attacks from cities

[Snipergw]

I'm definitely opposed to balancing around blockading. I like it conceptually, but it can be incredibly tedious depending on terrain, and the AI doesn't do it perfectly. Current city attack is way too much, it's made the issue where sieges are kinda unfun in VP even worse. Honestly I still defer to Ilteroi and support the idea of just throwing the entire thing out with the bathwater - why do cities need to have inherent "offensive defensive" abilities again? They already have a beefy healthbar that gets beefier with buildings, fixing the "sniping un-garrisoned cities" problem Civ IV had. Give the "units in cities gain strength" effect that some pantheon (or was it policy?) had to castles and armories or something, and we should be in a good state. Cities should fall swiftly when their armies are elsewhere or have been defeated, not obliterating their attackers with a gigantic trebuchet mounted on the castle roof imo.

 

[Stalker0]

Throwing out a more radical idea, something to keep the defensive advantage but removing the city attack.

What if units adjacent to a city got a combat bonus by default? And maybe the defensive buildings increased that over time. The new chu-ko-nu has that code I believe, so what if all units got a bonus?

 

[CrazyG]

Throwing out a more radical idea, something to keep the defensive advantage but removing the city attack.

What if units adjacent to a city got a combat bonus by default? And maybe the defensive buildings increased that over time. The new chu-ko-nu has that code I believe, so what if all units got a bonus?

Does this address archer rushing?
I just took 3 cities without taking damage (other than my pathfinder with the killing blow).

So if you give adjacent units a 20% bonus, I would take 20% more than zero.
Give the cities a 2 range attack with fair damage, generally you at minimum need at least one more archer to get them, and it can make the army harder to deal with too.

 

[Snipergw]

There is also the radical idea of removing the 2 range on early ranged units, which is what has made them so dominant since even the beginning of the base game.

 

[youngsteve]

There is also the radical idea of removing the 2 range on early ranged units, which is what has made them so dominant since even the beginning of the base game.

I have just come & looked at this total conversion mod & it looks really impressive. I started & couldn't understand why my city couldn't reach a roaming barb 2 squares out, then read that early on the city has only one range & gains more as it goes on. I must admit that thinking about this, what a great idea it was. What isn't great though, is how some ranged unit like an archer can sit all around a city shooting at it, but not get hit? This is silly & completely unrealistic. In historical purposes walled cities were extremely hard to take, & usually took a mixture of siege, ranged & melee units to take them, with heavy losses. As an outsider looking in, is there any way early range units could have two range, but only one if attacking a city. Certainly even it out, & make game more challenging. Just a thought.

 

[crdvis16]

There is also the radical idea of removing the 2 range on early ranged units, which is what has made them so dominant since even the beginning of the base game.

Mounted ranged units (chariot archer) would still be able to hit a city and never take damage if the city range isn't base-2.

Giving cities base-2 range is the only way I see that you get rid of cities being capped without the attackers taking damage.

 

[Gazebo]

After testing, I actually think the best solution is to reduce archers to range 1 and bump their RCS slightly. So they'll still be useful in a rush if you use them right (pseudo siege units), but not without retaliation. This retains the pre-walls rush strategy for those who enjoy it, while also allowing for a true counterattack from cities. It also opens up chariot archers to an ancient era role, which they've lacked.

G

 

[pineappledan]

After testing, I actually think the best solution is to reduce archers to range 1 and bump their RCS slightly. So they'll still be useful in a rush if you use them right (pseudo siege units), but not without retaliation. This retains the pre-walls rush strategy for those who enjoy it, while also allowing for a true counterattack from cities. It also opens up chariot archers to an ancient era role, which they've lacked.

skirmishers continue to be changed every 2 versions. Balancing around them doesn’t seem stable. Chariots will still have that -33 penalty on cities, but the role you’re targeting for them specifically has cities in mind?

 

[pineappledan]

Is it just me, or is ancient era becoming over-designed?

city sieges works like X, except in ancient where siege units don’t exist and cities hit 1 tile away.
Archers have 2 range, except in ancient where they have 1
Skirmishers have X role, except in ancient where they are the main city-hitters

it’s like a different game entirely from the rest of the tech eras

 

[crdvis16]

After testing, I actually think the best solution is to reduce archers to range 1 and bump their RCS slightly. So they'll still be useful in a rush if you use them right (pseudo siege units), but not without retaliation. This retains the pre-walls rush strategy for those who enjoy it, while also allowing for a true counterattack from cities. It also opens up chariot archers to an ancient era role, which they've lacked.

G

What do you see as the down side to base 2 city attack range? That seems like the simplest and most robust fix.

 

[DeAnno]

Lowering the range of archers by 1 is pretty huge. Just think of how bad they usually are in jungle. If the RCS is only bumped by 1 or 2 points I'd actually consider them to be quite bad now, but then again they are the only unit unlocked in the first line of techs.

 

[Gazebo]

skirmishers continue to be changed every 2 versions. Balancing around them doesn’t seem stable. Chariots will still have that -33 penalty on cities, but the role you’re targeting for them specifically has cities in mind?

No - they have a mobility advantage over archers. That's their design. Thus far ancient era archers are just so strong that the mobility advantage was irrelevant.

Is it just me, or is ancient era becoming over-designed?

city sieges works like X, except in ancient where siege units don’t exist and cities hit 1 tile away.
Archers have 2 range, except in ancient where they have 1
Skirmishers have X role, except in ancient where they are the main city-hitters

it’s like a different game entirely from the rest of the tech eras

Not over-designed, no. But there are a lot of power spikes you have to account for in the early game, because any gain/loss swing is so big relative to the total number of units/cities on the map. Lots of games struggle with this balance - Through the Ages is a good example of a game with this problem.

What do you see as the down side to base 2 city attack range? That seems like the simplest and most robust fix.

When you increase the range to two before walls, cities get a lot more attacks on units, which makes sub-turn-100 rushes very difficult. I'd like to retain that function and make it such that defense is an investment, not a byproduct, of settling.

G

 

[Stalker0]

Is it just me, or is ancient era becoming over-designed?

city sieges works like X, except in ancient where siege units don’t exist and cities hit 1 tile away.
Archers have 2 range, except in ancient where they have 1
Skirmishers have X role, except in ancient where they are the main city-hitters

it’s like a different game entirely from the rest of the tech eras

In Industrial Era my cities can hit 3 range away. In Modern I have aircraft. In Atomic my skirmishers can hover. In Information I have a unit that can basically teleport to any place in the world. The changing of warfare by era is the norm, not the exception.

That's not to say that the archer 1 range change is the right one....but the idea of adjusting ancient combat is not implicitly a bad idea.

 

[SuperNoobCamper]

I would not personally mess with archers range tbh, sure it would stop early rushes or at least make it harder but it'll result in a useless unit compared to vanilla gateling gun; a squishy unit that has to be in direct contact with enemy units but also does not do crazy amounts of damage to be considered a glass canon worth investing in.
This change will alter a lot in the ancient era not just rushes to take capitals especially dealing with barbarian camps.
I would consider other solutions to nerf the unjustifiably extremely hated upon archer rush before making something as radical as this.

 

[pineappledan]

This change will alter a lot in the ancient era not just rushes to take capitals especially dealing with barbarian camps.

Yup, this will make clearing barb camps way harder and more costly. The barbs will punch an archer back if they are in melee range, and will do significantly more damage because of archer's low CS. Warrior will go back to being the main anti-barb solution, even after archers are unlocked.

 

[Stalker0]

Yup, this will make clearing barb camps way harder and more costly. The barbs will punch an archer back if they are in melee range, and will do significantly more damage because of archer's low CS. Warrior will go back to being the main anti-barb solution, even after archers are unlocked.

Archer's still beat warriors 1 on 1 when they attack first, and with smart play they will. Archers are still stronger than warriors at 1 range, its just warriors might actually see a use in clearing barbs again.

That said, your not wrong that overall barb clearing will be harder with this change.

 

[pineappledan]

But now you have to take x turns after clearing a camp to heal your archer back up. If the barb camp spawns a barb while you are hitting it, ZOC and the fact you already were taking damage will result in way more lost units. The only low-risk option to handle barbs will be chariots, and that’s locked behind horses.

I really, really don’t like this idea. I hadn't even addressed it as a reasonable suggestion until G floated it because I thought it was too ludicrous to be worth refuting. This is going to make early game so incredibly frustrating. How do you balance around only Egypt being able to remove barb camps without reprisal, because he’s the only one who can consistently build chariots fast enough?

 

[Heinz_Guderian]

I agree with dan, what is the point of the unit at that point. I like them vs barbs, early game would be much more tedious with that change.

 

[Gazebo]

But now you have to take x turns after clearing a camp to heal your archer back up. If the barb camp spawns a barb while you are hitting it, ZOC and the fact you already were taking damage will result in way more lost units. The only low-risk option to handle barbs will be chariots, and that’s locked behind horses.

I really, really don’t like this idea. I hadn't even addressed it as a reasonable suggestion until G floated it because I thought it was too ludicrous to be worth refuting. This is going to make early game so incredibly frustrating. How do you balance around only Egypt being able to remove barb camps without reprisal, because he’s the only one who can consistently build chariots fast enough?

It is hardly ludicrous. If a single unit stands out as the primary barb clearer, early rusher, and early defender...you don't think that's a problem? I do. With this change:

• Warriors and spearmen come back into play for barbs and attacks
• Chariots have a mobility advantage over archers to give them early play
• Early expansion is a little slower due to camp control/clearing
• Early rushes are no longer counter-less
• Early defense is slightly easier due to the positioning of ranged power versus cities

Those are all positives, with the only cost being the archer is nerfed.

G

 

[crdvis16]

It is hardly ludicrous. If a single unit stands out as the primary barb clearer, early rusher, and early defender...you don't think that's a problem? I do. With this change:

• Warriors and spearmen come back into play for barbs and attacks
• Chariots have a mobility advantage over archers to give them early play
• Early expansion is a little slower due to camp control/clearing
• Early rushes are no longer counter-less
• Early defense is slightly easier due to the positioning of ranged power versus cities

Those are all positives, with the only cost being the archer is nerfed.

G

Well I for one am happy to try it out.