Proposal: Add a ranged Slinger unit before Archer

[Teholb]

I agree that this is a better alignment for their tech path, but for a slightly different reason. With the Ballista not having the same penalties as the siege line, it is a viable replacement for compbows. It makes sense that you'd get the Ballista along the same tech path as other archer line units, rather than getting both UUs at Ironworking.

I'm excited to try out the Slinger, it should give the early barbarian hunt a little more varied.

 

[Fluffball]

While i like the idea of a slinger in general i don't find there to be an issue currently and i am concerned about another set of upgrades at a time when gold is particularly tight and i often find myself prioritising upgrades to specific units as i can't afford to upgrade all my units.

If i start a normal distance away from other civs i am not usually going to war with them until at least comp bow and preferably catapults anyway and until then archers are fine for dealing with barbs.

If i start next to another civ and going for early conflict archers are fine for attacking their early expansion cities before they get chance to put walls in them which is the most i want from an early war just to knock them down a bit and then vasalise them later and often i just want to fight them for xp, to occupy them on other things to keep them distracted from growing as they are so close and if going authority to farm resources from kills.

 

[azum4roll]

Gold cost is based on difference of production cost. Upgrading to archer is very cheap.

 

[Zanteogo]

I didn't read this whole thread, so sorry if it has been brought up already.

My suggestion actually would go further, and change the whole ranged line completely.

I would put forward that we change ranged units to do damage based on the health of the unit they are attacking. They would do more when the unit is at full health, but the amount they do quickly diminishes as the unit takes damage.

This would do two things:

Be realistic, when you let loose a mass of arrows, or launch modern day artillery, if you aim it at a mass of tightly packed units you will just do way more damage overall because you chance of hitting someone increases. When you have a few units, that are spaced out, you will do much less damage.

It will allow ranged units to have a use for the whole game, and force multi unit strategies, to be successful.

I know this would be a massive change, and is asking a lot.

 

[Rekk]

I would put forward that we change ranged units to do damage based on the health of the unit they are attacking. They would do more when the unit is at full health, but the amount they do quickly diminishes as the unit takes damage

there is already a mod option that removes the unit damage taken malus for ranged attacks called

BALANCE_CORE_RANGED_ATTACK_PENALTY

It's set to true for exactly the reason you are talking about.

 

[usadefcon1]

Is there a modmod somewhere of this to try it out?

 

[pineappledan]

It's in my tweaks mod now

 

[Tekamthi]

and unlocks at Calendar

wouldn't construction be more appropriate?

 

[Rekk]

wouldn't construction be more appropriate?

Why?

 

[Tekamthi]

Why?

Civ is not just a 4x plucked out of fantasy or an imagined universe -- it is (loosely) tied to human history.

The 'calendar' technology in civ represents the human discovery of methods of tracking time via observation of celestial rotation. It is rather intuitive that agricultural and organizational innovations would flow from this concept, however it is not so intuitive how these time-related ideas are converted into better projectile-launching abilities.

On the other hand, the human discovery of 'construction' implies innovation in tools and new abilities to build things, ie bows?

I understand that civ, and CBP especially, take liberties in these representations, but archers at calendar strike me as entirely too arbitrarily gamey

edit: on further investigation into the history of this topic, and in the spirit of historical relevance to CBP's depictions of warfare technology, maybe the early "archer" unit should still be depicted as a bow-user, and not a slinger. seems bows pre-date the 4000bc start date of the civ franchise games. Historical evidence of slings as a weapon, to my surprise, suggests that they are contemporaries, not precursors, to earliest known bow & arrows. I'd rename PB's "slinger" to "archer" and the 2nd ranged unit to "flatbowman", if it were up to me.

 

[Rekk]

Civ is not just a 4x plucked out of fantasy or an imagined universe -- it is (loosely) tied to human history.

The 'calendar' technology in civ represents the human discovery of methods of tracking time via observation of celestial rotation. It is rather intuitive that agricultural and organizational innovations would flow from this concept, however it is not so intuitive how these time-related ideas are converted into better projectile-launching abilities.

On the other hand, the human discovery of 'construction' implies innovation in tools and new abilities to build things, ie bows?

I understand that civ, and CBP especially, take liberties in these representations, but archers at calendar strike me as entirely too arbitrarily gamey

In the context of Civilization, Construction is the specifically the discovery of methods of how to construct buildings from sturdy materials like stone and brick. It has nothing to do with learning how to make better weapons in general and archery in particular.

On the other hand, at least the Calendar allows to better track weather patterns and hunting seasons, and is as such somewhat linked to the initial use cases for bows.

 

[Rekk]

I'd rename PB's "slinger" to "archer" and the 2nd ranged unit to "flatbowman", if it were up to me.

As always, art and models is necessary. We already have the slinger art and model implemented. Are you aware of a sufficiently different "flatbow" model that works in the ancient era?

 

[Tekamthi]

fair points in both of your last messages -- re: construction of buildings, maybe its a little subjective, as construction as you describe is not a perfect fit either, but the implication of new tools to achieve these new building methods still seems less an abstraction than calendar-derived advancements.

re: the unit art, it appears there are reskinned unit graphics in the relevant section of civ fanatics that haven't been used in VP.. whether these are a sufficient distinction, i am not sure

 

[pineappledan]

I was influenced in putting the archer on calendar by Temple of Artemis, which gives a bonus to archery units, and is already on that tech.

Your justification is flimsy, imo. When people think construction they are obviously talking about buildings. I think it’s funny that the tech I moved the archer off of was “trapping”, passively ensnaring game instead of actively hunting them. Practically the anti-thesis of anything requiring the use a bow.

 

[Tekamthi]

I was influenced in putting the archer on calendar by Temple of Artemis, which gives a bonus to archery units, and is already on that tech.

Your justification is flimsy, imo. When people think construction they are obviously talking about buildings. I think it’s funny that the tech I moved the archer off of was “trapping”, passively ensnaring game instead of actively hunting them. Practically the anti-thesis of anything requiring the use a bow.

adhering to the spirit of my suggestion re: historical connections, artemis strikes me as best fit on trapping and/or construction as well. Once again neither the myth of artemis, nor the construction of a grand temple, strike me as related to calendar -- but given that it is, I suppose your reasoning makes sense (i did see it earlier in the thread).

You both make some valid points about the concept of "construction", I just finding it particularly jarring to think of archers springing up out of calendar. Perhaps military theory is the better fit then, though i'm not sure its good for gameplay to have so many new weapons tied to just that one tech.

re: trapping, I agree that it wasnt a perfect fit either, though I did find it somewhat satisfying that the endeavor of harvesting animals would lead to advancements in hunting ie better bows

 

[CppMaster]

Balance > Flavor

 

[Zanteogo]

After testing pineappledan mod mod that adds in the slinger unit, I have to say as it works in his mod mod there are some issues with usefulness of doing this.

The problem is the window to build and use these units is tiny. I play on slower speeds and find my the time I free up production to build them, it's time to turn them into archers. On regular or quick they wouldn't be around at all before moving to archers.

The secondary issue, though this it more linked to the mod mod, is that archers are so much more better there is little reason not to either wait or do what's needed to upgrade them before using them. In base VP archers are kind of trashy to I'm not sure how it would play out.

 

[pineappledan]

Slingers are a unit unlocked at the start of the game only to be replaced 3 techs later. They are supposed to be kind of bad; they're a placeholder. The point of them was so that we could move archers back without creating a large empty space right at the start of the game with no ranged unit.

Functionally, they are only around for long enough that they can get a few hits off on some barbarian encampments to stop them from healing, so that you can use them in tandem with your starting warrior to clear early camps without taking damage yourself. That's all they are supposed to be good for. If they were capable of being used to rush other players or clear barb camps on their own then they would be too strong.

 

[Zanteogo]

Slingers are a unit unlocked at the start of the game only to be replaced 3 techs later. They are supposed to be kind of bad; they're a placeholder. The point of them was so that we could move archers back without creating a large empty space right at the start of the game with no ranged unit.

Functionally, they are only around for long enough that they can get a few hits off on some barbarian encampments to stop them from healing, so that you can use them in tandem with your starting warrior to clear early camps without taking damage yourself. That's all they are supposed to be good for. If they were capable of being used to rush other players or clear barb camps on their own then they would be too strong.

Problem is a second warrior is just way better at doing this.

As I said, I found the window of usefulness so small that they only have a use of building one and holding it to upgrade to an archer. This is only useful in your mod mod as well, as the archer is crazy good in it. (probably too good)

 

[pineappledan]

That’s not a problem at all. I wasn’t trying to make something to replace warriors. I was just trying to make a stopgap so archers could be put later and made stronger.

I agree that 1 point of CS lower would probably be good for the archer balance though