Mod Request- Ranged Gunpowder Units

[CYZ]

I think giving gunpowder units a ranged attack is a good idea. It would have to be executed very well though if you don't want to ruin gameplay.

Personally I think al infantry untis should have a range of 1. This way they are still the frontline unit they are supposed to be. If you give them a higher range you're just going to have a distanced firefight which would not work in civ 5.

Exceptions could possibly be the antitank gun by giving it a range of 2. That way you have infantry up front, anti-tank guns behind 'em and artillery at the back providing cover fire.

Another important aspect is counterattacking. All melee units do this but by giving al later era units ranged attack it won't happen at all. Again, this would ruin gameplay. Easyfix = give frontline soldies a fireback ability, after being hit they return fire if the attacker is no more than 1 tile away.

Adding an attack bonus when on hills and a defense bonus for forests (cover, duh) this could really be strategicly viable. Ofcourse, the ai is never going to use this in any sensible way, but thats another story.

 

[Joschka]

According to wiki, the range of the line infantry was around 150-170 m, english longbows were able to shoot up to 200+ m. But taking into account that line inf. frequently charged into melee with their bayonets and the game needs "melee" units to be balanced, I like the design decision of firaxis.

But I don't like the Renaissance Era in Civ5, it's over simplified and there are too many things missing. If I was able add new units/models, I would do it like this:

Inf: Musketeer -> Line Infantry (allrounder), Grenadier (strong against inf), Jäger/Sharpshooter (with range of 2)
Cav: Lancer/Ulane (against other cav), Cuirassier (strong against inf, with iron req), Dragoon (allrounder)
Nav: Caravel -> Frigate -> Ship of the Line (English could get 1st class SotL)
Art: Canon

Something like that. I simply love the modern age, but in civ5 it feels just wrong, sadly!

 

[sleepingbear]

I'm not sure that Lord Shadow meant a dedicated spotter unit, just that the attack range of artillery would exceed its visual range and therefore require other forward units to make the targets visible.

Personally I'd prefer it if someone made a spy/secret agent upgrade for the scout, letting them explore rival territory. As it stands they're obsolete by the time the ruins are all gone and horsemen come into play.

Have scouts upgrade to recon units. This is going to sound sad, but I've yet to have a game make it out of the renaissance before I've steam rolled the AI, so I am unsure if there is a radio tech If there is, or something similar, have that be the pre-req. If a recon unit is has a target in sight it would either extend the artillery range, allow firing for full effect (ie artillery without recon gets a penalty at range), or give a small bonus.

 

[QES]

Wouldnt reducing archer and crossbowman range to 1 achieve the same ends?
My argument is this:

Ranged combat in this game is not really about firing volleys of projectiles at an enemy, it's not about "ranged" combat at all, it's about unanswered damage. Archers, Crossbowman and artillery of all kinds effectively bombard areas with inaccurate but "free" damage. There is no harm possible in retaliation. As this is the fundamental mechanic, we're not looking at riflemen with the same scrutiny we are the humble archer.

Sure, they both "shoot" at one another, but that's not the fundamentals of the concepts of "range" here.

Early, you have to use a club, spear, sword, or other death implement up close and personal to wound people. Archers, have the unique ability to shoot at range and harm unanswered. They are, in effect, very early artillery.

Later, when everyone is using guns, people are always shooting at one another, this means that 'range' is an inappropriate concept for gun-based war, because everyone's shooting at each other, nothing is "unanswered."

Now, perhaps there should be a simple modifier, like "gunpowder" units. All gunpowder units get a bonus to damage against all units without the "gunpowder" modifier, to represent how "free shooting" should exist. As it is, they already have a strength of higher value.

Lowering archer and crossbowman range could also differentiate them from their artillery brethren, in return they could be given slightly higher strengths for defensive purposes.

I do see the "misunderstanding" apparent in this request for a mod, but fundamentally, gunpowder changed warfare so much, that within the limited confines of this kind of game, one must re-imagine what "melee" and "ranged" mean. In my opinion they dont mean their literal definitions, but instead "answerable" and "unanswerable" damage.

Another possibility would be for the game to code in retaliation for ranged vs ranged combat. If archers shot BACK at attacking archers (as if in melee combat) then making gunpowder units ranged would make sense. However, the actual hex-distance for all ranged attacks other than artillery should be reduced to 1. Free-attacks until they're not.

 

[So?]

The question stands, can we create a true third class of units -- bombard -- and allow them to stack with infantry (IE 2U/H, not 1U/H). The only *real* issue I see is that the game may not be able to handle targeting two units in one hex. There are a number of ways to handle that:
1. Allow targeting. (best)
2. Target infantry first (probably how the game would automatically handle it)
3. Targeting archers first
4. Dividing damage evenly between two units in a hex.
5. Bombard targets archers first, infantry targets infantry first.
6. Bombard = choose, infantry -> infantry.

The benefit is that you can now have useful range 1 units. Archers become a lot more realistic and their "ranged" nature vs. gunpowder is not really a problem any longer as gunpowder units can attack on their turn in any case.

 

[mindseye1220]

The question stands, can we create a true third class of units -- bombard -- and allow them to stack with infantry (IE 2U/H, not 1U/H)

Couldn't we justchange the class of gunpowder units? Maybe put a bayonette or something on the guns?

 

[Lord Shadow]

I insist range-1 units would be pointless. Their damage would be far from unanswerable, given they'd leave themselves wide open for probable melee annihilation the next turn unless your side outnumbered the enemy forces. There would be no way to protect them with melee units.

It is indeed about ranged combat, since range is the major factor that makes the damage "free". It doesn't matter if the target can't retaliate the same turn when its attack will probably be deadlier the next. The idea of ranged units is to keep them away from melee attackers, and this mechanic would make that extremely difficult in normal conditions. Archers/crossbowmen are not and should not be made more resistant to direct attacks: it makes no sense since they're light troops truly not meant to face any opponent directly.

 

[So?]

I insist range-1 units would be pointless. Their damage would be far from unanswerable, given they'd leave themselves wide open for probable melee annihilation the next turn unless your side outnumbered the enemy forces. There would be no way to protect them with melee units.

It is indeed about ranged combat, since range is the major factor that makes the damage "free". It doesn't matter if the target can't retaliate the same turn when its attack will probably be deadlier the next. The idea of ranged units is to keep them away from melee attackers, and this mechanic would make that extremely difficult in normal conditions. Archers/crossbowmen are not and should not be made more resistant to direct attacks: it makes no sense since they're light troops truly not meant to face any opponent directly.

Unless you allow them to stack with heavier troops. Long-swordsmen + Archer in one tile.There needs to be some downside. Maybe do what III did and give bombard units no defense value, if they stack.

 

[sleepingbear]

I insist range-1 units would be pointless. Their damage would be far from unanswerable, given they'd leave themselves wide open for probable melee annihilation the next turn unless your side outnumbered the enemy forces. There would be no way to protect them with melee units.

I've been trying out a ranged mod that shortens the archer/x-bow and pre-cannon units to 1 range, and this is basically what happens. If your lucky you can get one shot off with your catapult before some melee unit turns it into kindling. You would have to allow these units to stack with melee units if this is going to work.

 

[TheCaptn]

I do see the "misunderstanding" apparent in this request for a mod, but fundamentally, gunpowder changed warfare so much, that within the limited confines of this kind of game, one must re-imagine what "melee" and "ranged" mean. In my opinion they dont mean their literal definitions, but instead "answerable" and "unanswerable" damage.

I don't think there's any misunderstanding. Most of us accept that what you've just described -is- the design philosophy behind the game, but similarly isn't the process of modding intended to test alternative philosophies?
I think what those of us interested in ranged gunpowder units want is to represent a different aspect of war, namely the history of increasing stand-off distances. In particular I'd personally like to bridge the gap to air units more evenly.

 

[QES]

I insist range-1 units would be pointless. Their damage would be far from unanswerable, given they'd leave themselves wide open for probable melee annihilation the next turn unless your side outnumbered the enemy forces. There would be no way to protect them with melee units.

It is indeed about ranged combat, since range is the major factor that makes the damage "free". It doesn't matter if the target can't retaliate the same turn when its attack will probably be deadlier the next. The idea of ranged units is to keep them away from melee attackers, and this mechanic would make that extremely difficult in normal conditions. Archers/crossbowmen are not and should not be made more resistant to direct attacks: it makes no sense since they're light troops truly not meant to face any opponent directly.

If you attack something and do not take damage in the attacking - it's unanswered. I dont much care if they get to attack you back the next turn, it's NOT simultanious. Melee is about simultaneous death. Range is about "i shoot, then you shoot later" (as far as the mechanic seems to operate. A Range-1 Archer would still be very very useful. On the archers turn, it gets to shoot at whatever it's target is....for free. On the targets turn, if ranged, it gets to shoot back. If Melee however, it has to charge in, and the archer will do MORE damage in its defense.

Now, as it stands, archers get eaten in melee, when caught they die. This can be fixed. Reducing the archer range to one, would mean the archers ought be able to defend themselves somewhat adequately on defense - though perhaps not as well as melee units. In this, a damaged melee unit (by the ranged fire) might not be able to kill the archer if the archer is in a good position (unless they're japanese/bushido). This would make the humble archer VERY effective at screening enemies.

Placed atop high-defense areas, they could shoot any adjacent hex, and be somewhat comfortable knowing that when assaulted they'd likely survive. Against numbers, this would not work so well, so melee escorts are still wanted.

--------------------

The problem I see with making gunpowder units have range is twofold.
1) First, the archer range given the gameworld size makes sense early on when things are supposed to be "minor" and represent small factions vying for power in a huge world. However, later in an industrialized world, people shooting OVER hexes seems sorta counter intuitive unless it's artillery.
2) Second, it would mean that gunpowder v gunpowder would be alternative volley's and shots.....across huge distances in an industrialized world. No climatic battles or simultaneous damage at all. I say no to this, if i have my druthers.


I think boosting the defense of the early archer units, and reducing their range will sort out the "feel" of the gun powder units later.

 

[QES]

I don't think there's any misunderstanding. Most of us accept that what you've just described -is- the design philosophy behind the game, but similarly isn't the process of modding intended to test alternative philosophies?
I think what those of us interested in ranged gunpowder units want is to represent a different aspect of war, namely the history of increasing stand-off distances. In particular I'd personally like to bridge the gap to air units more evenly.

A worthy goal, but I'd argue that warfare tended to leap rather than evenly progress. But I digress.

The issue i have is with riflemen shooting at 2-hex distances in what would be quite easily several hundred "miles" of distance (immersion feel-wise). The "i shoot you then you shoot me tomorrow" thing bugs me. If ranged could answer ranged simultaneously, it'd matter less, but there would still be that gap of distance between the units. It'd be like Nebraska and North Dakota shooting at each other while South Dakota was sleeping. It seems odd.

In the ancient world, everything is more or less "Wilderness", and it could be argued that these are parties just looking for each other, and archers have the advantage of scouting. It can be forgiven. But later, it boggles the mind.

 

[mindseye1220]

If you attack something and do not take damage in the attacking - it's unanswered. I dont much care if they get to attack you back the next turn, it's NOT simultanious. Melee is about simultaneous death. Range is about "i shoot, then you shoot later" (as far as the mechanic seems to operate. A Range-1 Archer would still be very very useful. On the archers turn, it gets to shoot at whatever it's target is....for free.

But an enemy could easily wait outside the archer's range, and then next turn move the two tiles and attack it. I think that's what they mean.

 

[Lord Shadow]

On the archers turn, it gets to shoot at whatever it's target is....for free. On the targets turn, if ranged, it gets to shoot back. If Melee however, it has to charge in, and the archer will do MORE damage in its defense.

Go ahead and try that. With just the range reduction, you'll see it simply makes archers far more disposable.

Now, as it stands, archers get eaten in melee, when caught they die. This can be fixed.

It shouldn't be "fixed" because it's not a problem in the first place. Archers are meant to be weak units that have to be protected from direct assaults, and range makes that possible.

Reducing the archer range to one, would mean the archers ought be able to defend themselves somewhat adequately on defense - though perhaps not as well as melee units. In this, a damaged melee unit (by the ranged fire) might not be able to kill the archer if the archer is in a good position (unless they're japanese/bushido). This would make the humble archer VERY effective at screening enemies.

No, giving the archer better defense would make it an all-rounder unit that'd put the use of conventional melee units in question. Again, archers are not meant to be purposefully left wide open to direct attack and then take said charge anywhere near well.

I think boosting the defense of the early archer units, and reducing their range will sort out the "feel" of the gun powder units later.

Actually, this whole thing would make archers feel more like 18th century musketmen, who took their shots and then immediately expected to be shot back at and/or charged.

 

[Massimo636]

Would it be possible to have musketmen who can shoot at range 2 *ONCE* then they basically become melee units. In order for them to reload and use their ranged shot again they must "H" (fortify, stand still) for one round. That might be cool to use somewhere.

 

[QES]

But an enemy could easily wait outside the archer's range, and then next turn move the two tiles and attack it. I think that's what they mean.

Well, sure, but the archer could also move and then shoot, still waiting for the melee to attack on it's turn - sure this "draws the archer out. But an archer sitting in a defensive position should/could still be something to reckon with.

Go ahead and try that. With just the range reduction, you'll see it simply makes archers far more disposable.

Only if you make archers as defenseless as they are now.

It shouldn't be "fixed" because it's not a problem in the first place. Archers are meant to be weak units that have to be protected from direct assaults, and range makes that possible.

Within the abstraction of Civilization I think hard definitions are hard to argue, any argument about the scope, scale and immersion to historical reenactments all have some weight and credulity to them. I see the archer unit not as "only archers" but as a military unit with a main component of archers. I assume they still have melee capacities of some kind.

No, giving the archer better defense would make it an all-rounder unit that'd put the use of conventional melee units in question. Again, archers are not meant to be purposefully left wide open to direct attack and then take said charge anywhere near well.

Not necessarily "all-rounder," melee units would still be superior in defensive roles (for melee). If I wanted to protect a tile from being taken, i'd place a melee unit there. But this does not mean archers couldnt also defend the territory. With the advent of units not automatically killing one another, perhaps the archers would take more damage than would a melee unit in the same hex - but then it could be retreated. I'm not advocating that archers are able to do everything, only that they could simply survive an assault if in good position. They might not do much in retribution damage as well, where as a melee unit would/could do retribution damage of proportional amounts. This would differentiate the two: Free attacks with less retributive damage, or no free attacks but more retributive damage. It makes some sense.

Actually, this whole thing would make archers feel more like 18th century musketmen, who took their shots and then immediately expected to be shot back at and/or charged.

Except that Musketmen would engage in melee combat. Also, while the feel of "bands of men" works in the ancient unimproved era, in the industrialized era the scale seems wonky. Riflemen should not be "bombarding" each other from hundreds of miles away and daring to call it something other than artillery fire.


Personally, i think "range" should be removed for everything but artillery units and the "bombard" function. I rather liked first strikes from civ4, though they needed a boost.