the mormegil
Emperor
Regular archers have twice as much attack than defence.
Longbows vs. Crossbows
- Thread starter DragonRunner
- Start date
Assuming the units do not require any recources, the high attack value is there to give the Iron-less civilizations a decent attacker so they dont have to run around, trying to capture cities with warriors and spearmen.
And when combined with Pikemen, Knights and Medieval Infantry with 1.2.1 Crossbowmen will just encourage the players to wait to get attacked and that is just boring.
However if they are 3.2.1 (and maybe a cost of 50), your opponent cant wait to cut down those Pikemen so they can get to the soft Crossbowmen waiting somewhere in the same stack. That makes for much more interesting and varying gameplay.
Blasphemous
Graulich
Yes, with the current rules. This makes no sense and is blatantly inaccurate.
the mormegil
Emperor
Archers were lightly clad, thus very fast. They could fire arrows at the enemy, then if they were attacked could retreat. This tactic of shower with arrows and retreat could be effective.
Also this meant they were very poor if it came to hand to hand combat (no armour), which will inevitably occur if they are defending something.
Blasphemous
Graulich
The early Spearman line's role is also all wrong with the current stats... Throughout history infantry (including spears) was used to attack as well as defend. The only era in which the units in this line really were mainly defensive was the early days of gunpodwer, when the weapons weren't very mobile and thus used mainly for defence.
There was alot of discussion on this matter in the following thread:
http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?s=&threadid=49529
Blasphemous
Graulich
I never heard of archers being used as shock troops, for taking territory single-handedly. They were always support units, and defensive bombard represents this quite well.
EDIT: Sorry for the double post, people are replying quite rapidly so I thought it likely to be seperated from my former post.
Hey, this has got me interested....!
Been Googling, found this - interesting bit about Agincourt at the bottom. Apparently the Longbows were pretty ineffective at penetrating armour - it was the French Knight's Horses that got killed, drowning the heavy knights!
http://www.seed.slb.com/en/watch/archery/
Been Googling, found this - interesting bit about Agincourt at the bottom. Apparently the Longbows were pretty ineffective at penetrating armour - it was the French Knight's Horses that got killed, drowning the heavy knights!
http://www.seed.slb.com/en/watch/archery/
the mormegil
Emperor
They were used as shock troops but not single handedly. That is a problem with Civ3, you fight with one type of unit at a time. Battles nearly always used to include several different types of unit at the same time. There's not much you can do about that thought.
It doesn't matter about your double post, it happens.
It doesn't matter about your double post, it happens.
Another interesting site about Longbows:
http://www.student.utwente.nl/~sagi/artikel/longbow/longbow.html
http://www.student.utwente.nl/~sagi/artikel/longbow/longbow.html
JKMMustang
Chieftain
Given the variety of bows and crossbows developed throughout history an argument could be made for just about any of these proposals I've read.
For example, the Chinese developed a repeating crossbow (I believe it's called chu-ko-nu) that is magazine fed and a skilled user could fire 12 bolts in 15 seconds. This could certainly justify multiple attacks if one uses the same logic of allowing multiple attacks for English longbowmen as proposed earlier in this thread.
The bottom line is that the game developers must take into account a great variety of factors. If you want changes, mods and custom units should do the trick?
For example, the Chinese developed a repeating crossbow (I believe it's called chu-ko-nu) that is magazine fed and a skilled user could fire 12 bolts in 15 seconds. This could certainly justify multiple attacks if one uses the same logic of allowing multiple attacks for English longbowmen as proposed earlier in this thread.
The bottom line is that the game developers must take into account a great variety of factors. If you want changes, mods and custom units should do the trick?
HalfBadger
The Great Whackyness
I don't know what UU the dutch should get instead of the Swiss Mercanery, but the main problem is, now it's unlikely they'll add Switzerland to Civ, since their UU is taken. Unless the Dutch keep the Mercanary and Switzerland gets a different UU.
the mormegil
Emperor
Here is a site about longbows.
http://www.archers.org/longbow.htm
Another thing (not mentioned there) is that English longbows had special arrowheads for armour piercing.
Stats wise, I think longbowmen in medieval times were used more for defense, but archers with short bows in ancient times were used for attack. So maybe keep archers the same and put longbows as UU at 2.4.1 (don't know about bombard) and crossbows at 1.3.1 (not as good as longbow for bombard) and longbow costs more.
What do you think?
http://www.archers.org/longbow.htm
Another thing (not mentioned there) is that English longbows had special arrowheads for armour piercing.
Stats wise, I think longbowmen in medieval times were used more for defense, but archers with short bows in ancient times were used for attack. So maybe keep archers the same and put longbows as UU at 2.4.1 (don't know about bombard) and crossbows at 1.3.1 (not as good as longbow for bombard) and longbow costs more.
What do you think?
Blasphemous
Graulich
As in reality, Archers together with Spearmen (for melee) should defend.
Anyhow, I'm no history buff, so I really don't know exactly howi t should be... But what I suggested is loosely based on what little I know and have heard...
the mormegil
Emperor
Yeah, but that can't be done, can it?
Blasphemous
Graulich
Ehh... Why not?
the mormegil
Emperor
Um...ok. Could you explain?
Blasphemous
Graulich
What do you mean? You just put the all-round Spearman and the defensive-bombard-oriented Archer in a city, and that's basically it. =|
aaglo
Furioso!
Originally posted by MiChello
Aaglo, you read it in the discription of the Dutch in the civilopedia
I hope you are not suggesting, that there might be errors in the civilopedia
I'm not sure, but that might not have been the only source I read about that... well anyway, that explanation is good enough for this game
Here's a link to a post I made in the Civ 4 ideas thread about zero-range bombard. If, as I suggested, it could be used both offensively and defensively, then stats like Blasphemous suggested (or something similar) would be pretty good.
I'm all in favor of making the spearman line more useful for attack as well as defense. Rather than having the "defensive" and "offensive" troops (which leads to pretty simplistic strategies) there would then be "primary" and "support" troops: spearmen/pikemen/etc would do the main fighting on attack or defense, but including archers/longbowmen/etc in the stack (or in your army) would give you a nice advantage and encourage the use of combined arms.
I'm all in favor of making the spearman line more useful for attack as well as defense. Rather than having the "defensive" and "offensive" troops (which leads to pretty simplistic strategies) there would then be "primary" and "support" troops: spearmen/pikemen/etc would do the main fighting on attack or defense, but including archers/longbowmen/etc in the stack (or in your army) would give you a nice advantage and encourage the use of combined arms.
