    anti_strunt Chieftain

    Joined:
    May 27, 2005
    Messages:
    180
    Well, it's not like using Panzer General as a starting point would be the best idea for simulating warfare during all those centuries preceeding modern mechanized warfare, for which a singluar Stack of Doom is far more accurate representation (loosely speaking, of course!).

    From a pure game play perspective though, it's a pretty good idea. Panzer General is tons of fun!

    First off I should point out that there are people (plenty of them!) who come to gun forums arguing that the US Army should adopt the SCAR-L or whatever futuregun, because it's great for getting headshots in Modern Warfare. That's rather how I feel about people arguing about the potential worth of a Civ game as a simulator of history.

    I actually think CiV is a step in the right direction, because patently absurd stuff, like Longbowmen bombarding France from across the channel (really, let that one sink in for a minute...) should once and for all dispel the myth of CiV-as-simulator, and allow all of us to embrace it for what is always was: a fantastic strategy game.

    Nothing more.

    (Yes, there are always mods, and I have nothing but respect for those who actually try to build an accurate simulation, even if I think CiV might actually be the wrong starting point for such an undertaking... Again, with the utmost respect for their ambitions!)
     
  9. stoicfaux

    stoicfaux Chieftain

    Joined:
    Nov 6, 2005
    Messages:
    19
    Civ will never be a realistic simulator. After all, how fun is it to lose 90%+ of a continent's population to imported diseases? (aka the discovery of the "New World" by Europe)

    I highly recommend the book Guns, Germs and Steel, to anyone who wants a design a realistic Civ game.
     
  10. Dizzy75

    Dizzy75 Chieftain

    Joined:
    Mar 22, 2006
    Messages:
    245
    Oooo, imagine if we could spread DISEASE to conquer our enemies! That's just twisted enough to make for a REALLY interesting game...
     
  11. anti_strunt

    anti_strunt Chieftain

    Joined:
    May 27, 2005
    Messages:
    180
    "Here, have this blanket. It's real warm and comfy..."
     
  12. Melchizedek

    Melchizedek Chieftain

    Joined:
    Jun 26, 2007
    Messages:
    149
    Point taken. Rereading my post, that line was exaggerating your view. Sorry.
     
  13. last skunk

    last skunk Chieftain

    Joined:
    Jan 11, 2009
    Messages:
    35
    Location:
    IN
    ...we all just watch ,snip>

    Moderator Action: I deleted your very rude remark. there is no place here for such comments.
    Please read the forum rules: http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=422889
     
  14. Doskias51

    Doskias51 Chieftain

    Joined:
    Aug 18, 2010
    Messages:
    63
    Location:
    VIDOR, TX, USA
    Since we are on the topic of longbow-men, lol. I was playing a Prince game on an earth map and England was pounding one of my allied city states with longbow-men. But they couldn't figure out that they couldn't take the city without a melee unit. For about 60 turns they were firing onto the poor city state. I wouldn't dare take my army near them because England had like 8 longbow-men spamming the city state. So I took a frigate and a caravel and bombarded them from the sea. I think England AI spams the UU a bit too much for their own good. That seems all the made during that period. I seen like 2 spearmen and 2 horsemen and that was it and the city state was able to kill them with city range when they finally started to try to attack.
     
  15. Popish Frenzy

    Popish Frenzy Chieftain

    Joined:
    Aug 13, 2009
    Messages:
    19
    To clarify my position. I think that a lot of the time when you have a thread on these forums arguing that such and such feature/ability/unit etc should be made more 'realistic' people tend to interpret the motivation behind that as 'i want civ to be a history simulator' however my impression is most of the time they're really motivated by 'this crap breaks my sense of immersion and my sense of immersion unfortunately breaks more easily than yours' . Sure a lot of the time people have unrealistic expectations that a mainstream developer should indulge their particularly hard to please sense of immersion but when i see someone whip out the ol 'civ isnt a history simulator dude' it just smacks of making a strawman of their point of view.


    Sorry i'm not sure i understand. Do you mean, you still think that the game should 'avoid any overly blatant breaches of immersion, of suspended disbelief, as that would break the atmosphere' but that in the case of longbows firing over the english channel you're ok with as because it will break the myth of civ-as-simulator?
     
  16. cr0ws

    cr0ws Chieftain

    Joined:
    Aug 29, 2008
    Messages:
    571
    So I presume my fully healthy submarine will still get sunk by a trireme in Civ 5 just as before? Some traditions just wont be broken!
     
  17. Uranus Reamerz

    Uranus Reamerz Chieftain

    Joined:
    Apr 4, 2010
    Messages:
    38
    Location:
    Bend OR
    think of this Longbowmen defending a castle ... mowing down rows of musketmen lined out on the green ... very plausible. If it were the other way around not so much .. I'm going with the defender ... which intrinsically (short of an ambush) the advantage lays.
     
  18. duxup

    duxup Chieftain

    Joined:
    Dec 31, 2001
    Messages:
    385
    My sub took cannon fire from a lower tech opponent yesterday. Not sure what was up with that. I'm not against the sub being discovered or such but I thought the damage it took and the circumstances that it happened under were a bit weird.
     
  19. PChildress

    PChildress Chieftain

    Joined:
    Sep 22, 2008
    Messages:
    9
    Probably all the pre-industrial bowed weapons, at a range of 2 tiles, should fire at half strength. The Longbow being the worst offender, for the moment. Firing with even half the result they do currently, an Archer could still, by knocking down a couple of sprites, smooth the path considerably for the melee unit which occupies the tile. On the other hand, Combined Arms as a concept may be a bit to groggy for a game like Civ.
     
  20. anti_strunt

    anti_strunt Chieftain

    Joined:
    May 27, 2005
    Messages:
    180
    I suppose I could clarify my position too (I was actually playing while posting, so I may've come off a bit random). I've developed a resistance to silliness, so while I originally posted that Longbowmen killing Riflemen would annoy me for being immersion-breaking, on closer reflection I would still find it annoying, but rather for balancing reasons...

    So going by my own taste I suppose I don't care about stuff like that, I take whatever immersion I can get and try to enjoy the game as it is...

    Now obviously people have different tastes. Unfortunately, having a too high demand for immersion can lead to disappointment: some of the current criticism of ciV seems to stem directly from this, as some of the streamlining efforts (no religions etc.) appear to strike people as a reduction of immersive detail for the sake of "gameplay".

    Leaving potential strawmen aside (I hope I didn't come across as too arrogant before) is it really wrong to ask people in such a position to accept the game as it is, for what it is, rather than what they might want it to be? (Which is the point of mods, after all. If it's really bothersome Longbowmen can be nerfed in a few seconds...)
     

Share This Page