Sorry if this has already been asked, but...

[hewhoknowsall]

An archer will have a ranged attack (which is unrealistic on a strategic, large scale map, but that's for another discussion). Does that mean that all gunpowder units will too? Because if archers can, then even longer ranged guns (well, early muskets were shorter ranged) would realistically be able to attack from even more spaces. Tanks have an effective attack range of over a mile, which is several times that of an archer. Therefore, proportionally it would have over 10 hexes of range.

They could simply somehow make modern gunpowder unable to use the ranged attack, but that wouldn't make sense. Then you'd have archers outranges guys with M16s.

 

[hideousmonkey]

Yeah, it's already been asked, and discussed to death... no all of the gunpowder units won't have ranged...

 

[Abremms]

haven't there been enough gameplay vs. realism discussions?

archers have a ranged attack, riflemen and infanty types dont. it may not make sense in a realistic sense, but it makes sense in terms of gameplay.

 

[Ahriman]

Its better if you think about it as "bombardment" rather than "ranged attack".

Bowmen and siege units and naval units are "bombardment" units.
Frontline units (spearmen, swordsmen, pikemen, knights muskets, rifles, infantry, tanks) are not.

 

[hewhoknowsall]

haven't there been enough gameplay vs. realism discussions?

archers have a ranged attack, riflemen and infanty types dont. it may not make sense in a realistic sense, but it makes sense in terms of gameplay.

So in terms of gameplay, archers can fire at range and bombard modern infantry, who are like "omg they're using hand drawn arrows! We're screwed because our laser sight equipped M16s are horribly outranged by them!"

 

[Ahriman]

In terms of gameplay, any archers still left around to bombard modern infantry would do trivial damage to the much higher strength infantry, who would then attack and annihilate the archer units.

 

[Zhahz]

Yeah, it's already been asked, and discussed to death

Indeed.

Ultimately it's a game - some units are designated ranged, some are not - it's for gameplay reasons to make for quality combat.

 

[migkillertwo]

An archer will have a ranged attack (which is unrealistic on a strategic, large scale map, but that's for another discussion). Does that mean that all gunpowder units will too? Because if archers can, then even longer ranged guns (well, early muskets were shorter ranged) would realistically be able to attack from even more spaces. Tanks have an effective attack range of over a mile, which is several times that of an archer. Therefore, proportionally it would have over 10 hexes of range.

They could simply somehow make modern gunpowder unable to use the ranged attack, but that wouldn't make sense. Then you'd have archers outranges guys with M16s.

It's true that a .223 bullet is going to reach out a lot farther than an arrow. However, the archer has ranged attack because it is an INDIRECT fire unit. It can fire over the heads of friendly units, not so with a soldier armed with an M16.

That said, I personally think that there need to be mortar units that act like modern archers; They move at the same speed as infantry, don't need a turn to set up (I'm fairly certain that light mortars can be set up way faster than, say, 155mm field guns), and provide a light bombardment of enemies up to 2 hexes away.

 

[Shurdus]

Its better if you think about it as "bombardment" rather than "ranged attack".

Bowmen and siege units and naval units are "bombardment" units.
Frontline units (spearmen, swordsmen, pikemen, knights muskets, rifles, infantry, tanks) are not.

How is that better exactly? I can see there being a difference because the game treats the two classes differently, but there is hardly any justifiable ground for it.

 

[hideousmonkey]

That said, I personally think that there need to be mortar units that act like modern archers; They move at the same speed as infantry, don't need a turn to set up (I'm fairly certain that light mortars can be set up way faster than, say, 155mm field guns), and provide a light bombardment of enemies up to 2 hexes away.

I like that idea, seems like a good straight-forward mod added unit.

 

[Ahriman]

How is that better exactly?

Because it makes it easier to understand why they chose to implement it the way they did (which was the *right* way, IMO) - different unit classes have different roles. Some are frontline, others are support.

And because it emphasizes the indirect fire aspect (arched trajectories) rather than linear projectiles (guns).

It is a more useful way of describing the design choice they made.

 

[Abremms]

its direct fire vs indirect fire. direct fire is things like rifles and tanks, then generaly aim right at what they are shooting.

indirect fire, like artillery and archers, aim up in order to drop thier projectiles on their targets heads. they fire over the front lines, not from them.

 

[Shurdus]

Because it makes it easier to understand why they chose to implement it the way they did (which was the *right* way, IMO) - different unit classes have different roles. Some are frontline, others are support.

And because it emphasizes the indirect fire aspect (arched trajectories) rather than linear projectiles (guns).

It is a more useful way of describing the design choice they made.

Ah, so the answer to why archers have ranged attacks and rifles have not is 'because they fall in a different unit category.' That clears up so much...

 

[migkillertwo]

Ah, so the answer to why archers have ranged attacks and rifles have not is 'because they fall in a different unit category.' That clears up so much...

Well the fact is that riflemen DO act as shock troops and as frontline troops and really don't act merely as support for other riflemen.

 

[hideousmonkey]

its direct fire vs indirect fire. direct fire is things like rifles and tanks, then generaly aim right at what they are shooting.

indirect fire, like artillery and archers, aim up in order to drop thier projectiles on their targets heads. they fire over the front lines, not from them.

ARGH! Everyone stop arguing about this, this is the right answer!

 

[silentknight111]

It's simple, arrows can be shot in an arc over things, bullets can not.

 

[Avatar_Ko]

Ah, so the answer to why archers have ranged attacks and rifles have not is 'because they fall in a different unit category.' That clears up so much...

Are you intentionally ignoring half the posts in this thread? It's been said multiple times. In war, archers don't fire directly at targets. They fire up at a steep angle, letting the arrows rain down on the opposing forces. That's why they're a ranged unit, they can fire over the front line. If a rifleman were to attempt the same thing the rounds would slow until they fall at terminal velocity, much less than lethal force. Obviously they can't just shoot straight, they'd hit the front line in the back. I suppose there's some argument to be made for letting them fire two hexes ahead assuming nothing (including forests or hills occupied the hex in between but such is balancing.

 

[thungrim]

We accept that the map is an abstract. We accept that the map is of different scales for different game elements. Why not accept one more abstraction?

To me, the archer is not firing from hundreds of miles away, but rather firing from behind the front line ranks. You can't fire over the heads of your allies when you're firing muskets and rifles, so at that stage of the game it abstracts riflemen to front-line units.

 

[Avatar_Ko]

We accept that the map is an abstract. We accept that the map is of different scales for different game elements. Why not accept one more abstraction?

Kind of like how in the early game you accept the fact that it takes decades for a unit to move between cities (without roads).

 

[silentknight111]

Kind of like how in the early game you accept the fact that it takes decades for a unit to move between cities (without roads).

Yes, and half die of dysentery, or drown while fording a river... oh wait. Wrong game.