Archers

[Jon Shafer]

Hmmmm, changing Archers to bombard units worked quite nicely. Archers now have a bombard rating of 3, rate of fire of 2, and movement 2. This allows them to rush out, fire off a volley, then rush back in safe and sound (like it was in history). I gave Longbowmen bombard of 6, movement 2, and ROF of 3, so we'll see how that works out once I get to that point. A problem might emerge if someone wanted to do an early attack... without Swordsmen all you have to rely upon is Warriors... but hey, maybe that will thwart some early ambition until Iron comes along... could be a good thing.

[nato]

This is kind of getting to one of the things I thought was strange with CTP. I don't remember the specific units, but some were distance ones and some were not.

The thing was, archers were distance units, while machine gunners (or something modern infantry like) was not! So it is funny to have archers have bombard, but modern infantry doesn't ... but actually thats how I would want it, I think.

Instead of comparing all units to eachother (like asking do they have a distance weapon), I would compare the role the unit plays on the battlefield compared to other units of its own time.

Like I read in a really great book, the Art of War in the Western World, the swordsmen served a similar function as modern infantry riflemen (even though swords are melee and rifles are distance), while archers served a similar function as artillery.

So what I'm saying is all units with rl distance weapons don't need a bombard value ... only those units that "bombarded" compared to units of their era should have it. So modern infantry (and I would say tanks too) should not have bombard, even though they have distance weapons. Compared to units with REAL distance weapons of their era, like artillery, they are up close fighters.

Yes it is funny that then riflemen don't bombard, while archers do, but I think that is just a funny abstraction that is part of the system. Its tough to create a very simple set of rules for weapons of all ages.

Most important, if everyone has bombard, it loses its value in making the units act differently in the game, and they all kind of blend.

So that is how I see it. I would give bombard to archers, but not all modern units. That of course is totally just my opinion, its not like theres just one right way. Bombard for all might be really cool ... I would just rather go for highly specialized units.

[Zurai001]

Originally posted by Trip

Every bow or gun unit? That would make a successful attack nearly impossible in the age of gunpowder (which was difficult as it was)... Every time you attack a stack with Musketmen, then another Musketmen unit defends the first that you're attacking too... I can see using Archers and Longbowmen (with no attack or defense values for balance) as bombard units, but I think the way you have it makes it waaaay to hard to attack successfully.

I should also note that I doubled HP across the board, with an additional bonus to modern units, and the defensive-bombard units only have either 1 or 2 ROF. Also, having watched my roommate wipe out literally 1/4 of a Pangea-sized continent in one turn with standard rules, I'm not too concerned about making things harder Oh, and I made an error... it's not *always* equal to attack value. I put Cavalry at 3 strength and riflemen at 3 as well.

Besides, this makes the game *much* more realistic. If you're attacking an opponent with similar technology levels, things are going to be a bloodbath unless you have a vast numerical superiority. It doesn't make much difference at all if you're signifigantly above the computer in tech. There's also an increased emphasis on artillery to soften up the enemy first.

[Jon Shafer]

Like you said, it's less of a matter of what types of weapons they used (melee VS distance), but their role. Archers were lined up in big lines and fired off arrows into the distance, aiming at nothing in particular, just like artillery does today. Muskets, rifles, tank guns are all used to target specific men or vehicles. That's how I make the distinction. And besides, playing with Archer with movement 2 and bombardment is turning out to be very fun.

[Zurai001]

Originally posted by nato
So what I'm saying is all units with rl distance weapons don't need a bombard value ... only those units that "bombarded" compared to units of their era should have it. So modern infantry (and I would say tanks too) should not have bombard, even though they have distance weapons. Compared to units with REAL distance weapons of their era, like artillery, they are up close fighters.

Most important, if everyone has bombard, it loses its value in making the units act differently in the game, and they all kind of blend.

I wouldn't give an offensive bombard to anything but tanks/modern armor. However, it just makes sense to me that attacking 8 units of infantry should be harder than attacking a single unit of infantry, not just a longer process. They *should* provide covering fire for each other.

As for 'blending', how is it any different than when none of the units bombard? With my mod there's actually more differentiation between units (some have no bombard, some have only defensive bombard, and some have offensive and defensive bombard; as opposed to most having no bombard and some having both types)

[Zurai001]

Originally posted by Trip
Like you said, it's less of a matter of what types of weapons they used (melee VS distance), but their role. Archers were lined up in big lines and fired off arrows into the distance, aiming at nothing in particular, just like artillery does today. Muskets, rifles, tank guns are all used to target specific men or vehicles. That's how I make the distinction. And besides, playing with Archer with movement 2 and bombardment is turning out to be very fun.

Muskets and civil-war era rifles (cavalry and riflemen) were pretty much useless for specific targeting. They were mostly used the exact same way archers were: Big lines of people with guns shooting at each other across a field.

[nato]

You've got some real good points Zurai. I wasn't criticizing you; like I said, I don't think there is just one right way. I just prefer bombard to be rarer ... if everyone has it, its less special.

About the blending thing though, I think your description "some have no bombard, some have only defensive bombard, and some have offensive and defensive bombard" is exactly what I mean by more blended. Almost everyone has some sort of bombard. Units are less specialized than the default setup where some have bombard, and most have zero bombard, but other strengths.

I like high degrees of specialization because I really like combined arms, so I want all units to be very different. Thats just me. Like I said I don't think there is one "right" way.

However your description sounds very cool and thought out ... maybe I'll convert!

Its cool that even with so simple a system, there are some interesting options.

[Jon Shafer]

Yes, but you could relate that big mass of people to a specific unit though, correct? Yes, they were very inaccurate, but you you aiming at a regiment or division in almost all cases. When you aim your bow up at the sky at a mass of enemy troops, it's anyone's guess as to where they go... but I'm sure you get the point. Musketfire was used to actually destroy enemy formations... archers were usually used to soften up and demoralize troops.. very much like artillery of later times.

[Captain]

i also used defensive bombard with my mod (not sure if it works with 1.21), archers have 0 range and are vulnerable in the open. stack 'em with spearmen or risk losing them. same for longbow but higher rof and bombard value. this prevents archers from being catapults* and preserves some usefulness for catapults.
(*prevents archers from busting bldgs, tho on second thought, fire arrows would have been more effective than catapults in the ancient/medieval era)

i also made archers and longbow 1,1,1 ADM because in battle, they usually got slaughtered when closed upon (no ransom value as knights had)

the only problem with this so far is that they're not worth the 20 shields in comparison to the spearman (better defenders), and warriors aren't worthwhile if archers cost the same as them. i think i need to rethink this one.

[Jon Shafer]

I agree. That makes archers and longbowmen solely defensive units, which they were not. I still like my idea of giving range of 1 and movement of 1. Catapults are rendered useless by the time Longbowmen arrive, yes, but they still have a higher attack value than Archers, as well as giving them a higher ROF. Unfortuneatly, Civ horribly blends unit types together, limiting their usage due to the minimal amount of stats available to work with. However, I feel making Archers (3).2.2 (Bombard.Move.ROF) makes them useful enough to include in any offensive or defensive action, while still (barely) preserving the Catapult's effectiveness. This way things are more realistic, IMO. How many actual Archers do you think were in each "Archer" unit? Or how many Catapults are in each "Catapult" unit? I'm willing to bet that there would be vastly more Archers in their unit, than Catapults in theirs. Just my two cents... I encourage you to playtest what I suggest, it makes things more fun, in my experience.

[Jaybe]

The only problem I have with making archer-type units 1-range bombardment units is that you (or AI) could end up using them to bombard city or terrain improvements, which obviously is not desired.

That's the only reason I have not given submarines lethal bombardment values: they would not be limited to using it against shipping.

JB

[Coracle]

Why can't you keep them as is. . . AND give them a small bombardment factor?

[Jon Shafer]

Originally posted by Coracle
Why can't you keep them as is. . . AND give them a small bombardment factor?

The problem I have with Archers/Longbowmen having real attack/defense values is that in reality, Archers never really could destroy an enemy formation. Likewise, if a melee (or equivalent, ala Musketmen) got within attack distance, then the Archers were seriously screwed. Perhaps giving them a defense of 1 would be more appropriate... the way I have things now with defense of 0 you'd be able to capture Archers... a strange and improbable situation.

[KrazyHorse]

Re: Archers

Originally posted by Trip
Personally, I think Archers should be an early bombardment unit (along with Longbowmen). Their hand-to-hand skills were highly limited, and were reduced to a long range "softening up" kind of usage (one they were very good at though, mind you). So what do you guys think? If you disagree with my view why do you think so?

Archers possibly. Longbowmen never. Longbowmen at Agincourt defeated a French force double their size virtually singlehandedly. English archers outnumbered English infantry ~4-1 on that day, and the infantry was largely useless; it was there in case any French managed to miraculously get all the way to the English lines without being hit.

Plus it would be silly to see archers destroying buildings in towns...

[Jon Shafer]

So turn on lethal bombardment.

You've got 5 swordsmen in a square along with 20 Longbowmen with a bombard of 6 and a ROF of 3 (and movement of 2). They all fire off their arrows. What do you think would remain of an enemy army about the same size? And that's keeping all 20 of those Longbowmen alive due to their ranged ability to engage the enemy before they get within range.

In regards to Archers/Longbowmen destroying buildings... you'd be surprised at what 50,000 fire arrows could do to a town.

And besides, the battle of Agincourt was won mainly due to the fact that the French (mostly knights) marched through a big ol' patch of mud (just after a nice rain... lovely for horses) with forests on either side, bogged down, heavy metal armor on, while the English Archers rained down a hail of arrows upon them. They had no defense (how you effectively impliment this in Civ III is beyond me... I'm just talking about this particular battle) and were subsequently slaughtered. The English victory was more due to the rain and the mud than their troop quality and ability.