The UU-A-Day Countdown

[Polobo]

Is "spotting" a confirmed feature for ranged attacks?

On a hill you should be able to see across other hills.

On a hill I'm thinking it maybe adds +1 to sight-range (maybe just over flatland - forest or otherwise) and thus a hill Longbow can cover 3 hexes all by itself.

I don't necessarily think it that odd that a longbow can have greater range than an ancient siege weapon given the difference in weight of the projectile. One possible abstract is that the longbows are more mobile so that can get closer, shoot, then retreat (all within the same tile); compared to a siege engine that has setup and then shoot from wherever it is located. This also means it is easier for the enemy to evade a siege engine compared to longbow (thus the longbow gets better "effective range").

With longbows the English will be able to more effectively defend their own territory with fewer units and prepared defenses. On the offense their advantaged will probably be lessened generally but if you can capture some favorable gound the additional cover they can provide is great - leaving more troops to continue the assault - and in no case should be worse than the unit they replace (which cannot be said for all UU).

 

[Polobo]

@ShaqFu - you should maybe consider making the English Longbow the next UU on your list....

 

[Ahriman]

Is "spotting" a confirmed feature for ranged attacks?

Yes.

Hence the Indirect Fire ability on the Battleship - it can fire on units that are seen by other units, but not the battleship itself (eg because there is forest/hill between the target and the battleship).

On a hill you should be able to see across other hills.

To see units on other hills, sure, but why should you be able to see units on the plains on the other side of the hill, seeing *over* the hill? I'm not sure that would make sense.

But its unclear what the implementation is: being on a hill will let you shoot over forest, I don't think we know if it will let you shoot over a hill.

 

[ShaqFu]

@ShaqFu - you should maybe consider making the English Longbow the next UU on your list....

Read my mind . I wanted to do it earlier, but I want to have confirmed stats before posting. Now that we have it....

 

[MisterBarca]

I think it makes the most sense if siege weapons have a minimum 3 range. They would still not be trained en masse, since they are resource-dependent.

 

[Ahriman]

They would still not be trained en masse, since they are resource-dependent.

Cannon - no resource requirement. Artillery - no resource requirement.

I think that would risk being game-breaking.
Its very deliberate that the max range of a all land bombardment units (except the longbowmen) is the same as the distance an infantry can move in one turn.

 

[MisterBarca]

Cannon - no resource requirement. Artillery - no resource requirement.

I think that would risk being game-breaking.
Its very deliberate that the max range of a all land bombardment units (except the longbowmen) is the same as the distance an infantry can move in one turn.

Yeah, I concede that it could be game-breaking. There will be a lot of stats-modding when I get hold of the game, I guess

 

[Polobo]

Yes.

Hence the Indirect Fire ability on the Battleship - it can fire on units that are seen by other units, but not the battleship itself (eg because there is forest/hill between the target and the battleship).


To see units on other hills, sure, but why should you be able to see units on the plains on the other side of the hill, seeing *over* the hill? I'm not sure that would make sense.

But its unclear what the implementation is: being on a hill will let you shoot over forest, I don't think we know if it will let you shoot over a hill.

If a battleship has indirect fire capability then in the absecence of further information I am thinking the others do not have indirect fire unless specified and so a longbow would need to have its own line-of-sight. Now, we know they have a range of 3 so their usefulness depends on sight mechanics.

As for hills; its a game mechanic that I honestly don't know how they would decide to implement. I guess I am (maybe incorrectly) recalling how hill-vision mechanics work in Civ4 and would assume they'd work the same in 5 absent information to the contrary.

 

[Babri]

It is going to be a great UU. It will need some practice & tactics to use them most effectively. They would fill the hole which is left by Arabia UA which only comes into play in modern era (+1 gold is pretty weak). It would allow the Arabs to compete well against other early strong civs like Rome. However Longbows can be a threat to CAs due to their longer ranges.

 

[Babri]

Cannon - no resource requirement.

What ? That is lame.

 

[PawelS]

It's really strange that Catapult requires iron, and Cannon doesn't.

 

[Ogrelord]

how about the Longbow able to shoot over a forest/jungle tile no matter what tile the Longbow unit is on?

 

[Eagle Pursuit]

I believe that most cannon in the renessiance were made of bronze, right? Also, There's plenty of iron in a Mech inf, but that doesn't require it either. The reason is that the resource is no longer strategic.

 

[KrikkitTwo]

Cannon - no resource requirement. Artillery - no resource requirement.

I think that would risk being game-breaking.
Its very deliberate that the max range of a all land bombardment units (except the longbowmen) is the same as the distance an infantry can move in one turn.

only preIndustrial bombardment units, the Artillery (probably) and Rocket Artillery (almost certainly) have ranges of 3

Basically... all Preindustrial bombardment=2 (except Longbow)
Industrial=3 (except aircraft)

of course by the Modern Era most unit move 3 or 4 (except the Paratrooper)... but in the Industrial Era, you have Artillery shooting farther than almost any land unit can move (besides the Tank)

 

[Babri]

Cannons stopped being made out of bronze when iron casting technology became much improved, which I recall is around the time of the spanish armada so circa 1550.

Only the earlier cannons used bronze. Later on it was changed to iron.
And metals were strategic at that time too. If I remember it right Peter of Russia ordered to melt even church bells to make new cannons because the Swedish had stolen them in a battle.

 

[Louis XXIV]

It is going to be a great UU. It will need some practice & tactics to use them most effectively. They would fill the hole which is left by Arabia UA which only comes into play in modern era (+1 gold is pretty weak). It would allow the Arabs to compete well against other early strong civs like Rome. However Longbows can be a threat to CAs due to their longer ranges.

BTW, about Arabia's UA. Let's not forget that trade routes are a factor. It's not like they only get double oil. If you're on wide open pangea, you can probably Arabia more effectively than England (both with the UAs and because you might be able to run around the Longbow).

 

[Boshi]

Cannons stopped being made out of bronze when iron casting technology became much improved, which I recall is around the time of the spanish armada so circa 1550.

Only the earlier cannons used bronze. Later on it was changed to iron.
And metals were strategic at that time too. If I remember it right Peter of Russia ordered to melt even church bells to make new cannons because the Swedish had stolen them in a battle.

Um, this is just not true. Bronze is better for making cannons out of than iron since, when subjected to the sort of pressures that you get when you get lots of exploding gun powder, bronze tends to be more flexible than iron, which has a tendency to burst and do things like kill gun crews. Iron cannons were also heavier and thus harder to move around and rusted while bronze cannons didn't. Because of this, bronze was preferred but if they didn't have bronze on hand they'd used iron as a substitute. Countries with big iron industries or ones that needed a lot of cannons in a hurry used iron, but everyone preferred bronze if they could get it.

Bronze was still preferred by most armies as late as the Franco-Prussian war, in which the French army got pounded to pieces by the Prussian military which had STEEL artillery, which help up to pressure a lot better than iron.

Source: The Arms of Krupp by William Manchester

 

[ShaqFu]

I'm half an hour late; sorry! Blame the fratboys near my house that insist on taking all the parking, making me waste said half hour driving a mile away to park. May they spend their eternities between an angry Tokugawa and Rashid with nothing but flat plains around them.

Today's (okay, fine, yesterday's) UU is a fan favorite, the English Longbow. This unit gets a single bonus over the garden variety Crossbowman: the ability to use ranged attack at range 3. One point to a stat added - how modest, compared to some of the battlefield titans we've seen before - but it's the most game-changing UU bonus we've seen yet. Instead of the usual operational analysis, I'll run a list:

1. The ability to get two shots in on approaching infantry, over the usual one
2. The ability to fire upon an enemy's archers over an infantry front
3. The ability to have a two-deep line of archers behind your infantry line
4. The ability to cover a lot of ground with only one archer, allowing for less frontier
5. The ability to use a two-deep line of infantry (or, one infantry, one mixed) in front of your archers
6. The ability to almost always focus fire on one unit with enough ranged attacks
7. The ability to worry less about fleeing units
8. The possiblility that the city's attack will inherit the properties of a garrisoned Longbow

And that's just a warm-up. I'm sure the clever Englishman will be able to devise all sorts of effective ways to get the most out of their Longbows; the only limit, it seems, is military creativity.

 

[Eagle Pursuit]

Make the French longswords run uphill on a muddy, recently plowed field in really heavy armor into a hail of arrow fire on the feast day of St. Crispin and St. Crispinian? Sounds good to me.

 

[Kilroywashere]

1. The ability to get two shots in on approaching infantry, over the usual one
2. The ability to fire upon an enemy's archers over an infantry front
3. The ability to have a two-deep line of archers behind your infantry line
4. The ability to cover a lot of ground with only one archer, allowing for less frontier
5. The ability to use a two-deep line of infantry (or, one infantry, one mixed) in front of your archers
6. The ability to almost always focus fire on one unit with enough ranged attacks
7. The ability to worry less about fleeing units
8. The possiblility that the city's attack will inherit the properties of a garrisoned Longbow

I think you're missing the most important one:
The ability to hit cities at a range where the cities can't hit you back!