Can we please go back to melee unit dominance over ranged please?

[KmDubya]

Yes you need op ranged units to counter a deity AI. However what is the fun of turkey shoots? Instead of giving AI uber advantages in production, why not give humans less things to exploit so we can fight on more even grounds, and enjoy doing so. Moreoever, what about multiplayer? In MP games all you see is CB mass on both sides, theres no fun in that. As for CA and Keshik hit and runs, have you realized how easy is it to exploit it against AI. Even if nerfed to one range it can still hit and run, except maybe harder against cities (thats what siege engines are for). The 5 move Companion Cavalry is damn good already despite being melee. You don't need two range to be a hit and run unit.

Should the game be balanced for deity play or for the other levels?

If overpowered units and tactics are the only viable way to win on diety, should that trump any and all balance concerns at the lower levels?

 

[Ninakoru]

Should the game be balanced for deity play or for the other levels?

If overpowered units and tactics are the only viable way to win on diety, should that trump any and all balance concerns at the lower levels?

Absolutely not. Moreover, he's saying: In a game with less exploits, difficult AI modes shouldn't rely so much in production/maintenance bonuses.

IMO the game should be worked towards a MP game on prince, then adjust bonuses for the increasing difficulties.

 

[JimBobV]

I don't mind if archer-line units would get a penalty for attacking a city. This way you should rely more on siege units.

I agree. Its already silly that you can even damage cities with archer units. If the city has walls, how are arrows supposed to do any damage? In fact, the only thing that really could actually do damage to a city was siege units. Other military units we're used to cut off the city from supplies, take down any opposing forces, and secure the city once captured. I think most of the time cities actually surrendered when they had been choked out for long enough. As long as you could block a city of supplies, you could eventually starve them out.

 

[KrikkitTwo]

None of this is a problem. The only "strong" non-siege ranged units are c-bows and x-bows; once Gatlings are reached their 1-range makes them only useful for defense, and chariot archers are too early/weak to be considered usually. The strength of early ranged units is balanced because usually AI cities reach very high defense strength and can one-shot catapults while taking only 20 damage from one. Also, the strength of these bows is needed to counter the AI's warrior spam (and later pike/impi spam). Without them, taking AI cities before artillery would be impossible and if AI pikespams you you're screwed. So they're balanced against the AI (quality vs. quantity).

As for the ranged mounted UU nerf...just no. Nerfing their range would take away all their advantage (hit and run) and make them basically normal units which are squishier with a couple promotions maybe slapped on. The point of a UU, UA, or UB is to be more powerful than the norm, and nerfing it would take away that uniqueness.

The AI melee spam is Supposed to crush you on higher levels
OP bows are an exploit the player uses to make Deity not really hard.

By simply Decreasing Strength of C-bows and X-bows (and possibly Camel Archers and Keshiks)
You would solve a lot of problems

To solve the Catapult/Trebuchet problem either
1. decrease the strength of City ranged attacks
2. give them a defensive bonus v. cities (not just an attack bonus)


To solve all the problems at once, then just decrease the amount of damage done by Any ranged attack (siege units and cities will do better if combat is spread out over multiple turns.. because of setup time and autoheal)

 

[Krajzen]

Somewhere in the Downloads there is mods called Battle Lines which adds Winged Hussar's promotion (force enemy to run away) to ALL melee units. I must try that surprisingly simple complete revolution in combat system, because it sounds like making combat much more dynamic. I recommend trying that, maybe it helps?

 

[Ravellion]

The AI melee spam is Supposed to crush you on higher levels
OP bows are an exploit the player uses to make Deity not really hard.

By simply Decreasing Strength of C-bows and X-bows (and possibly Camel Archers and Keshiks)
You would solve a lot of problems

Nicely put and I am mostly in agreement. I am wondering whether we will get a last balance patch... and whether this should be in it.

 

[SemperFi2382]

I agree. Its already silly that you can even damage cities with archer units. If the city has walls, how are arrows supposed to do any damage? In fact, the only thing that really could actually do damage to a city was siege units.

Well, in all fairness they are using "fire arrows" to theoretically set the city ablaze. At least that's how I justify it. Not that I'm disagreeing, because it is strange but not like they can take the city either. As an example (not a great one, but just for visuals) in The 13th Warrior, they shoot fire arrows to wreak havoc before melee soldiers charged in which brings me to my next point.

City combat in general needs improvement because I still think you should have to clear out the occupying enemy unit before capturing. The defense bonus when garrisoned just doesn't do "enough" to stop an attacker. When a near dead unit can capture a city occupied by a full health unit (even if eras ahead), it will still win since the city itself has no HP at that point.

In the previous example, the city defenders were still able to fight back, despite the city being pretty jacked up. However, as it is, that isn't the case.

 

[KrikkitTwo]

Well, in all fairness they are using "fire arrows" to theoretically set the city ablaze. At least that's how I justify it. Not that I'm disagreeing, because it is strange but not like they can take the city either. As an example (not a great one, but just for visuals) in The 13th Warrior, they shoot fire arrows to wreak havoc before melee soldiers charged in which brings me to my next point.

City combat in general needs improvement because I still think you should have to clear out the occupying enemy unit before capturing. The defense bonus when garrisoned just doesn't do "enough" to stop an attacker. When a near dead unit can capture a city occupied by a full health unit (even if eras ahead), it will still win since the city itself has no HP at that point.

In the previous example, the city defenders were still able to fight back, despite the city being pretty jacked up. However, as it is, that isn't the case.

I agree.. city combat should probably
1. lower city "defense from population/techs"
2. increase city defense from Garrisoned unit's Combat Strength
3. increased city defense from buildings (which are fairly worthless... they should be needed for a reasonable defense in that era)

 

[SideScroller]

It's silly really, without cover II and medic II, I find my melee and siege to be completely useless. It's so painful to build a catapult on marathon (I only play marathon) and see it die in one-two shots. And on the flip side, as soon as I get a unit with +range the game is broken, enemies just throwing their lives away.

The only real solution to this that I can think of is to intentionally sandbag yourself and not abuse them, I find myself doing this a lot when the devs fail to balance a game

 

[VicRatlhead5199]

One thing that made ranged dominant over melee was splitting the medic and cover promotions. Melee units can handle a lot of punishment when they have cover 2 and medic 2. They could combine them back into 1 promotion each to make melee units more durable quicker. Then you'd have a solid meatshield at level 3 instead of level 5. If melee units could absorb more focus fire you'd be forced to use melee units of your own to protect your ranged units. I never did like that change to the medic and cover promotions.

I still like the idea of giving ranged units a penalty vs. cities like mounted units. It'd make siege units a more attractive choice. Comp. bows made catapults basically worthless and trebuchets don't get much use because you already have a boatload or archer-types to upgrade to crossbows (I think trebs are underrated, they do topple cities with castles much faster than crossbows). Siege units don't start to be really attractive until cannons and even then you still don't generally stop using crossbows because now you've got them all highly promoted with range and/or logistics. It doesn't truly get better until they take a range away with gats and add one with artillery. IMO a buff for catapults might not be a bad idea. Get people building them earlier and the ranged dominance would be a lot smaller.

Those two things would really help balance the units out more but wouldn't require sweeping changes to the game.

 

[Vitruvius]

Another thing about promotions is that melee need 3 shock/drill for march but ranged need only 2. March really makes melee more useful because u dont need to stop to heal, if it takes only two shock/drill for march then it would make them Much better.

Sent from my Galaxy Nexus using Tapatalk

 

[VicRatlhead5199]

Another thing about promotions is that melee need 3 shock/drill for march but ranged need only 2. March really makes melee more useful because u dont need to stop to heal, if it takes only two shock/drill for march then it would make them Much better.

Yeah, that is weird. I normally am pushing hard for range and logistics on my archer types. I skip over march more often than not, so I'm not sure whether that tips the balance any or not.

I just hope that if there are balance patches in the future they don't overcompensate and nerf archer-types into oblivion like they did mounted units.

 

[Civilmyzation]

agree. I'd rather see some buff or change to melee promotions, than archers or ranged to get nerfed.