Can we please go back to melee unit dominance over ranged please?

[megabearsfan]

I would also suggest a few other combat rule changes for navies:

1.) Penalty when a land unit or city bombards a naval unit (to make early naval units more viable, since they can't retreat to deep ocean to escape bombardment range).

2.) Reduce city bombard strength. If players are forced to bring siege units against a city, then the siege units should be able to survive long enough to get at least one shot off. Similarly, the City Raider promotion for naval units is worthless until Privateers because Triremes and Caravels are so weak against cities that they can't survive attacking and then being bombarded by the city and a garrisoned unit. The best defense against a navy should be your own navy!

3.) Allow melee naval units to capture barbarian encampments that are on a coastal tile. After destroying the encampment, the unit can just be moved back to the sea tile that it attacked from. This would be akin to a ship or fleet dispatching a small detachment of marines to clear up the enemy camp. This gives much higher value to melee naval units, since they can be used as anti-barbarian forces instead of just recon and defensive units.

4.) Allow naval without Supply to heal whenever adjacent to land. This simulates anchoring at a beach and sending scouts ashore to gather supplies and provisions to repair the ship and treat injured crew. This adds more value to early naval units since it allows them to explore further, participate in war efforts, and it synergizes well with suggestion (3.) above.

 

[headcase]

I really like RedAxe's idea of having further ranged shots do less damage. I'll personally pass on the other nerfs, but would also make the non-ranged strength a bit less, so melee units can do more damage in one attack and take less in return.

If I were to nerf the actual ranged damage, I would be tempted to make Logistics easier to access. Yeah, I know Logistics is really powerful, but it's also good for rewarding units that don't need to move this turn. It could even be a default game mechanic (ie free promotion for all units) if the ranged strength was nerfed enough. Then you'd really need to get a formation dug in firmly to take full advantage of ranged units.

 

[Redaxe]

I really like RedAxe's idea of having further ranged shots do less damage. I'll personally pass on the other nerfs, but would also make the non-ranged strength a bit less, so melee units can do more damage in one attack and take less in return.

If I were to nerf the actual ranged damage, I would be tempted to make Logistics easier to access. Yeah, I know Logistics is really powerful, but it's also good for rewarding units that don't need to move this turn. It could even be a default game mechanic (ie free promotion for all units) if the ranged strength was nerfed enough. Then you'd really need to get a formation dug in firmly to take full advantage of ranged units.

What should the max range damage penalty be? I think somewhere around 25% would be about right. Also should it apply to siege units like catapults and artillery or just standard range units like archers?

 

[RonMar]

Leaving things as they are is fine with me.

 

[Sturmgewher88mm]

Leaving things as they are is fine with me.

Agreed.

 

[Ravellion]

Leaving things as they are is fine with me.

Really? You get attacked by the AI in an adequately intelligent manner?

 

[Walter R]

Really? You get attacked by the AI in an adequately intelligent manner?

Absolutely! (not). Isn't that the point of the post? That if the AI was more capable on combat (especially naval combat) we wouldn't be having this discussion?

 

[Hakan-i Cihan]

If the adequate use by the AI of archer-line units is the matter, maybe they should besides the proposed nerfs also boost them a bit. Because now most of the times when you are attacked if you take out the melee units the attack is practically over. Even if more than 4 archery units have surrounded your units. They will will take down the cities hp to zero but are unable to take it. My suggestion for this is allow all ranged units with the exception of siege units to take over a city. An extended idea is to give cities a maximum limit on ranged attack damage which is also determined by the defending unit within the city and maybe even defensive buildings.

For example normal city without any unit in it can take upto 95% damage from range attacks. If there is a unit fortifying it the maximum damage is lowered to 90%. And if there are also defensive buildings this could be lowered even more.

This idea also makes melee units more useful. The AI is able to use (only) ranged units to take over a city.

 

[Quineloe]

The point of archery line of units shouldn't be for capturing cities but for supporting melee infantry. Catapults are there for a reason and its very easy to use. Send a melee in to tank, once its injured, send catapult in. Even the mongols did not capture cities with keshiks, they had very sophisticated siege equipment and also relied alot on ploys to draw enemy out of their castles.

Sent from my Galaxy Nexus using Tapatalk

The AI being too stupid to properly defend itself in a siege doesn't really do anything for multiplayer.

 

[Walter R]

The AI being too stupid to properly defend itself in a siege doesn't really do anything for multiplayer.

I was thinking how cool it would be if you started a game on line thinking you were playing just against the AI, when in reality a skilled human player was working the AI end. Obviously I haven't the faintest idea how this could actually be achieved (please don't say MP, the whole point is that you THINK it's the AI suddenly getting smart). Imagine the 'AI' really handing you your ass and you thinking "WTF just happened?"! Even better if you then started a thread on how the AI just got really smart in your last game...

 

[headcase]

What should the max range damage penalty be? I think somewhere around 25% would be about right. Also should it apply to siege units like catapults and artillery or just standard range units like archers?

25%, 33%, maybe even 50%. Hard to say without simulating some battles (and it also depending on what else is changed... for example, the higher numbers make more sense in a world where all archer-type units get logistics for free). Siege units feel pretty in-place as they are. I'm not sure if I'd give them the penalty, but if I did, I'd increase their ranged strength so they're a bit stronger than before when next to the city, and a bit weaker when 2 tiles away.

 

[Babri]

Some of the problem with ranged attacks are:-

1. Ranged attacks with >1 range can focus fire more easily than melee units.
2. Ranged units receive no damage while attacking. On the other hand they have enough strength to defend adequately when defending.
3. Ranged attacks has the advantage of attacking first, this can also help in eliminating enemies before any form of retaliation.
4. You can attack & destroy units without entering in a danger zone when using ranged attacks.
5. Land ranged units can attack melee ships without any retaliation, and ships can attack land melee units without any sort of retaliation.

Here are my suggested solutions:-

1. Ranged units should deal no damage when defending.
2. Ranged units should deal lesser damage to already damaged units. This would make melee units more important in giving the finishing blow. The penalty shouldn't be too severe though, otherwise it could cripple a ranged based civ such as Mongols.
3. Melee ships should be able to board & attack land units on coastal tiles. This would make melee ships much more important & you won't be any longer destroying caravels with crossbows.
4. Bombard promos for ships that provide bonus Vs land units should be nerfed to acceptable level.
5. Ranged attack should consume 2 moves. (for Keshiks & Camels) Exception is Chu ku nus.
6. Flanking bonus should be increased to 15 or 20%. AI is generally good at surrounding units. This will help both melee units & AI combat effectiveness in general.

 

[beetle]

I concur that having early siege units competitive with ranged unit for human players attacking a city would be an improvement. I am in favor of most of the ideas being offered.

4. Allow ranged bombard to be counter attacked (at a lesser degree). If bombers can be counter attacked by a melee unit, it makes sense an archer can be counter attacked... Although it would be hard to imagine how it could happen realistically, but Civ isn't realistic in many aspects already.

The dichotomy you point out is interesting, but such a fix would bother me. Bombers are attacking melees units with guns, so it always seemed fair to me that they might defend themselves a bit.

 

[Quineloe]

The thing with Bombers being hit in return when attacking is that every major military formation has some sort of mobile anti air with it. Great War bombers didn't fly high enough to be invincible to machine gun fire, second world war saw multiple vehicles armed with anti air guns and today you have Surface to air missiles that can be fired by a single soldier. Yes, bombarding pikemen with bombers and taking damage is just unrealistic, but then again those few points of damage you take on such a tech lead shouldn't bother you. It's not like they'll actually wear your bombers down.

The only change I'd see is another type of bomber for the late game, Ju87 stuka that comes with fighters/bombers type and A-10 that comes with a later era tech. Good against units, bad against cities. Then you could make those high altitude bombers bad against units, good against cities and give them actual immunity when bombarding non-AA units

 

[Vitruvius]

I concur that having early siege units competitive with ranged unit for human players attacking a city would be an improvement. I am in favor of most of the ideas being offered.



The dichotomy you point out is interesting, but such a fix would bother me. Bombers are attacking melees units with guns, so it always seemed fair to me that they might defend themselves a bit.

GW Bombers and Fighters come out during a time when people are still using Lancers, a gunless melee unit, with 25 Strength, and it does hurt GW fighters quite a bit. And to say that muskets and rifles to be able to hurt a plane is unrealistic. The reason air units can be counter attacked by everything is for in case someone else has not researched flight and will be completely dominated by whoever gets flight first.

Ranged units are powerful in AI hands, especially when you are the aggressor. I always play domination to win and I always find it hard to kill England because the longbows completely lay waste to whatever I have at that time. And this is also where I find horse units are so useful, because using infantry units to get close to longbows would mean they will die the next round due to city bombardment. I can imagine how much more difficult it is when they are in the hands of Humans. The central problem is that the game favours ranged because of its low cost and tactical advantage and the ability to stay alive for promotions.

I like several fixes pointed out in this thread that will fix the "realism" of ranged units. The key argument is ranged units are never the bread and butter of an army and should always only be employed as support. You always need to send in your infantry for the final kill.

1. Ranged units deal less damage the further away it is due to inaccuracy (lets say -25% for every hex further). Same should be applied to siege weapons unless they are attacking a city.

2. Ranged units deal less damage to injured units because less targets to shoot at (e.g. a 50hp unit receives 50% damage from a ranged bombard). This means you always need to send melee in for a kill. However, the ranged unit serves to soften up the enemy beforehand. Same thing applies to city ranged attack (this will solve the siege units too weak against cities problem)

3. Ranged units with exception of siege units do less damage to cities. Arrows don't penetrate walls. If horses have a -33% penalty, so should ranged.

4. This hasn't been mentioned, but I find that ranged units receiving defensive terrain bonus AND able to fortify is a bit too much. How do you suppose an archer fights in a forest attacked by a melee unit? However, having ranged unit completely defenceless against melee isn't that great. Some ranged units especially in the later eras are made to defend. Gatling guns, machine guns etc are defensive weapons of the modern era.

5. Keshik/CA/HA fix. Nerf range to 1. Horse archers shoot on horses, I imagine their bows are smaller and lighter hence can't fire as far as foot soldier bows.

Some of these changes are hard to mod, because it involves new gameplay mechanics. Easiest way is probably be a flat reduction of ranged combat strength across the board, and increase training cost.

As for naval units:
I find that the current naval system is okay. The only really useless naval unit (combat wise) is the trireme, but most people use it for coastal exploration and barb defence anyway. Bombard promo definitely should be nerfed. Maybe slight nerf on Frigate ranged strength. I am not sure if melee ships can board and attack coastal tiles is good idea, because then melee land units should be able to go down the coast and attack ships.

 

[KrikkitTwo]

A simple method (ie not changing mechanics, just stats)

1. Reduce the damage of ALL ranged attacks (including city attacks)
2. Increase the anti-city bonus for siege weapons

Or even simpler

Reduce the ranged combat value of all "archery" units by ~20-50%

so you always use them to support melee units (or defend cities)

 

[Fish Man]

None of this is a problem. The only "strong" non-siege ranged units are c-bows and x-bows; once Gatlings are reached their 1-range makes them only useful for defense, and chariot archers are too early/weak to be considered usually. The strength of early ranged units is balanced because usually AI cities reach very high defense strength and can one-shot catapults while taking only 20 damage from one. Also, the strength of these bows is needed to counter the AI's warrior spam (and later pike/impi spam). Without them, taking AI cities before artillery would be impossible and if AI pikespams you you're screwed. So they're balanced against the AI (quality vs. quantity).

As for the ranged mounted UU nerf...just no. Nerfing their range would take away all their advantage (hit and run) and make them basically normal units which are squishier with a couple promotions maybe slapped on. The point of a UU, UA, or UB is to be more powerful than the norm, and nerfing it would take away that uniqueness.

 

[Quineloe]

You're basically saying Crossbows and Composite bows have to be OP because Trebuchets and Catapults are teh terriblez. You really think that's as good as it can get?

 

[Vitruvius]

None of this is a problem. The only "strong" non-siege ranged units are c-bows and x-bows; once Gatlings are reached their 1-range makes them only useful for defense, and chariot archers are too early/weak to be considered usually. The strength of early ranged units is balanced because usually AI cities reach very high defense strength and can one-shot catapults while taking only 20 damage from one. Also, the strength of these bows is needed to counter the AI's warrior spam (and later pike/impi spam). Without them, taking AI cities before artillery would be impossible and if AI pikespams you you're screwed. So they're balanced against the AI (quality vs. quantity).

As for the ranged mounted UU nerf...just no. Nerfing their range would take away all their advantage (hit and run) and make them basically normal units which are squishier with a couple promotions maybe slapped on. The point of a UU, UA, or UB is to be more powerful than the norm, and nerfing it would take away that uniqueness.

Yes you need op ranged units to counter a deity AI. However what is the fun of turkey shoots? Instead of giving AI uber advantages in production, why not give humans less things to exploit so we can fight on more even grounds, and enjoy doing so. Moreoever, what about multiplayer? In MP games all you see is CB mass on both sides, theres no fun in that. As for CA and Keshik hit and runs, have you realized how easy is it to exploit it against AI. Even if nerfed to one range it can still hit and run, except maybe harder against cities (thats what siege engines are for). The 5 move Companion Cavalry is damn good already despite being melee. You don't need two range to be a hit and run unit.

 

[greygamer]

It should be kept in mind that the units portrayed in Civ are abstractions of the actual units involved. But I will certainly agree that siege units seem of very limited use, they die quickly to city defences and may often not even get a shot in. Of course you can deploy them in numbers but you get better results by using ranged units.

Nerfing the Keshik would mean bringing other factors into play for the Mongols as they were masters of rapid siege operations as well as mobile warfare, as I said the units are abstractions.

Seige units could have indirect fire as an ability which would at least give them some usefulness.

An idea I was toying with was giving all ranged units a range of 1, but giving a bonus to adjacent melee units if they don't attack. This would certainly reflect how such units were actually deployed (i.e. as a support to the main battle troops)

PS I find Gatling guns to be pretty damn useful, high defence and ranged attack (even at 1 range) but maybe I am doing it wrong