Mongol Horde
Resident Savage Army
Am I alone in thinking that ranged attacks are stupid and pointless? Are we are going to have howitzers bombarding from a thousand miles away? Why oh why Firaxis, what is the point?
Ranged Attacks :(
- Thread starter Mongol Horde
- Start date
BlueMonday
Can I Kick It?
What your problem with ranged attacks?
I think they are a great addition to the game and allow a greater sense of realism in combat. A howitzer wouldn't directly attack another unit, it would bombard it form afar where the other unit's weapons coldn't reach it. I suppose if you are the ultimate realist you're protesting because you don't think that a unit should be able to attack from (the representation in squares) of hundreds of miles.
But I think this lines up under the realism vs. gameplay debate. For me, gameplay should always take the front seat and I strongly believe that ranged attacks benefit gameplay enough to expell their distance realism.
------------------
<IMG SRC="http://forums.civfanatics.com/image_uploads/goodbye3.jpg" border=0>
<FONT COLOR="blue">"Ska sucks...Ska revival is just a tool you stupid f***!
The Feds are only in it for the bucks...and if you don't believe me you're a schmuck!"</FONT c>
I think they are a great addition to the game and allow a greater sense of realism in combat. A howitzer wouldn't directly attack another unit, it would bombard it form afar where the other unit's weapons coldn't reach it. I suppose if you are the ultimate realist you're protesting because you don't think that a unit should be able to attack from (the representation in squares) of hundreds of miles.
But I think this lines up under the realism vs. gameplay debate. For me, gameplay should always take the front seat and I strongly believe that ranged attacks benefit gameplay enough to expell their distance realism.
------------------
<IMG SRC="http://forums.civfanatics.com/image_uploads/goodbye3.jpg" border=0>
<FONT COLOR="blue">"Ska sucks...Ska revival is just a tool you stupid f***!
The Feds are only in it for the bucks...and if you don't believe me you're a schmuck!"</FONT c>
TimTheEnchanter
I...am...an Enchanter!
I almost never build Cannons or catapults in civ2 because they are sitting ducks. I only use them as defensive weapons (kill anything that approaches a city) because they are worthless as offensive weapons. You use your movement up getting next to a city, in position to fire, then get killed by a warrior before firing a single shot???
In reality these long range weapons rarely got close enough for the enemy to even see them, let alone attack. Attacking from one or more square away (perhaps paying a penalty in strength or accuracy of the attack based on distance) makes it much more realistic.
I think the key is that a cannon firing from a distance can not be as effective as the current civ2 cannon, or it could be too powerful of a weapon...firing from a safe distance until a city has been decimated. (Of course the city could have ranged weapons firing OUT as well!)
One thing to keep in mind is that Firaxis has hinted that the range will be influenced by terrain as well (i.e., a cannon on a mountain will behave differently than a cannon on the plains) It will be interesting to see how this affects combat.
------------------
DEATH awaits you all...with nasty, big, pointy teeth.
In reality these long range weapons rarely got close enough for the enemy to even see them, let alone attack. Attacking from one or more square away (perhaps paying a penalty in strength or accuracy of the attack based on distance) makes it much more realistic.
I think the key is that a cannon firing from a distance can not be as effective as the current civ2 cannon, or it could be too powerful of a weapon...firing from a safe distance until a city has been decimated. (Of course the city could have ranged weapons firing OUT as well!)
One thing to keep in mind is that Firaxis has hinted that the range will be influenced by terrain as well (i.e., a cannon on a mountain will behave differently than a cannon on the plains) It will be interesting to see how this affects combat.
------------------
DEATH awaits you all...with nasty, big, pointy teeth.
Mongol Horde
Resident Savage Army
I think that I must have a higher "realism threshold". Realism vs Gameplay for me this is a savage attack on realism for a change in gameplay that I couldn't care less about. Just my opinion however. !angry!
MrLeN
Prince
Some people!
Ranged attacks are a part of real life war. Civilization as a game has been around longer than ANY computer game that I can think of. It is innevitable that things that weren't able to be done in a first or second version will become available in later ones... (multiplayer, hotseat, advanced diplomacy, extra units and wonders are just the surface)!
Ranged attacks are an absolutely wonderful idea because the units as they stand are simply too similar. It is pathetically unrealistic to think that a game released in 2001 will have the same units and unit characteristics as its predecessor/s released up to and over over 10 years earlier.
There is a minority that is complaining already and the game hasn't even been released yet! I feel sorry for these mentally deprived individuals who think they can make a descision about wheather they are pleased or not about a game that has taken so long to make, with alot of hard work and patience, having looked at a few articles and gif images of bad scans.
I am reserved in all of my opinions until I see the game. Although I must say that with 'reason' I have very one sidedly full of faith and high hopes, because Sid has never failed the gaming community yet!
It must be so depressing for the programmers that are giving all they have to see some people whining about things , when they haven't got ANY idea about how any changes will be applied.
Anyone who complains before they see a complete product in it's intirety really has some self character issues to work on.
I am being completely serious. Really I am. You should make great effort to find the knowledge required that it takes to be an adult, and an informed descision maker.
MrLeN
------------------
Where there is money, there are liars!
Check out my Homepage:
Nebulous!
Don't forget to sign my guestbook.
I sure do look forward to feedback!
Ranged attacks are a part of real life war. Civilization as a game has been around longer than ANY computer game that I can think of. It is innevitable that things that weren't able to be done in a first or second version will become available in later ones... (multiplayer, hotseat, advanced diplomacy, extra units and wonders are just the surface)!
Ranged attacks are an absolutely wonderful idea because the units as they stand are simply too similar. It is pathetically unrealistic to think that a game released in 2001 will have the same units and unit characteristics as its predecessor/s released up to and over over 10 years earlier.
There is a minority that is complaining already and the game hasn't even been released yet! I feel sorry for these mentally deprived individuals who think they can make a descision about wheather they are pleased or not about a game that has taken so long to make, with alot of hard work and patience, having looked at a few articles and gif images of bad scans.
I am reserved in all of my opinions until I see the game. Although I must say that with 'reason' I have very one sidedly full of faith and high hopes, because Sid has never failed the gaming community yet!
It must be so depressing for the programmers that are giving all they have to see some people whining about things , when they haven't got ANY idea about how any changes will be applied.
Anyone who complains before they see a complete product in it's intirety really has some self character issues to work on.
I am being completely serious. Really I am. You should make great effort to find the knowledge required that it takes to be an adult, and an informed descision maker.
MrLeN
------------------
Where there is money, there are liars!
Check out my Homepage:
Nebulous!
Don't forget to sign my guestbook.
I sure do look forward to feedback!
Mongol Horde
Resident Savage Army
Discussion is one thing, personal insults are another.......
If a new brand of biscuits are due to come out that have coffee flavour in them I know that I won't like them. Why? You got it, I don't like coffee. Does this mean that I have serious character flaws, I certainly hope not. I don't like the idea of ranged attacks, just my opinion of which I think that I am entitled. I haven't written off the game if you'd care to read the reply I wrote on your other thread before reading your reply to this then you will see this.
If a new brand of biscuits are due to come out that have coffee flavour in them I know that I won't like them. Why? You got it, I don't like coffee. Does this mean that I have serious character flaws, I certainly hope not. I don't like the idea of ranged attacks, just my opinion of which I think that I am entitled. I haven't written off the game if you'd care to read the reply I wrote on your other thread before reading your reply to this then you will see this.
Ranged attacks are a must have. As I see it the only reason why there was no such thing before is that it was to "complicated" to program this feature into a game, when a game release date was quite short.
And I'm strongly for the penalty idea.
Finally I will use the artillery unit!
And I'm strongly for the penalty idea.
Finally I will use the artillery unit!
MrLeN
Prince
Yes, I agree rouli.
Mongol Horde...
I had read that thread, although I do believe that we posted about the same time <IMG SRC="http://forums.civfanatics.com/ubb/wink.gif" border=0>
To stop you from having a corinary... The first two paragraphs were are reply to your post, which lead me to elaborate and the rest were refering to "A monority". Have a look.
I did not insult you. I didn't use your name or any one elses name, or imply it in any way.
However, you did say that it is stupid in your post and that you 'might' like it in another reply. Then why would you bother saying it's stupid? It's either stupid or it isn't. Make up your mind <IMG SRC="http://forums.civfanatics.com/ubb/tongue.gif" border=0>
MrLeN
------------------
Where there is money, there are liars!
Check out my Homepage:
Nebulous!
Don't forget to sign my guestbook.
I sure do look forward to feedback!
[This message has been edited by MrLeN (edited March 29, 2001).]
Mongol Horde...
I had read that thread, although I do believe that we posted about the same time <IMG SRC="http://forums.civfanatics.com/ubb/wink.gif" border=0>
To stop you from having a corinary... The first two paragraphs were are reply to your post, which lead me to elaborate and the rest were refering to "A monority". Have a look.
I did not insult you. I didn't use your name or any one elses name, or imply it in any way.
However, you did say that it is stupid in your post and that you 'might' like it in another reply. Then why would you bother saying it's stupid? It's either stupid or it isn't. Make up your mind <IMG SRC="http://forums.civfanatics.com/ubb/tongue.gif" border=0>
MrLeN
------------------
Where there is money, there are liars!
Check out my Homepage:
Nebulous!
Don't forget to sign my guestbook.
I sure do look forward to feedback!
[This message has been edited by MrLeN (edited March 29, 2001).]
Mongol Horde
Resident Savage Army
I just mean that I don't like the idea in principle now but knowing me I will probably change my mind when I play the game. I really don't want the game to get focussed on the military units there are so many other facets that need exploring.
gar13
Warlord
i think ranged attacks will be cool. You will be able to set up a few cannon at a chokepoint between 2 mountain ranges or something, and just rain iron down on the enemy, as they approach.
Leowind
Emperor
We're all assuming ranged attacks will happen from two squares away. Has this been confirmed? It would seem to me to be possible to allow ranged attack as an option (or maybe the only possibility?) for ranged weapons, but they would still attack from one square away, just be immune to damage from the defending unit. Still leaves them vulnerable to a counter attack, which actually makes sense in some ways, and makes the ranged attack less powerful in the overall scheme of things, which could be a good thing. As someone suggested, set up an artillery on a mountain two squares away and just blast away til the city is no more is a bit too powerful.
VanillaCube
Your local Schizophrenic
I would hope the ranged attacks would be from one space away because I think it would be stupid if in the game someone could shot up a bow and arrow in california and hit some poor guy in arizona!
------------------
**** Cool Books I started my first cool book because I would be Original, and now all you basterd's stole my Idea! thanks to the Insane spamming poster!
------------------
**** Cool Books I started my first cool book because I would be Original, and now all you basterd's stole my Idea! thanks to the Insane spamming poster!
Mongol Horde
Resident Savage Army
I hope that this will be the case
Ranged attacks. The concept is OK, but everytime Firaxis adds something like this to civ it think: Please please please don't make civ too realistic or we'll end up with a game like panzer dragoon or Sid Meijer's Gettysburry. i just don't like that degree of militaristic realism and I hope Sid will never push civ towards that degree.
gjts00
Arrogant American
Ranged attacks are neither "stupid" or "piontless" as you chose to put it. Ranged attacks are REALISTIC. If you went onto a modern day battlefield you would discover that you could be killed (with relative ease) by a projectile fired by a weapon parked miles away. Well beyond your line of sight. If you want fantasy play D&D.
------------------
Thou who goes to bed with an itchy butt wakes up with a smelly finger.
------------------
Thou who goes to bed with an itchy butt wakes up with a smelly finger.
FearlessLeader2
Fundamentalist Loon
One of the most profound changes man has made via technology is the alteration of his maximum range of lethal contact.
He started with a closed fist. The he put a rock in it to make the fist heavier. Then a stick to reach a little further. Then he threw rocks, then spears and javelins. The atlatl allowed a javeling to travel much farther. The bow hurled arrows a phenomenal distance. Blunderbusses with limited lethal range rapidly gave way to arquebuses, muskets, and rifles. Catapults, trebuchets, and ballistas, were cast aside in favor of bombards, cannons, artillery, howitzers, rockets, and now we have cruise and ballistic missiles. Over the span of human history, man has ever striven to put the victims of his violence further and further away. Today a man in a deep bunker can turn a key, and twenty minute later, a city of millions on the other side of the planet will up and vanish like a fart in a hurricane.
Now who still thinks there is no place in Civ for ranged combat?
He started with a closed fist. The he put a rock in it to make the fist heavier. Then a stick to reach a little further. Then he threw rocks, then spears and javelins. The atlatl allowed a javeling to travel much farther. The bow hurled arrows a phenomenal distance. Blunderbusses with limited lethal range rapidly gave way to arquebuses, muskets, and rifles. Catapults, trebuchets, and ballistas, were cast aside in favor of bombards, cannons, artillery, howitzers, rockets, and now we have cruise and ballistic missiles. Over the span of human history, man has ever striven to put the victims of his violence further and further away. Today a man in a deep bunker can turn a key, and twenty minute later, a city of millions on the other side of the planet will up and vanish like a fart in a hurricane.
Now who still thinks there is no place in Civ for ranged combat?
Mongol Horde
Resident Savage Army
Me. 1 Square = 200 miles, think about it. You cannot argue for realism with this one, howitzers don't fire 400 miles so ranged attacks would not be more realistic. I will listen to your arguments on why it would enhance gameplay but not realism.
TimTheEnchanter
I...am...an Enchanter!
Right, and it takes a cavalry unit 10 years to travel those 200 miles to attack an enemy. Scale of time and distance does not apply to almost ANYTHING in this game.
It's all just a tradeoff in design. The "realism" is that a Howitzer should be able to bombard a city from nearby mountains without any fear of damage from riflemen stationed in the city. If Firaxis can implement that realism within the context of the game, even if it means compromising realism elsewhere by firing from "400 miles" away, that's ok with me.
------------------
DEATH awaits you all...with nasty, big, pointy teeth.
[This message has been edited by TimTheEnchanter (edited April 19, 2001).]
Mongol Horde
Resident Savage Army
Like I said Tim, This argument is not about realism it's about gameplay. You argue that it would give better gameplay, fine. I don't think that it will when the game comes out I will gladly admit that I am wrong if gameplay becomes better for this addition. I have never professed that civ is ultra real but the inclusion of ranged attacks is not an increase in realism/
Algernon Pondlife
Prince
I do.
Sorry, I've only just seen this thread.
Point one: realism is out the window with such details. Not only are we talking large distances but we are also talking long, long time (minimum one year). Don't forget civ already crashes wildly through the realism barrier just to give us combat at all. Properly speaking all combat is between fairly abstracted units, the reason there are different unit types with different capabilities is to represent the development and use of technologies (and technological development is a core feature of the game.
Point two: gameplay is not enhanced by such excessive detail. It would be if civ was essentially a wargame (even strategy level wargames don't have range attacks; for example Sturm Nach Osten which represents the East Front in month level turns; single battle games like Kasserine normally do however). But since civ is essentially about other matters it screws up the gameplay to keep adding clever little details. If you think it would be more fun if it were a war game with some research features tacked on then get Firaxis to develop one using the same overall engine but with much shorter time frames - or play SMAC, or play a wargame of which there are tons about.
Point three: The only kinds of range attack in real life that takes more than a few minutes to execute are planes (already in the game), missiles (already in the game) and expeditionary forces (already in the game).
point 3a: pathetic infantile abuse has no place in this forum. nor has any other form of abuse.
Point four: this kind of argument is spurious since all it changes is the tactical problem that has to be addressed in combat situations. Unless, of course, as I infer from another post, the desire is to make attacking easier. I cannot argue with that, but I had the impression that several players already find it all too easy to smash the computer controlled enemy. Personally I would like to see conquest made much more difficult so that the role of warfare was more in line with history. But then again it is well established that I am fairly boring.
Edit]
Technical point one: Civilization is not that old a computer game. How could it be? It is way sophisticated compared with early computer games.
Technical point two: There are no particular programming difficulties that would have inhibited the implementation of ranged attacks at any time in the development of civ.
------------------
"Ridicule can do much...but one thing is not given to it, to put a stop permanently to the incursion of new and powerful ideas"
-Aaron Nimzovitch
[This message has been edited by Algernon Pondlife (edited April 22, 2001).]
Similar threads
