Do Ranged Units Need Attention/Fixing?

[Rpger29]

Also, no ranged unit (without promotions) in the game is more effective at siege than the siege unit of the same era. Just compare ranged attack strength. If we start talking UU's, then compare UU's to each other (not other units of same era).

 

[The_Quasar]

imho ranged units are about right at present. Doing anything like cutting their range, or no complete kills will severely affect the game and it's balance, in a very negative way.

I think Fraxis, in this instance, have got it about the best that is possible, while maintaining the balance between other units.

However, I too would like to see crossbows upgrade to catapults or (better) trebuchets, rather than riflemen.

 

[elprofesor]

I personally think that ranged units are actually pretty weak; actually, all units capable of firing from afar are weaker than their melee contemporaries until artillery.

Catapults, trebuchets and canons are simply too slow, and you need to clear the zone before getting them in range of the city, or else they will get destroyed, contributing negatively to their poor speed.

Ships are too weak too assault coastal cities, plus they are really expensive, and will get destroyed by any enemy ship that sees it first.

Regular ranged units are weak (33% weaker than a melee unit with same strength), and suffer a lot from rough terrain when invading. You can use them effectively, and may even mean the difference between losing or winning a particular battle, but you are usually better off building the corresponding melee unit.

My two cents.

 

[Becomedeath]

In all fairness, the AI has got better at understanding that it's the melee units that pose a threat. previously, it would attack whatever was shooting at it, so melee units (that can actually take cities) were left unharmed while your army of ranged units took it's defenses down.

Now, they seem to appreciate that you can have all the artillery in the world doing 100 points of damage a turn, but they can't do jack without a unit capable of taking a city.

Point is, ranged units have their downsides and thankfully it's something that the AI recognises. (from time to time!)

 

[Tantor]

I think archer units should have a range of one, oportunity fire and first strike. Increased range should be a promotion. This would mean that archer units have the ability of attacking units in adjacent tiles without the risk of being harmed themselves. When they are attacked they fire at least one volley of arrows decimating the attacker before they come in contact and consequently receive less damage. Archer units should also fire back on other ranged units since no unit being attacked and able to return fire, will sit idle and let itself be killed.

 

[Becomedeath]

Archers with a ranged distance of 1 would have to be able to take cities. Otherwise, they're simply in the way in a 1upt universe and would make city conquest impossible.

Really don't see why there is the perception that they don't work at the moment.

 

[mr_happyguy]

I know that stacking isn't part of civ5 strategy.. But if it was possible to stack a melee and a ranged unit (no more than that!) and reducing the range of archers to 1, I believe it would give the game a nice tactical touch. Fire a volley of arrows, and then charging with your knights or longswordsmen. More realistic, too imo.

 

[Becomedeath]

Archers only being able to fire at point blank range is far from realistic I'm afraid.

 

[MkLh]

Really don't see why there is the perception that they don't work at the moment.

Some seem to think that a range of 2 is "unrealistic". Gameplay vise there is absolutely no reason to nerf archer unties as they aren't overpowered at all (chariot archers are UP). And about realism: it wouldn't be realistic either if archer units didn't have a range any longer than melee units. Generally there has never been any realism in a scale of combat in Civs (units that are of a size of a city ) so I don't quite understand why this particular thing would be so bad. Units with a range of 2 bring a nice tactical aspect to the game.

 

[jbevermore]

I think they're fine as is. Granted they can be nasty when used right, but a horseman or a knight in the right place will quickly knock that threat out. And while it might seem silly that they have the same range as cannon's if you're still using them then they'll get squashed in short order.

The only exception I'll make is the Keshik, and there I'm torn. On one hand they're an unholy terror. On the other...it's pretty much all Mongolia has going for it. So it'd better be pretty good.

 

[jidosh]

Upgrading cities or giving them more range would eliminate the need to protect your territory with units. In the real world if it wasn't for the US military then Cuba would be able to walk in and take over Miami without too much resistance. The issue is and has always been the AI's ability to "think" strategically.

 

[Becomedeath]

In the real world if it wasn't for the US military then Cuba would be able to walk in and take over Miami without too much resistance.

I thought they had?

The issue is and has always been the AI's ability to "think" strategically.

The AI is getting better at using ranged units, substantial moreso than it was a few patches back. The suggested changes might help the UI, but I would say that from a user point of view, they kinda kick the fun out of it.

 

[Bezurn]

Archers with a ranged distance of 1 would have to be able to take cities. Otherwise, they're simply in the way in a 1upt universe and would make city conquest impossible.

Really don't see why there is the perception that they don't work at the moment.

That would give catapults a better chance to be used. Rarely do I ever build a catapult, as they obsolete too quickly. With archers with a range of 1 it would make them more important. In most games I will build maybe 2-3 siege units at most, and then usually of those are trebs or cannons. Right now for the hammer cost of 3 warriors or so I can take a city with a couple swords. Archers are too cheap and too powerful when properly protected. And that is why I also say archers should be able to move after firing with range of one. That lets them move out of the way for a melee unit to take their place.

 

[Becomedeath]

So you want a unit that moves into melee range, delivers damage and then moves out of the way again....

How about a compromise, how about we let them fire from one space away and then they don't have to move out of the way which saves you a lot of time in shifting them around. Oh wait....

 

[Rpger29]

Catapult/ballista is totally useful. I build them in any game where I'll need extra defensive punch in the capital. They'll usually get a few promos and be a no-brainer upgrade unit later.

 

[The_Quasar]

Catapult/ballista is totally useful. I build them in any game where I'll need extra defensive punch in the capital. They'll usually get a few promos and be a no-brainer upgrade unit later.

I find that on the higher levels, when you get rushed early, if you have no catapults, or you don't buy catapults, then often you can pack up there and then. If you have, then the AI rush is relatively easily contained.

I almost always build them, and they get upgraded usually all the way, stage by stage, to Missile Artillery (unless they have gone to the great siege engine in the sky).

 

[selajunk]

Artillery Range...

Could be 4 tiles "sometimes"

 

[jbevermore]

Could be 4 tiles "sometimes"

To quote one of my great heros:

"Impressive.

Most impressive."

 

[MadDjinn]

Keep in mind that 'real' artillery (late industrial/early modern) could shoot very very far. So a 'range' of 3 is ok.

If you're looking to 'balance' archer/ranged units, then the key thing to do is to remove the minimal one damage/shot. The calculation would need to allow for zero damage shots, which IMO, is key to finding the right balance.

(archer vs. GDR - GDR shouldn't die)

This also means that as city strengths go up (better defenses/more modern) then older ranged units won't do any damage, so you must upgrade or walk away.

 

[jbevermore]

Keep in mind that 'real' artillery (late industrial/early modern) could shoot very very far. So a 'range' of 3 is ok.

If you're looking to 'balance' archer/ranged units, then the key thing to do is to remove the minimal one damage/shot. The calculation would need to allow for zero damage shots, which IMO, is key to finding the right balance.

(archer vs. GDR - GDR shouldn't die)

This also means that as city strengths go up (better defenses/more modern) then older ranged units won't do any damage, so you must upgrade or walk away.

I could go for this. Any kind of melee action should cause at least 1 damage I think, but ranged less so. I've often thought there should be two cases for 0 damage:

Target strength much higher then ranged strength (more then 100% greater)
Target health in the red (shouldn't be able to kill a unit with ranged).