Better Babylonian bowmen Date? Source?

[General Ludd]

Originally posted by tniem


But what I am trying to say is that if two games have both made the Babylonians have an increased strength archer than their probably is some truth in it. Sure there might be some inaccuracies, but they both wouldn't just make up a new unit for a civ now, would they?

Well.... that happens with alot of fictional material, you'll find alot of consistancies between different SCI-FI books/TV shows/movies Another thing that comes to mind are aliens, specificly 'the greys', which are featured in just about everything relating to aliens that has ever existed. (though, that is an unkown subject, so probably not a great example.)

Not to say that is always the case, though.

[korn469]

Originally posted by Grumbold
I'm mostly waiting to find out what is so good about a 2-1-2 unit. Sounds like a horseman to me. Unless horses have disappeared from Civ3 or the stats were a misprint it seems a wasted special. Perhaps they can keep up with the cavalry, but at this early stage of the game that means they are going to be only used if you get a leader very quickly, can build an army stack and archery has added effects above and beyond its basic attack and defence stats.

Originally posted by Snapcase
Perhaps achers/Bowmen/etc. have some sort of special property eg. bombardment or a special position within an Army.

ok here is my take on what makes a bowman so special...first firaxis has said that most units require a special resource before you can build them, however the first group of units in civ3, the spearman, chariot, and archer may be exempt from this...however if they are not, then archers may require iron while chariots require horses...since horsemen have been moved up in the tech tree they are most likely 4-1-2, and chariots are most likely 2-1-2...since archers are 2-1-1 i would assume that they are cheaper

we will probably find out the stats on a chariot soon, but if i had to make a prediction here is what i'd go for the ancient age

spearman 1-2-1 (20) {impi 1-2-2} {hoplite 2-2-1}
chariot 2-1-2 (20 horses) {egyptian 3-1-2}
archer 2-1-1 (20) {bowman 2-1-2}
swordman 3-2-1 (30 iron) {legion 4-2-1}
catapult 6-1-1 (40 ?) [bombards]
trireme 1-1-3 (40 ?) [transport 2 ground units]
horsemen 4-1-2 (30 horses)

also firaxis made no mention of hit points or firepower, are they still in?

also if the most recent tech tree is right, then only chariots (possibly), horsemen, and knights will uses horses as a special resource...making it probably a very poor special resource, because it would become completely outdated by the end of the industrial age (motorized transport), and there are no gunpowder horse units...knights are the last thing...i hope we haven't seen it all...

also another point to bring up is armies...how exactly will they work? could a large enough army of warriors defend against a tank? if you had a legion and it attacked four warriors in an army who would win? so maybe having enough units stacked together would make even obsolete units unstoppable...from what i've read it seems that 3 chariots and 3 phalanxes from civ2 (150 shields) would be more cost efficient than 5 archers (150 shields)

[tniem]

Well, chariot stats have now been revealed at 1-1-2. That means the entire stats of the game are being overhauled.

I am not entirely clear on what this means, other than a chariot is next to useless. Their will be no warmongering early on. So apparently a 2-1-2 archer is going to be better to have than a chariot. Hmmm....

Well, maybe a 2 attack will almost always win against a 1 defense fortified but as soon as you put Spearman in the game at a 2 (?) defense than attacking seems to be over for a while.

I think Firaxis is going to force you to build your civ for a while, which is probably a good idea.

[KrazyHorse]

The 2-1-2 archer is the Bab special unit. Regular archer is 2-1-1. You trade off attack strength for mobility with chariot vs. archer.

[Grumbold]

Interestingly though the stats totally bugger up the supposed reason why Babylonians would have needed better archers seeing as ordinary archers are already better units than chariots which aren't worth attacking with