Fixing the Melee Line

[Roxlimn]

The reason ranged reigns supreme isn't because they are so effective at cities but because of the ability to move and shoot which results in 1.) more overall experience than siege units, which means quicker +1 range or double attack. 2.) they are effective at killing enemy military and do a decent job at cities. Two birds with one stone type of deal.

The siege and melee combo can work, too (and more fun IMO) but it is difficult to argue against mass ranged when it is just as effective and doesn't require a detour to those bottom techs, which means quicker universities and schools.



Indeed. Throw medic I and II on a horse/knight and have it move around the battlefield to whichever melee unit is fortified and taking damage.

In similar threads to this one I've made the argument that melee isn't that bad once you get promotions stacked on them. Perhaps a simple boost to their experience gain would be enough.

The promotion issue is more of a problem at Immortal+ where the AI actually has enough units to kill that an army of ranged units will get to Range and Logistics within a war or two. That doesn't happen on Prince and King. You either win or lose quickly, though really, you should win. Arguably, since the game was intended to be balanced and played at the normal settings, it's the higher setting problems that are the artifact.

In order to more approximate normative settings, a direct XP penalty to ranged units at Immortal (possibly Emperor+) is necessary to reflect the normative situation.

All that said, ranged would not be "just as good" as siege when taking cities if siege were resistant to city attack.

plokoon9619:

The cover bonus isn't going to do anything. I never had a problem taking down any units that had Cover 2 in multiplayer. Also, Cover 2 becomes Cover 1 when facing promoted archers.

If you're attacking a siege unit with archers within the range of one of your own cities, then you're describing a defensive situation - that's exactly the sort of scenario where archer units were intended to shine. If you prefer archers then, I'd say the mechanics were working as intended.

I'm interested in the MP situation, though. How is it that +66% combat (Cover 2) in MP is considered insufficient in the field? It feels fairly substantive in SP. A cover 2 unit of equivalent tech is very resistant to archer fire.

 

[OmniPotent42]

I like the idea of making cover a level 1 promotion.

However I think they would need a more substantial buff than that. I think a -33% city attack penalty for ranged units would also help, similar to mounted units.

Maybe also increase the combat strength of iron units by 2 or 3 at least until musketmen. Right now there is only a small timing with swordsmen until civil service, this would help with that issue.

Horses could also use a larger flanking bonus to punish out of position ranged units.

 

[wigwam]

[numbers]

Nice work. I think this is the right direction to go in—perhaps a -25% penalty for archery units vs. cities, combined with reduced strength and increased HP for cities. -50% might be overcorrecting, especially since a siege that takes twice as long means twice the opportunity for the defender to round up some mounted units and start picking off those archers.

 

[de_baser]

I like the idea of making cover a level 1 promotion.

However I think they would need a more substantial buff than that. I think a -33% city attack penalty for ranged units would also help, similar to mounted units.

Maybe also increase the combat strength of iron units by 2 or 3 at least until musketmen. Right now there is only a small timing with swordsmen until civil service, this would help with that issue.

Horses could also use a larger flanking bonus to punish out of position ranged units.

The -% to city attack was inplemented after vanilla.
I remember playing the demo for Civ5 waaaay back, when companion cavalry would kill a city, you only needed 2-3 for 2 turns and voila.

 

[jaldaen]

Nice work. I think this is the right direction to go in—perhaps a -25% penalty for archery units vs. cities, combined with reduced strength and increased HP for cities. -50% might be overcorrecting, especially since a siege that takes twice as long means twice the opportunity for the defender to round up some mounted units and start picking off those archers.

Yeah, -25% might be enough, although I'd lean toward at least -33% (like mounted) because after the first attack, the melee are essentially at a -25-33% penalty to city attacks due to damage. Of course, only playtesting will really settle the issue. The important thing is to make it viable and probably preferable to bring more melee (and siege!) to a siege.

 

[FrostK]

I think the main problem is to balance war vs comp and war vs human. Usually when u fight vs comp u have weaker military, so u want not to loose single unit. Thats why u want to have range units. I do not have a lot of experience in war vs humans, but i believe that i.e. crossbowmens can be easily killed by knights. Also computer never use i.e. horseman th the way: Pillage+run back+pillage something else+run back+... and so on. You just cannot def vs it with archers - they are too slow. Also computer never builds fort.

For those who propose to make cover a lvl1 promotion - just think how mu will kill fortified melee unit on hills?

So rahged units are better, but melee units with honor controlled by player will smash range units for sure.