Ranged units (archers) are not effective to upgrade

[Sonereal]

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

Muskets are weaker than longswordsmen. If anything, both the longsword and musketman should upgrade into riflemen.

archer -> crossbow -> longbowman ->

Longbowmen are a UU

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

Reasonable.

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

Already included in-game.

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

I have to disagree with you here. I think cavalry should be the end of that line and the tank a start of a new one but it isn't a big deal really.

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.

You don't need a counter to everything though. The counter to riflemen are cavalry and open ground. The counter to cavalry are lancers (I believe) and the counter to lancers are riflemen.

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

No because infantry and riflemen aren't indirect fire units. The closest thing you can probably get is "skirmish" and that would only have a range of one to be honest.

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?

Musketmen really don't have an advantage over over crossbows or longbows. They're just much cheaper to build (easier to train).

Why not upgrade longbow/crossbow to a mortar?

Hmm....maybe as long as the attacks are weak against cities and armoed units, I think mortars could work now that I think about it.

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.

I was going to say grenadiers but they really only can throw their weapons. There is a pretty large gap, innit?

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

It really would be easier to just merge the promotion lines.

 

[eb0]

Indirect fire isnt the argument here. A rifleman should be able to engage an enemy from a distance. The musketman I understand should have to be within one tile do so bc the fact thats how the English & etc used to fight their battles. Line up, load fire on the enemy, repeat. If the enemy is within your units sight radius you should be able to engage within 2 tiles. Rifleman don't run up to their enemy put the gun to their head and fire. They engage from a distance, if they are on a hilltop and there is an enemy 2 tiles away on an open plains they are going to be able to shoot at them. Therefore just combine the indirect fire / direct fire aspect of the promotions so it states "When fighting/firing on an enemy in rough/open terrain" or "When fighting/firing from rough/open terrain". This would solve the entire problem. Rifleman still would not have indirect fire, but they wouldn't need to be right next to the enemy either.

Therefore Archers > Xbows > Longbows---\
------------------------------------------> Rifleman > Infantry > Mech
Warrior > Swords > Longswords > Musket--/

It makes perfect sense. Because I'm sorry but a Longbowman reminds me a lot more of Rifleman than a Longswordsman does. Which one shoots a projectile?? Not the swordsmen.


And I love the idea of having a mortar team, or have the option to get the promotion after #3 that you may choose to add a mortar team inside of your infantry unit so it gains indirect fire and is still strong against direct attacks.

 

[eb0]

It really would be easier to just merge the promotion lines.

Grenadiers can fire via a grenade launcher on their m4/m16.

In WW1 they were only able to throw grenades.
In WW2 they had a special gun used to fire a grenade projectile (don't remember the name of the weapon)

But grenadiers are a very viable option IMHO.

 

[Willdabeast]

I think they should add some kind of sniper units that they can upgrade to.

 

[Voltron81]

You also have to consider archery warfare vs ballistic warfare though. Archers actually do have an advantage vs bullets. Archers do not have to fire direct while guns do. Also, despite belief bullets do not have infinite range. After a certain distance they come quite harmless. THe farther away the less damage as the bullet reduces in speed and is vulnerable to line of sight obstacles. I believe this is the backing principle behind the mechanic set up. Alot of times in pre-gun warfare archers would shoot arrows into the air to create an arc to maximize distance at the cost of A) accuracy B) it was easier to defend against. They rarely even had to see the target but just shoot in a direction at a given angle. To in a sense "Rain arrows". Guns while having many advantages over the bow, cannot create this siege effect. No bullet can arc ( no matter what movie you saw) the physics prevent it. ( cannons and artillery are a special kind of ballistic which handles less momentum than that of a gun).

So i guess if you get down to it, what makes a siege weapon (not refering to towers or battering rams) is can it make an arc? IF it cannot arc it then it cannot shoot beyond the distance of a tile its in or going to.

IT is understandable while they set up like that, but i do not think they realize the promotion problem. I like the sniper idea though. Though they would not have the range of archers unless in open flat terrain. The mortar team would make sense though its a large tech gape from bows to mortars. Have hand tossed grandiers would be a good go between but the range is less but the damage would be more.

 

[Sonereal]

Therefore Archers > Xbows > Longbows---\
------------------------------------------> Rifleman > Infantry > Mech
Warrior > Swords > Longswords > Musket--/

It makes perfect sense. Because I'm sorry but a Longbowman reminds me a lot more of Rifleman than a Longswordsman does. Which one shoots a projectile?? Not the swordsmen.

It's still very broken. Longswords are more powerful than muskets and Archers, Xbows, and Longbows will lose their promos. The easiest thing to do would be to simply make the cannon require iron and allow Xbows/Longbows to upgrade into the siege line through the cannon chokepoint.

Grenadiers can fire via a grenade launcher on their m4/m16.

In WW1 they were only able to throw grenades.
In WW2 they had a special gun used to fire a grenade projectile (don't remember the name of the weapon)

But grenadiers are a very viable option IMHO.

No. Not really. Grenadier units of WW1 were so specialized it could work but their range wouldn't be anywhere near archer range or even rifle range. These guys were supposed to just throw their grenades into the next trench. In WW2, the grenade launcher on certain guns (usually normal rifles) did have some range but extreme accuracy issues and you wouldn't use them for indirect fire. A mortar team is better for the job since they can reasonably be used against non-armored units.

I think they should add some kind of sniper units that they can upgrade to.

When? Civil War-era snipers? The kind that didn't travel in huge teams? A sniper unit could hardly do any damage close to what other units do against units in this game. A -1 is pretty much they can reasonably do. Why? Because the game is too strategic for simple sniper units. Same reason sniper units don't even show up in most mods for Civ4. They don't fit to scale.

 

[Gamemaster77]

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.

But they still cannot shoot over the heads of say, a friendly squad from another civ and hit the enemy on the other side.

 

[Swiftest]

I just wanted to mention that it appears the the basic ranged bonuses (accuracy and the rough terrain one) for *cavalry* archers such as chariot archers, camel archers, and keshiks do seem to continue to work when they are upgraded into cavalry and beyond. I just posted in the Keshik thread about this but I'll summarize here:

last night I had a Keshik with Shock 1-3 and Accuracy 1-2 that I then upgraded to a cavalry. I noticed the next time I attacked something in open terrain that he had the 65% open terrain attack bonus *and* another 40% *ranged* attack bonus on open terrain.

Could this not potentially also be the case for archers upgrading to riflemen -- that the basic upgrades do carry over and give him a bonus? I haven't tested it myself. Am I totally off base here ...?

 

[ElephantRider]

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.

If you shoot a bullet up in the air, and it comes down on somebody, it is just as lethal as an arrow shot in a volley, if not more so. Have you never heard of someone shooting a gun straight up in the air only to have the bullet come down and kill someone? It happens. Sometimes they can also kill people inside of buildings. A guy in North Fort Worth was sighting in a .50 hunting rifle. One of the shots went high. It came down through the roof a home and hit a lady in the arm or leg, I don't exactly remember which it was. This particular example did not result in the death of the woman, but if the bullet would have hit her in a vital area, it would have killed her. She nearly bled to death just from the wound itself. Even a .22 round is lethal coming out of the air like that.

But yeah, like you said, it's not a viable tactic.

 

[Tutkarz]

Sniper units could be in game but as civilian unit that can kill enemy general from range.

And to me simplest way of upgrading crossbows would be - like some said before - mortar. Its not as big as whole division but still makes difference in the battlefield.
First mortars (slow and heavy) was introduced in 18century. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mortar_(weapon)

But more complicated and more accurate solution would be to make infantry as ranged units but dont allow them to shoot over other heads - other units would act like wood or mountain and they would not get indirect bonuses.

Another thing with ranged units is that charriot should not be considered horse unit because pikeman should not get bonuses against it like it does against regular horse. Charriot fires arrows and not charging into pikes.

 

[Tur4]

Anyone play imperialism II back in the day? They had normal artillery, and light artillery. the light artillery could move and fire in the same turn. It did less damage, but allowed you to move into range and attack the same turn basically without having to wait a turn and get blasted by the defenses.

I think crossbow -> light cannon -> light artillery.

In civ, I see light cannon/light artillery basically functioning the same as the current archer. Two moves, and no need to set up. So you could move and fire in the same turn, but do less damage than traditional siege units. Again, this is pretty much exactly how archers work now.

 

[troytheface]

the crossbow let someone who was trained for a day instead of a youth fire arrows

the rifle- same thing- grab a merchants son and show him how to point

the evidence is clear- Crossbow to Cannon makes no sense Crossbow to Rifle is the superior

 

[mihaifx]

Anyone play imperialism II back in the day? They had normal artillery, and light artillery. the light artillery could move and fire in the same turn. It did less damage, but allowed you to move into range and attack the same turn basically without having to wait a turn and get blasted by the defenses.

I think crossbow -> light cannon -> light artillery.

In civ, I see light cannon/light artillery basically functioning the same as the current archer. Two moves, and no need to set up. So you could move and fire in the same turn, but do less damage than traditional siege units. Again, this is pretty much exactly how archers work now.

Awesome game !
Real cool combat mechanics with light/heavy artillery, opportunity fire, rallying and many others, all in hex based combat. There's a lot Civ could learn from that game.

 

[Post Monkeh]

I just wanted to mention that it appears the the basic ranged bonuses (accuracy and the rough terrain one) for *cavalry* archers such as chariot archers, camel archers, and keshiks do seem to continue to work when they are upgraded into cavalry and beyond. I just posted in the Keshik thread about this but I'll summarize here:

last night I had a Keshik with Shock 1-3 and Accuracy 1-2 that I then upgraded to a cavalry. I noticed the next time I attacked something in open terrain that he had the 65% open terrain attack bonus *and* another 40% *ranged* attack bonus on open terrain.

Could this not potentially also be the case for archers upgrading to riflemen -- that the basic upgrades do carry over and give him a bonus? I haven't tested it myself. Am I totally off base here ...?

the bonus gets listed, but if you work out the various figures it doesn't get added on to your final attack strength.

 

[stealth_nsk]

Another possible solution is promotion change. Like Barrage -> Drill etc. so you'll just have regular promoted melee units.

 

[Hengoroth]

The sollution are so easy as this for the archery line:
I think crossbow -> light cannon aka mortar teams that comes into play slightly after obsoletion of achery as gunpowder becomes dominant-> light artillery/modern mortar teams\tow or merge with anti-tank,aircraft

In civ, a mortar team basically functioning the same as the current archer. Two moves, and no need to set up. So you could move and fire in the same turn, but do less damage than traditional siege units. how hard could it be to find graphics for this? not that hard. Why make this so hard? and u can carry over the promotions so easily as u need almost the same experience to lob a grenade over a hill as lobbing a grenade into a field as an archer does.

 

[Wezqu]

Why not simply change the promotions when unit upgrades from ranged to not ranged. Like if you have a crossbowman that has Accuracy promotion and you upgrade it to rifleman it would change to Shock promotion. This would take care of the whole problem and the units then would have useful promotions. Another way would be to let you assign the promotions again after you upgraded the crossbowman unit.

 

[Zhahz]

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

I agree that the promotions for archery units don't translate well once they become gun-oriented units, but I don't think this is stupid, and I do think it's necessary. It could be handled better because some promotions just don't translate well.

It is a game, and melee type frontline units are necessary. When it comes to modern combat, it's your infantry who are slugging it out, even if they have guns.

Archery units are more of an indirect fire support unit - almost like a lesser version of siege/bombard, but having them upgrade to cannon/artillery would be equally ridiculous due to the cost differences.

I don't know what the solution is, but, it's manageable. The archery units are VERY powerful for their time and when used properly can basically rain down death without ever taking a hit in return. There is no particular reason for them to continue this thru modern warfare times. Enjoy the archer/xbow while they last, and they are useful for a very long time.

There are only a few promos that don't carry over well. Range and indirect fire, really. I almost never take indirect fire, it would have to be a very special case and you just have to know it's useless later. I usually only ever get range if I'm heavy honor tree and getting double xp, and in that case, all troops develop quick so who cares. Logistics, which is one of the best, effectively becomes blitz which isn't so bad - if you're getting that much xp in a modern unit you'd probably end up with blitz at some point anyways.

 

[Drawmeus]

When? Civil War-era snipers? The kind that didn't travel in huge teams? A sniper unit could hardly do any damage close to what other units do against units in this game. A -1 is pretty much they can reasonably do. Why? Because the game is too strategic for simple sniper units. Same reason sniper units don't even show up in most mods for Civ4. They don't fit to scale.

Call them skirmishers, give them a range of 1 (totally appropriate for pre-20th century gunpowder units: “Don’t fire till you see the whites of their eyes!”, and in the Civil War it wasn't much different), let them move after shooting, and possibly give them a third movement point. Skirmishing does fit to scale in a game that calls out artillery and infantry divisions separately.

Modern upgrade would be Special Ops and might get their range back to 2 (or even more).

I think that'd work quite well and alleviate some of the oversimplification of warfare (relative to ancient warfare) that happens in the Renaissance.

 

[Vaz]

This entire argument would be a non-existent if the OP had first played the game and seen how the ranged promotions work on a rifleman.

I've promoted an archery unit to accuracy III and logistics and upgraded it to a rifleman. The promotions still applied in open ground but I was never in a situation where I could test if it could attack twice. Also after I earned enough XP for another promotion, I was able to get Shock I, meaning if I got enough XP I could eventually get Accuracy III and Shock III on 1 unit. It appears that the strongest possible open or rough terrain infantry units would come from an archer therefore making it worthwhile to upgrade them.