No Modern Archer like Unit?!

[stealth_nsk]

There should be a % chance of friendly fire damage when artillery or battleships fire on enemy units adjacent to friendly unites, with the % change of friendly fire damage increasing the further the artillery/battleship is shooting from.

realism efforts without any gameplay meaning?

 

[JonoLith]

There should be a % chance of friendly fire damage when artillery or battleships fire on enemy units adjacent to friendly unites, with the % change of friendly fire damage increasing the further the artillery/battleship is shooting from.

Opinions?

This is simply a terrible idea. The more randomness that gets removed from the franchise, the better.

 

[wapamingo]

realism efforts without any gameplay meaning?

Hardly. Forces you to move your big guns closer to the battlefield and stand the risk of loosing them if the front line breaks.

 

[rh1n0man]

Originally Posted by wapamingo View Post
There should be a % chance of friendly fire damage when artillery or battleships fire on enemy units adjacent to friendly unites, with the % change of friendly fire damage increasing the further the artillery/battleship is shooting from.
Opinions?

For artillery this would be too confusing and very frustrating. I am guessing that the proposed mechanic is available for nuclear weapons. Nukes could probably damage units on adjacent tiles though there is no evidence yet of nukes even being used against units outside of cities. Artillery can already be countered with cavalry. There is not a need for artillery to be countered simply by hugging enemy forces with your own.

 

[Sonereal]

Hardly. Forces you to move your big guns closer to the battlefield and stand the risk of loosing them if the front line breaks.

Which is fun....how? The system that is in place now works. No need for silly friendly fire. Let's do a quick analysis over something real quick.

CivIV

Siege weapons were front line units designed to be thrown suicidally into a stack and bombard cities (followed by suicidally throwing them at the city). Except in some mods, they didn't act like support units.

So, Civ5 gives them ranged bombard so players would rationally use them at a distance as support units but for whatever reason, you think punishing players for using the "range" in "ranged bombard" is a sound idea?

Nukes could probably damage units on adjacent tiles though there is no evidence yet of nukes even being used against units outside of cities.

I could imagine tactical nukes doing very localized damage so it actually hurts more than one unit at a time and ICBMs doing wonders against cities. Then again, that's just me speculating.

 

[AriochIV]

I don't think an archer's Strength 6 pin-prick attack on a Strength 25 rifleman is really going to justify keeping them into the Renaissance age.

 

[migkillertwo]

Archers aren't able to fire very far compared to most modern day units. So if they could fire two tiles there should be a modern day equivalent. I know it's to late to make it in the main game but it could always be in DLC/an expansion pack or a mod. I was thinking sort of like a "Ranged Specialist" unit. It would have snipers for foot units and units guarded by foot units such as 'artillery'. It would have ATGMs (Anti-Tank Guided Missiles) for tanks and such. It could even have Anti-ship missiles and/or SAMs (Surface to Air Missiles) depending on how other things work in the game.

I'm thinking that mortar teams or grenadiers would fit this role just fine.

 

[Schuesseled]

I don't think an archer's Strength 6 pin-prick attack on a Strength 25 rifleman is really going to justify keeping them into the Renaissance age.

You'd be much better off building cannons or artillery.

 

[Zechnophobe]

It seems a little odd that a guy with a rifle can't hit something as far away as a guy with a bow and arrow. Even a Musket is likely more accurate than most military grade bows from 1 BC and before.

I guess maybe the game just didn't feel balanced having gunpowder units and better being able to ALL deal ranged damage.

 

[migkillertwo]

It seems a little odd that a guy with a rifle can't hit something as far away as a guy with a bow and arrow. Even a Musket is likely more accurate than most military grade bows from 1 BC and before.

I guess maybe the game just didn't feel balanced having gunpowder units and better being able to ALL deal ranged damage.

I suspect it has to do with the fact that muskets and rifles are direct-fire weapons, where as bows and arrows are indirect fire weapons.

 

[PieceOfMind]

Or the abstraction of scale changes as the game progresses for the sake of gameplay.

 

[Sonereal]

Even a Musket is likely more accurate than most military grade bows from 1 BC and before.

Muskets? More accurate than archers?

lol

I suspect it has to do with the fact that muskets and rifles are direct-fire weapons, where as bows and arrows are indirect fire weapons.

This^^^

The difference between a rifleman and an archer is that riflemen weren't meant to put their rifles into the air and rain bullets on the enemy.

 

[Tomice]

I don't think an archer's Strength 6 pin-prick attack on a Strength 25 rifleman is really going to justify keeping them into the Renaissance age.

@schuesseled:
Arioch was referring to me: I was suggesting it would make sense from realism and gameplay that cannons shouldn't need setup time.
It would avoid the effect that the crossbowman might be useful some centuries longer than in history (strenght 12; rather in special situations/strats than in everyday combat).

Cannons beeing better than CBM in every case would also reduce the time we see shared Musketmen/CBM armies, which is not the most acurate thing historically.

 

[AriochIV]

Another limitation of archery units past their historical eras is that in the 1upt system, there's only so much space to deploy units, and with a 2-hex bombardment range, things may get a little tight when trying to move ranged units into a position to fire on a given hex. Archery units have to compete with siege units for this space, and once they start competing with Cannon, that's a much easier choice.

There really is no Renaissance equivalent of archery units. Grenadiers were for assaulting fortifications (during the brief historical period in which Grenadiers actually used grenades; after that they became just an elite infantry unit); you can't really even throw a grenade the 20-50 range of a musket, much less over the friendly unit in front of you.

In the modern era, I don't think there's really any need for such a class of units, with longer artillery range and close air support.

 

[timtofly]

But I always liked the unit with the grenade launcher. That and the sniper.

Oooh that was before computers.

 

[Brawndo]

Try this

Spoiler :

In that picture the cannon gets a flanking bonus for ranged fire, which really makes no sense from a real world perspective. IMO flanking should only apply to direct assaults by a unit on an enemy hex

 

[Ahriman]

IMO flanking should only apply to direct assaults by a unit on an enemy hex

Yeah, I think its bizarre that flanking applies to bombardment.

 

[Schuesseled]

Good point.

But I still wonder whether there is a graphical distinction between a set up seige unit and one that isn't set up. I'm assuming yes, but I haven't sifted through screenshots looking for a before and after shot of cannons or other siege units that require setup.

ill save you some trouble, there isn't a difference graphically, a trebuchet looks the same set up or not. In fact it always looks set up.

 

[wapamingo]

Which is fun....how? The system that is in place now works. No need for silly friendly fire. Let's do a quick analysis over something real quick.

playtest much to confirm?

Siege weapons were front line units designed to be thrown suicidally into a stack and bombard cities (followed by suicidally throwing them at the city). Except in some mods, they didn't act like support units.

agree

So, Civ5 gives them ranged bombard so players would rationally use them at a distance as support units but for whatever reason, you think punishing players for using the "range" in "ranged bombard" is a sound idea?

balance and tactical consideration

I could imagine tactical nukes doing very localized damage so it actually hurts more than one unit at a time and ICBMs doing wonders against cities. Then again, that's just me speculating.

i certainly hope that if a nuke is used on the field that it damages all units around even friendlies.

 

[stealth_nsk]

Yeah, I think its bizarre that flanking applies to bombardment.

As I understand, flanking means having 2+ units nearby. So flanked unit just have reduced defense regardless of type of attack. That makes sense both from points of view:
- If you need realism, let's say it's more difficult to hide for flanked unit.
- From gameplay point of view it's the base for line-breaking tactics for both sides.