Why have melee been allowed to be so bad for so long?

[mistermoo33]

Simple question.

Melee units are basically only necessary for their unique role as the only units that can capture cities, but beyond that they are just fundamentally weak. The difference between an archer that can attack a unit 2 hexes away without being punished and a warrior that can only attack at 1 range and loses health when it attacks is just huge. The combat strength difference simply does not make up for it.

It's ridiculous that a warrior can attack a city and lose half his health, while an archer can attack the same city and do marginally less damage, lose 0 health, do it from range, and not suffer from the hex economy problems that melee units do.

The fact is in Civ5 there is rarely if ever any effort to prevent melee units from surrounding a city because the best course of action is to just fortify the melee unit while they sit there stupidly letting the real units do the work, because should they dare attack they put themselves under a hp threshhold at which they can be killed by the city and the ranged unit in it.

Siege units are in a pretty good place. Ranged units are in a good place, if not OP in a few situations. Mounted/Armored units are okay in their niche of threatening a large area, but given their melee range could use some help. Infantry-type units, which should arguably be the backbones of armies throughout the ages, basically have nothing to do but stand around and try not to die.

A possible solution would be to reduce the damage non-ranged units take when attacking cities and other units, since right now the difference in damage taken on offense between a ranged unit and a melee unit is immense. Civs like Germany and Japan visibly suffer from bonuses and UUs that benefit or encourage melee-heavy strategies/policies.

Why has this balance issue which causes ubiquitously ranged-unit-heavy armies for anyone that has a clue been allowed to persist for so long?

Edit for clarity (post is also later in the thread):

I feel I should clarify which melee units I think need a lot of help, and which are fine.

The two units that need the most help are swordsmen and longswordsmen. Spearman and pikeman are fine where they are. Let's delve into the reasons for this.

1. Swordsman and Longswordsman require iron, Spearman and Pikemen do not.
2. Spearman and Pikemen require very little tech investment, while Swordsmen and Longswordsmen require ironworking and steel, respectively. Civil Service is a solid tech in its own right since it improves your freshwater farms. Perhaps even more importantly, you'll unlock CS anyway on the road to Education, one of the most important techs in the game. Unlocking Swordsman and Longswordsmen have a big opportunity cost as far as developing the infrastructure of your empire and accelerating your tech progression; Unlocking Spearman has little opportunity cost, and unlocking Pikemen has almost none.
3. Spearman and Pikemen are able to fill the same role that Swordsmen and Longswordsmen do. They both can fortify in a hill/forest next to a city, exerting a ZoC and waiting for the city to drop to almost 0 health so they can cap it. The extra combat strength of SM and LSM doesn't really come into play here. All 4 melee units generally have to fortify next to the city because if they choose to attack it, you risk having them sniped and then having no melee units left. If you build a lot of melee to counteract the risk of losing all your melee, the city siege either takes longer (if you don't attack with your melee) or becomes much costlier (since melee units lose hp each time they attack, while ranged do not).
4. Spearmen and Pikemen have the added utility of being able to devastate mounted units. Their effective combat strength against these units is 16.5 and 24, respectively.
5. Spearmen require 56 hammers to SM's 75. Pikemen require 90 hammers to LSM's 120.

Literally the only thing that the iron-requiring units have over their cheaper, conveniently-unlocked, horse-killing, role-stealing cousins is a few measly combat points.

Furthermore, Musketmen are in an okay spot. Not good, because they're melee, but not horrible. Why?

1. They require no strategic resources.
2. The 2-range equivalent to Musketmen are Cannons, which can only be unlocked after teching to Musketmen in the first place. Comparatively, CBs and XBs can be teched to with more economical tech paths than SM and LSM, respectively. In fact, CBs are 1-tier lower than SMs, while XBs's tech requires 3 less than LSM's (XB requires engineering, LSM requires engineering + Bronzeworking, Ironworking, Metal Casting). Further, and more obviously, cannon's require a set-up while CB and XB do not, meaning Cannons can not kite.
3. They are not outshined by the anti-cavalry of the era, because Lancer's simply can not fortify under a city to exert ZoC + wait for cap.

That said, it's still not advisable to mass musketmen as a strategy (much to the disappointment of America/France) simply because MM, while good for fortifying under a city and creating pressure around it, are not actually good for attacking the city itself, and you'll want as many units as possible attacking the city. Hence, you usually see mass cannons, or even XB + cannon, at this stage in the game to take cities.

After all's said, I think it's clear that SM and LSM at least need a buff, if not MM as well. In retrospect, my suggestion to change the mechanics of melee combat falls flat since you don't want to buff Spearmen/Pikemen, as they admirably fill the role of "defensive/utilitarian melee unit." Perhaps a simple combat boost to SM and LSM really is all that's needed. Alternately, perhaps SM and later units in that upgrade path (LSM, MM, Riflemen, etc) should start with a promotion that reads "+25% damage when attacking other units and cities." My reasoning for this is that Spearmen and Pikemen are largely defensive/utility units, so SM/LSM should be offensive units. Note this promotion wouldn't be available to warriors so as to prevent total cheese with jaguars/maoris/etc, but would indirectly be available to those units by premaking them and later upgrading them.

 

[swimslave]

There's another option --- make it so all ranged units can only fire 1 tile instead of two. If they get the range promotion they can fire 2.

However, seige units should keep their 2 tile range (and later 3 with artillery).

 

[GreenThings]

Or if range units had to be immobile in the turn before they fire, like a set up time. Alternatively they could just make melee units better by raising the combat strength.

Sent from my SPH-L710 using Tapatalk 2

 

[AW Arcaeca]

Well, if the archer and siege units do all the work anyway, do the melee units really need to be strong? I've noticed they're really just needed to keep the city defenders busy for a while, so it doesn't really matter how strong they are as long as you have a lot of them.
And of course, a lot of artillery to actually attack.

 

[bobbo008]

I could understand if there were time periods where they were relatively weak (World War I comes to mind), but what about the opposite times (Alexander the Great's run)?

I think there were Civ IV mods that gave units advantages over units from a previous era, I'd support a return to that. I mean, I never understood those knights throwing heat-seeking missiles at my bombers and damaging them...

 

[Fish Man]

I think melee units are just fine. The enemy cities/units focus fire on melee units, so if you're up against a strong city and don't have advanced or many melee units, all of them will die and you won't be able to capture the city. The firing-1-tile away nerf is unneeded since otherwise it won't even get a chance to fire before melee units destroy it (they can stay 1 tile out of range and then strike). There's a reason no sane human would ever build a Gatling gun or machine gun.

Melee units, on the other hand, always have the highest combat strength of their respective eras. They also have a promotion specializing in taking cities. I can't really explain why they're so good; there's not really a definite reason - but on the battlefield, an army with 33% ranged/33% siege/33% melee will almost win a battle against an army made 25% melee, 50% ranged, and 25% siege.

 

[Matthew.]

Meh. They make decent obstacles on the battlefield, which I suppose is their niche role. Fortify with Cover II and keep a medic cavalry near. With enough promotions they are nigh invincible.

The issue has always been that ranged units can clear the battlefield more effectively and cheaper making the investment into more than a couple of pikes or a horseman a waste of hammers.

 

[Hussah]

Perhaps drastically lower the melee strength of ranged units would be a possible solution? It's historically correct as well. A bunch of troops with swords and shields attacking a group of archers will take some hit at first, but once they close the range it's a very onesided battle.

This would require you to get more melee units to protect your ranged units through ZoC or occupying enough tiles.

 

[MerchantCo]

Spam the melee units, let them rush up front, and use them as meat shields while the ranged units pick off the enemy. Ranged units are simply support, and cannot work by themselves [enemy melee vs. your ranged units = loss].

 

[_invy_]

Spam the melee units, let them rush up front, and use them as meat shields while the ranged units pick off the enemy. Ranged units are simply support, and cannot work by themselves [enemy melee vs. your ranged units = loss].

Actually in Civ5, if you position range units smartly, melee units can't even get close to hurt them. And its very easy to position units better than AI can. Mounted units work best vs archers and generally archers have some troubles in forested areas, but there's not that much forests/jungles in the game. Everything summed up, I think archers are too strong.

 

[jango76]

Meh. They make decent obstacles on the battlefield, which I suppose is their niche role. Fortify with Cover II and keep a medic cavalry near. With enough promotions they are nigh invincible.

The issue has always been that ranged units can clear the battlefield more effectively and cheaper making the investment into more than a couple of pikes or a horseman a waste of hammers.

Well, exactly. The mistake people make is not realizing that the different types of unit are specifically designed to have different roles (in a stone/paper/scissors kind of way), and then they decide that "unit type X is garbage" because they are fundamentally misusing them.

Melee units are essentially defensive, and they can and should used be used tactically to hold down key positions, establishing ZOC or otherwise hampering enemy mobility on the field of battle. Fortify them for two turns in rough terrain, and their high combat strength lets them withstand a lot of punishment, especially with a few promotions and help from things like the Discipline policy or a nearby healer.

If you try to use melee units for all-out attack, of course they can kind of do that, but it's not their speciality, and it shouldn't be your plan A. If you always try to use melee units like that, then sure you're going to conclude that they suck.

If you want to launch a head-on hand-to-hand attack, that's what mounted units are for.

Using lots of ranged does usually work against the AI as long as the terrain is reasonable, but if it was just a bit smarter about using its own mounted units to flank and cut down poorly-protected human armies consisting of 90% ranged, people's opinions might change...

 

[Chiatroll]

I dislike being the person making excuses for a unit but I actually like my melee units. I feel they have two jobs. 1 they take cities. 1 they fortify and put up a zone of control protecting ranged units because with great general + zone of control + level modifiers +terrain they can be a pain for the enemy to take out. They take damage and lose their fortify and don't heal that turn if they attack so I recommend not attacking with them.

I'm not the only one who has defender city invasions of like 16+ units attacking me using about 4 well placed units.

 

[mothergoose]

yeah I think the role of melee units is to zone rather than inflict damage. Be a line of barbwire the enemy must cross to get at your seige weapons. In the industrial and modern era the melee units become a lot more mobile so their disadvantages are offset some. IMO most of the units in the game seem fairly well balanced to me, at least from a fundamental standpoint and definitely up until the modern era.

 

[mothergoose]

I will say that is bothers me some how they reblanced in BNW. It used to be that if you could get calvary into the back line you could take out most ranged and seige weapons with one hit. Now it takes two or three, reserving cavalary for quick reinforcements or harrass tactics. I do appreciate the 100 health vs 10 health nonsense, but that as consistently bothered me.

 

[Chiatroll]

yeah I think the role of melee units is to zone rather than inflict damage. Be a line of barbwire the enemy must cross to get at your seige weapons.

Special cases for UU abilities of Aztecs, Ottomans, and sometimes Indonesians where they zone and take the final strike.

 

[mistermoo33]

Well, exactly. The mistake people make is not realizing that the different types of unit are specifically designed to have different roles (in a stone/paper/scissors kind of way), and then they decide that "unit type X is garbage" because they are fundamentally misusing them.

Melee units are essentially defensive, and they can and should used be used tactically to hold down key positions, establishing ZOC or otherwise hampering enemy mobility on the field of battle. Fortify them for two turns in rough terrain, and their high combat strength lets them withstand a lot of punishment, especially with a few promotions and help from things like the Discipline policy or a nearby healer.

If you try to use melee units for all-out attack, of course they can kind of do that, but it's not their speciality, and it shouldn't be your plan A. If you always try to use melee units like that, then sure you're going to conclude that they suck.

If you want to launch a head-on hand-to-hand attack, that's what mounted units are for.

Using lots of ranged does usually work against the AI as long as the terrain is reasonable, but if it was just a bit smarter about using its own mounted units to flank and cut down poorly-protected human armies consisting of 90% ranged, people's opinions might change...

I assure you I know how to use melee. I find it hilarious you presume it's not obvious to anyone who gets this game how to use melee. The problem is their niche use does not justify making more than a handful of them for any given situation. Mass ranged units is viable. In fact you will need a lot of ranged units even if melee is buffed because of a lot of situations with demanding hex economy because of 1upt.

Ranged units can attack from 2 tiles away. Ranged units can attack without taking damage back. Ranged units can attack from cities to completely nullify their "vulnerability." Ranged units can move backwards and kite anyone dumb enough to try taking them out with even-tech melee units.

You say melee are "defensive" but what you fail to understand is that ranged units are just as defensive because they threaten a much larger area, and threaten it without risking their own HP. There's a reason every competitive multiplayer game pretty much devolves into "how few CBs/XBs can I get away with making" on the defensive side.

Realize that no one has ever said "wow, hope my cities don't get swarmed by landchnekts/longswordsmen." It's always "wow, hope my cities don't get swarmed by 2 melee + 10 billion ranged units." Iron is still a weak resource because the units it supports are melee, and therefore fundamentally weak. This isn't how it should be, it's just dumb.

Melee units should take 50% less damage when they attack unfortified units and cities so that they actually have offensive potential. It would hardly be OP because ranged units would still be able to hit them without taking damage; ranged units would still be a compelling option. If you disagree you simply don't realize how strong ranged units are right now.

 

[Gaizokubanou]

Melee units should be lot more 'tankier'. Their current killing power is pretty spot on IMO. But they are just way too fragile.

Melee units should have 150 ~ 200 HP. They already hit hard. The problem is they have to soak up lot of hits as they fight, and they can't really tank too much without just vastly overpowering range units with current 100hp-for-all system.

 

[Putmalk]

Melee units should be lot more 'tankier'. Their current killing power is pretty spot on IMO. But they are just way too fragile.

Melee units should have 150 ~ 200 HP. They already hit hard. The problem is they have to soak up lot of hits as they fight, and they can't really tank too much without just vastly overpowering range units with current 100hp-for-all system.

The problem becomes that melee vs. melee combat just becomes a defender-fest. Unless you mean that melee units should have natural defense against ranged units? I guess that could work.

Also does anyone else think it's ridiculous a city can take 70%+ health off a unit?

 

[mistermoo33]

The problem becomes that melee vs. melee combat just becomes a defender-fest. Unless you mean that melee units should have natural defense against ranged units? I guess that could work.

Also does anyone else think it's ridiculous a city can take 70%+ health off a unit?

Exactly. When melee units are the ones initiating an attack they shouldn't have to lose anywhere from 30 to 70% of their health. It totally eliminates melee-heavy compositions as an option because ranged units are the only ones that can realistically attack them.

If you have 4 melee units and they all attack a city, you basically just gave the city 4 extra attacks.

People are even singing praise for fortified melee units, but the reality is the burden of aggression goes to the melee unit user because the ranged unit user will just chip them from a safe distance until they either move or die. Alternately they can just ignore the fortified unit that is accomplishing little to nothing and focus the ranged "support" that's actually doing work.

 

[Callonia]

I don't get it.

Ranged = fist to the face and they go down faster than a house of cards on windy day.

If I went 90% ranged, my army would've been cut up by samurais spamming cover 2 promos.

Melee unit = denial of entry. If enemy wants through, your unit must die if it cannot die, they cannot get through.

Is it getting low on health?

Withdraw it and send in the reserves.

And people complaining about giving the city 4 extra attacks.... You're supposed to make those attacks count. Ideally, you're chipping away like 25 hp per attack and those is 100 hp loss in a single turn from 4 melee units.




Example:

City haz 250 hp.

You haz 4 swordmen
2 archers
2 catapults.

Enemy have 8 units enroute in 3 turns and you want to take this city NOW to steal the great works and pillage the building for cash and run away?

Turn 1
Catapults fire and knock off 75 hp.
Archers knock off 30 hp
4 melee units knock off 100 hp.

City haz 45 hp left now.

City recovers 25 hp

Turn 2.
City only haz 65 hp left and you take it effortlessly and decide to keep it and you use your remaining 3 least damaged units to fortify against the enemy force of 8 units.

It is now your territory and you're healing in fortify mode for minimum of 20 hp a turn. Promos whatever you pick.


Melee units let you hold onto your conquests.

Ranged cannot.