Pre-napoleonic Range Units should be support units, not combat

[Craig_Sutter]

As the thread title says, pre-cannon range units should be support units rather than regular combat units. At the scales we're talking about, even 1 hex is really too much. They could even be support units for naval units at that scale. From cannon on, range and military organization might dictate they then become combat ranged units of 1hex range and going to 2 hex around WW I levels of tech.

 

[stiiknafuulia]

Gameplay >>>>>>> realism, every time. However, the power of ranged units was excessive in Civ V, so any effort to tone them done is welcome from a gameplay pov. If anything, I hope there won't be a '+1 range' or 'shoot twice' promotion in Civ VI. While fun to use, they absolutely lolwtf-rekt the already struggling AI (which couldn't move and shoot, and never advanced far enough the promotion chain to use those 2 promos themselves).

 

[Hajee]

I hate ranged units being 2 tiles untill you get cannons. So my hope is all ranged units are considered support units so you embed them in with melee units.

If not then I make mod for this. and decrease the range on all units.

 

[leif erikson]

Moderator Action: Moved to Ideas and Suggestions.

 

[Socrates99]

Personally I thought the archer line was meant to be antipersonnel and siege were for taking cities down. It may not have been realistic but I wish they would have just hit archers with a heavy penalty v cities and given mounted units a bonus v ranged. It would have taken care of a lot of the "op ranged" complaints. Defensive armies would mainly be comprised of spears and archers. Offensive armies would use a lot of horse and siege units. Iron infantry would just be a strong multipurpose unit.

 

[Ryika]

As the thread title says, pre-cannon range units should be support units rather than regular combat units. At the scales we're talking about, even 1 hex is really too much. They could even be support units for naval units at that scale. From cannon on, range and military organization might dictate they then become combat ranged units of 1hex range and going to 2 hex around WW I levels of tech.

That sounds really boring. Having potentially exposed ranged units that help with fire support is half the fun of the current combat system.

 

[Haig]

If they just give archers penalty against cities and make them paper-thin weak in closecombat I'm fine with them.

Also I wonder will machineguns be ranged or support this time?

We seem to get Battering rams and Siege towers according to articles, so maybe we get renaissance/industrial siege support too. Like a grenadier?

 

[Chinese American]

Gameplay >>>>>>> realism, every time.

Then that's a double whammy against Civ V, which has poor gameplay and poor adherence to reality.

 

[MrUnderhill]

If they just give archers penalty against cities and make them paper-thin weak in closecombat I'm fine with them.

Archers are already paper-thin weak in close combat. The problem is that they can attack without retaliation, and they can focus fire with multiple units on the same target.

I think the only thing we really need is for ranged units and cities to return fire if they're attacked at range. Then if you try to put the Ring of Death around a city, you'll end up with a bunch of wounded archers which the defender can pick off on their turn.

On the other hand, Siege Engines do more damage per hit, so by nature they wouldn't take as many retaliation shots to deal the same damage. Give them a further buff against city attacks (because they should have it anyway), and we're good. No more archers taking cities, and siege engines are restored to their rightful place.

 

[thecrazyscot]

Fortunately this will be very easy to do as a mod Just change the unit type and you're set.

 

[poundjd]

Fortunately this will be very easy to do as a mod Just change the unit type and you're set.

How extremely on point!!!

 

[skyclad]

In reality you could fire a bow and arrow a few hundred meters with any hope of hitting your goal. Archer should definitely be support units you embedd with melee. In real battles, you didnt have archers/musketeers standing 100km away shooting guided arrows/bullets, they were in formation with the melee troops on the same battlefield.

 

[Ryika]

It's still gameplay over realism though. Early combat would be nothing but melee lines supplied with Archers to increase their efficiency. No strategic Formations, no exposed Ranged Units that could be vulnerable targets. How exactly would combat be fun?

Not that I'd be against it categorically, but so far nobody has even attempted to explain what they have in mind to make up for what would be lost.

 

[Craig_Sutter]

Positives:

-Unit density would be much less.
-Easier for the AI (at least until longer range achieved)
-Limited duration - would only last until catapults and other siege weapons.
-Realism (the degree of which could be argued)
-The ranged/melee component of other units such as Triremes and Galleys, etc. could be supplemented or eliminated. For example, rather than have a ranged and melee version Galleass/Trireme, we could have a ranged support unit on a Trireme that serves the same purpose. This was the reality... until the the true sailing ships and gunpowder were developed, the galley was multipurpose. A Galleas was just a Galley with additional armaments. The nature of the ranged support unit changed from arrows/catapults (if they had them) to gunpowder. In fact, I would argue that even a melee unit should be able to be added to a naval unit (before gunpowder) to form a combined unit. Then the choice would be, for example, to add an archer to a trireme as a ranged support unit, or add a swordsman (perhaps with a marine promotion) to create a ramming/melee type combined unit. Such a naval unit without either a ranged support or melee unit combined "army" would be extremely vulnerable, being in reality only a civilian ship with little combat ability.

Neutral

We do not know how damage to stacked formations is allocated... perhaps the support units might be vulnerable in some way to certain kinds of attacks/units (such as horseman or counterfire)(may require a specific promotion ie targeting or flanking or return fire or somesuch).

Negatives

-Possible gameplay loss (although I think some of the neutral effects may combat this.)
-Too tactical granting the strategic nature of the game.

Others might think of other ideas... or a variety of ways to mitigate the problems from either point of view.