One potential problem I noticed with the new ranged combat mechanic is that it gives perhaps too much advantage to the player that acts first. In regular Civilization unit vs. unit combat, there is no inherent advantage to being the attacker (other than choosing where and when to fight), because the defending unit can damage back.
I was really surprised to see that with the new ranged combat, the target doesn't appear to have any chance to shoot back, even if it has a ranged attack itself. With ranged combat, the attacker now has a chance to completely destroy a defending unit with no chance of return damage. This makes sense when the defending unit has no ranged attack itself -- we expect swordsmen to have to suck it up and hide behind their shields and hope to survive. But when the defending unit has a ranged attack itself, it still appears that they cannot respond to a bombardment, and so can be destroyed without any possibility of damaging the attacker. So, essentially, you can move a bunch of attacking archers into range (since you have a move of 2), annihilate the defenders (including archers), and not even suffer any shots back.
This may not be a huge problem in land combat where the defenders may be in defensive terrain or behind walls, where perhaps a defending archer may survive multiple bombardments and offer a feeble shot back on its own turn. And siege weapons can't move and attack in the same turn. But it seems to be a serious problem in naval combat, where every unit has a ranged attack, and can move and attack in the same turn. In the GameSpot E3 interview video, we see an English frigate sunk by two Roman frigates in just two shots, and no damage at all taken by the attacking frigates. In the closed E3 video, a Roman frigate sinks an English ship of the line with a single shot. Later in the GameSpot video, we see a Japanese battleship sunk by two Roman destroyers and one Roman battleship, again without a single shot back from the Japanese.
So basically, you can sail up to an enemy and totally obliterate him without any casualties at all, just because you acted first. Even if a few of his ships survive to fire back on the next turn, the battle is already lost. This makes it kind of hard to defend anything with a fleet.
Ranged units that come under ranged attack should be able to fire back. I realize that they shouldn't be able to answer every attack -- that would probably allow them to fire way too many times per turn, and too heavily favor the defender. But they ought to be able to fire at least once during the attacker's turn if they come under fire. Otherwise, it's just too easy to wipe them out without any chance of forcing casualties on the attacker.
I was really surprised to see that with the new ranged combat, the target doesn't appear to have any chance to shoot back, even if it has a ranged attack itself. With ranged combat, the attacker now has a chance to completely destroy a defending unit with no chance of return damage. This makes sense when the defending unit has no ranged attack itself -- we expect swordsmen to have to suck it up and hide behind their shields and hope to survive. But when the defending unit has a ranged attack itself, it still appears that they cannot respond to a bombardment, and so can be destroyed without any possibility of damaging the attacker. So, essentially, you can move a bunch of attacking archers into range (since you have a move of 2), annihilate the defenders (including archers), and not even suffer any shots back.
This may not be a huge problem in land combat where the defenders may be in defensive terrain or behind walls, where perhaps a defending archer may survive multiple bombardments and offer a feeble shot back on its own turn. And siege weapons can't move and attack in the same turn. But it seems to be a serious problem in naval combat, where every unit has a ranged attack, and can move and attack in the same turn. In the GameSpot E3 interview video, we see an English frigate sunk by two Roman frigates in just two shots, and no damage at all taken by the attacking frigates. In the closed E3 video, a Roman frigate sinks an English ship of the line with a single shot. Later in the GameSpot video, we see a Japanese battleship sunk by two Roman destroyers and one Roman battleship, again without a single shot back from the Japanese.
So basically, you can sail up to an enemy and totally obliterate him without any casualties at all, just because you acted first. Even if a few of his ships survive to fire back on the next turn, the battle is already lost. This makes it kind of hard to defend anything with a fleet.
Ranged units that come under ranged attack should be able to fire back. I realize that they shouldn't be able to answer every attack -- that would probably allow them to fire way too many times per turn, and too heavily favor the defender. But they ought to be able to fire at least once during the attacker's turn if they come under fire. Otherwise, it's just too easy to wipe them out without any chance of forcing casualties on the attacker.
And even though melee infantry could not fire back but it was better armored & equipped with big shields so they took lesser damage. Moreover once they reached their enemies they were much stronger than archers. What I am trying to say is that ranged retaliation won't make melee infantry bad as melee infantry might not retaliate but they'll take lesser punishment from enemy arrows. And archers won't suck either because they are constantly inflicting damage on front row of enemy (usually heavy infantry) without hurting themselves. Furthermore units will not always get destroyed in one battle so archers will get more time to fire before they've to find cover.
