1. We have added a Gift Upgrades feature that allows you to gift an account upgrade to another member, just in time for the holiday season. You can see the gift option when going to the Account Upgrades screen, or on any user profile screen.
    Dismiss Notice

Ranged combat & embarking makes no sense

Discussion in 'Civ5 - General Discussions' started by El Caballerion, Oct 17, 2010.

  1. El Caballerion

    El Caballerion King

    Joined:
    Sep 4, 2010
    Messages:
    937
    Location:
    New York
    RANGED COMBAT
    How can archers destroy ships? Archers and crossbowmen should only have range of 1 when attacking ships. It doesn't make much sense to have them be capable of sinking ships two tiles away. Or... better yet, they shouldn't be able to attack ships at all.

    Why can't riflemen (etc.) range attack, especially considering their range is far superior to that of an archer? Riflemen should have two options of attack; ranged & melee. They should be able to fire ranged for a weak attack, and they should be able to melee for a stronger attack.


    EMBARKING


    Why is it so easy to embark? Why can't an embarked galleon have some sort of attack (albeit, a very weak attack)?

    Units who embark from the coast should have to pay a small portion of gold. How else can one create a boat out of thin air? This will also make the AI less stupid to constantly set their own units into open waters unprotected. Also, I think the only way units can embark for free would be from a CITY that has constructed a HARBOR. This makes amphibious assaults more of a planned event, and more worth it, especially since the embarked ships could have some sort of weak ranged defensive attack.

    Whatchu be thinkin?
     
  2. serikas

    serikas Chieftain

    Joined:
    May 5, 2003
    Messages:
    16
    1) Game balance? If you don't have costal cities and have a city a tile away from ocean, then enemy ships will be able to attack you but you won't be able to fight back... It doesn't make sense for trimere to range attack inland units either anyway.

    2) I agree with you that units should be allowed to embark only in a city. Not sure about harbor. It still eliminates the chores to keep transports and keep reality and balance. Let' hope this gets in future patch.
     
  3. el_hidalgo

    el_hidalgo Prince

    Joined:
    Dec 24, 2007
    Messages:
    354
    Location:
    Republic of Texas
    That is an eminently sensible suggestion, from a realism and probably from a gameplay perspective too. That way I don't have to imagine armies carrying around boats, which completely detracts from the immersion factor. I like the idea of requiring a harbor too, personally.
     
  4. El Caballerion

    El Caballerion King

    Joined:
    Sep 4, 2010
    Messages:
    937
    Location:
    New York
    True that. I don't think any naval unit should be able to bombard two tiles in, except perhaps the ironclad (so they can finally be useful).
     
  5. Stoney the I

    Stoney the I Prince

    Joined:
    Mar 23, 2008
    Messages:
    531
    Location:
    Netherlands
    Personally I dont think ranged attacks are a great idea in the Civ5 way. Its more for total war kinda games where combat is resolved in a different setting with different mechanics. ranged combat on the map where a tile is 20-100ish km or miles is a bit weird to me.

    As it is now, I also think ships shouldnt be allowed to bombard inland untill maybe destroyers.

    If someone finds a mod for it, post it here! :)
     
  6. Johan de Witt

    Johan de Witt Prince

    Joined:
    Jun 28, 2005
    Messages:
    415
    Building transports for a naval invasion in the other civ games was a drag and usually made me abandon any invasion plans. I like the transport-out-of-thin-air concept, makes my game more fun to play. Also, settling on distant islands have become more of a possibility, which is cool.

    The whole ranged attack thing was made for a more interresting tactical combat system. It was never intended as realism and trying to make 2K change it, is as futile as trying to teach your cat to take out the trash. If you really think it is an important thing to change, look for a mod or make a mod to change it. These small changes aren't too hard and if it improves your game, by all means!
     
  7. Alki

    Alki Prince

    Joined:
    May 30, 2003
    Messages:
    448
    Location:
    München
    I played the Earth Map and had my archers in China attack barbs in Japan. You just have to squint and pretend you don#t see the Sea of Japan under such circumstances.
     
  8. Jediron

    Jediron Prince

    Joined:
    Jan 8, 2006
    Messages:
    396
    Only because the UI to do so, is not very efficient. You had to place a unit, next to the transportship, and then one by one load it. While it would be much easier, to do it with one click, just selecting the transportship where the unit should go. In the harbor, they should give you a option to embark multiple units at once also; that would solve "your drag" issue.
     
  9. gornard

    gornard Chieftain

    Joined:
    Oct 11, 2010
    Messages:
    15
    There's a number of historical situations where transport boats where built or bought in situ. In game terms it is something less to worry about and transports could rarely hold up to combat ships in later periods.

    As for the archery comment, its an abstraction and not really the most unrealistic one. For example watching men throw torches at a city to take it over or a spear man stabbing a tank until it explodes.
     
  10. Jediron

    Jediron Prince

    Joined:
    Jan 8, 2006
    Messages:
    396
    The issue i have with archers and any other ranged unit is that in the current battle-system, they are very hard to defend, actually "defence-LESS" is a better word. Once a enemy 'melee' unit brake trough your "lines' , even down to 30 a 20%, they still gonna knock your archers out.
    Or in offence, once fired; they are sitting ducks.

    And that's, what i don't like about the current system. To me, it does give you a false feeling of tactical warfare, while the system is seriously broken.
     
  11. Charybdis

    Charybdis Scion Doomgiver

    Joined:
    Dec 10, 2001
    Messages:
    290
    Location:
    Australia
    Harbor - does trade/naval thingies, reduces cost of embarking troops from this city by 100%.

    Embarking costs cash.

    Should make for interesting changes for player strategies.
     
  12. dexters

    dexters Gods & Emperors Supporter

    Joined:
    Apr 23, 2003
    Messages:
    4,182
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Canada
    Embarking was meant to solve the problem of co-ordinating a navy /transports around AI moving from land to sea and, in theory make the AI bettle able to handle interncontinental invasions. It's funny that Soren mentioned Civ5 embarking directly as a solution to the problems he had to deal with in terms of handling AI and transports.

    But I think like so much of game, the AI is either missing or broken for that aspect of the game. So the AI will embark its troops while you approach its cities, and they float aimlessly for your navy to destroy. But AI leaders never seem to try to embark their troops for an invasion. They only embark when under attack and need to move their troops someplace that is chocked with units so they have no choice but to use water.

    I also don't like how any ship, including a caravel, can sink embarked units. This severely underpowers the navy, which has to watch over all the helpless embarked units and can do nothing. And actually there's isn't even a sinking animation, embarked units just disappear when your ship touches them.
     
  13. Becephalus

    Becephalus King

    Joined:
    Nov 30, 2005
    Messages:
    725
    It is not supposed to "make sense" It is combat in a heavily abstracted way. Combat has never "made sense" in civ in the way you are talking about. It is a game that is not focused on combat.
     

Share This Page