Archers

[nato]

In Civ3, how often does an infantry unit lose to a spearman? At most once a game? Once every other game? Twice in a single game?

In the real world, how often have spearmen beat infantry? Once or twice?

We remember these events because they are unusual, and because they are occassionally decisive.

Oh brother, like I needed a lecture . I said "Not that I am unhappy with the combat system". Like all of us, I've seen some weird combat results, but the vast majority of the time its what you expect, like you say.

Like I said, my main point was all those many words above that little line about Agincort, and the totally unrelated Zulu thing. Missing the point completely.

Which is, it seems to me arguing about one specific example is not productive ... the real question is whether the fun of bombarding archers is more important to you than the realism of arrows not destroying terrain/fortresses, or vice versa ... and to each his own. Agincort is irrelevant to that question (and so are the Zulus, who I bet would vote against British longbowmen given a chance )

[Captain]

Originally posted by Trip
Ahhhhhh!!! Chemistry is over! Don't remind meeee!

well.... technically that probably falls under Newtonian physics so I really didn't remind you of chemistry, unless you count the ADP-ATP reactions for mitochondrial energy release...

[Catt]

Trip, Rook, et al.

How is AI gameplay affected by making archers into bombard units? How does it affect the game (the challenge, enjoyment, etc.)? Have you experimented with it?

No one has anything to say about that -- and, as I said above (no responses ), I will mod if it makes the game more interesting, challenging, FUN. My biggest worry is that certain mods will only benefit the human because the AI won't take appropriate advantage of the new abilities.

Surely you guys don't just want to argue about whether or not any given mod makes the game more "reality-based" (that's why we have Zouave -- BTW, where is he in this thread -- he's certainly got a dog in this fight ).

Any results to share from this experimentation?

Thanks,

Catt

[The Rook]

Catt,

I haven't tried the modification, so I don't know how well the AI will utilize the new bowmen. I know, the AI doesn't use bombard units effectively as it is, so I would think this would only give more of an advantage to the human player. Trip probably can tell you more.


I have to agree with nato's reasoning. Everyone knows about how the English whipped the French at Agincourt, but where else has the bow been used as effectively? I think after Agincourt, the bow probably lost popularity. The simple reason is, bows can be defeated easily. The more you spread out your forces, the less effective arrows become. Besides Agincourt, where else did the bow, used in this fashion, have such an impact to warrant this modification?

It seems that trip is using Agincourt as the basis for this change, but Agincourt was a fluke.

Is archery effective against units in an open field? Yes
Is archery effective against units in forest? No
Is archery effective against units in a city? No
Is archery effective against units in a fortess? No
Is archery effective against units on a mountain? No
Is archery effective at destroying terrain improvements? No

With the exception of the catapult, all other bombard units answer "Yes" to all those questions. Catapults probably are not too effective in mountainous terrain, but still 5 of 6 is not bad. As I said in the beginning, the game wasn't designed to accomodate archery as a bombard.

[nato]

Thats a good summary Rook.

My thoughts...

I don't care that it is unrealistic for archers to destroy terrain improvements, because I simply will not tell them to do so. If the computer does it to me, I can live with it as long as its not a real lot.

Archers with bombard will work better in the field against units.

However, almost all my combat is attacking cities, so I care most about how well it works for that.

I am unsure about this. On the one hand, Rook has a great point that arrows won't hurt guys behind protection. On the other hand, I don't think I would use archers to actually storm a city, like they do without bombard. I would want them to shoot and soften up defenders for my infantry.

I think I'm gonna go with bombard as better for cities, against units. Archers should only be able to soften defenders, not storm and kill them. This is what bombard does ... it removes one little bar, instead of killing the unit. If you think arrows should be ineffective against guys behind defenses, then surely it is preferable for the archer to remove one little bar instead of killing the defender.

However destroying buildings while bombarding a city would be very bad, and harder to accept ... this is my biggest problem.

Finally, I never ever build archers now ... maybe with a change, they won't be an unused and hence worthless feature.

So for me, the only major problem is destroying buildings while bombarding cities ... that really hurts. It really is an imperfect fit.

[Captain]

The Rook and nato,

fire arrows would. in fact they probably did more damage than stone-throwing catapults. because fire-fighting techniques in the past were nowhere near what they are today (and even today, out of control fires can wreak total havoc, remember that australian fire a while back? it cut off a major city.) The only things is that fire arrows would do uncontrollable damage, everything would go up in flames. true, stone and brick don't burn easily, but there's always plenty of flammable materials in a city whether its timber constructs/supports, roofing, straw, hay, animal feed, etc... I think archery bombard of cities makes lots of sense.

as for terrain improvements, fire again is an effective destroyer. mine shafts are supported (typically) by timber framing. irrigation ditches won't be destroyed by fire, but the season's crop would be toast. that's generally the way people pillaged anyhow. swords and spears don't do much damage against mines or fields. it's fire... something arrows can do at a distance.

otoh, fire arrows don't usually hurt units unless in an enclosed, combustible space (e.g. forest, city, not cave) but regular arrows sure do.

so, does that help it sit better with you?

[nato]

Yes it does!

If fire arrows really were dangerous, then I could accept buidings being damaged on 25% of bombards ... I wouldn't be thrilled, but I could accept it.

With that taken care of, I would go for bombard archers for sure.

[Jon Shafer]

It's doubtful anyone would be thrilled if their brand new factory got blown to smithereens by an archaic longbowmen.

But anyways, I'm glad you cleared things up for people Captain. It seems the Archer bombard movement is gaining strength. First, Apolyton, next... Washington!

[KrazyHorse]

Originally posted by nato
I meant they were anomalous in that spearmen attacked and defeated gunpowder guys, and archers defeated attacking knights, not the normal results in either case. (Yes we all know the stories why very well ... they are like pop culture military history )

Yeah, but again: Isandlwana was just a very good example of the ineffectiveness of defense on open ground with no fortifications.

Preparedness has been an important element of highly-organised troops fighting against less-organised adversaries since the Romans lost 3 Legions in the German woods...

[Jon Shafer]

The lost legions of Varus. Roman history is also one of my favorites. He was led into a trap by a German barbarian raised in Rome, but who returned to Germany in his 20s, then led 3 Roman legions to their destruction in a magnificent fashion.

[nato]

Well I think most people consider the Zulu victory a surprising result and an aberration from the norm. I think you would be lonely claiming it was too be expected.

[The Rook]

As I said before, how realistic are fire arrows? Were they used often, or is this just another one of Hollywood's fantasies? I'm not a scientist, but I am willing to bet that there is more to making a fire arrow than just tying a piece of cloth to it, dipping it in oil, and setting it ablaze.

1) Fire arrows are not gauranteed to work.
2) They add more cost to the construction of the arrow.
3) They slow the firing process down.
4) There's a good chance that they will destroy the stuff you are after.
5) Possibly can be dangerous for the archer.
6) Can be defeated with a bucket of water.

I just don't buy that fire arrows are as effective as you guys are saying.

[graeme]

Besides Agincourt, where else did the bow, used in this fashion, have such an impact to warrant this modification?

A quick search reveals other examples of the use of the longbow in this fashion during other battles of the 100 years war.

"Crecy (or Cressy) 26th August 1346

Edward III's small army of 10,000 English defeated Philip VI's French-Genoese army of 24,000. The French losses were eleven princes, 1,200 knights and 8,000 others--a total greater than the entire English army. The battle was the first in which an English army was mainly formed of infantry; mounted men were shown to be powerless against English archers. The victory made England a major European military power, while the English longbow became the most deadly weapon of its era.

Poitiers 19th September 1351

Between 7,000 English, under Edward the Black Prince, and 18,000 French, under King John II of France. The English, who had been deep-raiding, took up strong positions behind lanes and vineyards, in which their archers were posted. Showers of arrows from the English archers demoralized the French cavalry, charging up the lanes. They were then charged from the flank by the English knights and men-at-arms and routed with a loss of 8,000 killed and numerous prisoners, including the king. His ransom was £500,000. English losses were light."

I believe these examples give some historical backing to the mod.

If the English were ever to recieve a second UU surely the longbow would be top of the list (even if it should probable be Welsh).

I think after Agincourt, the bow probably lost popularity.

Yes it gradually lost popularity during the 16th century, but still had advantages over early firearms.

Graeme

[zulu9812]

Originally posted by KrazyHorse
Yeah, but again: Isandlwana was just a very good example of the ineffectiveness of defense on open ground with no fortifications.

The main reason why the Zulus won at Isandlwana was this: the Zulus leaned that by turning their shields at a 45 degrees the british rifleman coudn't penetrate those shields, since the thickness increased with the diagonal slant, stoppong a bullet until close range - by which time it was too late.

[graeme]

The main reason why the Zulus won at Isandlwana was this: the Zulus leaned that by turning their shields at a 45 degrees the british rifleman coudn't penetrate those shields, since the thickness increased with the diagonal slant, stoppong a bullet until close range - by which time it was too late.

Sorry for disagreeing, but the reasons for the success of the Zulu and failure of the British at Isandhlwana are many and complex and defy explaination in a single sentence. This is indeed why these oft used examples are not actual relevent when justifying strange results produced by the combat system.

Isandhlwana

Graeme