Fixing the Melee Line

[GhostSalsa]

Oh my * from that last post:

In a recent G&K game as Austria I finished all ancient techs before opening classical to see how it would work out if I was re-playing actual scientific history. I OPENED CLASSICAL ON IRON-WORKING, sent worker immediately, to revealed iron, and still didn't have my first warrior upgrade to swordman until 150 AD, when in real life the classical period was about to close. Ridiculous.

 

[kaspergm]

In a recent G&K game as Austria I finished all ancient techs before opening classical to see how it would work out if I was re-playing actual scientific history.

Well there are a lot of things in your first post I don't agree with at all, because I think they would make the game a lot worse than it is currently and wouldn't actually solve the problem, but just make things more simplistic and thus - maybe - make them go away ... but I have to address this point specifically, because clearly you got things completely wrong here. Actual research development was never so that everybody researched all ancient technologies before advancing into classical era, there are many cases of some civs doing what would be the equivalent of beelining certain techs in the game, i.e. progressing further down one branch than down others.

 

[terrycrist3]

This may have been mentioned already (10 pages is a lot to sift through) but I think in addition to lowering ranged strengths and possibly a penalty for most non-siege ranged units against cities, the best option might be to prevent ranged units from completely killing units. Perhaps each ranged unit would have a modifier like (can't reduce enemy unit health below x%). The archer line could have x=50% or 33% and the siege line could have x=25% or 15%. There could be ways for x to lower as the game progresses, so perhaps archers/CBs are at 50%, xbows are 33%, and gatlings can kill outright. X could also lower with high-level promotions or even certain techs.

Range will still be very useful, but you would be unable to win battles without some combined arms.

 

[Hulking Lummox]

I think I have the solution! While i do agree that ranged is imbalanced, here is a big part of the problem... The warrior and horsemen unit lines need to take 50% less damage when making a melee attack against a ranged or siege unit. Give or take on the percentage, but seriously, think about that one for a minute. With changes to honor it's going to be easier to build military buildings so you can get cover more easily, no need for that to come free. Swords and horses getting this and not pikes is a perfect balance.

 

[terrycrist3]

Relying on promotions doesn't really solve the problem if the AI doesn't take them. The issue is not really that the AI uses too many archers, but instead that the player does. The fix really needs to be something that makes the player want to build more melee units (relative to archers).

 

[GhostSalsa]

Well there are a lot of things in your first post I don't agree with at all, because I think they would make the game a lot worse than it is currently and wouldn't actually solve the problem, but just make things more simplistic and thus - maybe - make them go away ... but I have to address this point specifically, because clearly you got things completely wrong here. Actual research development was never so that everybody researched all ancient technologies before advancing into classical era, there are many cases of some civs doing what would be the equivalent of beelining certain techs in the game, i.e. progressing further down one branch than down others.

And the Romans were already crimping Greek philosophy and theatre and building aqueducts and harbors the same time they were cranking out legions, implying full spectrum Civ classical tech level way before the date listed.

There's lots of places where the game lets you choose, via beelines, between having contemporary units or entering the next era early economically. Iron working is the only one where you have to chose to be an era behind on all the other techs just to get units out before they are already obsolete.

 

[VainoValkea]

I've had another possible idea: All units block line of sight as if they were forests.

I actually like this idea. It makes sense, it would improve balance. Although I have a few of my own, too: simply give non-siege ranged units a penalty when attacking cities (the easy way out) or improve the melee units' pillaging ability as a speed healer to make melee more powerful.

 

[kaspergm]

And the Romans were already crimping Greek philosophy and theatre and building aqueducts and harbors the same time they were cranking out legions, implying full spectrum Civ classical tech level way before the date listed.

There's lots of places where the game lets you choose, via beelines, between having contemporary units or entering the next era early economically. Iron working is the only one where you have to chose to be an era behind on all the other techs just to get units out before they are already obsolete.

I honestly don't think I understand your point with this post? You need exactly the same amount of beakers to reach Swordsmen as you need to reach Horsemen. That is no coincidence, clearly the developers wanted these two units to be equally available, depending on your starting resources. You actually need to invest more beakers to reach Composite Bowmen than to reach either of the others, and all three of these lie off the Science line. So I don't understand what you mean about being an era behind on all other techs to get Swordsmen before they get obsolete?

I've had another possible idea: All units block line of sight as if they were forests. (...) The indirect fire promotion would probably have to be split into two; 1 for firing over friendly unit, 1 for firing over terrain.

Well ... it would sort of kill the entire idea of the way combat was designed with ranged units having ranged 2, but it would be a cut in their usability, obviously. I guess you are aware that Indirect Fire promotion is not actually there anymore (as a promotion at least), although on could of course re-introduce it.

 

[GhostSalsa]

I honestly don't think I understand your point with this post?

I'll agree with you here.

I'll leave it only with saying I play by finishing eras completely (no beelining) semi-frequently as a way to handicap myself on Emperor games (it leads to nice, tech-matched medieval and industrial warfare down the line) and Swordmen are the only unit who, even if their tech is opened-on, miss their real-life time frame by 800 years.

Swordmen are known by everyone to be to hard to put in play and I'm not sure why the mechanics of my casual experiment are upsetting in any way.

 

[Matthew.]

Relying on promotions doesn't really solve the problem if the AI doesn't take them. The issue is not really that the AI uses too many archers, but instead that the player does. The fix really needs to be something that makes the player want to build more melee units (relative to archers).

The issue affects both. Weak melee cripples the AI as well as the player. I don't think "programming the AI to spam ranged" is a good option either, so improvements to the melee line should help both.

Still a good point brought up though: If the "fix" is through promotions and the AI doesn't take advantage of it, then the AI is still stuck with sub-par melee units.

 

[Louis XXIV]

I honestly don't think I understand your point with this post? You need exactly the same amount of beakers to reach Swordsmen as you need to reach Horsemen. That is no coincidence, clearly the developers wanted these two units to be equally available, depending on your starting resources. You actually need to invest more beakers to reach Composite Bowmen than to reach either of the others, and all three of these lie off the Science line. So I don't understand what you mean about being an era behind on all other techs to get Swordsmen before they get obsolete?

Swordsmen, to me, seem very difficult to put into play. Horses are much easier. While it takes a bit longer, Pikes are better to put into play and, in my experience, can appear around the same time someone gets swords. I think part of the reason is that iron appears with iron working. This means, if you don't have iron, you have to build a settler and found a city before you can start building them. Horses, on the other hand, appear with animal husbandry. I think there's a good argument that Iron should appear with mining, which would continue the parallel between the units.

 

[Triskelli]

Swordsmen, to me, seem very difficult to put into play. Horses are much easier. While it takes a bit longer, Pikes are better to put into play and, in my experience, can appear around the same time someone gets swords. I think part of the reason is that iron appears with iron working. This means, if you don't have iron, you have to build a settler and found a city before you can start building them. Horses, on the other hand, appear with animal husbandry. I think there's a good argument that Iron should appear with mining, which would continue the parallel between the units.

Really like that idea. I've also thought reducing the beaker cost for Iron Working would go a long way towards making it more attractive to the casual player, to the same amount as Construction and such. As is, the casual player like myself sees that Iron Working takes twice as long to research as other more economic techs, making it less attractive to go into until the end of the Classical era.

 

[bcaiko]

It's not so much that melee is weak (they get more XP than ranged units and can get to the Siege promotion), but that the counter to Ranged - Mounted units - are far too weak to actually take on Ranged post G&K.

Mounted units getting better will balance Ranged units and bring Melee units up with them. Unfortunately, early Mounted units are too slow to do their jobs in rough terrain, aren't strong enough to take out Ranged units easily on approach, and often begin or end their turn near the Ranged unit in order to attack it - ensuring they'll take retaliation from the Ranged unit while not receiving a terrain bonus. All of this and they cost a resource. Mounted units should be better than other units, and they're just not.

Mounted units should be faster, ignore zone of control or terrain (or both), and should have access to a promotion that increases their speed. Then they could effectively counter ranged units, clearing the way for melee to take cities.

Swordsmen, to me, seem very difficult to put into play. Horses are much easier. While it takes a bit longer, Pikes are better to put into play and, in my experience, can appear around the same time someone gets swords. I think part of the reason is that iron appears with iron working. This means, if you don't have iron, you have to build a settler and found a city before you can start building them. Horses, on the other hand, appear with animal husbandry. I think there's a good argument that Iron should appear with mining, which would continue the parallel between the units.

I absolutely agree with this. The Iron reveal comes way too late and with far too much investment. That lost ground makes Swordsmen unviable.

 

[Triskelli]

Yeah, I think we're finally hitting something here, any improvements to combat should be done with the smallest changes possible. Stuff like rearranging the tech tree would go leaps and bounds towards making combat more balanced without fundamentally changing how the game works.

Personally, I'd be all for swapping Chivalry and Civil Service on the tech tree, and moving Longswords forward somehow as well. Knights came before regular armies and pikemen, and a time where cavalry can rule the field nearly uncontested would definitely be interesting. Longswords almost immediately get outdated by Muskets in my games, so giving players more time to use them is a good step.

Plus, moving pikes to the end of the Medieval means that we can get rid of the stupid upgrade path of infantry-cavalry-antitank-helicopter. Have them upgrade to riflemen alongside muskets.

 

[AlazkanAssassin]

Personally, I'd be all for swapping Chivalry and Civil Service on the tech tree, and moving Longswords forward somehow as well. Knights came before regular armies and pikemen, and a time where cavalry can rule the field nearly uncontested would definitely be interesting.

Pikeman before knights is assumed to be a deliberate balancing decision. If knights are allowed to "rule the field" then horses become a requirement for a competitive game. Anyone without many horses is severely hurt.

 

[Ulthwithian]

Alazkan: Yeah... rather like you need other Strategic Resources (most particularly Oil) to be competitive at other points in the game?

Why not put them parallel to each other, so that you can get either with the same number of techs? That way, if you want Knights, you can get them, and if you don't want them/don't have horses, you can tech to Pikemen instead.

I do highly agree that Pikemen should not be part of the Education path.

 

[AlazkanAssassin]

Alazkan: Yeah... rather like you need other Strategic Resources (most particularly Oil) to be competitive at other points in the game? QUOTE]

I think making resources more important in the late game is also a deliberate goal. By that point you are either able to secure oil, or it's time to weed you out of the running.

I've never started a war to capture iron for swordsmen (though I have for frigates or unique units) or horse. I'll often plan an invasion to secure oil/aluminum/coal/uranium. In most games I've bought out a CS to secure at least one of those.

 

[kaspergm]

Arguably, in late game, you have many more options to make up for lack of resources than you have in early game. Early game, you are supposed to claim the resources by settling new lands - that is why Horses unlocks very early at Animal Husbandry even though you won't need them before Horseback Riding, and that is why Iron should unlock already at Mining, even though you won't need it before Iron Working. In late game, you will have established CS alliances and AI friend relationships, and generally more money are in circulation, making trade a more viable option - or conquest.

 

[whyidie]

Wow, this thread really is going in circles now.

Anyway, here's a random thought, taking from other games like Heroes of Might and Magic: I think what we need is both an Attack rating and a Defence rating for each unit. This is not very different from how Archers currently have two combat strengths, namely one for Melee, and one for Ranged. One could even go one step further, and give each unit both a Melee / as well as a Ranged / (0 attack strength if unit is not ranged).

The advantage of having both an attack and defence rating would be that we could distinguish between units more effectively. We could make the Swordsman much tougher - he might not have as high an as the Horseman, but his would be much higher, which would make him a very effective front line meat-shield. Pikeman could have low but very high to emphasize his defensive nature.

Ideas I like so far :

1) Reduced combat strength for ranged line
2) Show iron at mining (does anyone actually disagree with this ?)
3) Give the swords cover


Have seen counters for most of the above with the possible exception of showing iron earlier. The only argument against the quote has been its too complicated. I don't think it is.

Today we have combat strength and ranged combat strength. Could we get away with just adding ranged defense strength ?

 

[Hulking Lummox]

Ideas I like so far :

1) Reduced combat strength for ranged line
2) Show iron at mining (does anyone actually disagree with this ?)
3) Give the swords cover


Have seen counters for most of the above with the possible exception of showing iron earlier. The only argument against the quote has been its too complicated. I don't think it is.

Today we have combat strength and ranged combat strength. Could we get away with just adding ranged defense strength ?

I like iron revealing early. I strongly stand by my very simple idea though. Attacking ranged units with melee is like trying to catch an armed and dangerous porcupine who can shoot you. I have seen a samurai take 27 damage by attacking a crossbow. That is absurd no matter what. Attacking them over a river can exceed 30hp. By the time you've won your unit needs to retire from the field or be picked off (that is if he didn't already die in the process).

Here's an idea that dovetails with the popular suggestion about cover. What if the cover promotion also reduced damage from melee attacking ranged units by 33% and 66% respectively? My only problem with that is horses are still going to have to retreat and heal as much as ever and it buffs pikes which don't deserve it.