Do Ranged Units Need Attention/Fixing?

[Bleser]

First of all: I absolutely love Civ5 and have played it since the day it came out a year ago. The latest patch has really struck a nice balance and every game I play now is a very rewarding experience without much frustration. I'm an Immortal player and am loving it!

But... I wonder if the ranged units in Civ5 are somewhat "broken" or "overpowered". Here are my points, and sorry if these are old/dead points that people are tired of reading.

• Archer Range - I've thought this since day one and still do. Archery-based units should have a range of one tile, not two. This includes archers, crossbowmen, horse archers, etc. It just seems crazy that archers can shoot as far (and as lethally) as cannons, destroyers, catapults, etc. Combine this with the no-setup cost and they are more effective than catapults (move, fire in same turn). Or, another alternative, is that archers should have decreased effectiveness at range 2 - say 1/2 power.
• Artillery Range - I question the 3-range of artillery. It seems most of my games are mopped up as soon as artillery comes about. You can pound away at cities unscathed and then send in a lone ground unit to take the city. Rinse and repeat until everyone is conquered. If you reduced the range to 2 (making them simply more powerful and with indirect fire vs. cannons), I believe they would be powerful but not so overpowering.
• Absolute Kills - Like CivIV, one thing that could be brought back is not allowing any range unit to have complete kills - i.e. the maximum damage any ranged unit would be to reduce a unit to 2 hit points and force you to clean it up with a ground unit. More realistic, methinks.
• Promotions - The promotions for ranged units are crazy. In my last game I had crossbowmen that were unstoppable. They had 3-tile range, indirect fire, multiple attacks per turn, heal while moves, and maxed out rough/flat terrain bonuses. I could wipe out nearly anything in one turn. At the very least I think the range and indirect fire promotions should be removed - it's almost magical that a crossbowmen can shoot as far as artillery (which is too far) and shoot over mountains!?!

I know almost none of this will happen, but I think if a mod made these basic ranged unit changes, wars could be more realistic with more of a need placed on the ground troops and modern upgrades such as aircraft, like real life.

 

[blightmoon]

They're good the way they are, imo. Keshiks are the only unit that is clearly OP, but I like them as well. ^^

 

[chazzycat]

some interesting thoughts. I do agree with the general premise that ranged units are slightly op at the moment. I would be ok with some of the smaller nerfs like removing the range promotion. But some of your proposed nerfs go a bit too far.

- Reducing their range to 1 would make them worthless. They could no longer fire from behind the melee units, and after firing would surely die since the enemy is right next to them.

- Artillery Range - interesting idea. There's no denying artillery is kinda OP. I love how them now with the 3 range, but making this change would encourage air forces, which would be positive IMO. Like you say, indirect fire and better power already do make artillery a significant upgrade from cannon even without the range.

- Absolute kills, I disagree on that one. Would make playing defense too difficult, because you'd be forced to move melee units to undersirable tiles (probably causing them to die quite often) just to avoid an auto-heal.

- wrt promotions, it's true that having range for ancient units is a bit much, otherwise I wouldn't make too many changes.

 

[vexing]

this isn't a strategy or tip.

 

[DaveMcW]

 

[vexing]

good point... i guess that should be done on the op, on mine, on yours, and now on this one too =0

 

[The_J]

Moderator Action: Moved to general discussion

this isn't a strategy or tip.

[...]

Next time it would be good if you actually reported it (and thanks to the guy who did ).

 

[Liegence]

Disagree in general with OP.

Archers: with exception of Bowmen which are clearly OP atm, archers are not that great imho. They are clearly useful in cities, but they're not overwhelming on the battlefield, especially post-horsemen which comes quickly.

Artillery: my opinion is the opposite, I wish cannons were 3 tile! Okay maybe that would be clearly overwhelming, but I like artillery as is. I don't think they break conquest; usually laughbly onesided conflicts start at Steel, not Dynamite.

Absolue kills: no way, field is crowded enough as is

Promotions: disagree again; promotions is a strategy that usually involves a direct investment in war SPs, war buildings, more units, etc.

There's room for improvement, but more subtle please.

 

[Selous]

i would like to see range units engage in counter attack shooting matches against other range units, it would stop ranged units being able to attack with impunity

 

[Dregor]

Only change I'd like to see to ranged units is to continue them into modern times.

 

[Pim]

Ranged units are pretty powerfull, but i think that makes CiV work with the no stacking and hexes. It makes warfare a tactical component of the game and i like it. By making ranged units strong the programmers forced warfare to be fought this way and i think by adding the range aspect to combat makes warfare more tactical and hence more fun(the a.i. is a different discussion).

 

[turtlefang]

One change I would like to see is that cities increase their firing range when art tech arrives to three hexes - and possibility goes to two attacks per turn at some point to make them harder to take in the late game.

Other than that, I would like to see archer unit's promotions convert to melee promotions when they change over to rifles.

 

[Bezurn]

I agree that a few changes need to be made to ranged combat. Right now archers dominate the field until swords come out. There is little use for warriors, spears as they will just get chewed up by 2-3 archers and one cleanup melee, who gets killed by the other sides 2-3 archers and until there are few / no melee left.

Reduce range to 1 - agree with modification. Allow them to move after firing. This would let skirmishes happen if the unit was adjacent to the unit when the turn started. Or they can risk it by moving adjacent and then firing in hopes that either another unit will finish / weaken the opposing unit enough for the archer to survive. Perhaps increase the melee combat value of archery units a bit to compensate for this. As an aside, xbows should be cheaper to produce. All horse archers should also have a range of 1. An Army of Keshik / Camel Archers is just too OP in basically any human players hand against those who don't have access to those units.

Reduce Artillery Range - Disagree here. Its an industrial tech, and at some point something needs to strike fear into the hearts of the enemy

No Absolute Kills - Agree. Reduce to 3 hp minimum. Before the advent of modern warfare ranged combat was never able to wipe out an enemy. Some melee had to go in there and mop up the survivors.

 

[Montov]

Artillery is powerful and untouced by cities, but not untouched by defending artillery. Problem is that most wars with artillery comes at a time the human player has an advantage...

But I like the suggestion of turtlefang to increase the defensive capabilities of cities: increasing their range etc. Maybe even promotions for cities, but I expect more problems with that in terms of scaling, timing and game speed.
New suggestion: create a choice (promotion?) when choosing the policies for stronger cities (at Freedom and Tradition): The tradition one could be a choice between the current 100% with garrison versus double attack with garrison. The freedom one can have a choice between 50% stronger cities or a range of 3.

 

[Rex_Mundi]

I've seen other suggestion regarding city range. Let the defensive building add the "promotions"
Ex.: Castle +1 range, that millitary base add intercept...

 

[Lunchmoney]

i've seen other suggestion regarding city range. Let the defensive building add the "promotions"
ex.: Castle +1 range, that millitary base add intercept...

...+1

 

[Supr49er]

I would just like XBows to upgrade to Cats instead of Melee.

 

[Becomedeath]

• Absolute Kills - Like CivIV, one thing that could be brought back is not allowing any range unit to have complete kills - i.e. the maximum damage any ranged unit would be to reduce a unit to 2 hit points and force you to clean it up with a ground unit. More realistic, methinks.

More realistic?

You're suggesting that people have a saturation point for arrows?

"It's alright madam calm down, I've only shot your child with this crossbow 3 times, to actually do something she can't sleep off I'd have to use this sword."

 

[Rpger29]

The problem with changing the non-siege ranged units is that they would become very weak to horsemen. You'd then have to rebalance horsemen/knights/lancers/cavs etc. After that, you would have to fix the then overpowered siege units. The final result would be abysmal.

The current implementation seems to be the best; archers are FAR less powerful than swords. Crossbowmen are FAR weaker than longswords. This creates a proper balance of gameplay and realism.

The current balance between units seems fine. The only severe imbalances are UU rushes vs. same or earlier era units. I don't have a problem with these, as they usually require a specific investment of time, material, and strategy.

There are trade offs for everything in ciV.

Edit: As many people have suggested, I also would like ranged units to have a different upgrade path. Even an optional one would be nice.

 

[MkLh]

[*]Archer Range - I've thought this since day one and still do. Archery-based units should have a range of one tile, not two. This includes archers, crossbowmen, horse archers, etc. It just seems crazy that archers can shoot as far (and as lethally) as cannons, destroyers, catapults, etc. Combine this with the no-setup cost and they are more effective than catapults (move, fire in same turn). Or, another alternative, is that archers should have decreased effectiveness at range 2 - say 1/2 power.

Ranged unit with a range of 1 would be completely useless. No one would build such an unit ever, except if the combat strength would be increased to match melee units. In that case it would effectually be a melee unit (the whole point of ranged is gone if the range is 1). None of the units you listed are overpowered nor need nerfing.