Longbows vs. Cannons

[Mad Hab]

I find amusing that the longbows have a range of 3 on Civ 5 while the cannons still have a range of two. The person who had this idea probably didn't his/her homework on the 100-Years War.

It goes more or less like this: the Brits acheive several meaninful, against-the-odds victories against the French at Crécy, Poitiers and Azincourt. Not getting into details, in most of those battles well-positioned longbowmen shredded to pieces the French knights and crossbowmen.

But by the end of the war, the French had reclaimed all the territory they had lost, and won the final major battle at Castillon. Before that, at Formigny, the British longbowmen tactic failed, partially, because the French deployed, for the first time, two cannons at the battlefield. And guess what? They could strike the longbowmen with the cannons while staying away from the operational range of the longbows...

I'm not saying that the longbows should have a range of 2 - but instead that the cannons should have a range of 3 (and, maybe, also require iron to build)...

Best regards!

Mad Hab

 

[lschnarch]

British longbows as well as Chinese cho-ku-nos display the perversity of the current arrow-armed combat system the best.
Both units completely blow scale and any plausability (not to talk about 'realism').

But one could say they are both worthy parts of Civ5.
Have something with a "wooooaaahhh!" and "cooooool!" effect, and the kids are happy.

 

[TheHarshax]

In popular history, as well as popular fiction, English Longbowmen and Chinese Cho-ku-Nos, represent the most idealic depictions of archery in warfare. They're well represented within the chosen mechanics of Civ5. As long as 1UPT exists, I believe the mechanics work well.

Then again, I believe the 'cannon' represents the first reasonable gunpowder artillery. However, if you want to be more realistic, cannons should only be unlocked with astronomy+chemistry. At chemistry, you should unlock the ability to equip a hapless fool, with a petard, which can detonate after spending 1 move 'setting up', much like the modern era missiles.

It should cost as much as the cannon, in the earliest part of the Middle Ages, unless your civilisation is happy, in which case half the hammers would be justified.

Hmm... I want to segway into how to fix ICS.... what if all building/unit costs were reduced by excess happiness? Hazzah! Who can make a mod that does that?

 

[Vordeo]

The developers had a fine balance between realism and gameplay to strike here though, and whichever way they went people would've been pissed. If cannons had been range 3, for instance, it would've changed warfare balance significantly, and people would then be complaining about how artillery should be range 4.

Also, Castillon's not exactly a great example to show that cannons have greater range than longbowmen, as IIRC it involved the British attacking a numerically superior French army.

Also, I've read that by the end of the Hundred Year's War, the English didn't really have too many Longbowmen left, as it was a very specialized skill that required years of training, and they lost a crapload of them to French cavalry over the decades, so I'm not sure how many were left by Castillon.

British longbows as well as Chinese cho-ku-nos display the perversity of the current arrow-armed combat system the best.
Both units completely blow scale and any plausability (not to talk about 'realism').

But one could say they are both worthy parts of Civ5.
Have something with a "wooooaaahhh!" and "cooooool!" effect, and the kids are happy.

Haters gon hate.

 

[Mad Hab]

Also, Castillon's not exactly a great example to show that cannons have greater range than longbowmen, as IIRC it involved the British attacking a numerically superior French army.

I never said that. At Formigny the cannons could strike the longbowmen from where the longbowmen could not strike the cannons.

And trust me on this. The French had only two cannons there - the Brits shouldn't have any trouble with them if they could attack them with volleys of arrows...

I guess artilleries could stay with range 3, but be the first to be able to strike without being limited by the terrain.

Cheers!

Mad Hab

 

[Vordeo]

I never said that. At Formigny the cannons could strike the longbowmen from where the longbowmen could not strike the cannons.

And trust me on this. The French had only two cannons there - the Brits shouldn't have any trouble with them if they could attack them with volleys of arrows...

I guess artilleries could stay with range 3, but be the first to be able to strike without being limited by the terrain.

Cheers!

Mad Hab

Ah, apologies, misread your post.

Not familiar with that battle, but nothing I've read on it (read: wikipedia) indicates that the cannons had superior range to longbows. There isn't even any indication that longbowmen were present at the battle, and in any case cannonballs are certainly going to do more damage than arrows at similar range.

All that said, assuming the cannons were pot-de-fer (the earliest French cannons), testing indicates they had a range of around 180m. Medieval English longbows have been shown to be capable of firing arrows at 320m, so there's a definite advantage for the longbows there.

 

[SalmonSoil]

It doesn't matter how far away they can strike from, that doesn't need to be represented in game. What needs to be represented is cannons beating longbows. Which I'm pretty sure they do. That said cannons vs longbows is probably the most legitimate "guns shoot longer than bows civ developers don't know what their doing" argument I've seen. Seriously guys, the guns shoot longer than bows because A: Muskets cannot shoot over targets, which is the entire purpose of the bombardment system.
and B: Muskets don't need to have longer range because usually they should be fighting units of their own era, and only in rare situations do archery units cause the demise of gunpowder units when they are fighting on equal footing.

 

[PawelS]

Hmm, increasing the Cannon range to 3 (but without the ability to fire over obstacles) is actually a pretty good idea, I just done it in my mod (I made them require Iron to build earlier).

 

[Haig]

Yeah the longbowmen range 3 seems quite silly.

By the way I'd have no problem with artillery having a very long range of, say, five or six (and cannons three) hexes.
Of course this would mean that the artillery's damage should be reduced, but then I think they would fulfill the job that the artillery did. They weren't used for "direct" hits into enemy infantries or tanks (those would be anti-tank guns) like cannons did in Napoleonic wars for example,
but more as a big barrage to soften up enemies, destroy fortifications, strike terror etc.

(Even as early as in Crimean war and American civil war a sort of blind artillery barrage was used in big numbers for first time, meaning that the artillerymen didn't always see their targets but did massive bombardments of hours or even days.)

So I'd be happy to see added range but less power for normal cannon/artillery.

 

[DaveGold]

The developers had a fine balance between realism and gameplay to strike here though, and whichever way they went people would've been pissed.

No fine balance here really. They just needed some ideas for abilities for archers. They had no ideas and made archers the same as siege, so that riflemen and cannons plays pretty much like warriors and archers. There's no tactical progression through the ages.

Fix archers and cannons will look fine.

 

[PawelS]

I like the idea of Longbowmen having a range a 3, after all a longbow should have a greater range than a shortbow

 

[trueblue]

I find amusing that...

...that you have the audacity to compare Civ5 to certain historical events when you obviously dont know the first thing about these said historical events.

who are these Brits of whom you speak? the British? im british but my team fought with the french in the 100 years war.





look. Civ5 is never ever going to be an exact replication of history, its impossible.

 

[bryanw1995]

I like the idea of Longbowmen having a range a 3, after all a longbow should have a greater range than a shortbow

I think that if you up canon range to 3 that longbow should get another add in your mod. bows are generally quite weak, and as mentioned their promotions dont follow them, so I think that it's reasonable to give the english a reason to actually make them. if you give canon range of three then even the english have little reason to make longbows.

 

[stormerne]

The longbowman range is quirky but apart from purist sensibilities, does it really matter? I would say not.

The longbow is MUCH weaker that the cannon in strength (6 and 12 vs. 10 and 26). And they appear much earlier with one civ only. Another UU, the Camel archer, is more powerful at shorter ranges. So what? :shrugs:

Funnily enough though, who is recommending the English as their favorite civ to play to win? Step forward please - if you're there at all!

 

[PawelS]

I think that if you up canon range to 3 that longbow should get another add in your mod. bows are generally quite weak, and as mentioned their promotions dont follow them, so I think that it's reasonable to give the english a reason to actually make them. if you give canon range of three then even the english have little reason to make longbows.

Well, I don't see a problem here, as the Longbowman comes earlier in the game (the Trebuchet is the siege unit of the same era, and it has a range of 2), and in my mod the Crossbowman and its UUs even upgrade to Cannon.

 

[GrayingGamer]

All ranged units are shooting distances that span miles and miles and miles and miles.

It would only begin to get realistic once you hit modern rocket-type "artillery."


It's a game, move on, there are FAR better things to complain about =)

 

[GKling]

While we’re on the subject, I have a problem with the historical accuracy of the laser-beam eyes of the Giant Death Robot as described in the Civilopedia. I mean, being lasers and all I would think the range should be huge, limited only by an allowance for the curvature of the planet (modified of course by the map size you are playing on).

I’m not sure if the English GDRs had some kind of longbow-laser eyes, nor am I sure what kind of range adjustment this should provide. Overall though I think that the Giant Death Robot’s lack of a ranged attack is wildly inaccurate and throws the whole realism/simulation factor of this game out of the window. Did the developers do any research on this before CiV was launched? This is completely unacceptable!

 

[Vordeo]

No fine balance here really.

Range wise there certainly was.

They just needed some ideas for abilities for archers. They had no ideas and made archers the same as siege, so that riflemen and cannons plays pretty much like warriors and archers. There's no tactical progression through the ages.

Fix archers and cannons will look fine.

There certainly is. You try and tell me that the 3 range of Artillery doesn't make a massive difference, or that archers are as good as cannon at besieging cities.

They're both certainly going to be ranged units, there's not that much you can do with that within the confines of the Civ system.

 

[storman]

While we’re on the subject, I have a problem with the historical accuracy of the laser-beam eyes of the Giant Death Robot as described in the Civilopedia. I mean, being lasers and all I would think the range should be huge, limited only by an allowance for the curvature of the planet (modified of course by the map size you are playing on).

I’m not sure if the English GDRs had some kind of longbow-laser eyes, nor am I sure what kind of range adjustment this should provide. Overall though I think that the Giant Death Robot’s lack of a ranged attack is wildly inaccurate and throws the whole realism/simulation factor of this game out of the window. Did the developers do any research on this before CiV was launched? This is completely unacceptable!

Exactly. Why can't the ultimate unit in the game can't be a powerhouse at both range and melee range??? The developers can't even get this right so naturally they won't get anything else right. Haha.

 

[PawelS]

I think the atmospheric conditions can greatly reduce the range of laser beams.