Two easy ways to nerf archery units

It would be nice if archers recieved damage for attacking adjacent units, that, and give them a penalty to city attack, thats supposedly why we have siege units.

I agree in nerfing ranged units. How about adding a concept where each subsequent ranged attack on the same unit has it's damage reduced? This represents a defending unit taking cover from ranged fire.

By reducing damage with each subsequent hit, it makes much harder for ranged attacks from multiple units to kill one unit a single turn. It also encourages you to spread damage with ranged units.

cutelilduck said:

This forum is so impressive when it comes to balance suggestions. Almost every single idea is good.

If only the industry needed more "idea people"

Click to expand...

Ideas or lack of it is not usually a problem. It's everyone having their pet fixit project and I assume the development team having to sort through all of that noise.

Imho ranged is nowhere near broken, they have other more pressing priorities to fix first.

dexters said:

Ideas or lack of it is not usually a problem. It's everyone having their pet fixit project and I assume the development team having to sort through all of that noise.

Imho ranged is nowhere near broken, they have other more pressing priorities to fix first.

Click to expand...

the reason people feel ranged is broken is becuase their army ratios between melee and ranged. What's ideal, 3 ranged for every 1 melee? and do you use the melee for anything other than grabbing cities andmeatshields for the ranged?

I've definitely fought wars (depending on circumstances) where I have one melee unit that tags along to grab cities.

But, personally, I feel like calvalry is more broken than ranged. I get that it *can* be useful, but it is not needed at all, that just doesn't feel right.

Snuffleupagus said:

the reason people feel ranged is broken is becuase their army ratios between melee and ranged. What's ideal, 3 ranged for every 1 melee? and do you use the melee for anything other than grabbing cities andmeatshields for the ranged?

I've definitely fought wars (depending on circumstances) where I have one melee unit that tags along to grab cities.

But, personally, I feel like calvalry is more broken than ranged. I get that it *can* be useful, but it is not needed at all, that just doesn't feel right.

Click to expand...

I usually have a few around just to make annoying hit-pillage and run tactics on cities etc. But yeah cavalry apart from that is useless

I think that the only thing ranged units need is diminishing returns against damaged units... it should be difficult (though not impossible) to completely destroy an infantry unit with ranged fire alone.

Try playing on higher difficulties. On Immortal, all the AI units start with free upgrades, and the most common one seems to be Cover I (or Cover II if they already started with it).

Ranged units are fine. Many of the changes you suggest would break ranged units completely (only range 2 means they are useless in forests). If ranged units are giving you problems, the best counter is Horsemen and Armor, because they can hit fast and run away. If Bombers are a problem, build fighters and AA guns (which I've seen the AI do a lot now). My bombers are actually fairly useless in my most recent game, because the AI has build SO many triplanes, AA guns, and fighters. Rather than build more bombers, I built tanks, and that's solved many problems.

Snuffleupagus said:

the reason people feel ranged is broken is becuase their army ratios between melee and ranged. What's ideal, 3 ranged for every 1 melee? and do you use the melee for anything other than grabbing cities andmeatshields for the ranged?

I've definitely fought wars (depending on circumstances) where I have one melee unit that tags along to grab cities.

But, personally, I feel like calvalry is more broken than ranged. I get that it *can* be useful, but it is not needed at all, that just doesn't feel right.

Click to expand...

Unless you change the ranged mechanic entirely, like the collateral damage concept in Civ4, ranged is always going to have an advantage. Actually let me backtrack. Unless you remove them from the game, siege units will always be very powerful under human control. The idea of a unit that can knock down defenses and do a lot of damage, no matter how you implement is, is going to be powerful under a human player.

Furthermore, as I noted in another 'fix ranged here's my awesome idea' thread, nerfing 'ranged' also boosts airpower as an unintended consequence as airpower is stackable and infinately more versatile than ranged ;units' already.

I've grown to appreciate cavalry/tank units in BNW and have pulled off a blitzkrieg style offensive vs. AI with Great wall. Those extra movement help when movement an encirclement is key, but I don't think nerfing ranged is going to fix the lack of utility of mounted in the eyes of many players. Players will just build more ranged units and rely even more on bombers and it makes early game fighting harder for the AI and human and early/mid game wars would well be a non-starter with human players deivising Bomber bee-line strategies where they just wait until Industrial to war.

It's not as simple as it's being made out to be. Fixing ranged as discussed in the OP has huge implications. Battle AI will need an entire rewrite for example for it to know that only ring 2 works and ring 1 tiles will no longer count.
It will likely take months and months to rewrite, retest and balance code.

Not worth the resources. Hence my comment that it might be worth considering for Civ6, but it's just not for this game. There are other issues. I rather the time be spent to fix obvious logic loopholes in AI behavior, such as trying to use melee ships to take barb camps, and just improving AI performance generally when it comes to warring.

I just don't see the problem with the archers, if you're at range a sword is useless. Thats just a fact of life.

I actually find the gun units being melee weird.

Snuffleupagus said:

the reason people feel ranged is broken is becuase their army ratios between melee and ranged. What's ideal, 3 ranged for every 1 melee? and do you use the melee for anything other than grabbing cities andmeatshields for the ranged?

I've definitely fought wars (depending on circumstances) where I have one melee unit that tags along to grab cities.

But, personally, I feel like calvalry is more broken than ranged. I get that it *can* be useful, but it is not needed at all, that just doesn't feel right.

Click to expand...

Increase your difficulty and try spamming ranged. Suddenly the AI has Cover I on every unit, even their Warriors, and ranged alone are useless. You NEED melee units and Cavalry, ESPECIALLY if your neighbor is Attila or Ashurbanipal, because their siege units will start with Cover II, and horse units are the only things that are fast enough to flank the ranged they bring. I tried spamming crossbows when Genghis was my neighbor, and he charged at me with about 15 Cover I Longswords and 12 Keshiks. I couldn't kill those Longswords if my life depended on it, if I focus fired on one with all my crossbows, I might ALMOST kill one, so his Keshiks were nice and safe. I started spamming my own longswords to protect my crossbows and finish his off, and it evened up the odds, but it was too little too late. I would kill one wave and another would take its place before I had time to heal. He ended up wiping me off the map in true Mongolian fashion.

Cavalry is FAR from useless. Nothing kills ranged/artillery/AA units more effectively than Cavalry and Tanks, and nothing spots for bombers better, and thanks to all the cover I, and for the Charge promotion, nothing kills wounded units better. In fact, I think Cavalry is better than Riflemen for taking cities, Riflemen are just better for soaking hits and preventing the enemy Cavalry from charging the back line. If you don't bring enough rifles, I guarantee you that your ranged units will get mulched by a cavalry charge. For support roles, Cavalry units also make the best Medics.

I seriously have no idea what game you guys are playing where melee units are useless. Melee units do way more damage than Ranged units, are always the first to get their combat strength upgrade by a mile, and once melee units close the distance, the ranged units are toast, especially if the melee have Cover. The only thing melee units are worse at is attacking cities, but try bringing just one melee unit to a war and see how that works out for you. The AI will focus fire the melee unit and now your whole charge is dead on arrival. You need to surround the city with fortified melee, pound it with ranged and siege units, then use melee to make the final hits. DON'T FORGET TO PILLAGE! Pillaging gives you +25 HP, a bit of gold, and only costs a movement point. If you're about to move into rough terrain or through the city's ZOC, there's literally zero opportunity cost.

Oh, and Infantry units and Marines can learn Siege, which makes them actually quite good at attacking cities.