1. We have added the ability to collapse/expand forum categories and widgets on forum home.
    Dismiss Notice
  2. Photobucket has changed its policy concerning hotlinking images and now requires an account with a $399.00 annual fee to allow hotlink. More information is available at: this link.
    Dismiss Notice
  3. All Civ avatars are brought back and available for selection in the Avatar Gallery! There are 945 avatars total.
    Dismiss Notice
  4. To make the site more secure, we have installed SSL certificates and enabled HTTPS for both the main site and forums.
    Dismiss Notice
  5. Civ6 is released! Order now! (Amazon US | Amazon UK | Amazon CA | Amazon DE | Amazon FR)
    Dismiss Notice
  6. Dismiss Notice
  7. Forum account upgrades are available for ad-free browsing.
    Dismiss Notice

The Rangers and the Missile Rovers

Discussion in 'CivBE - Strategy & Tips' started by Minor Annoyance, Feb 12, 2015.

  1. Minor Annoyance

    Minor Annoyance Chieftain

    Joined:
    Jun 27, 2007
    Messages:
    2,247
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Hamilton, Ontario
    In my recent games I haven't used siege units for city combat and just used standard ranged and it's been fine. How does everyone else feel about ranged vs. siege units? Are you taking siege to invasions, having them defend cities, or neither?
     
  2. heat

    heat Chieftain

    Joined:
    Dec 1, 2014
    Messages:
    24
    I primarily play Supremacy - I primarily use SABRs, Vindicators and Redeemers to take and defend cities.
     
  3. Nurgle84

    Nurgle84 Chieftain

    Joined:
    Jan 18, 2009
    Messages:
    141
    Its a question of efficiency and the ability to get enough units into range. (with LOS no less) An Rocket Rover does more damage than a single Ranger. Two Rangers do more than one Rover, but need two clear LOSs.
    And once you have the range 3 upgrade, Rovers are clearly better.
     
  4. Minor Annoyance

    Minor Annoyance Chieftain

    Joined:
    Jun 27, 2007
    Messages:
    2,247
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Hamilton, Ontario
    I think the problem with using the siege unit is that missile rovers come later than rangers, and you are likely to already be at affinity level 2 when you get them, so you're not choosing between equivalent tier units. It's often Gunners vs. Missile Rovers, in which case Gunners are stronger and don't have to set up.
    Due to their different upgrade times, ranger line spends 2 levels being ahead of the missile rover line and 3 levels being equal. When they're not equal the ranger line is better for city attacks and against unit. So the siege unit spends 40% of it's time not being good at siege, while the ranger line is always useful and 40% of the time can fill either role.
    Unless it's a marathon game, those 60% windows are a little short to have a units be useful, and having them sit around waiting for a upgrade 40% of the time is a long wait to be paying maintenance on them.
     
  5. tedeviatings

    tedeviatings Chieftain

    Joined:
    Jan 16, 2015
    Messages:
    126
    To me it really depends on given affinity choice and current tech level.
    But generally I'm in favor of the ranger-line, i.e. I get a lot more of them for defensive purposes and then usually don't need any units of the missle-rover-line to capture cities. If I were to build an invasion force from scratch things might by different - but I never am.
     
  6. Utyske666

    Utyske666 Chieftain

    Joined:
    Jan 23, 2015
    Messages:
    8
    Location:
    Copenhagen
    agree on the gunner vs. rover point , and because of the no setup ability i always tend to build alot of the gunners.
     
  7. Victus75

    Victus75 Chieftain

    Joined:
    Jan 16, 2015
    Messages:
    69
    Location:
    Texas
    It probably seems then that the missile rovers are better at defense, especially if you take the +% bonus to units as opposed to cities. Park them in your own cities for defense, and build/utilize rangers for offense.
     
  8. Alkaid

    Alkaid Chieftain

    Joined:
    Oct 29, 2014
    Messages:
    208
    Most of the time I just find the other ranged options, regardless of the affinity, leave me to not bother with making many missile rovers during my games.

    For every game I just use the gunners early on. Very rarely have I broken out a missile rover to attack a city. For mid and late game upgraded gunners and various affinity units usually leave the missile rovers left to the side for me.

    For supremacy I usually just use SABRs and gunners as my ranged support the whole time. I make the late game missile rovers mainly for their anti-orbital strikes while going through enemy territory, to make room for phasal transporters for bringing up more units. I don't like to use SABRs for that since they're so slow I'd rather not waste moves on that with them.

    Purity I usually just use gunners and tanks. The tanks won't do as much damage as a punisher against a city but since they're so versatile they're more useful as a general unit. And though all the affinities can use planes, with mostly the same situational/range limitations, the purity ones are especially strong against cities when you can use them. You just have so many good ranged options for purity, both offense and defense, that it feels like you miss out by skipping missile rovers the least as them. Even the Aegis is a decent ranged unit, though I tend to shaft that just like the missile rovers, but it's an option.

    Harmony's gunners are good too, and late game they can have no terrain movement penalty so they are easy to keep using wherever you're fighting. I think since Harmony has the least amount of ranged options they're the ones that benefit the most from missile rovers in the late game. Yet again even with just gunners as their main competition here I tend to not bother with them all that often unless I want anti-orbital strikes for some reason.
     
  9. tedeviatings

    tedeviatings Chieftain

    Joined:
    Jan 16, 2015
    Messages:
    126
    Harmony missle-rover-line get's range 3 and levitation eventually so there's that.
     
  10. zellfaze

    zellfaze Chieftain

    Joined:
    Jan 2, 2010
    Messages:
    50
    Location:
    /bin/null
    I just discovered the levitation last night and I've got to say its pretty awesome. In my opinion it makes the missile rovers a very viable option compared to rangers for later game Harmony.
     
  11. Valessa

    Valessa Communistress

    Joined:
    Aug 30, 2013
    Messages:
    8,103
    Gender:
    Female
    I'd say against cities in general Siege Units become about equal to Ranged Units on tier 3 and outshine them on tier 4.

    They pretty much have the same issues as they had in Civ 5 - especially with that -damage from ranged attacks upgrade being available for gunners long before it's available for siege units. Would be easy to seperate their roles though.

    Ranged Units:
    - x% City Attack
    - Remove Range Cover Upgrade

    Siege Units:
    - x% Base attack
    + x% City Attack
    - Give x% Cover Bonus by default.
     
  12. Diemex

    Diemex Chieftain

    Joined:
    Aug 4, 2007
    Messages:
    20
    Location:
    C A N A D A
    If you go purity you only need tanks and Lev tanks to achieve a dominance victory.. The Lev tanks will pound cities down into rubble and when fully upgraded can attack over obstacles. Once the city is vulnerable a regular tank rushes in and takes it. (since lev tank is ranged and cannot conquer)

    My invasion force for that setup is 5 lev tanks and 2 or 3 normal tanks. Thats all you need.
     
  13. s0nny80y

    s0nny80y Chieftain

    Joined:
    Mar 16, 2011
    Messages:
    688
    Location:
    Cleveland Clinic, Ohio class RNC
    plus no setup upgrade makes them perfect against laser satellites
     
  14. janway

    janway Chieftain

    Joined:
    Mar 19, 2015
    Messages:
    1
    I have the same problems as described in the opening post and shown in fake_apple's screenshots: Leaders are displayed as random lines (when animated), terrain colors start to become random for parts of the map in the mid-game. In addition, the settlement area border at turn 0 is missing.

    My video card is a NVIDIA GeForce GT 330 M with updated drivers (340.52).








    ______________
    We are the leading the world in providing best test-king ccna certification dumps testking toefl prep solutions. Our incredible offers for yale.edu questions. fcc.edu
     
  15. Makenshi

    Makenshi Ahoy, ye salty dogs!

    Joined:
    Nov 20, 2013
    Messages:
    292
    Location:
    Brasil
  16. TheMeInTeam

    TheMeInTeam GiftOfNukes

    Joined:
    Jan 26, 2008
    Messages:
    22,413
    Location:
    Orlando
    I've always hated Civ V and BE design that most siege units (until late game) can't outrange cities by default. The whole point of having siege is to make a unit that is itself very vulnerable but has the range and damage to take down stationary positions if not interrupted.

    Creating a "siege" unit that necessarily exposes itself to very damaging hits from the thing it's supposed to counter (cities) is counterintuitive and makes staying alive too easy for everyone.

    Defense and "tall" (I don't like the tall vs wide concept anyway) have been overtuned for years now.
     
  17. Promethian

    Promethian Chieftain

    Joined:
    Oct 23, 2014
    Messages:
    282
    I agree. Both missile units and SABRs should have their range increased by one. Missile units having very little defense and requiring set up justifies having 3 range. SABR being only 1 move and requiring set up justifies 4 range.

    This is especially important because our units already take up too much map space to have a truly strategic battle system. Increasing these ranges would let us utilize more units in the very limited space we have.
     
  18. ansa

    ansa Chieftain

    Joined:
    Jul 23, 2011
    Messages:
    51
    Well, this really depends on difficulty setting.
    I mean, you can dominate everything with Explorers on Soyuz and below.
    If this is Apollo, the only thing that matters is affinity race, and how much forces you manage to build for incoming upgrades before your affinity levels hit.

    And since Soldiers and Rangers take less time to build and upgrade first... You figure.
    So, on affinity 1-2 which you get real fast, Marines and Gunners are the ones who take it hard in early game, either on defense or offense, also because fortified Marines can stand their ground against enemy Armors, while Gunners rip those Armors, when AI hits affinity 3 before you - and they usually always do. If AI still has rovers this is GG, they cannot stand against you at all then.

    So you spam Marines/Gunners, dig those ruins and tech hard, and clench your buttocks until you hit affinity 6, and then your Marines will wipe everything. They will easily conquer you another 1-2 civs who still at affinity 4-5.

    Missile units are ways too slow to operate (setup mostly kills it), very slow to react to battlefront changes of running back and forth, and they always lagging 1-2 affinity levels behind when it matters the most.
    And this is how they are the reason which basically what lets you to actually slam AI for good as soon as you hit affinity 6 and rank 2 with your marines, they just destroy enemy Armors/Artillery in a blink.

    Agree with the dude above, if missile units had +1 range by default, this would really let me think about using them strategically, otherwise just no-no.
     

Share This Page