Save_Ferris
Admiring Myself
Agreed with awesome. Ranged units are essential to taking cities. The concept might not be accurate, but it's effective.
Ranged Attack Upgrade Path
- Thread starter Pouakai
- Start date
Well, it's not 'best' in terms of allowing you to keep the exact same promotion, but it is 'best' in terms of realism (with the line not continuing) and allowing for some promotion to be carried over; a convertibility between the promotions of the two unit types.
Atwork
Immortal
The issue isn't promotions per se. The fundamental issue is losing units' unique abilities by upgrading them to more modern units.
It should not be the case that by upgrading a unit, the player's tactical options are actually degraded due to the special value of that unit being lost.
Obsolete promotions are a secondary issue. The fact that upgrading a unit not only loses its special ability BUT ALSO results in obsolete promotions only amplifies the problem. Again, the line should be continued.
Realism is highly subjective -- an argument could be made one way or the other for EVERYTHING. So, that alone is not a good enough reason to end the line.
On the other hand, for game-play reasons, it is preferable to not remove tactical options from the battlefield. As I've already written twice, the tactical ability of horse chariots and crossbowman are so preferable to the alternative (losing the trait in an upgrade) that I take to the modern battlefield with tanks and mech infantry with horse chariots and crossbowman in support. That's ridiculous! But, there is no way I'd sacrifice their tactical value in an upgrade. Therefore, not continuing the line is lame for BOTH game-play AND realism reasons!
Furthermore, there is nothing unrealistic about allowing crossbowman to upgrade into grenadiers in terms of the CIV 5's version of reality. If crossbowman can be trained to carry a rifle, then they can just as easily be trained to lob grenades. Also, conceptually, Grenadiers purpose on 17th century battlefields is not completely at odds with the purpose of archers, crossbowman, etc. Grenadiers were a specialized soldier whose job it was to lob grenades into the ranks of the enemy in order to lessen their numbers thereby weakening their strength in anticipation of melee combat. So, the game-play concept is the same. The same concept extends to the use of mortar teams of more modern times.
Therefore, 1) because the game-play concept seems to support continuing the line, and 2) because it is preferable tactically to maintain the ranged trait even at the cost of realism, i.e. having ancient units share the battlefield with modern units, and 3) because it is not unrealistic to train former archers to instead throw grenades, and 4) because the realism argument is simply a subjective fall-back argument to begin with, the best option would be to continue the line.
awesome
Meme Lord
maybe in a scenario sometime, there could be an infantry replacement that gets a ranged attack or something
To be honest, Im torn into parts.
On one hand, I fully can applaud Atworks statement.
On the other hand I like the idea that things change over time. Iron is a very important resource at the start of the game. Then it is loosing importance and being substituted by oil and aluminium later on.
With riflemen a whole branch of service (range attack infantry) becomes obsolete. Warfare was and is matter of change and the loss of range units represent this perfectly.
So it comes to the decision what you (the devs) prefer: The continuity of tactical possibilities and usefulness of promotions OR an interesting and realistic (if you want to see it like this) change in tactics over the time.
By the way:
*If* we have Grenadiers as intermediate unit (and I am not totally convinced about them), we could lower their range by one tile. I think this would be perfectly representing the hand throwing of grenades. This limitation will be lost when upgraded to mortars, of course.
On one hand, I fully can applaud Atworks statement.
On the other hand I like the idea that things change over time. Iron is a very important resource at the start of the game. Then it is loosing importance and being substituted by oil and aluminium later on.
With riflemen a whole branch of service (range attack infantry) becomes obsolete. Warfare was and is matter of change and the loss of range units represent this perfectly.
So it comes to the decision what you (the devs) prefer: The continuity of tactical possibilities and usefulness of promotions OR an interesting and realistic (if you want to see it like this) change in tactics over the time.
By the way:
*If* we have Grenadiers as intermediate unit (and I am not totally convinced about them), we could lower their range by one tile. I think this would be perfectly representing the hand throwing of grenades. This limitation will be lost when upgraded to mortars, of course.
Most UU abilities are manifested through promotions. Allowing for some sort of balanced change from siege promotions to melee promotions would seem to me to be preserving the benefits, even if not in the exact same form.
Rusty Edge
Deity
Maybe the whole ranged thing needs to be re-balanced on both land and sea, but I'm not convinced that the AI handles things well enough as it is. Which is more important, decent AI or decent MP? More units, or more features?
Which circles back to the perpetual dicotomy. Should Civ V become a great multiplayer tactical wargame, Or should it be a complex single player empire building game with war as one means to the end?
Which circles back to the perpetual dicotomy. Should Civ V become a great multiplayer tactical wargame, Or should it be a complex single player empire building game with war as one means to the end?
Save_Ferris
Admiring Myself
It's always been the latter.
Rusty Edge
Deity
I think that's why I've always loved it. It allows me to play the kind of game I like all by myself, anytime I feel like it. No-need to synchronize my life with anyone else to do it. Likewise, I can focus on the "Monopoly" or "chess" aspects as my mood dictates.
Deau
Emperor
Griperrr has made a mod to fix this issue. As much as I would like Firaxis to develop their own post-medieval ranged line with suitable lore and arguably "better tuned strength/promotions numbers", this mod can give you a small insight as to what the game would be with such a fix :s
http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=416946
that's the link to the mod.
As for the name of the line, he called it
Skirmisher - Sniper - Modern Sniper and made it an actual sniper line distinguished from archer line although the logical upgrade from crossbowman to skirmisher applies.
I would have to go in depth with the skirmisher lore but sniper and modern sniper definitely suits more modern warfares.
All in all, thumbs up for a ranged line, I could careless how they name it for so long as the strenghts are balanced. It would greatly impact on tactical warfare especially defensively and ultimately it would encourage players using the currently almost useless high-movement units like lancers, cossacks and even tanks just to path around to catch those snipes.
Personnally I haven't built any ranged unit that isn't a siege weapon since I have been tackling immortal and deity. They just become useless much too early and the first rush evolves around LSWs and maybe a few catapults or trebuchet to retain the city bonus when upgrading to cannons and artillery. I really miss chu-ko-nu rushes or even the use of keshiks and longbowman because of their significant loss of interest as soon as rifling is researched.
http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=416946
that's the link to the mod.
As for the name of the line, he called it
Skirmisher - Sniper - Modern Sniper and made it an actual sniper line distinguished from archer line although the logical upgrade from crossbowman to skirmisher applies.
I would have to go in depth with the skirmisher lore but sniper and modern sniper definitely suits more modern warfares.
All in all, thumbs up for a ranged line, I could careless how they name it for so long as the strenghts are balanced. It would greatly impact on tactical warfare especially defensively and ultimately it would encourage players using the currently almost useless high-movement units like lancers, cossacks and even tanks just to path around to catch those snipes.
Personnally I haven't built any ranged unit that isn't a siege weapon since I have been tackling immortal and deity. They just become useless much too early and the first rush evolves around LSWs and maybe a few catapults or trebuchet to retain the city bonus when upgrading to cannons and artillery. I really miss chu-ko-nu rushes or even the use of keshiks and longbowman because of their significant loss of interest as soon as rifling is researched.
Catastrophe90
Warlord
- Joined
- Oct 17, 2010
- Messages
- 160
I don't think Grenadiers would work. Weren't they elite Musketmen? And besides, I doubt grenade ranges were that long...
What I could see as a Renaissance unit is either a light cannon (Falconet/Culverin) which would transition nicely into an Industrial Mortar unit or a Skirmisher unit (similar to the French Voltigeurs or German Jägers). I personally like the Skirmisher path more, but have no idea what would continue the unit line in Industrial...
What I could see as a Renaissance unit is either a light cannon (Falconet/Culverin) which would transition nicely into an Industrial Mortar unit or a Skirmisher unit (similar to the French Voltigeurs or German Jägers). I personally like the Skirmisher path more, but have no idea what would continue the unit line in Industrial...
awesome
Meme Lord
the name grenadier comes from when they threw grenades. they only became regular infantry after grenades weren't as practical anymore.
and it really shouldn't be called sniper, but i guess it's better than nothing.
and it really shouldn't be called sniper, but i guess it's better than nothing.
svett89
Chieftain
I didn't read through all suggestions, so sorry if this has been mentioned.
I would like to see something like: Archery gives: Archer -> Machinery: Crossbowman -> Rifling: Sharpshooter/Marksman/Skirmisher (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marksman - (appeared during the 18th century) -> Replaceable Parts: Sniper.
You could possibly add one more upgrade to represent the change from Infantry to Mechanized infantry.
In my opinion, these Marksmen/Snipers would fit in with the Archers statistics, with a penalty against cities but still being effective against units. There should probably also be a penalty, or make it impossible, to attack tanks with Snipers.
I would like to see something like: Archery gives: Archer -> Machinery: Crossbowman -> Rifling: Sharpshooter/Marksman/Skirmisher (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marksman - (appeared during the 18th century) -> Replaceable Parts: Sniper.
You could possibly add one more upgrade to represent the change from Infantry to Mechanized infantry.
In my opinion, these Marksmen/Snipers would fit in with the Archers statistics, with a penalty against cities but still being effective against units. There should probably also be a penalty, or make it impossible, to attack tanks with Snipers.
Atwork
Immortal
Snipers' role in combat is completely different from archers/grenadiers/mortar teams etc. Snipers operate covertly, usu. behind enemy lines, and usu. in very small numbers. Snipers target high valued targets and attempt to avoid detection. The same cannot be said of archers, grenadiers, or mortar teams.
Furthermore, grenadiers and mortar teams of the more modern eras have a role on the battlefield more similar to the archers of old, namely, they operate to soften the enemy lines -- either to soften an attack, or to prepare the way for an assault & certainly do not operate covertly.
I think, a number of people have wanted a sniper unit going back to the early years of Civ. There was a mod for C4 w/ a sniper unit. I personally don't think it makes a lot of sense to have a sniper unit given the scale of combat in the Civ world, but whatever. All I do know is that it would not make sense to continue the archer line with a sniper line -- they serve very different roles on the battlefield.
Archer --> Grenadier --> Mortar team makes the most sense.....
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grenadier
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heavy_weapons_platoon
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mortar_(weapon)
Furthermore, grenadiers and mortar teams of the more modern eras have a role on the battlefield more similar to the archers of old, namely, they operate to soften the enemy lines -- either to soften an attack, or to prepare the way for an assault & certainly do not operate covertly.
I think, a number of people have wanted a sniper unit going back to the early years of Civ. There was a mod for C4 w/ a sniper unit. I personally don't think it makes a lot of sense to have a sniper unit given the scale of combat in the Civ world, but whatever. All I do know is that it would not make sense to continue the archer line with a sniper line -- they serve very different roles on the battlefield.
Archer --> Grenadier --> Mortar team makes the most sense.....
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grenadier
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heavy_weapons_platoon
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mortar_(weapon)
MisterBarca
Prince
- Joined
- May 22, 2006
- Messages
- 536
A good point. I think the mortar solution is best.
insaneweasel
Prince
- Joined
- Jul 9, 2010
- Messages
- 329
How about this:
For crossbowmen, the upgrade path would include skirmishers at rifling. They would have 2 range, and could do decent damage, but they would be just as fragile when attacked. They could then upgrade to snipers in the modern age.
Grenadiers would be available at chemistry, and they would have higher strength than the skirmisher, and a ranged attack, but they would only have a range of 1.
They could upgrade to rpg infantry in the modern age, with similar benefits (and a tank bonus)
For crossbowmen, the upgrade path would include skirmishers at rifling. They would have 2 range, and could do decent damage, but they would be just as fragile when attacked. They could then upgrade to snipers in the modern age.
Grenadiers would be available at chemistry, and they would have higher strength than the skirmisher, and a ranged attack, but they would only have a range of 1.
They could upgrade to rpg infantry in the modern age, with similar benefits (and a tank bonus)
awesome
Meme Lord
nah, don't like it.
Moderator Action: If you're going to disagree with an idea, please provide some reasoning for that disagreement.
ShahJahanII
Homesick Alien
There is now less unit variety in general. What happened to axemen, macemen, grenadiers?And what about barbarians being animals as well as humans?
aokces
Flanking III Submarine
How I modded my game:
Crossbowman => Rifleman => Paratroopers
All of them are ranged 2 units with weaker melee strength, and a ranged strength weaker than contemporary artillery.
Regarding the issues of ranged/melee promotions (esp with Keshiks/Camels) there's an easy solution that also allows ranged units to have promotions that benefit their defense:
1. Make Drill/Shock available to ranged units instead of barrage/acc
2. Give Drill/Shock a bombard bonus (basically combining drill w/barrage, shock w/accuracy)
3. Barrage/Acc works normally with siege units (no change)
I've heard of ideas to convert ranged promotions into melee ones when upgraded but this seems easier to implement.
Crossbowman => Rifleman => Paratroopers
All of them are ranged 2 units with weaker melee strength, and a ranged strength weaker than contemporary artillery.
Regarding the issues of ranged/melee promotions (esp with Keshiks/Camels) there's an easy solution that also allows ranged units to have promotions that benefit their defense:
1. Make Drill/Shock available to ranged units instead of barrage/acc
2. Give Drill/Shock a bombard bonus (basically combining drill w/barrage, shock w/accuracy)
3. Barrage/Acc works normally with siege units (no change)
I've heard of ideas to convert ranged promotions into melee ones when upgraded but this seems easier to implement.
Similar threads
