attacks from cities

[pineappledan]

The issue is the archer, not all units. I'd rather adjust the unit than punish all other units by increasing base range by 1.

G

who exactly are these “all other units”?

Archer is the only unit unlocked before city range increases to 2. No one would dare attempt a warrior rush, so increasing base range back to 2 really does punish archers exclusively. Spears, horses, etc don’t care; they have had to deal with 2 range cities the whole time.

there is no degree of nerfing where this ceases to be a problem, short of a) archers doing <5 damage per attack or b) we go back to archers being so bad that barbarian horsemen can 1-shot them from the fog of war. If archers can hit a city with no reprisal then, short of the defender being able to tech to and then construct walls in the time it takes for 4 archers to kill the city, this will remain a problem.

I am completely uninterested in some 1-time city malus just to make up for cities’ inability to defend themselves, when returning to a vanilla mechanic would accomplish the same thing. This is needless overcomplication; no more of these bespoke promotions plastering over combat and pulling further and further away from the vanilla game’s base mechanics, please.

 

[LifeOfBrian]

I agree that we'd give the cities 2 range from the start.

 

[theMisterRud]

How about a negative promotion to attack on city lost on upgrade ?

EDIT: implying everything else is in a good spot.

 

[DeAnno]

It's notable that if you are trying some kind of melee rush (like, idk, Jags or Picts), they both will spend a lot of time adjacent to the city, and will likely be on a promo line to reduce the city's damage to them. City Range +1 really does mainly screw only archers (and terrorist pathfinders too I guess.)

 

[Tekamthi]

I'm with G, enjoy VP's progression of city range developing over time... vanilla's 2 base range always struck me as pushing the tolerable abstraction. palace city base 2 seems preferable than all cities base 2 imo, and at least replicates that vanilla effect on player's first city, for sense of familiarity as mentioned above.... or maybe base 2 for hill cities?

anyway i must have some mod active that pushes this effect back, cuz i swear in my current game i was still exploiting the untouchable archer attacks for several eras by exploiting terrain etc. Didn't seem to just end at walls

are there more creative solutions we haven't considered? hand-axe available to players? archer attack on city applies 1-turn expiring promo that blocks it from attacking city again? national wonder available from start that allows player to place a single +1 range building in strategic location? etc...

 

[Heinz_Guderian]

Why overcomplicate things though? 2 range for all cities seems like a good solution. I dont understand the arguments put forward about that being a bad idea

 

[pineappledan]

How about a negative promotion to attack on city lost on upgrade ?

this is exactly what I don’t want. These little promotion “fixes” are so many little fingers in the dike.

we’ve got spearmen with a special anti mounted promotion
VP adds siege units getting cover
Warriors get a special anti-barb promotion
skirmishers have this open terrain doctrine promotion
And now an obsoleting city malus promotion just to get archers past turn 50.

no thank you.

 

[Tekamthi]

'overcomplicate' is a subjective status... priority should be good gameplay imo. the 1-range city start has been status quo in vp for a while, no? seems drastic to revert to the exact same vanilla model now.. that said it'd surely be playable

i'm mostly indifferent about having (low-level) archers vs seige as the game progesses in recent versions.. is there an opportunity to differentiate the two in a way that doesn't kneecap the ai, while also addressing this concern?

 

[theMisterRud]

I wouldn't know if it "bad design" (not a designer, and have not designed anything), but I figure that if the problem is, specifically, archers before turn 50, than the most specific solution is the less side effecting. that's why I pushed the EDIT in the proposal.

Plus, I love the genuine concern I have on the Walls timing as a Tradition player, it gives some spice to an otherwise mostly braindead early game.

 

[BiteInTheMark]

'overcomplicate' is a subjective status... priority should be good gameplay imo. the 1-range city start has been status quo in vp for a while, no? seems drastic to revert to the exact same vanilla model now.. that said it'd surely be playable

i'm mostly indifferent about having (low-level) archers vs seige as the game progesses in recent versions.. is there an opportunity to differentiate the two in a way that doesn't kneecap the ai, while also addressing this concern?

So. Your arguments are..... "it was a long time this way" .... and.... "its like in vanilla, not good, vanilla was evil".
Iam full on the line with @pineappledan, slowly but steady more and more little mechanics are added which makes this game even more complex, and this is not always a good thing. Cities with base 2 range is an easy solution and is able to solve the problem, why denying this solution?

 

[pineappledan]

the 1-range city start has been status quo in vp for a while, no?

archers have not had any special promotions for even longer.

how is 1 ranged cities sacrosanct and not tacking expiring promotions onto single units isn’t?

 

[DeAnno]

To clarify my stance, I like the idea of Palace +1 range the most. It lets the Archer rush still pick off obnoxious forward settles easily while making it harder to cripple or kill a civ by taking their capital. It wouldn't be bad if this bonus even stuck around, making the land around the capital more dangerous even in later ages. With antiwarmonger bonus just reduced it would be a good way to give a bit of bite back to the AI on defense.

 

[pineappledan]

My 1 bugbear with the idea of +1 range on palaces is that it would require new code to not have that stack with walls. I don’t want 3 range capitals in ancient.

 

[Tekamthi]

So. Your arguments are..... "it was a long time this way" .... and.... "its like in vanilla, not good, vanilla was evil".
Iam full on the line with @pineappledan, slowly but steady more and more little mechanics are added which makes this game even more complex, and this is not always a good thing. Cities with base 2 range is an easy solution and is able to solve the problem, why denying this solution?

i'm not gonna repeat myself every post, i have posted several times, in detail throughout this thread if you seek to understand what you're talking about. what you're doing is called gas-lighting or straw-manning, and is poor form for discussion. My last simply offered reasons comparable to the calibre of those that were offered in immediately previous posts.

Your reason from last post, others notwithstanding, suggests that finding an "easy" solution should be the priority. Tic tac toe is easy. It is not fun for more than a minute or two, though. I agree that its a simple approach, fwiw

my point in raising status quo of vp vs reversion to vanilla, is just that it may be simple but a significant change nonetheless due to how long its been around.. i'm not saying such is prohibited, just that it should be weighed against the value of a vanilla mechanic for familiarity's sake. Not in love with that approach.

edit RE: early 3 range cities from palace +1 ranged, /agreed... can it expire/obsolete? somehow not stack with walls? is that too dumb?

 

[Recursive]

this is exactly what I don’t want. These little promotion “fixes” are so many little fingers in the dike.

we’ve got spearmen with a special anti mounted promotion
VP adds siege units getting cover
Warriors get a special anti-barb promotion
skirmishers have this open terrain doctrine promotion
And now an obsoleting city malus promotion just to get archers past turn 50.

no thank you.

'overcomplicate' is a subjective status... priority should be good gameplay imo. the 1-range city start has been status quo in vp for a while, no? seems drastic to revert to the exact same vanilla model now.. that said it'd surely be playable

i'm mostly indifferent about having (low-level) archers vs seige as the game progesses in recent versions.. is there an opportunity to differentiate the two in a way that doesn't kneecap the ai, while also addressing this concern?

VP is already quite a complex game, I don't think a penalty VS cities for Archers is a dealbreaker. They already have one to naval units.

I'm not saying it's the one right solution, but I think it's an option worth considering.

Simplicity is nice but it shouldn't take priority over good gameplay.

 

[BiteInTheMark]

my point in raising status quo of vp vs reversion to vanilla, is just that it may be simple but a significant change nonetheless due to how long its been around.. i'm not saying such is prohibited, just that it should be weighed against the value of a vanilla mechanic for familiarity's sake. Not in love with that approach.

Why do you call it vanilla mechanic? Cities with 2 range are no vodoo. Why so much anger vs. everything like in vanilla?
I dont want that 2 range cause it was in vanilly and by nostalgic reasons. I want it cause its an easy, easy to understand and solid solution to a problem. Better than the next single focused promotion/mechanic/hing/UI.
The game is already complex enough, no need to make normal things even more complicated.

 

[Tekamthi]

Why do you call it vanilla mechanic? Cities with 2 range are no vodoo. Why so much anger vs. everything like in vanilla?

see my last re: gas-lighting... i'll respond to your substantive ideas when you next make a civil post

we have temp after attack promos that expire on naval.. i suggested that a few posts ago that such a temp promo on archer might fit.. its not simple, but within paradigm of existing complexity.. no takers?

 

[Stalker0]

The truth is, every option has pros and cons. We are presenting various ideas to G, with the notion that something should be done. But nothing is free...

1) Reducing Archers: Effects other aspects of warfare and barb handling.
2) 2 range cities: Weakens melee war rushes as well (just because melee units get hit 1 square away doesn't mean 2 squares won't still be a problem for them). Makes forward settled cities even more of a pain to deal with.
3) +1 range capital: Requires special code (no one is asking for 3 range capitals in ancient), doesn't protect satellite cities from getting taken.

 

[DeAnno]

My 1 bugbear with the idea of +1 range on palaces is that it would require new code to not have that stack with walls. I don’t want 3 range capitals in ancient.

Ehhh, is it really that bad? Civs are so easy to cripple in Ancient now, even in higher difficulty. I guess it's pretty weird but it doesn't seem such a terrible thing to me to give the capital some special power.

EDIT: If you don't want that or complicated code a hacky thing you could do is maybe take away the palace defense bonuses but give the capital a free wall on founding.

 

[Tekamthi]

Ehhh, is it really that bad? Civs are so easy to cripple in Ancient now, even in higher difficulty. I guess it's pretty weird but it doesn't seem such a terrible thing to me to give the capital some special power.

yeah this is on my mind, too... i'll often play with my capital surrounded by at least 3-4 satellites, so capital rarely sees much combat if things go as planned, at least until late game. i wont even build walls there unless i get some bonus event on them, or castle. AI seems to have capitals on frontier more often, early 3 range capitals might be a small net boost to AI in this regard? no new code this way

besides the standard progression, what about late founded cities? some options here will impart change to decision making for those, too, and these are out of scope of the original problem we're chasing