Archery units city attack nerf?

[Draco84]

all siege units should start with 3 range. indirect fire could still come at artillery,though. this way on open terrain it's better to bring siege units, while it's still more useful to bring archers on hilly and forested cities.

We can't do that, otherwise you would build 1 horse unit and a few catapults and take cities without being hit AT ALL.

My suggestion would be to increase the base strength of siege units to their current city attack strength (and remove their bonus attack), also give them a 75% defensive penalty when attacked by melee units and a 50% defensive penalty when attacked by ranged units.

How often was a catapult destroyed by a stray arrow? can a archer even destroy a catapult, or just the guy launching the rocks.

This would allow your siege unit to in most cases not be one shot by a city, likely it would survive 2 or 3 rounds, it would also have the side effect of encouraging melee units on defense.

oh, Also I agree with reducing the ranged units attack vs city's by 33% like horse units.

 

[zukenft]

We can't do that, otherwise you would build 1 horse unit and a few catapults and take cities without being hit AT ALL.

so you would reduce the range of artillery and rocket arty to 2 as well?

 

[Gamewizard]

I love siege units. I usually bring 2-4 of them with me. The key is to bring an injured melee unit with you, preferably with the cover promotion. The AI will target injured units before targeting a fully healed siege unit. This strategy combined with pillaging to heal makes taking cities relatively easy...just don't heal your meat shields all the way or else your siege will get blown away.

Chariot archers can get the cover promotion as well. Upgrade them to knights and they become uber meat shields.

 

[JanghanHong]

archers should have 1 range unless they are on a hill.

siege units should already come with a cover promotion since they are machines without much meat density.

siege units should also be able to damage the city unit simultaneously, the point about suppression fire was a nice one.

 

[kaspergm]

I've made a mod that give all my ranged units a -25 % penalty against cities, and have all siege units start with Cover I. Works pretty well like that, I like it that way.

I've also made some other tweaks like Swordsmen and Longswordsmen starting with a +25 % against cities promotion. When you start next to Augustus, you need to be really scared, because you know he'll come knocking on your door with a handful of Legions and Ballistas, and that spells real trouble if you are not prepared.

 

[Greizer85]

archers should have 1 range unless they are on a hill.

That's actually a pretty fine fix, and it's so obvious that I'm shocked I've never seen it suggested before! Maybe give them a tad more melee strength so that they won't get slaughtered instantly in close combat.

siege units should already come with a cover promotion since they are machines without much meat density.

Agreed. Btw have they fixed Cover not working against city attacks yet? Can't even think of how many promos I wasted before I read about that one... If it's intentional then Firaxis' intentions are all out of whack.

siege units should also be able to damage the city unit simultaneously, the point about suppression fire was a nice one.

This is good too, makes them much more useful.

I'd combine these fixes with the nerf to city attack range and power -- then make it so that cities can be founded max 4 hexes from each other. This would significantly lessen the 'congested' feel that battles have in Civ V currently, and lead to field battles as opposed to constant sieges. To the people who would say that the AI can't handle this: well *make* it handle it! If we could get to the Moon in 8 years when Kennedy said so, in 1969, then surely we can make an AI that doesn't suicide its units in the year 2013?

 

[Gehennas]

archers should have 1 range unless they are on a hill.

siege units should already come with a cover promotion since they are machines without much meat density.

siege units should also be able to damage the city unit simultaneously, the point about suppression fire was a nice one.

Totally agree. That makes sense from historical and gameplay point of view.

I think that 2-range archers is a major lack of game design overall - not in just taking cities.

Here how it should have worked: Archers have a range of 2 while infantry has 2 movement points. This means that archers always have a chance to strike infantry before melee at least once. In this situation cavalry becomes an ultimate power for killing archers. It can chase archers, deal damage and escape from infantry/arrows. Here is a rock-scissors-paper situation with cavalry-archers-infantry instead.

The problem is: that really works if there is a large mass of open terrain for war. This usually does not happen.

So, here are my ideas (in addition to JanghanHong's suggestions, or course):

1. Archers strike first when defending against unit with the same speed or lower (hello, Civilization IV).
2. Garrisoned archers have 2 range too.
3. Ranged attacks (including artillery) will make no damage if city HP is lower than 30% (or even 50%) - melee units should take care of the rest.
4. Gatling guns and machineguns should setup before fire.

 

[Mudrac]

Archer units are good as they are already. And in early wars their is no way you can conquer a city using them, you need siege units. I once tried to take over a city without siege units in early war, I had 4 warriors, 1 spearmen and 3 archers, went to enemy's capital, which only had 1 archer fortified, and there was no way I could take that city. The city and archer nearly kills my archers, 1 each turn, spearmen and warriors are ineffective against a city, and I had to retreat eventually, once I brought 2 Catapults the city fell in 3 turns. Archers and their late versions are a little stronger when used on defense picking enemy units one by one, but even then you need close-combat units to defend them, to hold the line, because archers easily get overrun by the enemy. Every unit has its role and there are no useless units. Some are UU are perhaps stronger than the others, but you cannot expect a perfect balance. Every unit is important both in real-time and turn-based strategy games, relaying only on 1 or 2 unit types will get you nowhere.

 

[katfish]

Archer units are good as they are already. And in early wars their is no way you can conquer a city using them, you need siege units. I once tried to take over a city without siege units in early war, I had 4 warriors, 1 spearmen and 3 archers, went to enemy's capital, which only had 1 archer fortified, and there was no way I could take that city. The city and archer nearly kills my archers, 1 each turn, spearmen and warriors are ineffective against a city, and I had to retreat eventually, once I brought 2 Catapults the city fell in 3 turns. Archers and their late versions are a little stronger when used on defense picking enemy units one by one, but even then you need close-combat units to defend them, to hold the line, because archers easily get overrun by the enemy. Every unit has its role and there are no useless units. Some are UU are perhaps stronger than the others, but you cannot expect a perfect balance. Every unit is important both in real-time and turn-based strategy games, relaying only on 1 or 2 unit types will get you nowhere.

1.You don't use archers for capturing. You use Composite Bowmen for Ancient/Renaissance and Crossbowmen for Medieval cities.
2. 3 and Horseman\Scout are enough to capture any city without wall. 5 are more than enough to capture walled capital.

 

[Mudrac]

1.You don't use archers for capturing. You use Composite Bowmen for Ancient/Renaissance and Crossbowmen for Medieval cities.
2. 3 and Horseman\Scout are enough to capture any city without wall. 5 are more than enough to capture walled capital.

I didn't say that I capture cities with Archers, I said I tried, to see if it will work and it didn't. Yeah 3 Archers are enough when you want to capture a fresh, undefended city, but not enough for capital. Siege units are important for capturing a city, unless you swarm your enemy with dozens of units.

 

[killmeplease]

i like what Greizer85 and Kaspergm proposed
i'd like to combine their ideas:
1. set city's attack range to 1 (they throw some crap from walls right?)
2. increase city's hp
3. nerf ranged str (-25 or even -33, melee units should be a backbone of the army not ranged)
4. give +25% vs citys to warrior-swordsman-longsword line of units to make them useful (i'd give warrior and swordsman +25% rough terrain attack as well)

 

[Greizer85]

Archer units are good as they are already. And in early wars their is no way you can conquer a city using them, you need siege units. I once tried to take over a city without siege units in early war, I had 4 warriors, 1 spearmen and 3 archers, went to enemy's capital, which only had 1 archer fortified, and there was no way I could take that city. The city and archer nearly kills my archers, 1 each turn, spearmen and warriors are ineffective against a city, and I had to retreat eventually, once I brought 2 Catapults the city fell in 3 turns. Archers and their late versions are a little stronger when used on defense picking enemy units one by one, but even then you need close-combat units to defend them, to hold the line, because archers easily get overrun by the enemy. Every unit has its role and there are no useless units. Some are UU are perhaps stronger than the others, but you cannot expect a perfect balance. Every unit is important both in real-time and turn-based strategy games, relaying only on 1 or 2 unit types will get you nowhere.

The problem with Catapults and Trebuchets is that they're one-shot by a city/archer combo AND the AI loves to target them as a first priority. When you add the fact that they have to set up before firing and be protected from melee units, what you have is two if not totally useless then nearly useless units. Cannons are a little better due to their increased strength, but even then I rarely bother with them (only if I want to upgrade to Artillery with good promotions).

If you fail to take a city with Composite Bows (never use regular Archers for this!), the solution is either to bring more CBs or wait for Xbows if you're unwilling to accept high losses (or if the enemy has Oligarchy or the belief that gives extra bombard strength for cities). If the enemy has the Great Wall, both Oligarchy and the bombard belief, and/or has Impis or another beastly UU, wait for Artillery (aka Tubes of Humiliation), then proceed to mop up the brainless AI regardless of its other advantages. Frankly I find Artillery op as hell, and Bombers even more so... Indirect/long range fire is simply too powerful when the AI is clueless to counter it. The jump from Cannons to Arty is pretty damn huge, too. A marginally useful, vulnerable unit that can get off a shot or two before its death... Vs. a ghoulishly effective weapon of mass destruction, shooting from off-range and out of sight (need spotters, but still). I'm not sure how to fix this; the best way would be to fix the AI, but the geniuses on these forums will tell you that it's not possible.

 

[EEE_BOY]

1.You don't use archers for capturing. You use Composite Bowmen for Ancient/Renaissance and Crossbowmen for Medieval cities.
2. 3 and Horseman\Scout are enough to capture any city without wall. 5 are more than enough to capture walled capital.

I agree with this. Upgrade as soon as the technology (like construction, machinery) is researched can instantly boost a human civ's offensive ability to take AI's cities by surprise. Besides the construction --> machinery tech path is not that bad to detour before education, which offers a happiness building, aqueduct, market and IW on the way.

siege units on the other hand start with catapult, which is more hammer-expensive than building archers and upgrade to CBs. Catapult--> trebs is not that popular given the place of physics on the tech tree. Unlike the powerful artillery+Calvary combo, going the dynamite path offers much less benefit, so the opportunity cost to go to the dynamite is much more. So hammers and tech path wise, sieges units are balanced.

Human knows how to beeline tech and how to use cash to upgrade, which makes the archery line units (archer-->CB-->Xbow) too powerful that no other lines of units can achieve such efficiency in early warfare. If the combat AI is not that great, at least the advantage of exploiting AI's combat weakness should be reduced.

 

[Mudrac]

The problem with Catapults and Trebuchets is that they're one-shot by a city/archer combo AND the AI loves to target them as a first priority. When you add the fact that they have to set up before firing and be protected from melee units, what you have is two if not totally useless then nearly useless units. Cannons are a little better due to their increased strength, but even then I rarely bother with them (only if I want to upgrade to Artillery with good promotions).

If you fail to take a city with Composite Bows (never use regular Archers for this!), the solution is either to bring more CBs or wait for Xbows if you're unwilling to accept high losses (or if the enemy has Oligarchy or the belief that gives extra bombard strength for cities). If the enemy has the Great Wall, both Oligarchy and the bombard belief, and/or has Impis or another beastly UU, wait for Artillery (aka Tubes of Humiliation), then proceed to mop up the brainless AI regardless of its other advantages. Frankly I find Artillery op as hell, and Bombers even more so... Indirect/long range fire is simply too powerful when the AI is clueless to counter it. The jump from Cannons to Arty is pretty damn huge, too. A marginally useful, vulnerable unit that can get off a shot or two before its death... Vs. a ghoulishly effective weapon of mass destruction, shooting from off-range and out of sight (need spotters, but still). I'm not sure how to fix this; the best way would be to fix the AI, but the geniuses on these forums will tell you that it's not possible.

Composite Bowmen and Crossbows are indeed much stronger and more useful than Archer. But each of us has their opinion, and I think that Siege weapons are important from early on to the very end. Simply, I think that Ranged Units don't need a nerf, although those ideas about melee units having a little bonus against cities and cities only having 1 range (or that they also have 2 but can get obscured by forests and hills) which someone mentioned before are not bad and could be implemented.

 

[Draco84]

Composite Bowmen and Crossbows are indeed much stronger and more useful than Archer. But each of us has their opinion, and I think that Siege weapons are important from early on to the very end. Simply, I think that Ranged Units don't need a nerf, although those ideas about melee units having a little bonus against cities and cities only having 1 range (or that they also have 2 but can get obscured by forests and hills) which someone mentioned before are not bad and could be implemented.

This is what I do if cities have 1 range, I take a army of regular archers and I bombarb the city every turn forever, I never do enough damage to take the city to zero, but that's okay I get 3xp every hit, max out the archer in no time without ever being hit, and keep some other stronger units around to kill the units that do end up coming along.

Even easier against city states.

 

[killmeplease]

This is what I do if cities have 1 range, I take a army of regular archers and I bombarb the city every turn forever, I never do enough damage to take the city to zero, but that's okay I get 3xp every hit, max out the archer in no time without ever being hit, and keep some other stronger units around to kill the units that do end up coming along.

Even easier against city states.

at first you wont be able to annihilate an enemy army with those nerfed archers alone

 

[Makavcio]

My opinion about the issue? Nerf. Nerf significantly.

1) Now, the first useful siege unit is artillery, which is ridiculous.
2) Remove +1 range promotion because it changes archery units and frigates into doomsday devices, especially against AI. AI is practically defenseless against them!
3) Do not buff siege units any further or medieval cities will become a piece of cake for a single catapult. Siege units already have bonus dmg against cities.
4) Do not reduce range of archery units to 1 because it would require a complete rework of the entire combat system in c5.

If it was totally up to me, I'd implement 50% penalty for archery units against cities but also add them +25% dmg bonus when attacking on open terrain and additional 25% for attacking from hills towards lowlands. The last one also applicable on defense. I'd also remove river penalty for archery units.

Early war is not useless. In my current game, I spawned in almost useless tundra start. My capital will most likely never get over 20 pop but I spamed a throng of archers and murdered Austria, Grece and England way before Renaissance. I'm playing on immortal, mind you.

 

[Deggial]

Interesting topic. Unfortuantely, there seem as many opinions as posters in this thread.

Let me continue this trend:

In my Cities and Units-Concept, I proposed some changes regarding city attack radius and the role of fortified units.

The relevant parts:

- cities lose their general 2 tile range-attack. (The “passive” strength stays as it is now.)
- instead, the attack-strength will be tied to defensive buildings:

• unfortified: range 1 attack; 100% attack strength
• Walls: range 2 attack; inner ring: 100%, outer ring: 40% attack strength
• Castle: range 2 attack; inner ring: 100%, outer ring: 70% attack strength
• Arsenal: range 2 attack; both rings 100%
• Military Base: range 3 attack; third ring with 50% attack strength

- If a unit is fortified in a city, this unit must be defeated to take the city.
- The fortified unit can only be attacked when the city is down to 0 health.
- The unit gains +25% strength bonus and “Cover 2”-promotion while fortified.
- The “Siege”-promotion will help attackers to fight against fortified city-defenders.

Building up on this, the role of siege units and archers could be re-evaluated:
- Melee units do full harm to city walls but not to city defenders until the city health is 0.
- Archers may directly attack city defenders, but do little or even no harm to city health.
- Siege units do increased harm to city health, but little or even no harm to defenders (maybe increasing 'collateral dammage' by promotion)

With this proposal, both range units would be useful in a city siege.
Regarding cities without city walls: there could very well be a remarkable leap in city health from unwalled to walled cities, making the former prone to attacks without siege units.

 

[killmeplease]

interesting ideas
historically archers did no damage to city you're right
what they did they helped assault command, covering its advance

 

[KrikkitTwo]

I would just reduce the damage of ALL ranged attacks...and possibly increase Seige weapon bonus

That means the city is less able to kill the Catapults while they are setting up... making it more of a multi turn siege.

It also means that archers begin to lose some of their advantage over melee

And for cities v. archers... the city has a higher hp regeneration.. so stretching it out benefits the city.