Ranged gunpowder units? (Infantry and tanks have 1 range!)

[Dunkah]

I don't think Archers are going to be a problem late war but:

British HMG's in WWII also used to conduct ranged attacks by arching bullets into a area know to have soft cover/ high concentrations of enemy... worked great in the desert. So I don't get the arc argument? Shoot anything into the air and it will come back down... it's called gravity.

Accuracy is the big thing here. Bows should be stronger when fired at close range/direct fire to represent the accuracy it acheives over the fire and forget clouds of arrows theory.

Anyone with a good shield could see and step out from under the clouds of arrows. (Pavis, Rook etc).

Hmm... maybe that should make infantry more suseptible to arrows!

 

[Shiggs713]

According to data i could find on the 1860s Springfield rifle, it's effective range was about the same as your average medieval english longbow.

As others mentioned though, the bow could fire over walls whereas the gun could not.
Crossbows however behaved much more like a gun, in that their projectiles had a much straighter trajectory, and i don't really know if shooting a crossbow bolt over an obstacle was ever actually viable.

I don't know where you got your research. An English longbow has an effective range of around 200 yds. A Sharps Rifle has an effective range of 500 yds, with a max of 1000. Even the 1861 model Springfield had an effective range up to 400 yds. Later models only get better. Really a longbow can't compare.

The trajectory argument is correct, I suppose. Still, I find it hard to believe that a regiment of rifles can't fire a volley at the enemy before engaging, yet archers can. Simply ********.

 

[Thyrwyn]

...Still, I find it hard to believe that a regiment of rifles can't fire a volley at the enemy before engaging, yet archers can. Simply ********.

The point is more that, for Riflemen, a volley is engaging. It is meant to simulate the unit's battlefield role.

Infantry & Riflemen are front-line troops whose role is to engage the enemy - just like earlier melee troops.

Archers (like Artillery) are back-line troops, whose role is keep the enemy at a distance. They are vulnerable if they become engaged.

It has nothing to do with the weapon specs.

 

[Shiggs713]

Ok, I can agree with that. Still given the scale of civ, really the whole ranged attack starts to seem silly. How much land is one tile suppose to represent? I would guess considering a city takes up a whole tile, it would have to be at least 1 tile = 10 sq miles. So I guess we're all comfortable letting ancient archers ranged attack 20 miles. The more I think of this the more I think firaxis totally f***** this up. Really IMO only cannon, arty and modern naval vessels should have ranged attacks, based on the scale we're using.

 

[Wolfwood]

I must agree with Shiggs713 above - the ranged bombardment really will seem silly, IF one tile is meant to represent distances of around 200-300 miles (as I think they were intended to do in Civ IV). Of course, this silliness also applies to the number of units that can be present on one tile (1).

The only conclusion is that the tiles will represent a much smaller distance/area in Civ V. This is also supported by the fact that cities will span areas larger than one tile (iirc). Therefore, we also need MUCH bigger maps to make it all feel more realistic than it would if we were playing in a small sandboxes.

If the map sizes remain the same, I'm afraid that Civ V will be an even greater abstraction of civilization building than any of the previous titles in the series have been.

This discussion is making me salivate over the thought of a future Mongol civ and their UU. A ranged attack horseman unit would be powerful and a perfect representation of the Hordes.

My thoughts exactly! If the documentary I recently saw was correct, Mongol bows had a longer range than English longbows (English longbows about 300 yards, Mongolian bows about 500), so it should be an interesting ranged attack unit, indeed!

 

[GoGerbilGo!]

I think that allowing for a bombardment option is a must and is useful on maps of smaller scales. But on world maps, it is ridiculous to allow archers to behave like seige machines. I think the absurdity is merely a consequence of the fact that tiles represent a big chunk of acreage. I think that for Civ to be a viable game of war, the tiles need to be smaller, not larger. I think a Simcity-like little chunks of tile is required to make civ both a satisfying empire builder game and a turn-based game of war simulation. Basically, the war aspect needs to be fought in greater detail, not by greater chunks of terrain.

 

[SammyKhalifa]

Ok, I can agree with that. Still given the scale of civ, really the whole ranged attack starts to seem silly. How much land is one tile suppose to represent? I would guess considering a city takes up a whole tile, it would have to be at least 1 tile = 10 sq miles. So I guess we're all comfortable letting ancient archers ranged attack 20 miles. The more I think of this the more I think firaxis totally f***** this up. Really IMO only cannon, arty and modern naval vessels should have ranged attacks, based on the scale we're using.

So you have a problem with that, but not with the idea that it takes my warrior band like 500 years to walk from Boston to Atlanta? Or that I can drive my wooden boat up to the North Pole, leave it there motionless for millennia, and then expect it to listen to anything at all I have to say? Maybe it just makes the game play better. The scale of the units has never jived with the scale of the cities and such.

My thoughts exactly! If the documentary I recently saw was correct, Mongol bows had a longer range than English longbows (English longbows about 300 yards, Mongolian bows about 500), so it should be an interesting ranged attack unit, indeed!

And of course they had movement and tactics on their side, too. Civ has never really done them justice.

 

[AriochIV]

So you have a problem with that, but not with the idea that it takes my warrior band like 500 years to walk from Boston to Atlanta?

Yes, this is my thought exactly. Having strategic and tactical gameplay on the same map requires pretty substantial abstraction both in terms of distance and time scale. This has always been the tradeoff of the Civilization game model, and is nothing new.

 

[GoGerbilGo!]

Yes, this is my thought exactly. Having strategic and tactical gameplay on the same map requires pretty substantial abstraction both in terms of distance and time scale. This has always been the tradeoff of the Civilization game model, and is nothing new.

What I am saying is that the tradeoff would not be so dramatic if the tiles represented smaller units of land area.

 

[AriochIV]

What I am saying is that the tradeoff would not be so dramatic if the tiles represented smaller units of land area.

Since the size of the world can vary greatly between tiny and huge maps, the size of an individual tile is and has to be very abstract. If you want to make each tile seem as small as possible, play on the biggest map size possible.

 

[GoGerbilGo!]

Since the size of the world can vary greatly between tiny and huge maps, the size of an individual tile is and has to be very abstract. If you want to make each tile seem as small as possible, play on the biggest map size possible.

Hello, AriochIV. This is not quite a fair description of the nature of scale in Civ. This is because all cities are contained in a single tile. So no matter what the scale of map is, an archer will be able to bombard a city from the same "distance" regardless of scale. This is what makes it hard to understand the nature of the scale of battlefields in Civ, I believe.

(A radical change I would recommend is to allow cities to be built spread over many smaller tiles, but this is a totally different but requisite issue.)

 

[Tomice]

Hello, AriochIV. This is not quite a fair description of the nature of scale in Civ. This is because all cities are contained in a single tile. So no matter what the scale of map is, an archer will be able to bombard a city from the same "distance" regardless of scale. This is what makes it hard to understand the nature of the scale of battlefields in Civ, I believe.

(A radical change I would recommend is to allow cities to be built spread over many smaller tiles, but this is a totally different but requisite issue.)

This discussion doesn't lead anywhere. As long as we fight on a world map, scale will always be an issue. If you would make the game world so large that an archers range would be somewhat believable, the game wouldn't work anymore - it would be too much for 99% of the players (imagine a world map where a river is 1 tile broad, the british channel 3 and the city radius 10 tiles - would you like to micromanage workers there??? ) It would require a whole new concept.

The only way to solve the issue completely is a Total-War-Series approach: a seperate battlefield (but not necessarily real-time).

 

[GoGerbilGo!]

This discussion doesn't lead anywhere. As long as we fight on a world map, scale will always be an issue. If you would make the game world so large that an archers range would be somewhat believable, the game wouldn't work anymore - it would be too much for 99% of the players (imagine a world map where a river is 1 tile broad, the british channel 3 and the city radius 10 tiles - would you like to micromanage workers there??? ) It would require a whole new concept.

The only way to solve the issue completely is a Total-War-Series approach: a seperate battlefield (but not necessarily real-time).

Hello, Tomice. I disagree. If a unit takes up one tile and a city takes up 4 or 8, 9 or more tiles, then you haven't made the world larger, you have instead made battlefields much closer to proper scale.

And yes, I do think that the game needs to be radically reconsidered. I think we can dispense with worker units first of all and apply Simcity style improvement functions. In Simcity, you zoned a bunch of tiles and the computer, developed them according to your intent and depending on resources and demand/trade/water/power. Cities can also grow over several tiles in a similar way by likewise "zoning" tiles.
Thus, you need not end up with square shaped cities. And this method of improving the land would be much less tedious than having worker units doing this or that all over the map.

I wouldn't recommend a separate battlefield. I would manage war in the normal worldmap. But smaller tiles allow for more kinds of fights and more strategy because of the more proper scale of the units. For instance, this method would also allow for naval battles on rivers and proper fights over bridges. And it would preclude the absurd ability to bombard enemies over the Channel with archers.

As is, I think the large scale of the tiles does clearly preclude Civ from being an enjoyable war simulation game.

 

[Tomice]

HI think we can dispense with worker units first of all and apply Simcity style improvement functions. In Simcity, you zoned a bunch of tiles and the computer, developed them according to your intent and depending on resources and demand/trade/water/power. Cities can also grow over several tiles in a similar way by likewise "zoning" tiles.
Thus, you need not end up with square shaped cities. And this method of improving the land would be much less tedious than having worker units doing this or that all over the map.

If someone created a game that takes the simcity idea on a global, 6000-year scale and made it as much fun, I'd happily buy that. Actually, I was thinking about this approach a lot and find it VERY interesting, so I can more than understand your thoughts.

But firaxis will never completely change the winning team.

 

[Commander Bello]

I have a general problem with "old-fashioned" units like bowmen being able to perform ranged attacks, while more modern units like riflemen or modern infantry can't do.

And the argument that bowmen made use of ballistic shooting whilst riflemen shoot directly at their target isn't valid either, since the armies developed the appropriate tactics to allow to either shoot through breaches in the first row of men, or these simply got down on their knees for a moment.

In any way, the rifleman has the same combat range as the archer and in addition is much more accurate, thus having a much higher kill rate at distant targets.

 

[GoGerbilGo!]

If someone created a game that takes the simcity idea on a global, 6000-year scale and made it as much fun, I'd happily buy that. Actually, I was thinking about this approach a lot and find it VERY interesting, so I can more than understand your thoughts.

But firaxis will never completely change the winning team.

I agree with you. Simcity style little tiles confer a great number of advantages over Civ style large tiles. And smaller tiles would not even preclude 1upt and hexes. Beyond greatly expanding the possibilities of war simulation for turn-based approach, smaller tiles adds greater aesthetic variance, especially in the form of topography. Simcities could be built on rolling hills, flatlands, with canyons or mountain ranges. And coastlines are more interesting with smaller tiles. CivVI could improve on Simcity topography by introducing steeper cliffs, for instance. I think there are even more benefits.

For instance, I have always hated plastering the whole world with roads and especially rails. More interesting topography could also force you to build rails with purpose. By making rails expensive depending on the topography where the rail is laid, you can force users to be judicious in where and how they place railways. Topography is also essential in raising the profile of and importance of computer calculated trade routes, which also is one of the key points I have been making on the other thread on rivers.

And of course, you can build dykes, aquaducts, and canals actually into the topography with smaller tiles.

You are right. What I really want to play is Civ on Simcity.

 

[Terrance888]

Ranged attack units are units that can attack over the heads of other units.
Frontline units fight other frontline units that fight back.

Technically, if my rifleman has a clear shot at some crossbowmen 1 tile away, and the crossbowman just bombarded the Rifleman, I can perfectly assume my rifleman can fire back.

Personally, I like the range comparison idea, with the extra caveat that bombarding those with equal or greater range means they fire back. Also, the frontline/support still works with range comparisons: frontline troops behind other frontline troops can't fire back when bombarded with arrows: if they do they will hit the frontline infront. But if there are none, then they can gleefully fire an accurate volley at the striken archers.

Finally, I think there might be different scales. For example, the scale for the strategetic scale might be 10km from center to end of the hex. But in a battle between, say, 3 melee and 2 ranged on each side, the hex might each stand for only 200 meters for the battle. Each battle is a stack fight that is dissected and given a little but more tactics.

For myself, I want forts which can be laid on other normal tile improvements, only taking upkeep of gold or reducing production or something. Then the fort tiles can hold two units: a support and a melee. So we can have some seiges of something other than cities.

I must stop rambling, so here are my 2 euro cents.

@ Go Gerbil Go: Maybe they can make each Hex tile made of may hex tiles, and have stacks that change to 1upt on the small tiles?

edit: maybe they can have street to street battles!

 

[GoGerbilGo!]

@ Go Gerbil Go: Maybe they can make each Hex tile made of may hex tiles, and have stacks that change to 1upt on the small tiles?

edit: maybe they can have street to street battles!

In my imagination, yes, adopting smaller tiles would allow for battles within cities. This is because I do suggest that Civ adopt not only smaller tiles, but allow cities that grow literally into the surrounding tiles of your choosing, such that cities could end up with irregular shapes. If an enemy breaches city limits, then let battles rage within the city! And when cities riot, let angry citizens turn into actual units which your veteran garrisoned unit can slaughter... ^^; ...But your first suggestion is also interesting and gives a strange halfway compromise between big and small tiles. I like it. But I wouldn't adopt it.

By the way, when cities begin in the early game, you may have a city spanning one or two tiles with farm improvements around. But as that city annexes a whole bunch of surrounding tiles by late game, those inner farm improvements would have been converted and absorbed by the city. Kind of realistic, sort of, don't you think?

 

[SammyKhalifa]

I see where you're coming from, but I think you'd be on the verge of turning it into a nearly-unplayable micromanagment-laden monstrosity.

A truly "realistic" Civ game would take 6000 years to play, after all.

EDIT: Sorry, didn't mean to come across as sounding so mean there. I just worry about adding too many features and adding too much realism. Sorry.

 

[Dunkah]

I personally love the idea of smaller Sim City styled terrain with either a zoom in for combat or a simple 1upt.

Alas I think that this may be something we can look at/ hope for in CIV6 when we are all playing on 25 - 50 core processors with virtual 3d screens.