Archers

[KrazyHorse]

Originally posted by zulu9812


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.

The main reason the zulus won at Isandlwana? That's ludicrous.

[Jon Shafer]

The fact that Archers have been next to useless in history helps my point more than hurts it, IMO. I'm not advocating for direct attack AND bombardment. Just bombardment. Giving the Archers a weak bombardment value seems much more realistic, since, as has been stated and proven, Archers are not effective in destroying enemy formations. Would you rather Archers be able to do 1 or 2 HP damage to Swordsmen and be able to offer support to other units, or be able to destroy a Swordsmen unit outright on 1:1 odds? Which is more realistic do you think? I can see a strong case being made for game balance... the computer certainly doesn't use bombardment units as effectively as a human can. Along with that, yes, attempting an early offensive would be very difficult without Archers being direct attack units.

Perhaps giving them 2 movement is too much in addition to having bombardment. I feel that giving them bombardment actually gives them some purpose, as well as replicating their relative inability to cause major casualties in most situations. From what I've played so far with the Archer and Longbowman modded, everything has worked out fine. Even before I had Swordsmen, I launched an attack on the Germans with about 5 Spearmen and 10 or so Archers. I was easily able to take down about equal numbers of Spearmen and conquer all their cities.

[Catt]

Originally posted by Trip
From what I've played so far with the Archer and Longbowman modded, everything has worked out fine. Even before I had Swordsmen, I launched an attack on the Germans with about 5 Spearmen and 10 or so Archers. I was easily able to take down about equal numbers of Spearmen and conquer all their cities.

So, does "working fine" translate into giving another advantage to the human player at the expense of the AI , or is the AI also using them with great effect against you ?

Catt

[Coracle]

Of all the many problems with military unit values and capabilities, this whole issue with the archers is fairly minor.

[The Rook]

Originally posted by Catt


So, does "working fine" translate into giving another advantage to the human player at the expense of the AI , or is the AI also using them with great effect against you ?

Catt

You took the words right out of my mouth Catt.

[star mouse]

One thing I'll say about Archers - they make a great basic barbarian unit, replacing the Warrior.

[GeneralTacticus]

The purpose of archers in CivIII is to provide a weak alternative offensive unit if you don't have any iron. This goes perfectly well with actual history, as only very weak and/or primitive civilizations relied on archer armies.

Aren't you forgetting the Assyrians? They used masses of the archers in their armies, and they used them to good effect.

[Austin]

Originally posted by MiloMilo
Has this thread come back around to archers yet? Good.


yes: they are next to useless.

What? They give you a fighting chance if you are iron and horseless? That was their stated design purpose, and it also works well with actual history.

They need help. I gave archers and longbowmen in my game ZOC, which has seemed to work well.

This is pretty ahistorical. Archers and longbowmen did NOT operate as mobile forces. They operated in a clump as standoff missile weapons. A bunch of archers/longbowmen that dashed out of a formed line to take a swipe at a passing foe would quickly be destroyed.

It's a less dramatic and unbalancing change than making them a 2-move bombard unit, but gives the same effect, i.e. lightly peppering a passing regiment with arrows and then running away.

Well at least it's not as bad as making them a 2-move bombard unit, but that is not saying much.

I also upped the defense value for longbowmen to 2. Not a huge change, but it has worked out very well. A longbowman in jungle or mountains can stave off an attacking knight... which seems reasonable, given that horses shouldn't do too well in those terrains. It gives them a kind of 'forest runner' feel. I should also mention that the AI is very adept at making use of this change, and uses longbowmen extensively now, to sometimes devastating effect. It has helped to counter knights' overwhelming superiority.

Well this is a pretty minor change.

I also like the idea floated about giving them zero-range bombard... it would make them even more special. As for why gunpowder weapons shouldn't have it also: well, given the attack forces, they wouldn't have the same value. Wild musket shots aren't going to deter advancing cavalry, you need cannons. Whereas properly positioned archers can surely help defend against swordsmen and knights. No?

What! Now our uber archers have suddenly become better at deterring a cavalry charge than a square of British redcoats? Why the hell did Wellington use them instead of bowmen then? This is simply ludicrous. Historically archers were all but helpless when facing cavalry unless there were other arms present to cover them, as the sad fate of the world's first urban state attests, where as the advent of formed gunpowder unit ended the age of Chivalry.

Austin

[Austin]

Originally posted by Trip
The fact that Archers have been next to useless in history helps my point more than hurts it, IMO. I'm not advocating for direct attack AND bombardment. Just bombardment.

This is a very interesting wrinkle. Making them just bombardment units, as opposed to the destabilizing (Babylon Uber Alles!) combo is not so unbalancing.

You would still need some sort of weak offensive unit that is not iron based, otherwise a civ without iron and horses might as well right click and abandon all cities.

One thing that I've wondered about, the Macedonian taxile was the primary heavy shock unit of Alexander the Great's army, and yet has no representation in Civ III so perhaps a more expensive 2-2-1 spearman would work. Call it a phalanx.

Giving the Archers a weak bombardment value seems much more realistic, since, as has been stated and proven, Archers are not effective in destroying enemy formations. Would you rather Archers be able to do 1 or 2 HP damage to Swordsmen and be able to offer support to other units, or be able to destroy a Swordsmen unit outright on 1:1 odds? Which is more realistic do you think? I can see a strong case being made for game balance... the computer certainly doesn't use bombardment units as effectively as a human can. Along with that, yes, attempting an early offensive would be very difficult without Archers being direct attack units.

This is a good point. What about Bablyon though? Their UU becomes rather useless.

Perhaps giving them 2 movement is too much in addition to having bombardment.

Damn right!

I feel that giving them bombardment actually gives them some purpose, as well as replicating their relative inability to cause major casualties in most situations. From what I've played so far with the Archer and Longbowman modded, everything has worked out fine. Even before I had Swordsmen, I launched an attack on the Germans with about 5 Spearmen and 10 or so Archers. I was easily able to take down about equal numbers of Spearmen and conquer all their cities.

If you add a non-iron offensive unit, say the phalanx I suggested above, this would still work.

Austin

[Austin]

Originally posted by GeneralTacticus


Aren't you forgetting the Assyrians? They used masses of the archers in their armies, and they used them to good effect.

What happened to ALL of the fertile crescent archer based empires with the advent of the war chariot and horsemen? They went down like a cheerleader on prom night. You will note that archers were relegated to minor supporting roles forever after by all the major military states. Hell the Egyptians went straight from primitive warrior type military straight to chariots.

The major front line fighting was always done by something else; the Macedonians used a mix of cavalry and phalanx, the Romans used legions almost exclusively, the Greeks stuck with hoplites, the Persians/Armenians used heavy cavalry (argh! The Persian UU should NOT be a freaking foot unit! They should have an early version of the knight!). The closest thing would be the Parthians, but they used horsed archers mostly to support their regular cavalry.

Austin

[MiloMilo]

Austin: my point is not to make the game more historical (I honestly don't give a rat's butt about Agincourt) but to make it more fun and more balanced, and to make less-functional units a bit more functional.

I know upping longbowmen's defense to 2 is a minor change, but it's worked out well and the AI has used it very well, and it makes them useful even if you do have iron, horses and saltpeter, so I was letting people know that it's a change they might consider.

And zero-range bombardment (I haven't played with it yet, but I'm envisioning strength 1 or 2 for archers and 3 or 4 for longbowmen, ROF 1 for both) will never make any kind of archers better defenders than pikemen or musketmen, because the bombardment will be very weak, and their inherent defense values stink. Matching them up with pikemen or musketmen will be advantageous, but you're having to double the number of units used for a small advantage, and someone up above even said that this was done historically (with pikemen anyway).

[Jon Shafer]

Originally posted by Austin
This is a very interesting wrinkle. Making them just bombardment units, as opposed to the destabilizing (Babylon Uber Alles!) combo is not so unbalancing.

You would still need some sort of weak offensive unit that is not iron based, otherwise a civ without iron and horses might as well right click and abandon all cities.

One thing that I've wondered about, the Macedonian taxile was the primary heavy shock unit of Alexander the Great's army, and yet has no representation in Civ III so perhaps a more expensive 2-2-1 spearman would work. Call it a phalanx.

Great idea, I like it. And that would get rid of the "the archer is a necassary of early offensives" argument from some people as well. After all, Archers and Longbowmen weren't used for direct engagements anyways. As you so eloquently stated, Archers are, and have never been able to stand up to other formations when directly engaged in battle. The aspect of direct attack, which basically encompasses "run out at the enemy and give them everything you've got" doesn't really fit very well with Archers. Swordsmen? Defineatly. Archers?

*Waves around a sign that says "BRING BACK THE PHALANX!!!"*

This is a good point. What about Bablyon though? Their UU becomes rather useless.

Well, you could of course add something else to benefit Babylon. Maybe give them the 2 movement. Or raise their bombard value, or rate of fire, etc. At least the editor gives you some options.

If you add a non-iron offensive unit, say the phalanx I suggested above, this would still work.

I like it.

[Austin]

Originally posted by MiloMilo
Austin: my point is not to make the game more historical (I honestly don't give a rat's butt about Agincourt) but to make it more fun and more balanced, and to make less-functional units a bit more functional.

Then you might as well make up a unit, call it a "Gandalf monkey poo flinger" and give it those stats.

I know upping longbowmen's defense to 2 is a minor change, but it's worked out well and the AI has used it very well, and it makes them useful even if you do have iron, horses and saltpeter, so I was letting people know that it's a change they might consider.

And zero-range bombardment (I haven't played with it yet, but I'm envisioning strength 1 or 2 for archers and 3 or 4 for longbowmen, ROF 1 for both) will never make any kind of archers better defenders than pikemen or musketmen, because the bombardment will be very weak, and their inherent defense values stink. Matching them up with pikemen or musketmen will be advantageous, but you're having to double the number of units used for a small advantage, and someone up above even said that this was done historically (with pikemen anyway).

Zero range bombardment on it's own isn't really a big deal, and I like the "chome" effect it has, but when you start combining that with other things it gets to be a bit much.

Austin