Ranged Units - Common sense on them being the best units for assaults?

I know that it has been thoroughly discussed in this forum, but I couldn't achieve an own conclusion on this subject.

It seems that if you want to go warmongering in the early eras there's no other way to go besides beelining composite and xbowman. But I really dislike the "simplicity" on this. Has anyone found another path viable as much as this strategy?

IMO, there should be some balance on their damage against cities. For example, a buff on defensive buildings (e.g., "Walls: +5 CombatStrenght, +50HP, +20% CS when defending from ranged units")

So, what are your thoughts on this?

If there were to be a defensive buff or attacking cities penalty to ranged units, I feel like there should then be a boost to melee units in attacking cities, so sieges don't take forever


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

That's not true. You can beeline math, which gives you cats--a ranged unit--and in the process you get the wheel, which gives you chariot archers.

Siege works, just that it isn't as efficient as the bow unit line, and generally needs additional units to support it.

tetley said:

You can beeline math, which gives you cats--a ranged unit

Click to expand...

For 10 seconds I was literally stunned by the vision of assault kittens

The biggest issue I find with siege units before cannon is that they are too easy to kill, and take too long to setup. They don't do a lot more damage than their range counterparts, but you have to spend a turn after moving them before they can fire, and they are extremely weak when attacked, and rarely survive and are almost useless outside of siege, so they are a weak specialized unit.

Cannons finally start to be effective enough to be worth having, and artillery can avoid the counter attacks with their range, so things shift afterwards.

I don't disagree. But then, if we are talking about the AI you can clear its army on the borders, then rush a ring of siege in around a city. It will drop the very next turn.

Yep, ranged units are more efficient as they excel in the killing and do well enough at the sieging, but the option is there if you want a bit of variety instead of using bow game after game after game.

Krajzen said:

For 10 seconds I was literally stunned by the vision of assault kittens

Click to expand...

I was commenting on his statement that there is no other way than to beeline composites and xbowmen. That's what I'm saying is not true. You can beeline cats and you get chariot archers in the process (if you've got horses). That is another way.

There's an imbalance but you still need melee for a number of reasons.

Some changes would be welcome though, like say melee hits a city without walls harder. And then, if the city has walls, melee can again hit it harder if you bring siege (as in, if you bring catapults and they are next to melee then that melee is assumed to have siege that helps them assault a walled city).

But, whatever their reasons, civ devs don't seem to want to make combat have even a little bit of depth. In the past they have added subtleties but never many and they always take em away in subsequent full releases.

Its simply more efficient to bring ranged stuff with a melee ring to keep the defenders from smashing ur ranged units up. Less rotation needed.

An all melee army can do it but will force you to rotate them out after 1-2 assaults in the city unless you don't mind having ur units dying.

As about siege weapons you;re not supposed to bring just one or two unless its like rocket arty. You're supposed to bring lots of them. Set up phase might cost you one siege weapon but that's it, Lots of them = city falls immediately or in following turn.

One disadvantage of spamming ranged units is that it require several turns of indirect firing for the city to fall to you if you don't use siege and enemy can reinforce in meanwhile.

Edit: Unless the enemy city is ahead of ur arty by several eras then it will take you awhile but it'll still fall.

BrokTheFanatic said:

There's an imbalance but you still need melee for a number of reasons.

Some changes would be welcome though, like say melee hits a city without walls harder. And then, if the city has walls, melee can again hit it harder if you bring siege (as in, if you bring catapults and they are next to melee then that melee is assumed to have siege that helps them assault a walled city).

But, whatever their reasons, civ devs don't seem to want to make combat have even a little bit of depth. In the past they have added subtleties but never many and they always take em away in subsequent full releases.

Click to expand...

I also think something like that should be implemented. Melee units should be much better at grabbing undefended cities.

I also think what might help the imbalance is to reduce the range of all non-siege ranged units to 1 tile (like Gatlings). To compensate, they should also be allowed to move after firing (though needing Logistics to fire again).

Some limited unit stacking might also help--one melee and one ranged unit per tile.

Sheershaw said:

I also think something like that should be implemented. Melee units should be much better at grabbing undefended cities.

I also think what might help the imbalance is to reduce the range of all non-siege ranged units to 1 tile (like Gatlings). To compensate, they should also be allowed to move after firing (though needing Logistics to fire again).

Some limited unit stacking might also help--one melee and one ranged unit per tile.

Click to expand...

Well one thing is for sure, if limited stacking was allowed then it would be incredibly easy to take cities because currently half of the challenge is getting troops into position to do good siege.

With that change = first melee ring can charge in and fortify to protect the weak siege from being blasted to pieces then start sieging immediately which in turn makes the AI even more easier to kill.

I can make a mod which gives all melee units the promotion that gives strength vs cities... or just more strength in general (to compensate against the overpowered archers).

Whad'ya think?

Giving Melee Units bonus-dmg would just be lazy and boring. Imho an easy and fun solution would be:

- Siege Units start with Cover 1 (and can get Cover 2 with the first levelup), get reduced attack strengh, but a higher city-modifier and a (slight) bonus against barricaded units to make up for that
- Archery-Units get a -33%(?) dmg vs Cities Promotion and start with Accuracy I
- Melee-Units start with Barrage I
- Mounted Units start with Scouting I

That way...
...Siege units could withstand the attacks of both, cities and defending archers
...Archery-Units would still be mobile Range-Units, by giving them Accuracy I they become better at killing units that are on open terrain - and the fact that it's 1 promotion less that is needed to reach the crucial promotions encourages using them that way.
...Melee Units would be more vulnerable to archers on open fields, but they'd become less vulnerable to artillery.
...Mounted Units would become a better Scout- and Assault-Unit. They're still quite vulnerable overall, but they're better suited to actually see the enemies formation and pick off units that are too far away from the main army

Overall, that would be my very basic counter-system, that encourages mixed armies. Obviously, the AI would not be able to handle such a system.

I really don't see a problem with the ranged weapon damage against cities. As mentioned, it takes a few turns to take out a city anyways, and it is only possible, with out hordes of units, to do it when you have a large tech lead, or beeline to crossbows. Under even circumstances, ranged units are too weak to take cities on their own without an unreasonable amount of time spent. That seems about right.

My only problem is the weakness of catapults and trebuchets. I like the idea of giving them cover 1. That would go a long ways to having me build some.

Forcing us to build a siege army to take cities doesn't work for me, as that requires too large of an early army to support in gold costs, as you still have to have some ranged and melee to fend off their units. Ultimately, having a mix of archers, melee and siege would be best. Not all of one or the other.

I'm ok with melee being weak against cities, as this is supposed to somewhat mimic reality, but if we were to mimic reality, weren't many of the melee troupes the ones who helped make and man those siege weapons outside the cities walls? Wouldn't it be cool if you could spend a few turns to turn a melee into a siege weapon before a siege and allow them to turn back afterwards?

I think (needs confirmation) that cover actually doesn't work vs city bombardment, which is treated differently than range one.

Correct - it seems to be a bug. So giving siege units Cover does not help them survive bombardment from cities. To rectify this in my personal mod, I:

- give archery units -33% against cities
- increase siege units' ranged strength by 50%, and drop their city attack bonus from 200% to 100% (so they do the same damage, but withstand bombardment better)
- give horse units a 25% bonus when attacking

It works very nicely. Catapults and trebuchets are very useful now. I'm also considering whether iron-based units (swords + longswords) should get a city attack bonus, to make for alternative ways to conquer cities...

subtledoctor said:

Correct - it seems to be a bug. So giving siege units Cover does not help them survive bombardment from cities. To rectify this in my personal mod, I:

- give archery units -33% against cities
- increase siege units' ranged strength by 50%, and drop their city attack bonus from 200% to 100% (so they do the same damage, but withstand bombardment better)
- give horse units a 25% bonus when attacking

It works very nicely. Catapults and trebuchets are very useful now. I'm also considering whether iron-based units (swords + longswords) should get a city attack bonus, to make for alternative ways to conquer cities...

Click to expand...

I'm not sure I agree with the archery negative, as they are only useful when beelined to crossbow, but I'm not sure I disagree either.

I like the siege unit change, though I wonder how that would effect (mobile)artillery balance. They'd become far more effective against every other unit, making them too powerful. Perhaps it would be best to increase their melee strength instead, which I believe is used to determine how much damage they take as well, but that might make them unbalanced when dealing with them outside of siege attacks.

It seems it really needs to be a siege specific boost.

I'm not sure about the horse bonus. There is a purposeful penalty given to mounted units, with one of the unique units do not have (I forget which). Maybe get rid of that penalty and add a bonus to melee, to at least keep that balance in line, but that seems like it could be abused, being that mounted units can so easily come in from a distance and attack without suffering a turn of damage getting into position.