Modern unit ranged attack fail

[Pliny The Stoner]

I was shocked and then disappointed when I learned that guys with bows riding around in chariots can outshoot musketmen, or riflemen or even tanks. At a minimum, tanks should function at least as well as a cannon -- that big thing sticking out of the turret isn't a shotgun.

Chariots, archers, crossbowmen should not be considered ranged units that can shoot over an entire city (or village, or town...).

I understand what the designers are trying to do here by introducing ranged combat -- but allowing it on a hex-by-hex basis rather than on a battlefield means that units that are can only fire a hundred meters or so shouldn't translate to 2 hexes.

[jnh140]

Mod it!

You can make the game exactly what you want it to be!

[MxM]

Gameplay>>realism

[Zoetstofzoetje]

one aspect the civ designers forgot to incorporate from panzer general is that cities there are more than one hex. i remember london being five or six, like paris.

[Pliny The Stoner]

Gameplay>>realism

Is this a Civ V option or a mod I must download? I am willing (yet disappointed) to use a mod to prevent the chariot archer from outgunning a tank.

Or are you saying Gamplay > realism?

[MxM]

Or are you saying Gamplay > realism?

">>" means much more than just ">"

[pdxsean]

I agree with gameplay > realism, but it would be nice if there were range units after the crossbowmen. As has been touched on in another thread. It'd be great if more modern units had a combo ranged/direct attack ability, but I'm guessing that's just a layer of complication in an already complex battle system.

[Pliny The Stoner]

">>" means much more than just ">"

You guys don't write much code eh? I thought you were byte shifting.

Sure gameplay is key but isn't "Gameplay>>realism" a copout? The whole game is modeled after reality/history. I don't honestly believe that our history is based on a fixed-sized hex grid or that a city takes up the same space as a tribal village. I understand. But asking for me to pretend that a tank has shorter range than dudes wielding bows and arrows while towed by horses is over the top.

I like the game, I'm just surprised at the stretch of imagination the designers are demanding from us on this one.

[Proteus_MST]

You guys don't write much code eh? I thought you were byte shifting.

Sure gameplay is key but isn't "Gameplay>>realism" a copout? The whole game is modeled after reality/history. I don't honestly believe that our history is based on a fixed-sized hex grid or that a city takes up the same space as a tribal village. I understand. But asking for me to pretend that a tank has shorter range than dudes wielding bows and arrows while towed by horses is over the top.

I like the game, I'm just surprised at the stretch of imagination the designers are demanding from us on this one.

If they cared for reality, they would use the strategic map just for movement (and maybe strategic bombardement by artillery/missiles) and let battles take place on a tactical map that would represent the single (strategic) hex tile where the battle takes place (or maybe 2 strategic tiles...the one where the attacker comes from and the one of the defender) .
This would also solve the problem of SODs in previous parts of Civ, making 1UpT unnecessary

[jnh140]

If they cared for reality, they would use the strategic map just for movement (and maybe strategic bombardement by artillery/missiles) and let battles take place on a tactical map that would represent the single (strategic) hex tile where the battle takes place (or maybe 2 strategic tiles...the one where the attacker comes from and the one of the defender) .
This would also solve the problem of SODs in previous parts of Civ, making 1UpT unnecessary

And then we would be playing Shogun-rome-medieval-empire-total war

Also, elemental war of magic has faux tactical combat, which I find unimpressive.

[Proteus_MST]

And then we would be playing Shogun-rome-medieval-empire-total war

Also, elemental war of magic has faux tactical combat, which I find unimpressive.

Well, I was thinking along much less complex combat than we have in (M)TW.
Master of Magic was a comnbination of Civ (transposed into a fantasy world), RPG and a tactical combat model I really liked.
Heroes and units on the tactical unit map were just represented by a single icon with hit points and attack values (i.e. unlike MTW, where each unit consists of independent individuals) .

And if you want it even less complex... Civ: Call to power also had a good combat model.
Combat between stacks took place automatically on some kind of tactical battlefield with 3 rows of units (melee, long range [like archers], artillery) as well as flanking units (cavalry and the like) who would try to go around the 1st line to hit the vulnerable units in 2nd and 3rd line.
Gunpowder units (like riflemen or tanks) in this system were represented by units that could be put into 1st line as well as 2nd line, thereby representing their ability for long range fire.
All in all it was a system that made sense (and encouraged the player to build stacks of mixed unit composition)

[pdxsean]

Man, Master of Magic was a fun game. I wonder why they never did a sequel to that one? It's so long ago I can barely remember it, but I did love the combination of Civ and Fantasy.

[jnh140]

Feel free to check out elemental: something or other. its a stardock-made MoM derivative. It had some problems on release, and is being updated, but for folks who hate civ 5, its got stacks, faux tactical combat, and no hex grid.

[notyoueither]

You guys don't write much code eh? I thought you were byte shifting.

Sure gameplay is key but isn't "Gameplay>>realism" a copout? The whole game is modeled after reality/history. I don't honestly believe that our history is based on a fixed-sized hex grid or that a city takes up the same space as a tribal village. I understand. But asking for me to pretend that a tank has shorter range than dudes wielding bows and arrows while towed by horses is over the top.

I like the game, I'm just surprised at the stretch of imagination the designers are demanding from us on this one.

While I agree with your point about range for ancient units vs modern, isn't it unlikely for a chariot archer to do any damage to a tank or infantry?

Also, have you actually seen a game where the AI had ancient units when you had tanks?

[panther553212]

What it comes down to is you have to look at the unit compared to other units of the appropriate time period. When armies used archers they had range that was incredibly longer than say a swordsman or a pikeman. In the modern age though while tanks can fire at range their range is similar to that of other modern age units. So basically you end up with every modern unit being ranged(With no melee at all like archers) or you end up with them all being melee which comparatively makes sense. This also explains why artillery which has to be set up can still fire at range. The only place I really see a problem with this at all is if you have an archer with a scout upgrade kiting a musketman and killing him. To be fair Archers/Crossbowman were more accurate than musketeers were from a longer distance so it's not to much of a stretch.

[pdxsean]

Feel free to check out elemental: something or other. its a stardock-made MoM derivative. It had some problems on release, and is being updated, but for folks who hate civ 5, its got stacks, faux tactical combat, and no hex grid.

Really? I've heard nothing but bad things about this game. Not just from chatter, but from legitimate review sources (PC Gamer, GameSpot, 1up) who have consistently pointed out massive bugs and crashes in the game. Didn't Stardock offer people refunds for the game?

TBH I was pretty excited about Elemental, just for the reason you mentioned, but the amazing negative blowback from the game turned me off. I've kind of figured I'll buy it in a year or two, after they've gotten it into working order.

[jnh140]

Certainly, a lot of those problems are there, but I'm more forgiving of stardock because it is stardock. I'm just pointing out that civ V is really not all that buggy compared to this, and it has a lot of facets folks just keep hammering home that they want.

[pdxsean]

Oh, OK. I think I misinterpreted your comment as being a response to me, as in "If you liked MoM then you'll like Elemental."

I agree with you 100% on the idea that Elemental is a great example of what an actual buggy game looks like. Kind of like how my comments are becoming a great example of how far off topic a conversation can stray when I'm involved.

[Pliny The Stoner]

What it comes down to is you have to look at the unit compared to other units of the appropriate time period. When armies used archers they had range that was incredibly longer than say a swordsman or a pikeman. In the modern age though while tanks can fire at range their range is similar to that of other modern age units. So basically you end up with every modern unit being ranged(With no melee at all like archers) or you end up with them all being melee which comparatively makes sense. This also explains why artillery which has to be set up can still fire at range. The only place I really see a problem with this at all is if you have an archer with a scout upgrade kiting a musketman and killing him. To be fair Archers/Crossbowman were more accurate than musketeers were from a longer distance so it's not to much of a stretch.

I think I get what you're saying. Basically, that hexes conceptually get smaller as the ages progress? E.g. archers are ranged compared to swordsmen, whereas tanks are not ranged compared to infantry. This also can make sense if you assume that the medieval ranged weapons fade out after the riflemen appear (which doesn't happen). The point being that as the ages progress, the battlefield gets larger therefore the distance that was considered "at range" in the past is now simply melee in the modern.

I guess I'm unhappy that this transition is absent and requires such a stretch of the imagination. Maybe a solution would be that crossbowmen/archers/chariots lose ranged attack after rifling is discovered... by anyone.

[MxM]

Really? I've heard nothing but bad things about this game. Not just from chatter, but from legitimate review sources (PC Gamer, GameSpot, 1up) who have consistently pointed out massive bugs and crashes in the game. Didn't Stardock offer people refunds for the game?

TBH I was pretty excited about Elemental, just for the reason you mentioned, but the amazing negative blowback from the game turned me off. I've kind of figured I'll buy it in a year or two, after they've gotten it into working order.

Most of the COD bugs are cleaned. This is not the same version that has been reviewed by the sites (and I agree, at release, and even after couple of patches the game was horrible). There are still some bugs left, probably about the same amount as in Civ V, but overall it is good (for bagginess that is). In Civ V, for example I COD when I use the strategic map, and I can not crush the current version of Elemental. But in your place, I would wait until 1.1 patch where large changes are coming. The patch hopefully will be this month. Right now the game is not very interesting. It does have huge imbalances and game-play exploits. And if you thought AI in civ V is bad, you will ask "what AI?" when you play Elemental.

BUT! It is Stardock and they are dedicated to continue the game development. With Civ V you can hope on some general game clean up, but until new expansion you can forget about any change in gameplay. May be slightly smarter AI, may be small interface adjustments (may be it will stop crashing from strategic map for me) but that's about it. Elemental, from another hand will evolve. And first expansion is free for the current owners of the game.