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

[Zhahz]

I really, really dislike the idea of range units being able to fire over tiles. Seems exploitive and no better than past version of civ's cheesey bombardment or stacks of doom. I like the way melee vs range/magic is handled in Wesnoth.

I guess we'll see.

 

[Souron]

What about disallowing archers and catapults to bombard gunpowder units, or at least modern units?

You could take this one step further. Give each unit a range 0 to 10 or so. A unit can do a ranged attack only on units with equal or lesser range. Melee units of 0 range cannot bombard anyone, even each other.

 

[Tomice]

You could take this one step further. Give each unit a range 0 to 10 or so. A unit can do a ranged attack only on units with equal or lesser range. Melee units of 0 range cannot bombard anyone, even each other.

Nice idea! It would solve a lot of logical problems caused by having only 2 possible ranges in civ5.

 

[AlpsStranger]

We'll have to judge from the finished game if there is enough variety of units, ranged and melee. Hope this is no disappointment.

What about disallowing archers and catapults to bombard gunpowder units, or at least modern units?

Or we simply haven't seen any unit that takes the archer role? Even when snipers would be a stretch considering realism, they might be in the game.

My guess is that they will just do trivial damage. Having a magic "You can't bombard this square because it would make someone with Asperger's cry while counting q-tips all night" would be incredibly irritating.

 

[Louis XXIV]

I really, really dislike the idea of range units being able to fire over tiles. Seems exploitive and no better than past version of civ's cheesey bombardment or stacks of doom. I like the way melee vs range/magic is handled in Wesnoth.

I guess we'll see.

I think the one unit per tile offsets chances of catapult stacks of doom. In Civ3, you could have 100 catapults in a tile so an opposing army could be bombarded all the way down. In Civ5, you can only have a couple of Archers damage a unit and it'll be even harder to hit the whole front line of units and weaken them enough to gain an absolute advantage.

 

[AriochIV]

And thanks to 1upt, your catapults can't stack and so are vulnerable and need other units to protect them from being stomped by a few horse units. More than just one or two other units, I mean.

 

[Tomice]

On a related topic:

Arioch, when I checked your awesome page I found that there are clearly fewer units in the game (and the techtree screen tells us we know all of them already). Axemen are gone without replacement, and there is no seperate longbowmen, it's just a unique unit.

One could argue that choosing between axemen and swordmen in civ4 had little effect on the game, and that crossbowmen had a weird role, but it's still a small disappointment. still extremely excited about the game, though!

 

[AriochIV]

You're right about that. A lot of the units that were added in Civ IV to make stack vs city combat interesting filled (or created) niches that are no longer necessary with 1upt. Without stacks you don't really need +city defense, +city attack, or anti-melee specialists anymore. So the choices can seem a little more natural: spearmen should probably still have a bonus against mounted units, but crossbowmen can just be medieval ranged units instead of an anti-melee counter, and swordsmen can finally stand proud without worrying about bronze-age apes with axes.

There are certainly fewer unit types, though. I hope thay they make up for it by providing more region-specific graphics for them. I've already seen two different Spearman models (that don't appear to correspond to Civ-Unique units).

 

[Tomice]

You're right about that. A lot of the units that were added in Civ IV to make stack vs city combat interesting filled (or created) niches that are no longer necessary with 1upt. Without stacks you don't really need +city defense, +city attack, or anti-melee specialists anymore. So the choices can seem a little more natural: spearmen should probably still have a bonus against mounted units, but crossbowmen can just be medieval ranged units instead of an anti-melee counter, and swordsmen can finally stand proud without worrying about bronze-age apes with axes.

There are certainly fewer unit types, though. I hope thay they make up for it by providing more region-specific graphics for them. I've already seen two different Spearman models (that don't appear to correspond to Civ-Unique units).

I'm curious if the USA will get the same Hind gunships lategame as we have seen on the screens ;-) I hope not, as the models shouldn't be too hard to create (few moving parts, low details compared to e.g. FPS).

Adding different Jetfighters like the F-15 (USA, Japan), Eurofighter (European Civs) and SU-27 (others) for example would add a lot of flavor to the lategame. Especially fighters are iconic.
_

We don't have any real information on how promotions will allow us to define more distinct roles to our troops, do we?

 

[Shiggs713]

Does anybody else think its odd that a regiment of archers with ancient technology can ranged attack, but a regiment of rifleman, presumably using 1860's technology which would include models such as the Springfield or the Sharps rifle, with considerably longer range than even a longbow cannot do ranged attacks? Seems pretty backwards to me. IMO ranged attack should be either limited to siege only units, or at least rifles should have the same capabilities of an archer.

 

[Tomice]

Does anybody else think its odd that a regiment of archers with ancient technology can ranged attack, but a regiment of rifleman, presumably using 1860's technology which would include models such as the Springfield or the Sharps rifle, with considerably longer range than even a longbow cannot do ranged attacks? Seems pretty backwards to me. IMO ranged attack should be either limited to siege only units, or at least rifles should have the same capabilities of an archer.

Yes, that's what the thread is about

I really find this range score idea of Souron a good solution. Of course one could still argue about where on the scale archers, riflemen and tanks would be, but it would mean that a riflemen could at least bombard melee units.

Of course some oddities would have to be solved:

When a unit can bombard another unit with equal range, this would be fine for two cannons, but not really for two marines or tanks. Maybe the rule should be different for siege units and normal troops (either including same range or not).

They might find this system too complicated, though.

 

[Ahriman]

Does anybody else think its odd that a regiment of archers with ancient technology can ranged attack, but a regiment of rifleman, presumably using 1860's technology which would include models such as the Springfield or the Sharps rifle, with considerably longer range than even a longbow cannot do ranged attacks?

Honestly, no.
I'm guessing that the archer will do trivial damage to the much higher strength riflemen, and so the riflemen will still roll through the bowmen without breaking a sweat.

From a gameplay perspective, there is no problem here.

Having a whole bunch of differential ranges would be far more complex than its worth. Far easier to just have "frontline troops" and "support troops". Which seems to be the system they're going with.

KIS,S.

 

[AriochIV]

Again, in Civ V a "ranged attack" is indirect fire: you have to be able to shoot over the hex in front of you without hitting friendly units. Rifles cannot fire "over" troops in front of them on level ground. It's got nothing to do with the range of the weapon.

Archers and catapults and cannon and artillery are indirect fire weapons designed for shooting over friendly forces at enemies they sometimes can't see. Rifles and tank guns and anti-tank guns are direct-fire weapons that need to have a line of sight. If you wanted to give Riflemen a ranged attack, you'd have to take terrain elevation and line-of-sight into account to avoid hitting your own troops. I'm not sure that level of detail is appropriate for this game... it would be difficult for the player to be able to tell when a unit has a clear shot and when it doesn't.

 

[SammyKhalifa]

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.

 

[Ahriman]

Again, in Civ V a "ranged attack" is indirect fire: you have to be able to shoot over the hex in front of you without hitting friendly units. Rifles cannot fire "over" troops in front of them on level ground.

The problem with this argument is that I bet that crossbows will have a bombardment attack.

 

[Tomice]

Again, in Civ V a "ranged attack" is indirect fire: you have to be able to shoot over the hex in front of you without hitting friendly units. Rifles cannot fire "over" troops in front of them on level ground. It's got nothing to do with the range of the weapon.

Archers and catapults and cannon and artillery are indirect fire weapons designed for shooting over friendly forces at enemies they sometimes can't see. Rifles and tank guns and anti-tank guns are direct-fire weapons that need to have a line of sight. If you wanted to give Riflemen a ranged attack, you'd have to take terrain elevation and line-of-sight into account to avoid hitting your own troops. I'm not sure that level of detail is appropriate for this game... it would be difficult for the player to be able to tell when a unit has a clear shot and when it doesn't.

True. Sometimes it must be hard for the devs to find a solution, and i guess they know their system is far from "perfect", but so are our suggestions.

The real stretch is to create a system to fit all eras in, from clubs to nukes. I just hope they make the "archer fights tank" scenario less likely than in civ4. In my current game I have all this archers left defending my cities, while my active army consists of infantry. sadly, the longbowmen (city def 2) still serve a vital purpose (in addition to keeping the power curve high). mil science being a dead-end tech, I even have a bunch of knights left!

 

[Dunkah]

I don't know if any of you have every played Civilization the Board Game? In that game once you change to a new era the actual rules change. Not sure if that is how this game works or not... but if you simply changed or downgraded old units once you entered a new era you could simply shut off long ranged bow attacks at the start of the new era.

 

[ruskyandrei]

Does anybody else think its odd that a regiment of archers with ancient technology can ranged attack, but a regiment of rifleman, presumably using 1860's technology which would include models such as the Springfield or the Sharps rifle, with considerably longer range than even a longbow cannot do ranged attacks? Seems pretty backwards to me. IMO ranged attack should be either limited to siege only units, or at least rifles should have the same capabilities of an archer.

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.

 

[AriochIV]

The problem with this argument is that I bet that crossbows will have a bombardment attack.

I don't see this as a problem; crossbow bolts can be "arched" in the same way as an arrow from a bow. A typical crossbow isn't a lot more powerful than a longbow, it's just easier to use.

 

[Schuesseled]

essentially riflemen are ranged units, they just have a range of 1 tile, and get shot back. (essentially just melee units.)