Archers Should Not be Able to Damage Cities

[isau]

Giving this its own thread because I think it deserves it.

Archers as the premier unit for taking cities is back and it's way imbalanced. I can take a city from an AI early with just two Archers (on Emperor) and a Warrior to run in and grab it. Three or four Archers can take it in just a few turns.

I think an Archer just should not be able to damage a city period. If Archers must play a role in sieges, have their arrows hit units hiding in cities and bypass the city walls entirely. But to avoid confusing the AI (who never uses Archers in their sieges anyway) I think Archers just shouldn't be able to damage them. Archers are more than powerful enough as is as defensive units.

 

[TehJumpingJawa]

Archers specifically? or all ranged units, leaving only bombardment units able to damage cities?

 

[Kouvb593kdnuewnd]

I think archers have a 50% damage reduction against walls which is not much given that melee units only do 15% damage against walls.
Bombard units hit with full strength, archers could very well be nerfed to the 15% level, they are really vurnable now to other ranged unit which generally make them rather weak then used in offensives against well protected defending ranged units who kill them in two hits or so.

 

[CaiusDrewart]

Yes. I fully endorse this.

I hate that the best way to conquer in Civ VI (and in Civ V) is to build a horde of Archers and have them whittle down city defenses (occasionally taking a break to gun down any AI unit that ventures out of the city.) Your one or two melee units that tagged along can then finish the job after the defenses are done. Yuck.

I think I would further nerf Archers by giving them -5 ranged strength outside of cities. I think their primary niche should be as city garrison units.

But seriously, why would anyone ever build a catapult right now? Or why even bother with strategic resources and encampments when cheap, resourceless Archers are the best way to conquer?

I seriously think that the folks at Firaxis have no idea how to properly play 1UPT (I watched their livestreams!), and have no idea how insanely broken ranged units are. What they do is much like what the AI does--they build mostly melee units, with a ranged unit or two as support, and advance toward a city. They think the system is working fine. They have no idea how much more efficient huge groups of ranged units are.

To make up for the fact that Archers can no longer damage cities, besieged cities should lose 10% of their original health per turn. That more accurately simulates a siege, and means melee units play a key role in the capturing of cities (as it should be).

 

[Kouvb593kdnuewnd]

I have not used archer in any offensives, I simply rush the city with melee units and that basically it.

 

[HF22]

Anything which helps melee units has to help the AI I would think. They do appear to be able to use the melee style (no upgrade required) religious units reasonably well.

 

[CaiusDrewart]

Anything which helps melee units has to help the AI I would think. They do appear to be able to use the melee style (no upgrade required) religious units reasonably well.

Yes! The side benefit of nerfing Archers and putting the primary focus back on all the other unit types is that it helps the AI. I think this change would make the game considerably harder. (And right now, the game is too easy.)

 

[isau]

I think archers have a 50% damage reduction against walls which is not much given that melee units only do 15% damage against walls.
Bombard units hit with full strength, archers could very well be nerfed to the 15% level, they are really vurnable now to other ranged unit which generally make them rather weak then used in offensives against well protected defending ranged units who kill them in two hits or so.

Archers have the advantage of mobility even more so in Civ VI than in V because melee units simply can't catch them easily. If you stand on a forested hill or one tile back from a river, any unit trying to catch you has to spend two turns, and by the time they do, they no longer have sufficient attack strength. Archers can also easily blast down an enemy capital without taking any damage to themselves. The capitals can't even fight back.

We're back where Civ V was with the Archer invasion being the best way to invade. It never should have been a thing in Civ V and really needs to be fixed in the sequel.

 

[CaiusDrewart]

Archers have the advantage of mobility even more so in Civ VI than in V because melee units simply can't catch them easily. If you stand on a forested hill or one tile back from a river, any unit trying to catch you has to spend two turns, and by the time they do, they no longer have sufficient attack strange. Archers can also easily blast down an enemy capital without taking any damage to themselves. The capitals can't even fight back.

We're back where Civ V was with the Archer invasion being the best way to invade. It never should have been a thing in Civ V and really needs to be fixed in the sequel.

Yep. The fact that Archers can slowly whittle down city defenses without taking damage is just enormous. Melee units who try to slowly whittle down city defenses die.

The new siege mechanic helps make melee-oriented conquest a little more viable, but melee units still can't compete with archers. You still at some point have to deal damage to the city, and melee units suck at doing that. That's why I think besieging a city should cause it lose health (rather than merely not heal health). That way melee units also have a way to damage a city without taking damage in return. Then they could legitimately compete with ranged units in this regard. Plus, having a besieged city lose health is nicely thematic.

 

[Kouvb593kdnuewnd]

I don't think archers are to strong. Yes the are really great with forts or great wall behind on a hill with another hill protecting them from both melee and ranged attacks but atleast ai ranged units are just killed instantly by my own ranged unit because melee strength is what protect ranged units and it is really low for ranged unit so it is basically who can fire first who wins ranged duels and that make ranged units really weak then used aggresivly especially against fortified defending ranged units.

I find cavalry to be the best offensive unit, mobility, ignore zone of control, flanking, heavy cav is very strong against ranged attacks and more or less instakill ranged units. Add a great general and the archers are not safe if they make a shot against your cavalry. They are also more mobile so they can go city after city more quicker then archers.

If the ai built walls, placed some ranged units on defensive locations then your archers would not be much use. It is more the ai faults that you can do so well with archers then the games fault.

 

[CaiusDrewart]

I don't think archers are to strong. Yes the are really great with forts or great wall behind on a hill with another hill protecting them from both melee and ranged attacks but atleast ai ranged units are just killed instantly by my own ranged unit because melee strength is what protect ranged units and it is really low for ranged unit so it is basically who can fire first who wins ranged duels and that make ranged units really weak then used aggresivly especially against fortified defending ranged units.

I find cavalry to be the best offensive unit, mobility, ignore zone of control, flanking, heavy cav is very strong against ranged attacks and more or less instakill ranged units. Add a great general and the archers are not safe if they make a shot against your cavalry. They are also more mobile so they can go city after city more quicker then archers.

You're right that cavalry units are also really strong. It's the poor melee units that are getting shafted at the moment. For some reason they decided to make Horsemen cheaper than Swordsmen (80 compared to 90), even though they have the same combat strength (35) and Horsemen are twice as fast. Horsemen also get a better policy card (100% production instead of 50%) and a better location on the tech tree (on the way to industrial zones, whereas swordsmen are on the way to nothing interesting). Swordsmen and Spearmen are just terrible in the current game.

However, you are totally wrong about Archers. They're dirty cheap--50 production, or a mere 30 gold to upgrade from a Slinger (I think this should be increased to at least 50.) You said earlier in this thread that you haven't tried using lots of Archers in offensives. Try it. You'll see how efficient they are.

 

[isau]

I don't think archers are to strong. Yes the are really great with forts or great wall behind on a hill with another hill protecting them from both melee and ranged attacks but atleast ai ranged units are just killed instantly by my own ranged unit because melee strength is what protect ranged units and it is really low for ranged unit so it is basically who can fire first who wins ranged duels and that make ranged units really weak then used aggresivly especially against fortified defending ranged units.

I find cavalry to be the best offensive unit, mobility, ignore zone of control, flanking, heavy cav is very strong against ranged attacks and more or less instakill ranged units. Add a great general and the archers are not safe if they make a shot against your cavalry. They are also more mobile so they can go city after city more quicker then archers.

If the ai built walls, placed some ranged units on defensive locations then your archers would not be much use.

Heavy cav require resources. Archers do not. They are also available by the second tech and upgrade from Slingers for just 30 gold.

 

[MyOtherName]

At Deity, the AI often has chariots and/or walls by the time you could mount an archer attack, which really slows it down -- can possibly even break the rush.

 

[isau]

Here's an example of a Turn 37 Archer siege. Note the Archer on the hill and how the AI is trying to reach him but can't because the new movement rules mean anybody trying to charge you gets caught out in the open. In fact, the fact that it's an open tile is to my advantage, because it means they'll take extra damage when they head toward me. Archers benefit hugely from the new movement rules where Melee units, who are part of a line requiring resources (beyond the Warrior) are terrible.

Also note the HP of this city. That's not from concentrated fire of the whole Archer group, only the two of them that have been able to shoot it a few times.

This is just one of many, many of these sieges I've been able to launch almost effortlessly.

(I didn't mention the Settler trapped in the city, who of course when I took the city turned over to me and give me yet another free city).

Now, if it's supposed to be the case that Archers can take a city like this, the AI needs to learn how to do it to players. And I really don't think a lot of players would like that.

Right now I'm basically just not allowing myself to use this strategy because its far too easy even on Emperor, works with any civ, and the investment is so low it doesn't slow my progress at all.

 

[Ozisl]

Here's an example of a Turn 37 Archer siege. Note the Archer on the hill

Well, I can note archers... hills, not so much.

 

[isau]

Well, I can note archers... hills, not so much.

Ah yes he wasn't on a hill. It was plains. All I did was take a step backward. It does mean that Archer can't hit the city this turn, but doesn't matter, because he'd be shooting the Warrior, who also can't reach him.

 

[Kouvb593kdnuewnd]

If you used heavy chariots you could also capture the city in the screenshot without much trouble.

One way would allow unit to attack other units with only one movement point needed, so the warrior could attack the archer but it would still not change much as the main problem is with the ai and not the units althougth the units could need some rebalancing work.

2 warriors and an unwalled city is simply just not enough.

 

[Qin Shi Hung]

Melee units should be able to attack after moving one tile, even if they don't have enough movement remaining to enter the second tile.

 

[isau]

If you used heavy chariots you could also capture the city in the screenshot without much trouble.

One way would allow unit to attack other units with only one movement point needed, so the warrior could attack the archer but it would still not change much as the main problem is with the ai and not the units althougth the units could need some rebalancing work.

If you have a start that supports that. Archers are a total no brainer.

Chariot requires Horses and the Eureka for the Wheel is "Mine a resource" which is one of the rarer ones. Then once you unlock the Wheel tech you have to fresh build those chariots from scratch or buy them full price.

Archery's Eureka is: Kill a unit with a Slinger. That same Slinger and any others you immediately upgrade for 30 gold. Boom--instant army by turn 20 or earlier.

 

[Stalker0]

This is an area where Realism needs to trump Realism. Realistically, archers can do more damage to a walled city than a melee unit can. But even more realistically, neither of them is going to do squat until the wall is breached. And once the wall is breached, melee units are very important to push into the city, archers only have the breach hole to shoot in, and there's only so much you can do there.

I do like the idea of a sieged city losing health each turn to represent a city slowly dying to a siege. That is how most walled cities were taken, either that or good catapults.