Archery units city attack nerf?

A promotion that carries -% attack against city for archery units?

  • Yes, weak against city is good implementation for archery units

    Votes: 71 55.9%
  • No, archery units are as they are right now

    Votes: 41 32.3%
  • I have another idea

    Votes: 15 11.8%

  • Total voters
    127
I like weakening archers against cities, but I would go further:

- bring back the garrison command, but make it consume the unit's turn. That way ranged units can't independently attack from the city.
- give siege units cover, or an innate bonus against range.
- pre-gunpowder ranged units should not be able to kill outright. Perhaps each generation can lower hp by a higher percentage, so archers can reduce to 33%, CB's 25%, Xbows 15% and gatlings can kill.
-CB's probably need to just lose a point or two of ranged strength. They are too strong in masse
- reduce the melee strength of archers and/or give cavalry an innate bonus against them.

This will hopefully have several effects:
- archer units will be used to soften, but are useless without a legitimate melee presence.
- siege will actually have a chance to take cities, but only after the melee units are dead.
- melee will be worth using as the main force.

I have a few other ideas for combat (positioning, real flanking) but that is for another post.
 
The game is fine as it is and working as intended. You want cities to be impossible to take? People should be punished for placing cities near the enemy and those cities should be taken easily. Otherwise forward city spamming would be far too strong. Buffing siege units is not the answer. If you buff siege it will just change the game from composite/xbow spam to catapult/trebuchet spam. Then the same noobs complaining about losing to composite rushes will just complain about catapult rushes. Sorry, your cities are not invincible, you have to make units.
 
I suppose it is this way because cities are immobile, unkillable 'units' so the shortcomings of the AI are masked better when you give the cities more power. But ideally the battles should be between armies, and cities should be the prize for decimating the opposing forces... Not these silly laser towers of doom shooting from 300 miles away and vaporizing whole units with fresh hp! :crazyeye:

I agree. I think cities got buffed too much over the years of patches. I like the idea that a single Warrior can't just waltz into a city without a garrison (like in Civ 1 through Civ 4). I also like the idea that it takes several turns of siege combat to wear down a city. What I really don't like the feel of is:

1) The massive range damage power of the city. It's to the point where my #1 tactical consideration in a war is avoiding entering the two-tile radius of a city until I'm ready to swarm it. It's weird to me that that's the #1 factor, dwarfing other considerations that could be interesting in open terrain battles. I just can't afford to give my opponent a free shot at one of my units.

2) How many hit points the city heals every turn. Combined with #1, it means I don't even try to take a city until I've broken the back of my opponent's army. I think a city that was damaged in the last turn should heal less (maybe even nothing). As long as the attackers keep the siege going, the defenders can't rebuild. However, if the invader's units are brushed back or have to stop to heal, the city will start rebuilding its fortifications.
 
Keep Archers as they are but I have a suggestion to buff siege units.

Give siege units the ability to damage any defender in a city. While Archers can only decrease the hp of the city, Siege Units can attack both the City and any defending unit in it. This will hopefully make early siege units more viable.

I like this buff of siege units. Take that, garrisoned Chu-ko-nu!

They'd have to be careful with the damage formula to make sure that 3 cannnons don't just auto-kill the garrison unit every turn while doing the thing they were already going to do (attack the city). Maybe siege bombardment can do at most 10 HP per shot, and can't kill the unit (but only reduce it to 1 HP).
 
in my opinion, siege weapons do too much damage to units (that aren't fortified) and take too much damage from ranged attacks to be viable for city conquest.

A coastal city with a siege weapon in it and a ranged ship can 1-shot siege weapons of the same era, even when that siege weapon has cover 1. Since you have to wait a whole turn to set up a siege weapon to attack a city before dynamite, you'll always lose one siege weapon before you get to fire a single shot, so you need to move at least two in to get a single shot out. Then after that second shot, you'll lose the other siege weapon.

the fact that the AI is too stupid to realize what the biggest threat for the city is and tries to shoot your pikemen who has cover 2 and is fortified in the forest doesn't change how flawed this is. The archer line does somewhat less damage per shot than the siege weapons, but sincce the archers get a whole attack off they're clearly the better choice to take cities.

I don't get why Trebuchets and Catapults don't have indirect fire, at least that way you could protect them from the units in the city. They're not direct fire weapons. Cannons are, but Cannons have the advantage that the 2 range archer line is obsolete by the time they show up and they considerably outgun Crossbowmen against cities, not like the marginal difference you have with Composite bows vs catapults
 
2) How many hit points the city heals every turn. I think a city that was damaged in the last turn should not heal anything. So if you can keep the siege going, they can't rebuild. However, if the invader's units are brushed back or have to stop to heal, the city will start rebuilding its fortifications.

This is actually the point that irritates me. Doesn't make sense, either. If you have a city completely surrounded, it should be in a weaker state. It cannot replenish supplies or bring in reinforcements, how is it getting back health?
 
They could have supplies stocked up in there. Cities really don't heal that much per turn to outlast a stronger siege.

The game is fine as it is and working as intended. You want cities to be impossible to take? People should be punished for placing cities near the enemy and those cities should be taken easily. Otherwise forward city spamming would be far too strong. Buffing siege units is not the answer. If you buff siege it will just change the game from composite/xbow spam to catapult/trebuchet spam. Then the same noobs complaining about losing to composite rushes will just complain about catapult rushes. Sorry, your cities are not invincible, you have to make units.


I don't understand your point. The key difference between archer spam and siege spam ist that archer spam is actually very strong vs units. Siege spam, not so much.
 
I agree. I think cities got buffed too much over the years of patches. I like the idea that a single Warrior can't just waltz into a city without a garrison (like in Civ 1 through Civ 4). I also like the idea that it takes several turns of siege combat to wear down a city. What I really don't like the feel of is:

1) The massive range damage power of the city. It's to the point where my #1 tactical consideration in a war is avoiding entering the two-tile radius of a city at least until I'm ready to swarm it. It's weird to me that that's the #1 factor. I just can't afford to give my opponent a free shot at one of my units.

2) How many hit points the city heals every turn. I think a city that was damaged in the last turn should not heal anything. So if you can keep the siege going, they can't rebuild. However, if the invader's units are brushed back or have to stop to heal, the city will start rebuilding its fortifications.

I think a good way to solve that would be to eliminate the city's attack capability entirely. Just have Every attack on a city damage the attacker (ie every archer that fires on a city takes damage... so you can wander around and pillage ... unless they have a military unit to stop you)
 
No. Early siege units are crap. They cost too much, get no cover from terrain and easily destroyed. And latter, when canons are available, we get 1hex gatlings. What i need is buffs, not more nerfs, since earlier wars are already pointless.

This. So much this. Catapults and trebs get one-shotted by cities, and... everything else, especially on high difficulty. Reason that Archery units are used against cities most commonly isn't because they're too good at it, because they're actually quite bad against walled cities, they just don't suck at everything else. When every unit costs precious GPT at the start of the game, do you really want to be carting around five or so units that are completely useless 90% of the time? No, you would rather keep archery units, because they stay alive unless you forget to stick melee units in front of them.
 
I agree. I think cities got buffed too much over the years of patches. I like the idea that a single Warrior can't just waltz into a city without a garrison (like in Civ 1 through Civ 4). I also like the idea that it takes several turns of siege combat to wear down a city. What I really don't like the feel of is:

1) The massive range damage power of the city. It's to the point where my #1 tactical consideration in a war is avoiding entering the two-tile radius of a city until I'm ready to swarm it. It's weird to me that that's the #1 factor, dwarfing other considerations that could be interesting in open terrain battles. I just can't afford to give my opponent a free shot at one of my units.

2) How many hit points the city heals every turn. Combined with #1, it means I don't even try to take a city until I've broken the back of my opponent's army. I think a city that was damaged in the last turn should heal less (maybe even nothing). As long as the attackers keep the siege going, the defenders can't rebuild. However, if the invader's units are brushed back or have to stop to heal, the city will start rebuilding its fortifications.

This man has it right. Both combined make it virtually impossible to wage war in rough terrain.
 
Interesting topic. Unfortuantely, there seem as many opinions as posters in this thread.

Let me continue this trend:

In my Cities and Units-Concept, I proposed some changes regarding city attack radius and the role of fortified units.

The relevant parts:
The new concept:
- cities lose their general 2 tile range-attack. (The “passive” strength stays as it is now.)
- instead, the attack-strength will be tied to defensive buildings:
  • unfortified: range 1 attack; 100% attack strength
  • Walls: range 2 attack; inner ring: 100%, outer ring: 40% attack strength
  • Castle: range 2 attack; inner ring: 100%, outer ring: 70% attack strength
  • Arsenal: range 2 attack; both rings 100%
  • Military Base: range 3 attack; third ring with 50% attack strength
- If a unit is fortified in a city, this unit must be defeated to take the city.
- The fortified unit can only be attacked when the city is down to 0 health.
- The unit gains +25% strength bonus and “Cover 2”-promotion while fortified.
- The “Siege”-promotion will help attackers to fight against fortified city-defenders.


Building up on this, the role of siege units and archers could be re-evaluated:
- Melee units do full harm to city walls but not to city defenders until the city health is 0.
- Archers may directly attack city defenders, but do little or even no harm to city health.
- Siege units do increased harm to city health, but little or even no harm to defenders (maybe increasing 'collateral dammage' by promotion)

With this proposal, both range units would be useful in a city siege.
Regarding cities without city walls: there could very well be a remarkable leap in city health from unwalled to walled cities, making the former prone to attacks without siege units.

I agree. I think cities got buffed too much over the years of patches. I like the idea that a single Warrior can't just waltz into a city without a garrison (like in Civ 1 through Civ 4). I also like the idea that it takes several turns of siege combat to wear down a city. What I really don't like the feel of is:

1) The massive range damage power of the city. It's to the point where my #1 tactical consideration in a war is avoiding entering the two-tile radius of a city until I'm ready to swarm it. It's weird to me that that's the #1 factor, dwarfing other considerations that could be interesting in open terrain battles. I just can't afford to give my opponent a free shot at one of my units.

2) How many hit points the city heals every turn. Combined with #1, it means I don't even try to take a city until I've broken the back of my opponent's army. I think a city that was damaged in the last turn should heal less (maybe even nothing). As long as the attackers keep the siege going, the defenders can't rebuild. However, if the invader's units are brushed back or have to stop to heal, the city will start rebuilding its fortifications.

Both these posts raise some interesting and imo. very relevant points and ideas. Interesting thing is that most of these things adressed here are directly modable through simple mods, since much of this is controlled through the global defines:
Spoiler :
Code:
		<!-- City Combat Defines -->
		<Row Name="CITY_STRENGTH_DEFAULT">
			<Value>800</Value>
		</Row>
		<Row Name="CITY_STRENGTH_POPULATION_CHANGE">
			<Value>40</Value>
		</Row>
		<Row Name="CITY_STRENGTH_UNIT_DIVISOR">
			<Value>500</Value>
		</Row>
		<Row Name="CITY_STRENGTH_TECH_BASE">
			<Value>5.5</Value>
		</Row>
		<Row Name="CITY_STRENGTH_TECH_EXPONENT">
			<Value>2.8</Value>
		</Row>
		<Row Name="CITY_STRENGTH_TECH_MULTIPLIER">
			<Value>1</Value>
		</Row>
		<Row Name="CITY_STRENGTH_HILL_CHANGE">
			<Value>500</Value>
		</Row>
		<Row Name="CITY_ATTACKING_DAMAGE_MOD">
			<Value>100</Value>
		</Row>
		<Row Name="ATTACKING_CITY_MELEE_DAMAGE_MOD">
			<Value>100</Value>
		</Row>
		<Row Name="CITY_ATTACK_RANGE">
			<Value>2</Value>
		</Row>
		<Row Name="CAN_CITY_USE_INDIRECT_FIRE">
			<Value>1</Value>
		</Row>
		<Row Name="CITY_RANGED_ATTACK_STRENGTH_MULTIPLIER">
			<Value>75</Value>
		</Row>
		<Row Name="MIN_CITY_STRIKE_DAMAGE">
			<Value>10</Value>
		</Row>
		<Row Name="CITY_CAPTURE_DAMAGE_PERCENT">
			<Value>50</Value>
		</Row>
It could be fun to try to do some changes like put city ranged attack range down to 1 tile, give Archers a *very* severe penaltiy against cities (like -75 %) and possibly make siege engines a bit more expensive, so that they don't become total killer machines, and see how that plays out.
 
IMO there should be not be a terrain cost when moving through a tile occupied by one of your own units. You've got camps established there so the fact that it's jungle or whatever shouldn't matter. This would help tremendously with jungle/forest bottleneck. You could put a unit on a swamp tile so other units can move quickly through it.

The ranged attack of cities is problematic, but not as problematic to me as that melee units take huge damage for attacking a city while ranged units take none. It's weird how bad melee units are at fighting in general, really. They take way too much damage on the offensive, while archery units can attack without taking any, even if they are right next to the target.
 
As some pointed it out earlier in this post, the real problem I see is the city as a combatant.

Melee are near useless for everything except being meat shields due to cities.

Siegue units fall quick against cities, and have little use for ofense outside of city siegue.

Most of the combats are done in the city vecinity.

Ranged have terrain bonuses and can move-attack if they are on plain terrain. They are versatile and the priority unit until artillery.

Some things i would change: city -33% actual strength, +50% hp. Siegue +50% cover against ranged attacks.
 
Give ranged a -33% penalty to attacking cities.

Significantly reduce (by 50%) the amount of damage melee units receive from attacking cities.

Possibly reduce the ranged damage a city does too, but give the city more health to compensate. It's ridiculous that a melee unit attacking a city consigns that melee unit to death.
 
Personally I find siege units are plenty strong as they are.

I rarely get more than a couple archers these days if I'm not playing England or China because in the long term, Artillery are super strong and Gattling Guns are extremely underwhelming without a range boost.
 
Personally I find siege units are plenty strong as they are.
Then I want whatever it is you're having. :crazyeye:

Here's a letter that the commanding officer of a disbanded Catapult unit wrote to the mother of one the KIA soldiers of the unit:

Spoiler :
Dear Mrs X,

it is with great regret and solemn respect that I announce to you the loss in combat of your valiant and heroic son, Johnny.

As you know, young Johnny was attached to the 3rd Catapult Company, a part of 1st Attack Battalion that was engaged in sieging operations near Delhi as part of that unit ever since last, err, century.

Anyway, as Johnny and his fellow company were making their way as part of an attack towards Delhi through hilly, forested terrain, they were ambushed by Indian elephant units firing from two adjacent sectors. Despite ample cover these elephants caused extensive damage, knowing as if by voodoo precisely where to aim amid the dense foliage. After some hasty communications with HQ the decision was undertaken to retreat the unit back to safety as it was determined that it would be destroyed by incoming enemy Telepathic City Battery Fire if it progressed any further. It must be noted here that your son argued vocally against the decision, stating that 'lol this is useless sir we'll be pwned no matter what we do with this ridiculously low strength of ours!'. In hindsight the merit of this observation is abundantly clear. However top brass were adamant and the unit was taken aback two clicks and only recalled to action after fresh green recruits had arrived in sufficient numbers to restore its strength to 90 % of maximum (so falling slightly short of pathetic, ahem).

It was in the maneuver that followed that young Johnny valiantly gave his life for king and country (well, he's technically the president nowadays, but what the hell).

The elephants had meanwhile been recalled to another front or neutralized by nearby Composite Units (known for their ability to actually get **** done), so the advancement towards the city was uneventful. However after progressing two clicks into the Delhi territory, Johnny and his unit were exhausted and ambushed by a nearby Spear unit, taking their numbers down to a mere 50 %. While retreat was still a viable option at this point, this time the brass agreed that 'lol wtf is this **** lets just ATTACK an be done with it..!'. So after resting Johnny and his unit went ahead and readied their lone Catapult. Before that they had to advance directly next to the city, however, as a nearby hill would've obstructed the shot otherwise. This meant that the city would get off a shot before the Catapult; as Johnny was eager to point out to his commander, 'lol there's an Archer ready in the tower grinnin' sir they'll just DECIMATE us!'. Which is, regrettably, exactly what happened. Yes, ma'am; I write to you today to inform you that your son and his entire unit were instantly vaporized next to Delhi before they could get off a single shot. Reportedly Johnny's last words before oblivion were quoted as something akin to 'OMG bros I can see the LAZORZ..!'. Again my most solemn respect goes out to you lady -- and may I enquire as to the age of your second son, Jimmy? There is a spot in the Catapult Corps for him as well, due to the unfortunate accident of young Johnny. You must agree, ma'am, that if nothing else our dear leader El Presidente is doing a fine job of reducing youth unemployement.

Yours Sincerely,

General This-or-That, the Royal Imperial Spanish Wtfpwn Conquistador Army
:king::strength::c5war::c5strength::c5capital:

(Yes, yes; too much time on my hands with little to fill it with. One hopes I won't be summoned to the Catapult corps though, what with their current record. :mischief:)
 
Siege units are like melee units in that you are pretty much required to take Cover 1 and 2 before they are even worth using. Don't bother trying to get siege up to +1 range or +1 attack. As long as they survive, cities drop plenty fast enough.

As for the thread itself, anyone try to mod these changes with the current build? A lot of these proposed changes are easy to mod and it would be interesting to see how they actually play out in the game.
 
Is it still the case that Cover does not work against City Attacks? I remember hearing about it a few patches back and headbanging hard for all the waste of promotions this had caused me. I doubted it back then because it's a baffling design decision, but multiple people confirmed it. I just wonder if it has been fixed/re-thought since then.
 
Is it still the case that Cover does not work against City Attacks? I remember hearing about it a few patches back and headbanging hard for all the waste of promotions this had caused me. I doubted it back then because it's a baffling design decision, but multiple people confirmed it. I just wonder if it has been fixed/re-thought since then.

I just used the in game editor to place a barbarian battering ram next to my city and it clearly says -33% defense bonus on the combat analysis. However, when placing an 11 strength spearmen next to it, it would actually deal less damage on the preview to the unit.

So it's being displayed, but not applied.

I just noticed that there's also a barbarian specific spearman with 10 str - apparently, 11 str spearmen would be too strong for us ? - and it would take exactly the same amount of damage from a city. When I change to an archer and preview bombards, I'm also not seeing a difference.

it appears Cover isn't working at all for Barbarians?
 
Top Bottom