I was spilling text all over the horsemen overpowered thread, and thought of a cool idea that could help horsemen, riflemen, and musketmen.
Why can't these units have the option of using a range 1 ranged-attack?
The idea sprouted from the fact that most horsemen used javelins, sadly If we let horsemen throw javelins and run away they would only be more overpowered.
But what about riflemen, and musketmen??
People often complain about how they are melee units no different then a swordsman. Shouldn't those armed with rifles be able to simply fire a volley at the enemy rather then fully engage them?
I feel that this would improve the civil-war era combat as units aren't jumping nimbly bimbily from one hex to the next as they kill each other. Instead they would form a battle formation, and hold their lines as the riflemen exchange volleys at each other, and cannons pound them from afar. Longswordmen...are screwed
These units would need a separate attack strength for melee, and ranged combat of course, and they must have the ability to do both (bayonet charge!!!). It would also give the two cavalry units of the era a noticeable difference in roles.
Lancers are the flankers, and the anti cavalry unit, while cavalry are skirmishers. able to jump in a critical spot, and fire a volley to support the infantry, then retreat behind the lines once more. (they have 3 movement, so its not overpowered IMO)
later on infantry do not melee at all, and battles would have a more WW1 trench feel to it. As both sides 'dig in' to favorable terrain, and the plains become 'no mans land'. IT would should make steamrolling harder later on, which is an improvement in my mind.
please tell me what you think.
Why can't these units have the option of using a range 1 ranged-attack?
The idea sprouted from the fact that most horsemen used javelins, sadly If we let horsemen throw javelins and run away they would only be more overpowered.
But what about riflemen, and musketmen??
People often complain about how they are melee units no different then a swordsman. Shouldn't those armed with rifles be able to simply fire a volley at the enemy rather then fully engage them?
I feel that this would improve the civil-war era combat as units aren't jumping nimbly bimbily from one hex to the next as they kill each other. Instead they would form a battle formation, and hold their lines as the riflemen exchange volleys at each other, and cannons pound them from afar. Longswordmen...are screwed
These units would need a separate attack strength for melee, and ranged combat of course, and they must have the ability to do both (bayonet charge!!!). It would also give the two cavalry units of the era a noticeable difference in roles.
Lancers are the flankers, and the anti cavalry unit, while cavalry are skirmishers. able to jump in a critical spot, and fire a volley to support the infantry, then retreat behind the lines once more. (they have 3 movement, so its not overpowered IMO)
later on infantry do not melee at all, and battles would have a more WW1 trench feel to it. As both sides 'dig in' to favorable terrain, and the plains become 'no mans land'. IT would should make steamrolling harder later on, which is an improvement in my mind.
please tell me what you think.
