Ranged Attack Upgrade Path

[Pouakai]

I've seen a lot of complaints about the Crossbow - Rifleman upgrade path. So, what I propose, is a new one, which allows transition to Cannon.

Crossbowmen - Grenadier - Cannon

The Grenadier would become available with Gunpowder (Or Chemistry, but then we'd need to move the Cannon)

 

[Rex_Mundi]

I really like the weaker ranged units that do not have to set up, so I would prefer to add a series of mortar like units for the archers to upgrade into.
This way we could also avoid ruining promotions.

I don't know about the names, but I'd like to get the first around the same time as canons, then a later one around infantry and maybe a mobile one at mech-inf.

 

[Pouakai]

Maybe Grenadier - Machine Gunner?

 

[Deggial]

I don't like the upgrade to cannons. Archers and cannons have different purpose in the game. The first are ment for battlefield, cannons for siege. Their ballistic shooting is all, they have in common.

Machine Gunners do no balistic shooting!

-

Once mortar troops (industrial age) were proposed and I like this idea very much.
I feel, that a long time gap between Crossbows and mortar is quite interesting. It creates a strategic choice: should I keep my highly promoted crosbowmen and pay lots of money while they are not very usefull? Or shall I didband them and build new troops later?

For future area I would like to see some "nano-war engineers" with higher damage against modern tanks and GDR (or even all hightech units), but a malus against (now obsolete) infantery. They should have access to the +1 range promotion (get rid of this one for achers and crosbowmen!) and *maybe* a bonus against citys, too.

 

[Pouakai]

The reason I chose cannon is it's the only Ranged unit ingame after 'Grenadier' - but if we were going to have other ranged units in the Archer path then I don't see why not

 

[Ironmonger69]

I don't like the upgrade to cannons. Archers and cannons have different purpose in the game. The first are ment for battlefield, cannons for siege. Their ballistic shooting is all, they have in common

Actually, that is their only purpose. The sentiment that archers were meant for the battlefield is wrong; they only took to the battlefield due to their relatively short range. The purpose of both is to deliver fire from behind friendly lines, to damage and disrupt the enemy at range. The route from archer to cannon makes decent sense. Now, if you want to beef about archers having the same range as cannons, that's a different matter. Or that archers have essentialy 3 times the range of infantry.

I don't think it's a bad idea, but I don't know how useful it would be to have an interim unit. Maybe a better route would be to have the option to go cannon or rifleman. It would be nice to have a choice when upgrading from Cavalry to either Tanks or Gunships (or a new heliborn type of unit)

 

[awesome]

maybe archer -> crossbowman -> grenadier -> mortar -> modern/mechanized/whatever mortar?

 

[Deggial]

Actually, that is their only purpose. The sentiment that archers were meant for the battlefield is wrong

This may be totally correct in real life. I was speaking of their purpose in *the game*. (Ok, no "game fun-against-reality-fight" again, please!)

IIRC, archers suffer a penalty against cities, while siege units have a bonus.

 

[Save_Ferris]

What upsets me is the Horse Archer - Horseman transition. I don't want to lose a ranged unit, especially not so I can "upgrade" to one that is horrible with cities!

 

[Camikaze]

Question: what exactly is a Grenadier? Does it actually make sense as a ranged unit (like, as much as an Archer does as opposed to a Spearman)?

 

[Rex_Mundi]

My impression of a grenadier is someone who makes and set's up bombs and explosives. As such not a ranged unit.

The two types of mortar units I imagined are something like theese

The early mortar (around the time of canons)

The later mortar (around the time of infantry)

 

[Bivoj]

Grenadiers (as portreyed in CivIV) are elite foot soldiers from 18th / early 19th century with smoothbore muskets. It is said, that they were better in melee combat than regular infantry (musketeers and fusilers).

Their name has origins in 17th century, where original grenadiers used grenades:

 

[KrikkitTwo]

The Simpler option might be
Give Riflemen+Infantry a range of 1

 

[awesome]

a grenadier was a guy who threw grenades

 

[Pouakai]

a grenadier was a guy who threw grenades

Pretty much this. Also, another idea would be to have a 'Return Fire' promotion, which lets ranged units fire back and do damage to their attacker when being ranged attack, similar to Melee attacks

 

[Bivoj]

a grenadier was a guy who threw grenades

Originaly yes, but later, they abandoned grenades and were just elite infantry with muskets.

 

[Pouakai]

Originaly yes, but later, they abandoned grenades and were just elite infantry with muskets.

The idea for the ones in Civ 5 would be they would throw grenades, hense the ranged attack

 

[Bivoj]

The idea for the ones in Civ 5 would be they would throw grenades, hense the ranged attack

"Range" of thrown grenade is much, much smaller than range of smoothbore musket... But I am OK with ranged grenadiers - I imagine, that they are more modern musketeers than those from renesance era (already ingame).

 

[Camikaze]

Hmm, that's what I thought they were (simply through Civ4 ). Making them ranged units doesn't really seem to make sense. I'm pretty sure you can shoot (like a rifleman) further than you can throw a grenade.

 

[awesome]

Originaly yes, but later, they abandoned grenades and were just elite infantry with muskets.

and ironclads were eventually ocean-going. it's okay to capture the most famous aspect of a unit, like grenadiers actually throw grenades.