Should bowmen be a bombard unit?

[Venger]

Think about it - if an American artillery division cannot kill a unit, should bowmen? Maybe a 2(4)/1/1 unit? They really are not a direct combat unit, they unleash their arrows en masse for area effect.

Thoughts?

Venger

[adaMada]

sounds like a good idea to me, but I don't rank it too high on my list of priorities for a patch. If a mod put it in, though, I wouldn't complain...

-- adaMada

[Kc7mxo]

No. Bowmen should not be a bombard unit. Thats pretty damn stupid. And I don't think catapult should be either.

To bombard someone you have to be able to shoot at them from an unatainble distance. ie: they can't get to you.

While Bowmen do have good range, historically, many enemy units have been able to charge, and defeat ranks of bowmen. Thats why there are other troops on the field of battle.

[N. Machiavelli]

Unreachable?

Originally posted by Kc7mxo
To bombard someone you have to be able to shoot at them from an unatainble distance. ie: they can't get to you.

Which is why it is impossible to reach a cannon on foot or horse. Hell, people were praising the god-like status of the Welsh Longbowmen a while ago.

I don't think that a bowman being able to bombard is absurd, but in the scheme of things, there already is an ancient-age bombard unit (catapult) and that seems to be fine.

[Venger]

[QUOTE] Originally posted by Kc7mxo
No. Bowmen should not be a bombard unit. Thats pretty damn stupid. And I don't think catapult should be either.

To bombard someone you have to be able to shoot at them from an unatainble distance. ie: they can't get to you.

Huh? A quality civil war rifle has a longer range than many Civil War cannons. Does that mean a cannon is somehow no longer a bombardment weapon?

A bombardment weapon should be defined as it's used in battle, rather than some arbitrary "unattainable distance" rule.

While Bowmen do have good range, historically, many enemy units have been able to charge, and defeat ranks of bowmen. Thats why there are other troops on the field of battle.

And that's why attacking with bowmen would be handled better by bombardment. You would move an archer up with another unit to attack an enemy. As it is now, you simply move the archer up himself. For all of those who disliked the ideas of howizters attacking mechanized infantry and taking cities, this would seem to be a step in the right direction.

Think about it.

Right now, you move your archer up and he attacks and defeats some legion defending a city or town. Not tremendously realistic. Archers attacked with area saturation, and were able to do so because they were behind ground held by other units.

Now, change the archer to a bombard unit, (note, it has bombard strength, but also combat strength, so it cannot be captured, which would indeed suck like a Hoover), and it advances only with foot soldiers and knights, and weakens the enemy before the attack. Exactly as it was in reality. PLUS, a defending archer can let loose a volley to weaken an onrushing attacker!

The more I think about it, the more I think the archer is better with a weak attack and decent bombard of one range. It makes the archer much more archer like...

Venger
P.S. And no, it's not a stupid idea...

[Venger]

Re: Unreachable?

Originally posted by N. Machiavelli
I don't think that a bowman being able to bombard is absurd, but in the scheme of things, there already is an ancient-age bombard unit (catapult) and that seems to be fine.

Well, the bowmen will be available earlier and lead to better combined armed tactics earlier as well. The catapult is okay for the heavy siege, but I like the early game archer as bombarier. Can't wait for my current game to finish to try it out.

Anyone want to gameplay test the bowmen as a 2(4)/1/1 unit and see how it goes?

Venger

[Venger]

And lest everyone think all I do is bag on the Civ3 combat engine, bombardment is a HUGE leap in the right direction... the whole can't kill units thing is a little off, but overall, a big move to where Civ needed to go...

Venger

[GePap]

Perhaps longbowmen

I don't think that ancient archers should be bombardment unit but longbowmen are certainly a good choice. I have never understood why longbowmen have such crappy defense- the most famous engamement with longbowmen is agincourt, where they defeated a huge force of enemy armor while defending, not attacking. That said, again, longbowmen but not archers.

[Venger]

Re: Perhaps longbowmen

Originally posted by GePap
I don't think that ancient archers should be bombardment unit but longbowmen are certainly a good choice. I have never understood why longbowmen have such crappy defense- the most famous engamement with longbowmen is agincourt, where they defeated a huge force of enemy armor while defending, not attacking. That said, again, longbowmen but not archers.

Even at Agincourt the bowmen were behind unmounted knights who had their lances as pikes. Unsupported bowmen will get ridden down every time without support.

The bow was a big invention in war - and I think gameplay testing would show that the 2(4)/1/1 may give us a nice reflection of that unit in combat. And yes, looking at the units, it'd be more suitable for the longbowmen than a simple archer, though I may look at a 2(1)/1/1 for a standard archer.

Venger

[Kc7mxo]

First of all, I disagree with the bombardment entirely, except as it applies to gunpowder and on units. Battleships = yes. Catapults and archers = no. I consider it a question of range.

Don't bring up agincourt. It was an extrordinary situation which relied on the french knights charging down a funnel created by landscape in an uncontrollable mob. Had the French King been better able to control his troops, the English would have been annilated. The king was inteading to outmanuever the english, but the french chivalry ignored him and charged into a meat grinder. once the front few lines fell, the next few lines couldn't get past, and couldn't turn around. many of them speared eachother. it was an extraordinary situation.

But I suppose I can somewhat agree with you on certain types of units having difficulty annilating other units. But on the other hand, armies rarely annilate each other either. Even at Cannae when hannibal encircled his opponent 20,000 troops escaped. Admitably thats less than a third (2/9) but he was using ground troops and had encircled them.

Huh? A quality civil war rifle has a longer range than many Civil War cannons. Does that mean a cannon is somehow no longer a bombardment weapon?

on a last note, if this is true, how would any of the cannons have ever survived? cannons (especially grape shot) are horrific weapons. if you were an infantrymen whose weapon had longer than the enemies cannon . . . . . would you let him use his cannon?

[sachmo71]

Originally posted by Kc7mxo
And I don't think catapult should be either.

Would you feel better if the unit were a Trebuchet? They could knock some pretty big holes in ANY wall, and are as close as you are going to get to a bombardment weapon in the ancient/middle ages. If you take the definition of bombardment as the usage of mechanical means to launch heavy projectiles with the intent to destroy troops/fortifications, then in a sense the longbowman could be considered as one. The mass of arrows themselves would constitute a "heavy projectile". I just can't see a group of longbowmen destroying population points...the arrows wouldn't harm stone walls. So in game terms, I believe they are better suited as normal combat units.

[Venger]

Originally posted by Kc7mxo
on a last note, if this is true, how would any of the cannons have ever survived? cannons (especially grape shot) are horrific weapons. if you were an infantrymen whose weapon had longer than the enemies cannon . . . . . would you let him use his cannon?

Cannons were usually formed on high ground for area effect against advancing troops or in brocade in cover against same. And again, not all rifles are created equal in that regard - it is your best rifle versus your worst cannons, in the circumstances most favorable to the rifle. However, it simply goes to the point that range does not really determine seige or bombard value.

Venger

[Venger]

Originally posted by sachmo71

I just can't see a group of longbowmen destroying population points...

This could be a good point. Hmmm...

the arrows wouldn't harm stone walls. So in game terms, I believe they are better suited as normal combat units.

An even bigger problem - yes, arrows shouldn't take out the temple!!!

Darn it! Ah well...is there an option to bombardment that controls whether a bombardment unit can destroy improvements with it's bombard actions?

Venger

[Kc7mxo]

Cannons were usually formed on high ground for area effect against advancing troops or in brocade in cover against same. And again, not all rifles are created equal in that regard - it is your best rifle versus your worst cannons, in the circumstances most favorable to the rifle. However, it simply goes to the point that range does not really determine seige or bombard value.

Huh? A quality civil war rifle has a longer range than many Civil War cannons. Does that mean a cannon is somehow no longer a bombardment weapon?

um. right. look, first you say that the rifle can hit the cannon. then you destroy your own point. Doesn't really matter for the argument though.

Would you feel better if the unit were a Trebuchet?

i don't really care what the unit is called. and for me a catapult is kinda on the line as far as the range issue goes.

My problem isn't nessecarily with the concept of bombardment, I kinda like it. My problem is with the ranges neccessary for it to be believable. Some extremely strong trebuchet could shoot for miles. But I don't believe any could do over 3? This establishes a square as under 3 miles. Now along comes a Battleship, which could bombard a -bit- more than that. Twenty miles? I know the bismarck could fire at least 17 or so right? What about a howitzer? a bomber?

So now how many squares can it fire?

Throw archers into the mix and it will be silly. A BB would only shoot one square farther than the archer!

The game is an abstraction of reality, but it should still have its feet on the ground, or else we might as well use squares, triangles, and circles for units.

[sachmo71]

Well, trebuchets were the culmination of the catapult, and easily outdistanced them...I saw a REALLY cool Nova about them. These guys built 2 of them and tried to destroy a small battlement...but I digress.

What is the bombardment range of the catapult in the game? I think it's 2, but I'm not sure. Yes, it's not very realistic, since most of the early siege weapons had to be pretty close to their target to hit them, but for game purposes, having a range means you can keep it out of the front lines (which is obviously a good thing). If Civ were going on reality, a modern bomber shouldn't even have a minimum range. Here is where it seems everyone's opinions diverge. IMHO, I think that the ranges should have SOME basis in reality, but I think overall they have done a pretty good job. If they tried to change it now I believe it would take some major coding changes.