kenken244
Grammar Nazi
Ive never liked how archers are rarely used, and that melee units are just as good as archers are, but are much more versatile. Melee units end up being more important to your defense than archers. The reason is that melee units can defeat an attacking force.
There is a very simple solution to this; the capacity for it is already in the xml. The solution is ranged attacks. Ranged attacks work like this: when a non-air unit has a non-zero value for both its air combat value and its range value, then a unit can perform a ranged attack. The unit can then attack any tile within its range, attacking who would be the normal defender. The damage done is based off of the units air combat value and any modifiers that would apply if the unit engaged in normal combat. The unit will then deal collateral damage to the stack like a normal attack.
Ranged attacks would also allow archery units some extra uniqueness. Marksmen could attack within two tiles with a very strong hit but no collateral damage, archers and longbowmen could have normal strength attacks within two tiles and deal moderate collateral damage and crossbowmen and flurries could attack within one square with lots of collateral damage. Then archers could defend the citys fat cross, marksmen could assassinate mages from a distance, and crossbowmen could meet units in the field. I would also suggest that archers are given an extra move to simulate their lighter armor and give them more synergy with the blitz and drill line.
Even if archers are fixed like that, there still is one thing that is really unrealistic; a city with walls is just as defendable as one without walls. Firstly, I would get rid of cultural defense. Instead, culture would only have an effect on revolt time. Next I would replace archers city defense modifier with a bonus to the defensive value of the tile. This way an archer wont be able to defend very easily even if the city has its walls destroyed. Then I would add more defensive buildings. These wouldnt be just defense buildings, some could also have other effects; some could reduce the damage taken from bombardment, some could make defenses repair faster, others could increase the effect of other fortifications, and so on. Then, so that these buildings arent blown up in a single turn, I would make fireballs unable to bombard, and reduce meteor bombardment to 5% each. This way, your defenses will not be destroyed before an attacker can even get to it.
These changes would make a defender have to invest more to defend his territory instead of having defense be generated automatically without having to build anything, and would make taking cities be difficult like it should be instead of being able to destroy a civ without facing any problems.
There is a very simple solution to this; the capacity for it is already in the xml. The solution is ranged attacks. Ranged attacks work like this: when a non-air unit has a non-zero value for both its air combat value and its range value, then a unit can perform a ranged attack. The unit can then attack any tile within its range, attacking who would be the normal defender. The damage done is based off of the units air combat value and any modifiers that would apply if the unit engaged in normal combat. The unit will then deal collateral damage to the stack like a normal attack.
Ranged attacks would also allow archery units some extra uniqueness. Marksmen could attack within two tiles with a very strong hit but no collateral damage, archers and longbowmen could have normal strength attacks within two tiles and deal moderate collateral damage and crossbowmen and flurries could attack within one square with lots of collateral damage. Then archers could defend the citys fat cross, marksmen could assassinate mages from a distance, and crossbowmen could meet units in the field. I would also suggest that archers are given an extra move to simulate their lighter armor and give them more synergy with the blitz and drill line.
Even if archers are fixed like that, there still is one thing that is really unrealistic; a city with walls is just as defendable as one without walls. Firstly, I would get rid of cultural defense. Instead, culture would only have an effect on revolt time. Next I would replace archers city defense modifier with a bonus to the defensive value of the tile. This way an archer wont be able to defend very easily even if the city has its walls destroyed. Then I would add more defensive buildings. These wouldnt be just defense buildings, some could also have other effects; some could reduce the damage taken from bombardment, some could make defenses repair faster, others could increase the effect of other fortifications, and so on. Then, so that these buildings arent blown up in a single turn, I would make fireballs unable to bombard, and reduce meteor bombardment to 5% each. This way, your defenses will not be destroyed before an attacker can even get to it.
These changes would make a defender have to invest more to defend his territory instead of having defense be generated automatically without having to build anything, and would make taking cities be difficult like it should be instead of being able to destroy a civ without facing any problems.
