Ranged Attacks :(
- Thread starter Mongol Horde
- Start date
Algernon Pondlife
Prince
fundamental misunderstanding here, Fenax.
Of course range attacks make excellent gameplay for a wargame. I wouldn't be without them.
Trouble is if civ is just another wargame then it's not worth the effort of being in this forum never mind waiting for the new release because I've got thirty wargames already. not to mention another fifty board wargames.
------------------
"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
Of course range attacks make excellent gameplay for a wargame. I wouldn't be without them.
Trouble is if civ is just another wargame then it's not worth the effort of being in this forum never mind waiting for the new release because I've got thirty wargames already. not to mention another fifty board wargames.
------------------
"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
Algernon Pondlife
Prince
No it is not. It is a game that explores the social, cultural, economic and technological development of the world. It is a game of resource management in which hard decisions have to be made between conflicting demands and in which there is no one right answer.
Warfare, diplomacy, terrain improvements, units, cities, buildings, wonders etc. are all components to facilitate the game. Any or all of them lend themselves to improvement when the game is being redesigned or revamped, but these improvements cannot be intrinsic to the individual elements. They must be focussed on the underlying nature of the game itself.
To believe otherwise is to believe that there is an ultimate game which satisfies all needs and subsumes all other games.
There are plenty of ways to change civ that would be fun, but if they make it a different game then it is for a different purpose. SMAC is a good example (by the way it has renge attacks in it). But SMAC is not about six thousand years of development. Its dynamic is not much more than a few generations.
I'm quite happy for all these games to exist, but I am even happier if civ continues to develop as well.
------------------
"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
Coba|t
Chieftain
MrLen said:
"Ranged attacks are an absolutely wonderful idea"
"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.."
Grr..
Anyway it is NOT going to be more realistic. I almost always play world map and ranged attacks would be insane on those. But others have said that. BUT I support it because I know Sid values good gameplay and he will NOT fsk up the game. So many other things are "unrealistic" that it doesn't bug me, if it makes gameplay better I am all for it. If not, Firaxis ppl PLAY GAMES.. they aren't going to make something that horrendously corrupts an otherwise good game.
"Ranged attacks are an absolutely wonderful idea"
"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.."
Grr..
Anyway it is NOT going to be more realistic. I almost always play world map and ranged attacks would be insane on those. But others have said that. BUT I support it because I know Sid values good gameplay and he will NOT fsk up the game. So many other things are "unrealistic" that it doesn't bug me, if it makes gameplay better I am all for it. If not, Firaxis ppl PLAY GAMES.. they aren't going to make something that horrendously corrupts an otherwise good game.
rle2
Chieftain
The fundamental point is that ranged attacks are a tactical consideration NOT a strategic one.
The different tactical scenarios which should be considered are simply down to unit types:
- ground(naval) vs ground(naval): any "ranged attacks" are a tactical consideration in unit's attack/defense factors when one unit attacks the other, there is no separate special ranged attack.
- air vs ground/sea: "ranged attacks" are already a tactical consideration not a special option. This needs improving though IMO as some unit types clearly cannot defend at all against air attacks.
- naval vs ground: "ranged attacks" are again consolidated in attack/defense factors. This IMHO needs improving though, as clearly without coastal defenses a coastal city/square cannot defend against a naval bombardment.
Combat in Civ is a strategic abstraction of actual armies clashing anyway. The attack/defense factors of units alone should encapsulate the strengths and weaknesses of units; having a special "ranged attack" is nonsense.
In a sense you already have a ranged attack unit - the cruise missile - but importantly, it is a unit in itself not a special kind of action.
I would much rather see (for example) the ability to lay seige to a city with an army or attack supply routes to cut off advancing enemy forces than have a "ranged attack" option.
The different tactical scenarios which should be considered are simply down to unit types:
- ground(naval) vs ground(naval): any "ranged attacks" are a tactical consideration in unit's attack/defense factors when one unit attacks the other, there is no separate special ranged attack.
- air vs ground/sea: "ranged attacks" are already a tactical consideration not a special option. This needs improving though IMO as some unit types clearly cannot defend at all against air attacks.
- naval vs ground: "ranged attacks" are again consolidated in attack/defense factors. This IMHO needs improving though, as clearly without coastal defenses a coastal city/square cannot defend against a naval bombardment.
Combat in Civ is a strategic abstraction of actual armies clashing anyway. The attack/defense factors of units alone should encapsulate the strengths and weaknesses of units; having a special "ranged attack" is nonsense.
In a sense you already have a ranged attack unit - the cruise missile - but importantly, it is a unit in itself not a special kind of action.
I would much rather see (for example) the ability to lay seige to a city with an army or attack supply routes to cut off advancing enemy forces than have a "ranged attack" option.
Mongol Horde
Resident Savage Army
At last this topic is hotting up nicely. Thanks for the support Pondy, I knew that I could count on you.
Exactly how far away are they gonna let us attack from? If it is more than two squares away the the firaxis boys must have been on acid when they decided that one. If it is just two squares away then why did they bother at all. Pondy and somebody else have made the point that combat in civ is just an abstraction. This is the important point for me.
Exactly how far away are they gonna let us attack from? If it is more than two squares away the the firaxis boys must have been on acid when they decided that one. If it is just two squares away then why did they bother at all. Pondy and somebody else have made the point that combat in civ is just an abstraction. This is the important point for me.
However, you can't just claim that ranged attacks are embeded in the attack/defence points of each unit. Artillery is weak on defence thus if it does not succeed in atacking a unit it will be destoryed. While in true war, it will never need to combat face to face with another unit.
Supernaut
Prince
I agree with MongolHorde (always a bad idea to disagree with them). The idea of attacking over the scale range implied is stupid - yes you can do it nowadays with a cruise missile, but no-one could do it with a catapult.
I too find it annoying that it is so hard to use catapults, cannon etc effectively (which seems to be people's only reason for wanting ranged attacks), but that is no reason to skew the game mechanics. Just ensure you always stack such units with a strong defender. After all, in the real world, artillery attacking on its own would not get far - OK they could do serious damage to some of the enemy for a while, but eventually the rest would close and slaughter the crews (imagine a muzzle loading cannon trying to hold out against a cavalry charge). Maybe the army idea in CIV3 will help make this more obvious in play.
CIV is not a wargame, and they shouldn't try to make it into one because it will never be as good as 'real' wargames. It's not even just a resource management game (like Command and Conquer). It has several aspects to it, and it's the combination of those which makes it so absorbing.
I too find it annoying that it is so hard to use catapults, cannon etc effectively (which seems to be people's only reason for wanting ranged attacks), but that is no reason to skew the game mechanics. Just ensure you always stack such units with a strong defender. After all, in the real world, artillery attacking on its own would not get far - OK they could do serious damage to some of the enemy for a while, but eventually the rest would close and slaughter the crews (imagine a muzzle loading cannon trying to hold out against a cavalry charge). Maybe the army idea in CIV3 will help make this more obvious in play.
CIV is not a wargame, and they shouldn't try to make it into one because it will never be as good as 'real' wargames. It's not even just a resource management game (like Command and Conquer). It has several aspects to it, and it's the combination of those which makes it so absorbing.
TimTheEnchanter
I...am...an Enchanter!
Just make it so an early-midgame high attack unit is not a waste of resources and I'll be happy. Ranged attacks seem like a good way to accomplish this, but if another mechanism works, I'll be happy. Maybe have it weaken walls instead of engaging units. The current design renders things like cannons virtually useless (or at best makes them defensive weapons) within the game, yet they were an important part of offensive campaigns historically.
------------------
DEATH awaits you all...with nasty, big, pointy teeth.
------------------
DEATH awaits you all...with nasty, big, pointy teeth.
Supernaut
Prince
Had a think about this ranged attacks business last night, and maybe we're getting it wrong. Rather than meaning units can attack from two squares away, maybe it means that units still have to be adjacent, but that when a ranged unit attacks, it can't be hurt by the opponent, but can only do limited damage. This would be like a preparatory artillery bombardment - softens up the enemy, but you still have to send in the footsloggers to finish off the job and claim the ground. This could either work like in the Somme (not very well) or in Kuwait (put your foot down and drive). I think this would be a more realistic way of doing things - after all, it's not realistic that a single catapult could destroy an entire legion, or that infantry being bombarded could have any impact on the bombarding unit. Not entirely sure how it would work - it would make attack a very different experience (maybe even meaning that you can't just clean up once you have howitzers! SHOCK!). What do people think?
henmike_sigo
Chieftain
Does anybody know if ranged attacks will be similar to CTP? As best as I can remember, when attacking the ranged units are allowed to attack once for every number in distance they hace. Foe example, a horse archer with an attack distance of 2 would get to attack the enemy twice before the front line of troops got to attack once. Also, will there be bombarding ablilities for cannon, artillery, etc? In CTP, they have to be adjacent to bombard a city. But the good thing is they can be stacked with defensive units on good terrain (mountains) to get the advantage of damage multipliers (maybe). Kinda curious, anybody have a clue?
Loaf Warden
(no party affiliation)
Frankly, this is what I had assumed all along. I didn't know why people were talking about attacks from two squares away, because it didn't seem to me they would do it that way.
Mongol Horde
Resident Savage Army
This way makes sense, this way is a great idea. I hope that this is the way that they are going to do it.
Yes and no. First of all, a ranged weapon should have the ability to always attack first against an attacking unit once in a turn. Looking at such historical events as Agincourt, the Charge of the Light Brigade and Pickett's Charge, ranged weapons have been devastating when used on defense. The longbow armed Englishmen obliterated a French force of knights 10 times their number.
Supernaut
Prince
The idea of ranged weapons being good in defence is a good one - I hadn't thought of that. Of course, in the examples you quote, the important thing is that ranged weapons are not as good if they are on their own (don't know about Pickett's Charge). At Agincourt, the longbow did a heck of a lot of damage, but the French finally reached the English lines, but were held back by fortifications and finished off hand to hand. Similarly, the Light Brigade actually reached the Russian guns and drove off all the gunners - they could have been in a good position but they decided to retreat back down the valley instead, and got messed up from both sies - but even then, they only lost one-third of their number, and this was a serious mauling - so ranged weapons on their own aren't decisive. Maybe the new 'army unit' concept will take this idea on board.
The other problem is that after the discovery of gunpowder, all weapons are ranged weapons - so they'd be in danger of putting the advantage too heavily with the defender, and the game could bog down in a World War One type way. But it's an interesting idea.
The other problem is that after the discovery of gunpowder, all weapons are ranged weapons - so they'd be in danger of putting the advantage too heavily with the defender, and the game could bog down in a World War One type way. But it's an interesting idea.
not really. even small arms have very different ranges. try taking me with an "assault" rifle vs a .50 cal sniper rifle. those can fire half a mile or more (900 yds+) while the assault rifle is accurate to only 100 or maybe more. plus, some cannons can fire miles, way outranging infantry. i like the idea of ranged attacks. another think i would like to see changed is casualties. rarely do two opposing forces fight to the death. come on....
The big problem with the game as a whole from a realism perspective is the way units are depicted, and the whole idea of ranged units is a part of that. In Civilization, units represent the actual weapon, and when one looks at the time scale and the distances involved, units should represent troop formations. I mean really, should a bomber go on its mission, then sit hanging in air for a whole year, or longer?
D
Dreadnought
Guest
I think the idea of range attacks is good. It was a nessasary part of the game that many of us agreed would serve a significant purpose in CivIII.
There one thing i want to hit on though. I belive that ranged attacks won't be as widly used as many of you think. Here's what i think, this will sort of tie in with Mongol hordes compliants.
Were talking about range attacks for units that trully have "range" in this I mean that "bow and arrow" doesn't have range. At most you can shoot an arrow 100yds with accuracy (you call that range?) Even hand guns have more range then that. And sniper rifles don't have the range that we were originally considering either. I'm talking about miles of range. Howitzers, battleships, cruisers, rockets are about the only units that have siginficant range.
Tanks and artillery that dates back to the American civil war period don't have true "range".
That I hope is how CivIII will use "ranged attacks". How they incorporate fighting a unit that you cant defend agianst is a differnt sitiuation.
Someone explain that to me?
------------------
"It is well that war is so terrible-we should grow too fond of it."
-Gen. Robert E. Lee, 1863
There one thing i want to hit on though. I belive that ranged attacks won't be as widly used as many of you think. Here's what i think, this will sort of tie in with Mongol hordes compliants.
Were talking about range attacks for units that trully have "range" in this I mean that "bow and arrow" doesn't have range. At most you can shoot an arrow 100yds with accuracy (you call that range?) Even hand guns have more range then that. And sniper rifles don't have the range that we were originally considering either. I'm talking about miles of range. Howitzers, battleships, cruisers, rockets are about the only units that have siginficant range.
Tanks and artillery that dates back to the American civil war period don't have true "range".
That I hope is how CivIII will use "ranged attacks". How they incorporate fighting a unit that you cant defend agianst is a differnt sitiuation.
Someone explain that to me?
------------------
"It is well that war is so terrible-we should grow too fond of it."
-Gen. Robert E. Lee, 1863
Similar threads
