not on board with ranged attack...

[Arbustro]

To be realistic we would need to consider things such as: logistics, attrition, manpower, moral, loyalty, specific weather and terrain modifiers, equipment, generals, and different army composition with mixed units and the respective tactical modifiers. Basicaly what a paradox game attemps to simulate and modders attempt to improve and never really gets perfect. That is also why all paradox games focus on a specific era, because war, diplomacy, economy, research etc were all so different. The game mechanics that fits medieval europe, cannot be the same used for ww2, without some serious abstraction.

Civilization goes from 4000bc to 2050dc. If you want to have the same set of rules for the entire span of the game, you need to make some serious concessions, and you end up with concepts that are abstract, but believable and enjoyable for the entire span of the game. More than archers with superstrenght, I am bothered with the early game scouting. Really, if you care the least about realism, then having an egyptian war chariot fighting barbarians in siberia by 1450bc, should bother you. Though certainly it was fun to send a warrior to the south pole in civ2, only to find out the earth was a nicely shaped cylinder.

So, now archers can shoot across the alps, sure why not, that's why the romans invented the testudo formation anyways (to protect from those pesky german archers led by bismark shooting arrows from munich to milan of course). Look, in civ the approach to warfare is the same as in chess, there are unit types and those types have specific rules, just get over it. Have you have seen an horse jumping in L over the royal family (or any family for that matter)? Or a solid brick tower moving? Or a bishop so paranoid he only moves over black or white diagonals? Chess coined the rule "gameplay>realism", and apparently got away with it. Think of archers as just another piece on the board, and consider that removing the promotion to shoot over the everest wouldn't make them the least bit more realistic, since the entire warfare mechanics are abstract and therefore unrealistic to begin with.

And bring back the spearman>tank, I never saw the spearman in the modern era as actualy "a man with a spear", it was like everything else in the game: an abstraction. I always saw it as an armed militia for example, which could under very specific circunstances and with a very low probability, destroy an armored division.

 

[The_Reckoning]

Given the scale of the maps, archers should not be able to bombard at all. No unit should. Tiles represent a huge swath of territory. This, like everything in the game, is something you have to think of an abstraction representing larger dynamics in history.

Don't even bother trying to liken things to reality.

As has been said, your units are living forever and taking centuries to cross a continent.

That said, I'd love a Paradox-type game which covers all of history, but it'd be way too big in scope and would take way too long to complete.

 

[Minmaster]

again, for the last time, my problem is not with the archers doing ranged attack.
my problem is that there are these "impassable" terrains that no humans can traverse. that terrain being mountains... archers should NOT be able to shoot arrows over impassable mountains. i don't care if they can shoot arrows across plains or rivers. but not no snow capped mountains.

i'll be laughing when they see the light and remove the ability to shoot over these impassable mountains.

 

[Arbustro]

The only question is if it is balanced or not to have such an ability. You do have to spend a promotion which only on rare ocasions will be usefull, so I don't think it's overpowered, but then again only experience will tell.

 

[Walderschmidt]

To use indirect fire, you have to be able to see the target with another unit.

In Civ V, you can't see through mountains. For this to work, you'd have to another unit on the other side of the mountain. I imagine, that for picture purposes, the game has no fog of war, and therefore the archer cans see the city.

 

[Drawmeus]

People defending it - this one is silly. There, I said it.

Ranged attack as a whole I'm on board with. Adding stuff units can do gives design space to create more interesting units. Archers as "Better Warriors that get bonuses defending" is boring.

Archers having ranged attacks and riflemen not having it I'm on board with. Despite our severely modernist perspective, infantry battles between musket/rifle-equipped soldiers have virtually always been at very close range. Riflemen do not bombard in the real world. Archers do.

But shooting over a mountain? It's silly. It's not going to bother me one bit, mind. I won't even think about it while in-game. But if they could fix this one easily, they probably should.

 

[jeffreyac]

I don't think anyone os defending the realism (if they are, then you're right, it's silly!) just pointing out that it's meant to be a gameplay feature vs. a concession to realism.

 

[martinwgc]

Keep in mind that to shoot over the mountain, you have to be able to -see- the target you're shooting. And the archers themselves obviously can't see it. It requires you to have a unit on the other side of the mountains that can.

Not that that makes shooting over mountains -realistic-, only that it makes it something that won't be too overpowered.

Well in reality if you want to guide bombardment, you need at least radios...

 

[zomg]

this game is all about scaling, thats not a mountain that is a rockface your shooting over, the city is only 100 meters away.

(It's certain indirect fire is required)

Exactly, its all in how willing you are to accept some abstract concepts. This is the price of having "tactical" (ie small scale) fights on a "strategic" (large scale) map. This probably stretches the concept to near its breaking point but its all in the name of fun. Just pretend its a ravine in the mountains that they are firing over.

 

[Drawmeus]

I don't think anyone os defending the realism (if they are, then you're right, it's silly!) just pointing out that it's meant to be a gameplay feature vs. a concession to realism.

Are you sure? I'd be as willing to believe that it was an oversight as a gameplay feature. Maybe I'm totally wrong, but I very much doubt that bombarding over impassable mountains is adding a whole lot to gameplay.

 

[jtwood]

I don't think anyone os defending the realism (if they are, then you're right, it's silly!) just pointing out that it's meant to be a gameplay feature vs. a concession to realism.

It's a nod to the realism of how those units are used in combat scoped to the massive range of the game.

 

[Bridger]

Seems to me the game is being played on two separate scales overlapping each other. What you see on the terrain is the huge strategic scale. Overlapping that is the military units moving at a tactical scale. They use the same hexes and terrain types but abstractly represent different things. When it comes to the archers, they are not shooting over a mountain, on their scale that represents a small rise...or something.

 

[Minmaster]

mountains are impassable tiles, so it cannot be a small rise...

 

[Skwink]

Game play> Realism is a bad argument because simply because it is a bad argument.

Is that a good argument?

 

[The Leviathan]

People defending it - this one is silly. There, I said it.

Ranged attack as a whole I'm on board with. Adding stuff units can do gives design space to create more interesting units. Archers as "Better Warriors that get bonuses defending" is boring.

Archers having ranged attacks and riflemen not having it I'm on board with. Despite our severely modernist perspective, infantry battles between musket/rifle-equipped soldiers have virtually always been at very close range. Riflemen do not bombard in the real world. Archers do.

But shooting over a mountain? It's silly. It's not going to bother me one bit, mind. I won't even think about it while in-game. But if they could fix this one easily, they probably should.

best post in the topic

Archery units simply should not be allowed to fire over mountains...

 

[Silverwave]

You do realise that the game manual is full of issues, do you? This screenshot might come from an early build, so it might not even be possible to do that in the final release.

We shall see in... 13 hours and half ! YAY!

 

[smachy]

Is that a good argument?

It is bad argument. But, there is more to the post. Any argument can be made bad by taking it out of context. There are more than one sentence.

The argument Game play > realism is bad argument because it is bunch of buzz words, meaning it has no meaning. I am not contesting game play should win if realism and game play are in conflict. But, without stating why the two are in conflict, there is nothing to the argument.

Clear and simple rule is good for game play because it cause less frustration for players. (This states what aspect of game play is being promoted)

By making it more real by not letting archer shoot over mountain, the rules become more complex. Complex rules are bad for game play because it will cause more frustration for players. (This states how realism and game play are in conflict.)

If archer cannot shoot over mountain then the game is made worse. So, archer should shoot over mountain. (basically Game Play > Realism)

While the argument is not good, it's better than simply stating Game Play > Realism.

I'm not sure which is better until I play the game. Almost there.