Ranged Combat

[Diablo, Bro. of Mephisto]

I realize this has been discussed thouroly in general, but I just want to put it in specifics of what I want 'ranged combat' to be:

ranged combat would be the number of spaces a unit can fire upon another unit, heres the statistics of how many tiles a unit can shoot:

1. archers: 1/2 tiles. so the farther away the arrows fly, the weeker the damage. same thing with the: Tank, Destroyer, Cruiser, AEGIS cruiser, and battleship, Artillery, and cannon. make an exception for ALL other infantry units, and Howitzer. note: see my thread on sieges for catapults.
2. musketeers: 2 tiles.
3. marines: 2 tiles.
4. riflemen: 2 tiles.
5. alpine troops: 2 tiles.
6. Tank: 1/3 tiles.
7. Cannon: 1/3 tiles.
8. Artillery: 1/3 tiles.
9. Howitzer: 4 tiles.
10. Destroyer: 1/2 tiles.
11. cruiser: 1/3 tiles.
12. AEGIS cruiser: 1/3 tiles.
13. Battleship: 1/4 tiles.

I have to cut this thread short, cause I have to get off-line for awile, but Ill be back to finish my thread, and create my SIEGE/CATAPULT thread.

[DarkCloud]

Ranged combat should not work for one major reason:

A tile is the size of a city.

Perhaps it should be calculated, but you shouldnt be able to shoot from three squares away and hit a unit.

[Diablo, Bro. of Mephisto]

Darkcloud, if you have some sense in your head, then cities should NOT be one tile large. that goes for FIRAXIS too! also, the maps had better be much, much larger then they are already, which will open up a whole new world for suggestions, and combat, etc.

see my thread, CITIES, AND YOUR CAPITAL..., on my siege idea.

p.s. I used to be Tim White.


[This message has been edited by Diablo, Bro. of Mephisto (edited December 19, 2000).]

[Yog-Sothoth]

I would also like to see ranged combat in Civ3, but I disagree in the giving that ability to all the units you do diablo. Even with larger maps the distance from one tile to another will be quite long, so I think only 8-13 of the units you listed should have the ranged attack ability.

I would also cut down on the range, especially the howitzer. 4 tile is to long.

And last, there should be simple to select ranged combat. Preferably one mouseclick/key.

[Diablo, Bro. of Mephisto]

I guess your are right, the ranges are a bit too long. but think about it, in real life, Howitzers can shoot slightly quite a ways, say, maybe 3-10 miles in real life, I know cause my brother is in an Armored/Cavalry (artillery) division, in the military, and he tells me stuff all the time when we get together.

[DarkCloud]

The ranges in civ are about 200 miles a tile; but even if shrunk to the size you wish, 5 miles,

An arrow won't travel one and neither will a musketters bullet, or much else.

Sorry, this is out of the range of civ's limitations.

[orange]

But really, when you attack/defend with archers, the fighting is taking place in the same square. I don't see how you could give Archers a range other then 1...

Same with howitzers, etc. I can't see any way to make them fire over a long distance. The only thing this system could work with is cruise missiles and nukes...which I would hope are now "point and click" rather than having to manually move it to the city you wish to attack.

------------------
Civilization Gaming Network Forums
~ The Apolyton Yearbook
~ The poster formerly known as "OrangeSfwr"

[Diablo, Bro. of Mephisto]

And I also suppose you guys think its realistic that two battleships right next to each other fire on each other, and hit its target.

please, if you want this game to be at least a bit realistic, then use your brains.

p.s. you also think then that a tank against an infantry unit that is right next to each other is going to lose.
and lastly, since when did ANY nations place cannon right next to the target.

[orange]

Diablo - what are you talking about

quote: And I also suppose you guys think its realistic that two battleships right next to each other fire on each other, and hit its target.

What?

quote: p.s. you also think then that a tank against an infantry unit that is right next to each other is going to lose.

Who's going to lose?

quote: and lastly, since when did ANY nations place cannon right next to the target.

as far as Civ's concerned...they would be in the same tile wouldn't they? even if the size of each square was reduced to 5 square miles

I don't understand where your post was going.

------------------
Civilization Gaming Network Forums
~ The Apolyton Yearbook
~ The poster formerly known as "OrangeSfwr"

[Diablo, Bro. of Mephisto]

Orange, you plainly stated that you dont want Ranged Combat. today, there is no other kind of combat BUT ranged combat. so your saying that you want to live in the ancient and medievel times for the whole game?

Ive played civ2 before where my Armor unit has lost to a marine unit, doesn't that sound a little strange to you??

I guess Im just frustrated that as smart as people as you are, you think you would use your head.

[Yog-Sothoth]

You have to remember Diablo that tanks are vulnerable to infantry at close range. Tanks need infantrysupport to handle enemy infantry effectively, since they are designed to destroy other armoured vehicles.
[This message has been edited by Yog-Sothoth (edited December 21, 2000).]

[Grumbold]

Diablo, are we talking about ranged combat inside the battle screen, or actual ranged combat from map tile to map tile?

I'm worried you are talking about the latter. Civ is (usually) depicting an entire world. Taking truly approximate figures, lets say the distance around the earth in a temperate zone (rather than the equator) is 16,000 miles. That means that even if Civ3 came up with maps that could support 1,600 x 1,600 tiles (gasp) a weapon would still need an effective range of 10 miles to fire into an adjacent tile. That still leaves long range bombardment in the province of 20th century artillery. Multiple tile ranges are for rockets and already implemented for cruise and nukes.

If we are discussing a battlefield screen on which multiple unit combat will be played out, then yes I hope that there is an option for quick resolution or for nicely detailed tactical battles that take differing weapon ranges and effectiveness into account.

[Diablo, Bro. of Mephisto]

I have to ask, dont you hate it when you have to go right up to land when you are controling a battleship to fire on a wimpy infantry unit??

I would especially like Ranged combat for historical scenarios, like I was making a 'Normandy Landing' scenario the other day, I had to make my own map, since there wasnt one of specificly 'normany'. Historicaly, before the Allies sent in the Landing Craft, they bombarded the coast with Battleships, cruisers, destroyers, etc., the ships were well over 15 miles off the coast.

and about battlemaps, I would like them, but I highly doubt FIRAXIS will put them in.

[Ralf]

quote: Originally posted by Diablo, Bro. of Mephisto on 12-21-2000 02:06 PM I have to ask, dont you hate it when you have to go right up to land when you are controling a battleship to fire on a wimpy infantry unit??

Nope! Thats no problem for me whatsoever.

Besides, the AI cannot "see" and "overview" the map, the same way as the human player can (without unrealisticly long AI-turn calculations, what is). Therefore, the AI unit-shuffle-back-and-forth syndrome. The AI tries to anticipate any "maybe-threaths", without actually having any extensive overview over the map, to go after.

This is also why this idea could be utilized much better in the hands of the human player, then it ever can be in the hands of the AI-player. In short: implementing this idea beyond one (1) tile away, would make the AI a sitting duck, basically.

[This message has been edited by Ralf (edited December 21, 2000).]

[Diablo, Bro. of Mephisto]

the AI is already "sitting ducks", when I cant get at them with my ships, I use bombers. and if Firaxis improves the AI as we all want, then it will be alot smarter then in civ2.