Concerns about combat and movement

[ferretbacon]

As Civ V players know, ranged units had a distinct advantage over infantry and cavalry in most situations. Unique ranged units, like the Camel Archer, Longbowman, and Chu-ko-nu were often considered to be top-tier (or at least in the higher percentile) units.

With the new movement rules (units must have complete movement point requirement to move into a tile), ranged units may be able to effectively kite infantry units under certain conditions.

I dislike this from both a gameplay perspective and a historical perspective. Barring a few scattered instances, such as Agincourt, ranged weapons rarely decided ancient, classical, or medieval battles.

I hope they implement something to keep ranged units from dominating warfare again in VI. I think melee units are fine. I would suggest changes to ranged and cavalry.

For example, ranged units could lose their ability to inflict combat damage if they are attacked. If they can attack with impunity from a distance, they ought to lose the ability to defend if attacked in close quarters. Ranged units should either be garrisoned in a city or screened by stronger units. If you fail to protect your ranged units, they ought to be overrun.

As for cavalry, they weren't very useful in V -- in VI, they ought to ignore zone of control and receive a charge bonus when they initiate an attack. As it was in V, cavalry felt like slightly faster infantry who couldn't defend as well and were subject to termination from spear wielding units.

 

[Acken]

Its mostly a number problem to be honest. I agree that the main front line should be melee, ranged used to weaken things up and finish units and cavalry used for flanking and hit and run.

This is not very hard to get even in civ5. Reduce ranged melee strength, boost melee strength of melee unit and give enough movement or strength for cavalry. I like the current balance I have for combat in civ5.

In civ5 ranged units just have too high numbers compared to melee. And crazy promotions certainly dont help.

 

[Makenshi]

Have any of you thought how hard it may be to remove a pikeman from a hill in Civ6? Just think about it...

[also, please correct my grammar, I'm not sure if the right sentence here is 'have thought' or 'has thought']

 

[stiiknafuulia]

I share your fear and agree that this could be a big problem. In another thread, someone suggested making ranged units unable to damage enemies beyond a certain point (10, 20, 50 % of their hp; whatever works best for balance). This may be taking things too far, but iirc, in Civ III artillery units couldn't kill opponents, yet were still considered op for the most part (mainly because you could stack them though, so it might not apply with 1upt).

 

[theis81]

Why not scale ranged damage with health of defender. If a unit has 10 health left ranged damage should be 10 percentage of total. This should off course be balanced right, but it would make ranged good for weakening but not killing. Just like they were used.

 

[King Jason]

I don't how much "kiting" is possible. Kiting assumes you can move and attack without being caught for a reasonable amount of time. We know this is impossible given all flat land, as if you move-and-shoot constantly, the melee unit will eventually catch up as it is moving 2 spaces for every 1 that you move. The new movement rules provide as much complication for someone attempting to kite a target as it does the target attempting to reach the ranged unit.

The best case scenario I can find is an Archer standing on one side of a river, that is surrounded by flatland with no features, allowing for the following sequence;

-A melee target enters a space two tiles away with it's last movement point, ending it's turn. The archer is able to fire with no risk.*
-The melee target moves to the adjacent river space, but cannot cross. The archer moves back one space, and fires with no risk.
-The melee target crosses the river, ending it's turn. The Archer takes a step back and fires, it will be attacked the next turn.
-The melee target is able to reach the archer.

This is the best case scenario - three shots, only two of which are "free". Any difficult terrain will provide as much of a headache for the Archer attempting to kite it's target as it will for the target. I can't envision any scenario that allows a defending Archer more than three shots, even if you have multiple rivers to work with as you'll be crossing those rivers yourself.


*The attacker can already minimize kiting potential if they're aware of the Archer's presence by ending the melee units turn just outside of the archer's range, and moving to the edge of the river on the next turn. This allows the maximum number of shots the Archer can take before getting attacked to be reduced to 2. Effectively meaning only 1 "free" shot.

 

[gfeier]

I believe the issues raised here will be mostly addressed by play balancing the unit strengths before the game is released. At least, I hope so.

 

[JtW]

I feel that anything prior to modern artillery should have a shooting range of 1.

 

[DJ_Tanner]

Kiting is very minor situation as it only comes up moving from rough into open. It just works out where a ranged unit in a 'fortified' terrain (rough) has an advantage to hold that point. Which seems totally fine to me.

 

[VanGovv]

@theis81: I don't think preventing ranged units from killing other is a good way to go. Either Ranged units would become obsolete or they always wittle enemies down, until a melee unit with high movement finishes the unit off. None of these scenarios sounds better than the current state.

@King Jason: In a 1v1 case you are probably right, but with additional units and zone of control the problem seems much bigger in my oppinion.

I think two changes would probably really help improve the situation:
1. Ranged units no longer have a zone of control. This way you'd definitely need melee units to stop incoming cavalry and other high movement units, while not directly nerfing any units combat strength.
2. Ranged Units can only counter-attack against attacking melee units, if they did not shoot in their last turn. Would also make sense historically, since archers can't do a lot while reloading and preparing another attack.

These changes wouldn't weaken ranged units in a good spot, probably defended by other units with zone of controll.

Depending on how defensive structures work, one might change them so, that ranged units don't get any defensive benefit, but regain the ability to defend after shooting or creating zone of controll.

A negative point to this is probably, that the AI won't be able to use this to its advantage...

 

[mbbcam]

Have any of you though how hard it may be to remove a pikeman form a hill in Civ6? Just think about it...

[also, please correct my grammar, I'm not sure if the right sentence here is 'have thought' or 'has thought']

"Have any of you thought" is correct -- though you did miss the final "t" on "thought" And you put "form" instead of "from" (I mark English exams for money ...)

Consider these two sentences:

Have you been to Brazil?
Has he been to Brazil?

Cheers.

 

[Twahn]

@KingJason It's the same with any rough terrain and the change from 5 to 6 is that the ranged unit gets +1 free attack (3/2 instead of 2/1 in your example). I'd say this is still significant considering ranged units were already (too) strong in civ 5.

Quick question though actually, does it even happen this way with a river? My understanding is that river crossings do not cost addition movement bit simply force the end of the unit's move?

 

[King Jason]

@KingJason It's the same with any rough terrain...

Quick question though actually, does it even happen this way with a river? My understanding is that river crossings do not cost addition movement bit simply force the end of the unit's move?

It's not really the same with rough terrain because if there were rough terrain in the archer's path that would remove their ability to move and shoot. Or, alternatively, if there was rough terrain in between them and the target then they naturally would not be able to score any shots.

Let's use the example if the Archer were standing on a hill but still surrounded by flat terrain. In this case having or not having a river is irrelevent.

-Target walks in to range, Archer fires.
-Target moves toward hill, is forced to stop. If the Archer fires, the target can attack next turn. If the Archer moves directly back, it can't fire. If it moves diagonal it could fire but would still get attacked on the next turn.

In the above example the Archer can only get 1 free shot.

I used an all-flat model because that is precisely what allows the most possible shots, any other combination of terrains doesn't allow the most possible shots, and again, the only way that the archer achieves 3 shots is if the target isn't aware of the archer's position and doesn't account for it.

Also yes, rivers prevent movement - even the scout, which has 3 movement, has been shown to be unable to cross a river even after moving only once. So rivers are hard to cross than entering hills or forests.

@King Jason: In a 1v1 case you are probably right, but with additional units and zone of control the problem seems much bigger in my oppinion.

With additional units and zones of control it's a proper battle - therefore I think the point is entirely moot. If one force is able to protect it's ranged combatants better than the other, and are able to outmaneuver their opponent then they deserve the win, naturally.

 

[rastak]

I feel that anything prior to modern artillery should have a shooting range of 1.

Gameplay and tactical decision wise that would REALLY be dull. I get why scale and realism it would make sense but gameplay wise it would suck bad. There is no way they'd do that.

 

[spfun]

From this build at least ranged units are still completely overpowered in a human players hands as the AI is much like Civ 5 and has no answer for it. Its still a turkey shoot.

 

[rastak]

From this build at least ranged units are still completely overpowered in a human players hands as the AI is much like Civ 5 and has no answer for it. Its still a turkey shoot.

Did they exert zone of control in V?

I honestly am not sure now.

Supposedly they do not in 6 so they could be counted with mobile units.

 

[Makenshi]

"Have any of you thought" is correct -- though you did miss the final "t" on "thought" And you put "form" instead of "from" (I mark English exams for money ...)

Consider these two sentences:

Have you been to Brazil?
Has he been to Brazil?

Cheers.

Thank you!

PS: the missing 't' and the word 'form' were typos

 

[tedhebert]

For example, ranged units could lose their ability to inflict combat damage if they are attacked. If they can attack with impunity from a distance, they ought to lose the ability to defend if attacked in close quarters. Ranged units should either be garrisoned in a city or screened by stronger units. If you fail to protect your ranged units, they ought to be overrun.

I really like this line of thinking...

As an old time pen and paper RPG player, I wonder if some of the rules there could apply in CIV ? for example:

+ If an enemy is within melee distance of the archer, he CANNOT use his ranged attack
+ Maybe even, in that same instance, the archer becomes a poor melee unit with a poor attack (like switches his bow for a sword, but is not as good with THAT weapon )

Seems to me this would make tactical playing a lot more interesting