I am a first timer on here. I have stalked this site for some time, but very intrigued about the expansion, thus leading me to this post.
I think perhaps we are over-analyzing this a bit. Of course this is part of the fun, but let me throw a couple of ideas around and see what you guys think: I was upset that ranged units got a 2 range to begin with. I would much rather see these ranged units have a range of 1, with the possibility of range of 2 on a hill. The benefit in the first place of a range unit was to be able to cause casualties without being harmed. Moreover, typically ranged units throughout history did not completely wipe out an entire unit, just soften them up for the heavy hitters. Siege units were always used for sieges of city, and not often employed on the battlefield. Of course, once the cannon came into existence, it's versatility changed warfare as it could do both (which Napoleon mastered).
To add to this, I would like the range units to get the promotion that some mounted units get: the ability to move after attacking. This would enable a range unit (even though it only has 1 hex for range) the ability to hit and then run behind the line, where then a melee can switch with the unit and hit the enemy as well.
I also like specifically for the MG to have to set up before an attack, still with the range of 1. This would keep the unit from being offensive, which it never was.
Furthermore, am I the only one who wants to see the city range attack disappear? It is silly, and not fun when a single archer and the city defenses can defend an entire army invasion. I would substitute the city attack with a stronger city natural defense. This would also force a more strategic defense, thus making the game more fun. As much as I griped about the "stacks of doom" Those battles were much more epic and memorable than the conflicts in ciV seemed to be.
Thoughts and comments?