12-05-2002 02:37									#1
	Archers Suffering from ads?

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?

	12-05-2002 02:43									#2
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization 2

I don't know. I haven't even built an archer in my last several games. My first research priority is now Iron Working. So my army progresses from warrior to spearman to swordsman. That makes for some good early fighting.

Archers as bombard makes logical sence (an arrow, duh) but I think the gameplay would suffer.

	12-05-2002 02:50									#3
	Enter the AD-FREE zone

True, but that would make the race to iron working all that more important. Making archers a powerful bombardment unit would be much more realistic (I think that bombardment units should be stronger, IMO, but you can always change that in the editor). Swordsmen were a much more important attacker in the ancient times up through the middle ages anyways... it would balance out the units better. Right now, all Archers are good for is a 2000 BC offensive. Right now though, I have about 10 Archers on a small island to try and capture the island from the English (and they're doing a good job too), so they can be pretty effective... but I would rather have swordsmen.

	12-05-2002 02:59									#4
	Browse Apolyton AD-FREE

It sounds neat because it will make the archer different from swords guys.

However, would archers and catapults be redundant then? I mean, would they serve basically the same purpose and be used the same way? Wouldn't want archers to change from being like swordsmen to being like catapults, in game terms.

In support of the idea, here is a quote from a book I read a while ago, where in one chapter the author said longbowmen were used like artillery:

"Archers as artillerymen? Bows as pieces of ordinance? Surely that is stretching things a little far? ... In fact no, not at all ... What follows will show that the remarkable feats recorded by the English and Welsh longbowmen ... were achieved as a result of their deployment as artillerymen, using what were later to become classic artillery tactics in battle."

The book was pretty good and convincing.

	12-05-2002 03:04									#5
	Suffering from ads?

quote: Originally posted by nato "Archers as artillerymen? Bows as pieces of ordinance? Surely that is stretching things a little far? ... In fact no, not at all ... What follows will show that the remarkable feats recorded by the English and Welsh longbowmen ... were achieved as a result of their deployment as artillerymen, using what were later to become classic artillery tactics in battle."

Exactly, that's my point. Perhaps for gameplay it might not work as well, but it would defineatly be more realistic with them being bombardment units. If the battle system was more complicated then it would make things better. For example, catapults would could batter down city walls better than archers, archers would have a better chance of killing men as opposed to structures, etc.

Who knows though, it could work...

	12-05-2002 03:06									#6
	Increase Your PM Length

I like the idea of bowmen as artillery too. To differentiate them from catapults, make them more mobile but with less punch. ie. They don't need roads but don't hit quite as hard. It would make for more interesting kinds of ancient combined arms. Perhaps catapaults should specialize in attacking cities or walls?

A good idea!

	12-05-2002 03:13									#7
	Support Apolyton, buy GURPS/ Alpha Centauri

quote: Originally posted by Civ Old Timer I like the idea of bowmen as artillery too. To differentiate them from catapults, make them more mobile but with less punch. ie. They don't need roads but don't hit quite as hard. It would make for more interesting kinds of ancient combined arms. Perhaps catapaults should specialize in attacking cities or walls? A good idea!

Ahhh, here we go. Yes, make them weaker than the catapult, but give them a movement of 2. That way they couldn't simply prance around the entire battlefield owning everyone, but they would be mobile enough to be moved where they were needed to support toops quickly and effectively...

*Runs off to the editor*

As you said, good idea!

	12-05-2002 03:16									#8
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

The whole combat system is quite simple in Civ III, and you mentioned that the catapult/bombard/artillery part is quite weak (editing is a way to fit own taste, not to have a standard balanced game, IMHO).

In a game where army are common units, you should chose standard formation rules, i.e. archer/artillery fire first, then horseman, then infantry.
In this game model you can have an useful archer that "bombard", not attack.

Civ III doesn't implement these rules, so I think is better to keep the archer as attacking units.

BTW, Iron based units are powerful, but the resources system sometimes cut you off from an Iron tile, no way to access it by trade or easy war (my experience on archipelagos map, AI doesn't build harbours :rolleyes.

Someone from Firaxis (maybe Dan, I can't remember) mentioned last year that with an Archer "no resource required" unit, you can still build a 2 point attack unit and try to recover your Civ from the well of hell.
It was a design decision, and changing archer in a bombard unit must require some rebalancing decision.

Last edited by Adm.Naismith on 13-05-2002 at 17:06

	12-05-2002 03:19									#9
	Get a bigger avatar today!

Unfortuneatly, gameplay issues quite often get in the way of reality, due to the simplistic nature of everything in Civ III. Personally, I don't care whether ya got iron or not so I'm going to make Archers and Longbowmen bombard units. If you're stuck without iron during the iron age, then chances are that your civ would be snuffed out anyways.

Also, what effect does the "Rate of Fire" stat have upon bombard units? I'm too lazy to go look it up.

	12-05-2002 03:42									#10
	Support Apolyton, pre-order Civilization IV

I don't know about achers, but longbowmen were fearsome opponents - they could loose up to 20 arrows a minute. Imagine that from 1000 archers...

They changed the dynamics of the battlefield, something which isn't reflected in Civ3 right now. Perhaps make Longbowmen bombard units, but not archers? The longbow had a much bigger range and more penetrating power (even more than a crossbow).

	12-05-2002 03:51									#11
	Enter the AD-FREE zone

I don't know about making archers into distance bombard units, but giving them a 0-range bombard is actually incredibly useful because they provide covering fire when your stacks are attacked. I guess I could see Longbowmen getting a 1-range bombard, they can fire nearly as far as some modern guns.

Rate of Fire is how many times it attacks with the bombard attack. ROF 1 means it can only hit once, ROF 5 means it can hit up to 5 times in one attack. Don't set ROF too high or they become broken vs cities (at least if you don't adjust citizen and building HP).

In the custom rules I'm using now, any unit that has a bow or gun has a 0-range bombard equal to their attack strength with a ROF of 1. I also gave tanks and modern armor a 1-range bombard that's a little less than their attack. I havn't gotten to test Tanks yet but I've found archers and longbowmen to be almost essential in an army now, while not negating the usefulness of catapults or cannons. They might actually be a little too useful; I might need to increase their cost a tad.

	12-05-2002 04:07									#13
	Get a bigger avatar today!

quote: Originally posted by Zurai001 In the custom rules I'm using now, any unit that has a bow or gun has a 0-range bombard equal to their attack strength with a ROF of 1. I also gave tanks and modern armor a 1-range bombard that's a little less than their attack. I havn't gotten to test Tanks yet but I've found archers and longbowmen to be almost essential in an army now, while not negating the usefulness of catapults or cannons. They might actually be a little too useful; I might need to increase their cost a tad.

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.

	12-05-2002 04:16									#14
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

yo creo que esas unidades sobran en el futuro...

	12-05-2002 04:48									#15
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization III: Complete

The simplest way to make archery more "realistic" would be to let them move after the shot. Currently, you attack with archers, then move your footmen into the empty square, leaving your archers undefended. Archers would work "properly" if they could attack, then move them into the empty square with the footsoldiers. All bombard should move after the shot for this reason.

Leave archers as foot units with post-attack movement, but lethal attack. All non-lethal bombard units should also have post-attack movement. This should be easy to implement as most of the elements already exist in the game.

	12-05-2002 05:08									#16
	Support Apolyton, buy Galactic Civilizations

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.

	12-05-2002 06:04									#17
	Enter the AD-FREE zone

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.

	12-05-2002 06:16									#18
	Lose 30 kilos (of popups)

quote: 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.

	12-05-2002 06:17									#19
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

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.

	12-05-2002 06:24									#20
	Support Apolyton, buy Alpha Centauri

quote: 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)

	12-05-2002 06:25									#21
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization III: Complete

quote: 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.

	12-05-2002 07:53									#22
	Support Apolyton

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.

	12-05-2002 07:55									#23
	Got spare money?

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.

	12-05-2002 08:53									#24
	Inflate your Upload Space

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.

	12-05-2002 08:58									#25
	Suffering from ads?

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.

	12-05-2002 09:46									#26
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

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

	12-05-2002 09:58									#27
	Support Apolyton or Terrorists Win

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

	12-05-2002 10:39									#28
	Suffering from ads?

quote: 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.

	12-05-2002 11:54									#29
	Re: Archers Support Apolyton, buy GURPS/ Alpha Centauri

quote: 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...

	12-05-2002 12:20									#30
	Support Apolyton, buy Galactic Civilizations: Deluxe Edition

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.