Scaramanga
Brickhead
did you actually mean to say gameplay is lesser than realism?
No I think he meant to say that gameplay eats realism.
gameplay< realism
om nom nom nom nom
not on board with ranged attack...
- Thread starter Minmaster
- Start date
No I think he meant to say that gameplay eats realism.
gameplay< realism
om nom nom nom nom
Skwink
FRIIIIIIIIIITZ
- Joined
- May 14, 2010
- Messages
- 5,688
Woops, my mistake. You made me think thought, and I am more of a Gameplay=Realism person.did you actually mean to say gameplay is lesser than realism?
Scara, This is the correct wording: Gameplay<alism.
Crunch crunch crounch
Louis XXIV
Le Roi Soleil
I'm of the opinion that gameplay should evoke reality, but you always have to remember you're playing a game where game elements symbolize real things. Therefore, if it doesn't serve the game, there's no point.
I realize that doesn't have a cool mathematical formula associated with it, however.
I realize that doesn't have a cool mathematical formula associated with it, however.
I think that it would be interesting if like Range had something like range points similar to movement points. As in it costs 1 extra range point to fire over a mountain because you would have to aim up higher to get over them, meaning once you got a range upgrade on them to range 3, you could fire over them but only at a range of 2.
Whew! I am SO glad I had this revelation. The archer is NOT on the other side of the mountain from the city; it is ON the mountain slopes above the city. They can't get down on the city side. PERFECT rationalization! 
Yes, it is a shame it isn't graphically represented. What is really missing here is that mountains should not be impassable, but designated hexSIDES should be -- OR -- there could be designated PASSES through mountains.
When I see naval units indirect firing over mountains I WILL be upset. I think 10,000 foot mountains should block even 16 inchers from having a trajectory that gets on target.
Yes, it is a shame it isn't graphically represented. What is really missing here is that mountains should not be impassable, but designated hexSIDES should be -- OR -- there could be designated PASSES through mountains.
When I see naval units indirect firing over mountains I WILL be upset. I think 10,000 foot mountains should block even 16 inchers from having a trajectory that gets on target.
GlobularFoody
Warlord
- Joined
- Mar 22, 2010
- Messages
- 237
Whew! I am SO glad I had this revelation. The archer is NOT on the other side of the mountain from the city; it is ON the mountain slopes above the city. They can't get down on the city side. PERFECT rationalization!
Yes, it is a shame it isn't graphically represented. What is really missing here is that mountains should not be impassable, but designated hexSIDES should be -- OR -- there could be designated PASSES through mountains.
When I see naval units indirect firing over mountains I WILL be upset. I think 10,000 foot mountains should block even 16 inchers from having a trajectory that gets on target.
I think that making up whatever you want to justify bad game design is not a good idea. Fanboys are the #1 reason bad games stay bad and not pointing out to the devs obvious mistakes will kill the game. They won't get mad, they don't be sad and in fact, they will like you even more!
bernlin2000
Prince
Easy solution: build archers and give them the indirect promotion. What's the problem here? Yours will likely win, as well, since they're getting the defense bonus of being in a city.
Minmaster
Prince
I can accept the indirect fire concept but just think mountains should be more different from hills. An archery competition on the two sides of the impassable mountains? No
exactly. if they're going to make it so easy to shoot arrows over mountains, they shouldn't make them impassable. impassable gives you the thought that these mountains are so high and rugged that no unit can travel through it.
smackthewise
Prince
I am reading the Civ V manual atm and noticed in the ranged section that Archers are ranged units, but INFANTRY are melee units.
Seriously, this is crossing the bull***t line as far as I am concerned.
I am getting very tired of the ridiculous sacrifices needed for "gameplay balance" etc. It is just weak.
Seriously, this is crossing the bull***t line as far as I am concerned.
I am getting very tired of the ridiculous sacrifices needed for "gameplay balance" etc. It is just weak.
el_hidalgo
Prince
Just because it's unrealistic doesn't mean it's good gameplay by default. And while of course Civ can't be perfectly realistic, lack of realism, if pushed too far, can spoil the fun. What if cities could move one tile per turn with the discovery of The Wheel? What if they could move into water tiles with the discovery of Sailing? What if they ditched the tech tree and just let you discover techs in alphabetical order? What if spearmen could destroy tanks? At some point you have to say, that's just stupid, whatever the "gameplay" rationalizations.
jagdtigerciv
Prince
- Joined
- Sep 27, 2007
- Messages
- 468
Game play> Realism is a bad argument because simply because it is a bad argument. It's just bunch of buzz words.
A simple rule is better for game play because players can easily see what can be done and not done. It takes out the frustration of "why can't I do this?" and "I don't know what I can do."
Also, simple rules are easier to discern without reading the manual or taking the tutorial, especially in a complex game. When players buy new games, he wants to play the game, not read the manual.
Yet, A game mechanic based on realism has good things; a rule that is based on something that one knows is easier to learn and discern.
A game with cool setting has its own attraction; realism can help maintain players occupied to that cool setting by not letting them think about contradiction.
Is adding the rule, ranged unit cannot shoot over mountain, good for the game? Which rule is easier to understand? Is there more strategic depth by making mountain impassible by ranged attack? Is it worth complicating a already clunky rule?
Beats me. I'm trying to kill time by thinking.
A simple rule is better for game play because players can easily see what can be done and not done. It takes out the frustration of "why can't I do this?" and "I don't know what I can do."
Also, simple rules are easier to discern without reading the manual or taking the tutorial, especially in a complex game. When players buy new games, he wants to play the game, not read the manual.
Yet, A game mechanic based on realism has good things; a rule that is based on something that one knows is easier to learn and discern.
A game with cool setting has its own attraction; realism can help maintain players occupied to that cool setting by not letting them think about contradiction.
Is adding the rule, ranged unit cannot shoot over mountain, good for the game? Which rule is easier to understand? Is there more strategic depth by making mountain impassible by ranged attack? Is it worth complicating a already clunky rule?
Beats me. I'm trying to kill time by thinking.
wilson1225
Chieftain
- Joined
- Aug 14, 2010
- Messages
- 32
Great argument bro!
PrAyTeLLa
Chieftain
I think you may need to hit the history books a little.
Archers were never sposed to actually engage in hand to hand combat. They are not melee units but are there to sit behind the melee units and rain down hell. They always had another unit type protecting them from the enemy.
Infantry are melee units in effect as they attack the lines, trying to over-run the enemy line. They had arty, cannon, etc for ranged attacks. Plus I'm sure the animations show the gunpowder units shooting at each other, not hand to hand.
Ahriman
Tyrant
ARGH! How many times do we have to say this. That shot is in the manual as a specific example of something that an archer CANNOT normally do.
That shot is only possible with Indirect Fire, it is IMPOSSIBLE without Indirect Fire.
Minmaster
Prince
that doesn't matter. what matters is that they can be given the ability to shoot over those mountains... mountains that are impassable by humans.
i like the suggestion from earlier that let the modern units do this, but not archers. i agree with that.
jeffreyac
Mostly Harmless
Readeth now from the Holy book of MST3K...
"If you're wondering how he eats and breathes,
And other science facts,
Just repeat to yourself 'It's just a show',
'I should really just relax'"
Truly, the words of the prophets Mike and Joel are relavent today (and in today's medium) as they were then, on the silver screen.
All hail Crow!
(my apologies if you don't get the reference - considering the audience, I'm guessing 97.374% will be familiar, but my calculations could be off a bit...)
"If you're wondering how he eats and breathes,
And other science facts,
Just repeat to yourself 'It's just a show',
'I should really just relax'"
Truly, the words of the prophets Mike and Joel are relavent today (and in today's medium) as they were then, on the silver screen.
All hail Crow!
(my apologies if you don't get the reference - considering the audience, I'm guessing 97.374% will be familiar, but my calculations could be off a bit...)
