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

[Ahriman]

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...

No, the answer to "Why is it better to think about these as bombardment attacks rather than ranged attacks" is because this is a more useful paradigm for understanding their design choice.

The reason why archers have ranged attacks from rifles is to give these unit types different combat roles.

In Civ4, we had mobile units (cavalry), anti-mobile units (spears), field dominance units (axes), city-attack units (swords), city defense units (archers) and anti-stack units (siege/collateral).

In Civ5, we have mobile units (cavalry), standard frontline (spears), elite frontline (swords), flexible support (archers), and heavy support (siege).

The game is boring if we don't have different combat roles; different combat roles are what make combined arms important and fun.

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

Of course, the problem with this argument is that crossbows and ballistae are direct fire weapons.

 

[Abremms]

Of course, the problem with this argument is that crossbows and ballistae are direct fire weapons.

here your getting into realism vs. gameplay quibbles. sometimes you need to just step back and say "its a game, thats why." ballistae are a UU replacement for catapults (right?) and because catapults are indirect, so is their UU replacement. crossbows are an upgrade for archers, and were also used as indirect fire weapons, since it was cheaper and easier to field crossbowmen than archers (archers took alot longer to be trained properly, but any idiot can work a crossbow). crossbows were more effective as a directfire weapon, given their higher capability for armor penetration, but they were used both ways, the game simply picked the way that works better for the game.

 

[Ahriman]

here your getting into realism vs. gameplay quibbles.

Not really. I *like* the design decision. I think its the right call.

I'm just saying: its better to think about this decision from a game design perspective (creating different unit roles) than a realism perspective.

 

[Shurdus]

I can understand that the ancient era needs to be more interesting so it needs ranged attacks too, but any reasoning behing this is complete crap. It is so because it is mor einteresting this way. Any reasoning behind this is doomed to fail, even the indirect fire argument.

 

[Abremms]

Not really. I *like* the design decision. I think its the right call.

I'm just saying: its better to think about this decision from a game design perspective (creating different unit roles) than a realism perspective.

then we are just forcefully agreeing with each other lol. misunderstood, sorry!

 

[hewhoknowsall]

Artillery is also an indirect fire type unit.

A longbow has an effective range of about 200 meters right?

A modern artillery unit as an effective range of over 20 km.

If a longbow man gets a range of two tiles, then an artillery unit would proportionally get a range of over 100 tiles, aka making it able to hit across continents.

But then again, gameplay is more important in a video game than historical accuracy.

 

[Viatrix]

I feel really sorry for people who can make problems of such silly things...

 

[Pragmatic]

Does the EULA actually force people to play "plain-vanilla" Civ5?

If you want gunpowder units to have a ranged attack, put it in.

 

[Trine]

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.

Or even a Sniper sort of unit. But yeah I like the way you think Mig ^_^