Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Modern unit ranged attack fail

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Modern unit ranged attack fail

    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.

  • #2
    Mod it!

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

    Comment


    • #3
      Gameplay>>realism
      The whole problem with the world is that fools and fanatics are always so
      certain of themselves, but wiser people so full of doubts.
      -- Bertrand Russell

      Comment


      • #4
        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.

        Comment


        • #5
          Originally posted by MxM View Post
          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?
          Last edited by Pliny The Stoner; October 7, 2010, 20:26.

          Comment


          • #6
            Originally posted by Pliny The Stoner View Post
            Or are you saying Gamplay > realism?
            ">>" means much more than just ">"
            The whole problem with the world is that fools and fanatics are always so
            certain of themselves, but wiser people so full of doubts.
            -- Bertrand Russell

            Comment


            • #7
              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.
              What's up, hot dog?

              Comment


              • #8
                Originally posted by MxM View Post
                ">>" 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.

                Comment


                • #9
                  Originally posted by Pliny The Stoner View Post
                  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
                  Tamsin (Lost Girl): "I am the Harbinger of Death. I arrive on winds of blessed air. Air that you no longer deserve."
                  Tamsin (Lost Girl): "He has fallen in battle and I must take him to the Einherjar in Valhalla"

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Originally posted by Proteus_MST View Post
                    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.

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Originally posted by jnh140 View Post
                      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)
                      Tamsin (Lost Girl): "I am the Harbinger of Death. I arrive on winds of blessed air. Air that you no longer deserve."
                      Tamsin (Lost Girl): "He has fallen in battle and I must take him to the Einherjar in Valhalla"

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        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.
                        What's up, hot dog?

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          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.

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Originally posted by Pliny The Stoner View Post
                            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?
                            (\__/)
                            (='.'=)
                            (")_(") This is Bunny. Copy and paste bunny into your signature to help him gain world domination.

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              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.

                              Comment

                              Working...
                              X