Ranged units (archers) are not effective to upgrade

[Gamemaster77]

It's particularly stupid that bows are ranged weapons but rifles are not. The obvious upgrade problems are a result of this.

Archers needed a different combat mechanic to siege weapons and melee troops. Whatever capability the archers had instead should have been carried over to gunpowder units too. There would have been no issue then with promotions.

How many times to people have to say this? Archers represent indirect fire units. They can possibly shoot over their own people to hit the enemy. However, a rifleman can not lob a bullet over the heads of their squad and have it fall to the ground on an enemy

 

[Sonereal]

Maybe a Machine Gunner type unit could be added along the archery upgrade path. It maintains a ranged attack ability but has something to balance it against cities so that the siege-line is still preserved for that purpose.

Maybe a penalty against city attack, or a bonus in your boarders? I'm just brainstorming.

Edit: Or just a scaled down attack power compared to siege like the archery line already has (duh).

A machine gunner unit also does not use its weapon like archers do. Archers used indirect fire.

 

[CaptainKapow]

A machine gunner unit also does not use its weapon like archers do. Archers used indirect fire.

Grenadier or Mortar type unit then?

 

[Sonereal]

Grenadier or Mortar type unit then?

Still doesn't work. Remember, the grenadier and machine gunner unit only existed in Civ4 because of unit stacking. They're too small scale wise.

 

[CaptainKapow]

Well the only solutions I can see are to either extend the archery class line of units (even if it upsets a sense of scale) or to have archery upgrade into siege.

Crossbows to cannons seems like the only point to merge them but I kind of prefer the idea of maintaining siege as it's own distinct line.

 

[Sonereal]

Well the only solutions I can see are to either extend the archery class line of units (even if it upsets a sense of scale) or to have archery upgrade into siege.

Crossbows to cannons seems like the only point to merge them but I kind of prefer the idea of maintaining siege as it's own distinct line.

It would be its own distinct line. Another line is just being absorbed into it. Either that, or it effectively ends at crossbow since the promos are useless for riflemen.

 

[UknowsI]

I could see archers upgrade into guerrilla units. The reason being that guerrilla units will often shoot at the enemy while they have little chance to defend. While they are still using rifles, they will often attack from hidden positions or through sabotage or bombs and never give the enemy a chance to fire back.

I think it would also be a good addition to the game. They would be mobile harassment units which aren't as strong as artillery but can soften up targets before battle.

 

[GenericPlayer]

I think the solution could be, as mentioned, have the archers and xbows upgrade into the artillery line, but the upgrade cost should be very high to prevent spamming of cannons. Alternatively, they can create a new unit, "Mortar Teams" which get a penalty to city attack but a bonus to attacking foot soldiers (Paratroopers, Infantry, Riflemen...etc).

 

[bobosaurus]

so the way I see it, because I like a visial representation.....

warrior -> swordsman -> longswordsman -> musketman -> rifleman -> infantry -> mech inf

archer -> crossbow -> longbowman ->

spearman -> pikeman -> anti-tank inf -> helicopter

catapult -> trebuchet -> cannon -> artilery -> rocket arty

chariot archer -> horseman -> knight -> lancer -> cavalry -> tank -> modern armour

this doesn't nessissarily all add up, but it seems about right to me, feel free to correct me.

anywais, my point is that in the early game theirs a ranged infantry unit for use against other infanrty units, and their's siege infantry for use against cities. B

ut past longbows, the only range comes from siege equipment (requiring set up, which I'm pretty sure is supposed to suck, but so far I havne't really noticed a difference in as I can often attack that turn anyways).

so the obvious solution would be to have an anti-infantry ranged unit that goes through the whole game (mortars and grenadiers in example), so that infantry are countered just like tanks have anti-tanks, and horsemen have spearmen.

I guess what I'm getting at is that their isn't enough rock-paper-scissors effect happening, and I want more.

 

[lschnarch]

How many times to people have to say this? Archers represent indirect fire units. They can possibly shoot over their own people to hit the enemy. However, a rifleman can not lob a bullet over the heads of their squad and have it fall to the ground on an enemy

Stupid argument.
Infantery-style units have developed tactics to allow fire from the rear lines as soon as they came into play.
First line (melee type) knees down, second line (muscet-armed) fires, first lines raises again, second line reloades their weapons.

Since infantery became equipped with bayonets too, latest the rifleman should be both, a melee as well as a ranged-combat unit.

 

[Humakty]

I remember people complaining against useless archers in civ 4, to the point mods gave them ranged shooting. Please note gunpowder units did not gain this ability, because it wasn't required or sensible to do so.

It's quite logical to give archers ranged combat, as it is a specific advantage they do have against contemporary units (swords/spears/cavalry).

What would be their use without it ?( I bet we could imagine working stuff. ie : a passive bonus to friendly units 1 tile around them. But kinds of overlap with GG)

 

[Revoran]

I agree that cannons should require iron.

While this problem is hardly game breaking i definately agree that it is a poor design choice - although i'm not sure what a potential fix would be.

Perhaps just make gunpowder units significantly more strong than archers? They already are, but I mean even more, other later era stuff could be scaled up accordingly?

 

[Akaoz]

Why not upgrade longbow/crossbow to a mortar?

Has much of the same function in a WW2 era army as the Longbow had back in the day...

Oh, and before someone mentioned "scale". If Anti-tank and arty are allowed separate units, then mortars can be too. Sure, bowmen might have made up 30-50% of an ancient army in manpower, but that's not really relevant. What is relevant is firepower. And mortars and the like make up a very large portion of an army's firepower.

The only problem I can see is that there is a long gap between long/crossbow and mortars. I'm trying to come up with an equivalent for the musket-rifleman era, but I'm having a hard time finding anything.

 

[Vellis]

Stupid argument.
Infantery-style units have developed tactics to allow fire from the rear lines as soon as they came into play.
First line (melee type) knees down, second line (muscet-armed) fires, first lines raises again, second line reloades their weapons.

Since infantery became equipped with bayonets too, latest the rifleman should be both, a melee as well as a ranged-combat unit.

The tactic you're talking about works for a single line of riflemen or two. Two armies of riflemen is more like another entire regiment of riflemen standing behind the first regiment who is using this tactic.

That said, gameplay trumps realism. The game's combat engine is built on having melee units who are strong in direct combat protecting ranged units who are not. If you make every unit in the game ranged when you research gunpowder the game becomes considerably less tactical, as this mechanic would go out the window.

I agree with the guy who said they should just add grenadiers/mortar squads then roll mobile SAMs into the ranged line in the modern era. I've never understood why they dropped the two range units once you hit the industrial age anyway.

 

[Stonemender]

In principle it is ok that riflemen are no ranged units (Musketeers are a bit of a problem because they represent the transition).

Its a question of rescaling the battle field. With the beginning of the 20th century essentially every unit was a ranged unit. So in terms of the game you would have to rescale the battlefield.

In short: The old 'ranged' becomes the new 'close'.

Getting the transition right is a problem of course. The Bow/Crossbow-Line should just end and be combat penalties when fighting against a 'rescaled' ranged unit, to reflect the fact that they're terribly outdated.

 

[zimmah]

while achers can fire effectivly over objects like hills and trees, guns can't do that.

even if you would be able to predict where the bullet would land if you shoot it in the air, it would usually not be lethal or even wounding if it were to land on the enemy. (i mean when it falls down on you using balistics, not when you fire it in a straight line)

while if an arrow falls down on you, you're most likely dead or severely wounded.

 

[Knox Harrington]

One simple solution could be to let the player reapply the xp for promotions when upgrading.

 

[gingerbill]

This.

A major design flaw, and with this kind of mechanics I don't see any solution.

i'd say a very small flaw , certainly not major . They could easily fix it just by converting there promotions . I dont see it as something that needs urgent attention as sometimes the archer promotions are better , mixes it up a bit too.

 

[quintus5]

Maybe riflemen/muskets should be able to fire back if fired upon to make sure there not weak to crossbows.
I don't know how difficult that would be to mod, though.

 

[sleepingbear]

Maybe riflemen/muskets should be able to fire back if fired upon to make sure there not weak to crossbows.
I don't know how difficult that would be to mod, though.

Or just give all non gunpowder units a promotion that makes gives them -75% verses gunpowder units and +50% vs muskets, so their net vs muskets is -25%. This might balance things out a bit.