Fixing the Melee Line
- Thread starter Aaron90495
- Start date
mitsho
Deity
What if Archers couldn't attack at one tile away?
I'd be willing to try to test how the game plays when archer units take damage on attack, not sure that it'd make archers the same as melee units. It might make melee units too strong again (but depends on the amount of damage they take...)
I'd be willing to try to test how the game plays when archer units take damage on attack, not sure that it'd make archers the same as melee units. It might make melee units too strong again (but depends on the amount of damage they take...)
That won't make any sense. Archers can fire at even at short range, especially crossbows (IIRC).
As I & other civers suggested, diminishing returns for archers & artillery would make most sense. That is quite realistic & would balance the game as well. Please note that I am not suggesting a hard cap. Instead a soft one, just like melee units get weak with lower HP, ranged units should generally get weak when 'attacking' low HP units.
The second good suggestion was that units garrisoned inside cities should take damage when attacked, especially by siege units. This can be reduced by constructing walls, castles etc. This change would make it possible for AIs to successfully rush you earlier on, as well as take the battle on field. Hiding behind walls would still be effective but a defenseless city won't be able to save the butts of the laser weaponry armed archers who are right now capable of slaying jaguar warriors within seconds.
Sent from my HTC One V using Tapatalk 2
Olleus
Deity
The point is that it would make ranged units behave like melee units than can attack further. Rather than godly units that can distribute death with impunity.
Of course, if you have 5 bowmen and I attach you one unit at a time you'll win, that's obvious. However, if, on attacking, an archer takes ~half the damage that a melee unit would take doing the same attack, then the game balance changes massively.
An archer would become a warrior, who can attack from further away and takes less damage; at the risk of being very vulnerable to close up attacks. In the 5 warriors vs 5 archers scenario at the moment the archers easily win in ~3-4 turns. If they took damage (~15 per attack say), then this would change dramatically. Both because it makes the easier to kill in melee, and because it reduces fire power in subsequent attacks.
Having ranged units suffer a penalty for attacking weaker units sounds interesting, and I'd like to try it, but I'm not convinced it would be enough. At most, you keep 1-2 extra horse units to finish stuff off.
kaspergm
Deity
- Joined
- Aug 19, 2012
- Messages
- 5,577
That would be a very bad solution for me. This would make the difference between Ranged and Melee units less, and that would make the game less fun, because it offers less variation. Instead, I think one needs to think in counters for every strategy. Yes, ranged units can attack from afar without taking damage, but they are die very easily when subjected to melee attacks. If enemy brings a lot of ranged units guarded by only a few melee units, you need to use your own ranged units to take out those melee guards and then take in cavalry to off the ranged units and moving out of reach after attacking. Will a horde of ranged units be able to demise of a few unasisted melee units? Yes, but that does not mean balance is off.
When all that is said, ranged units should have a (ranged) combat strength slightly lower than the (melee) combat strength of contemporary Offense units (Swordsman, Musketman, etc.) in order to limit the damage they do. Looking at the numbers, that seems to be actually the case:
Composite Bowman (11/7) vs. Swordsman (14)
Crosbowman (18/13) vs. Longswordsman (21)
Arachnofiend
Perturbed Pugilist
- Joined
- Oct 5, 2012
- Messages
- 1,950
This is how it works in Fire Emblem. There's no counter attack when facing melee units, either.
The end result is that archers are pretty weak and people only use them because the archer characters are rad.
But of course, in Fire Emblem units can use all their movement points and attack on the same turn so having to go through a forest to get to the archer isn't as much of an issue as it is in Civ.
Aaron90495
King
The problem with your argument that ranged units have slightly lower strength than their contemporary units has a problem: ranged units are placed far more conveniently in the tech tree. They usually only require one or two techs off of powerful beelines like Education; in fact, Gatlings are directly along the Scientific Theory beeline (IIRC), which is arguably the second most powerful beeline in the game (after Education).
kaspergm
Deity
- Joined
- Aug 19, 2012
- Messages
- 5,577
But THAT is a problem with the Tech Tree, then, rather than the units themselves, at least as I see it. And perhaps if Swordsmen were adjusted like has been suggested, perhaps things wouldn't be so clear cut. After I modded my game myself, I very much enjoy beelining Metal Casting (which is where I have now Longswordsmen sitting), and while I can't say for sure if it's better than a science rush, it sure can give some fun semi-early wars.
Aaron90495
King
Fair enough. That makes me all the more sad that there appear to be very few changes to the tech tree in BNW.
Another proposal: why not keep the tech tree as is, but nerf pikemen (maybe to 14) and lower all ranged units' strength (ranged and melee) by 1 or 2?
Circuit
Writing Letters
The counter to ranged units is cavalry units. They're fast enough to get in, mess them up, and get out again. There's no need to change melee units.
Aaron90495
King
But even by that logic, melee units are still useless. Cavalry does the trick, but melee units still have no use.
GhostSalsa
Emperor
This thread is about human-vs-AI gameplay and the build decisions that grow out of current play balance. The AI doesn't, and isn't going to send calvary units into my ranged invasion force and so my ranged invasion force is still significantly overpowered and thus there is less gameplay balance for me.
If you are proposing the AI be reprogrammed to meet invading forces mid-field with effective mounted flanking techniques, then that is a valid suggestion, though probably a lot more difficult and unlikely to be implemented than other suggestions.
Louis XXIV
Le Roi Soleil
Melee protect against cavalry.
Altisma
Warlord
- Joined
- May 31, 2012
- Messages
- 271
This thread isn't about AI vs Player. Multiplayer is all about range warfare and who can get to crossbows the faster and dominate the war. If the game continues after into the Industrial era then it becomes a game of who can spam the most artillery followed by GW Bombers then Atomic Bombs/Bombers.
Aaron90495
King
True. Didn't consider that. Still, protecting against cavalry seems like a very limited use for a line which has perennially stood as arguably the most important component of an army.
Louis XXIV
Le Roi Soleil
Depends on where in the world and when. In the Middle East, Cavalry and Archers made up the bulk of armies. Even the Hoplite armies of Athens and Sparta were made obsolete and replaced by cavalry tactics and missile troops by the time of Alexander's conquests. Spears were placed with Pikes who were mostly to resist cavalry.
Altisma
Warlord
- Joined
- May 31, 2012
- Messages
- 271
And your point is that melee units should remain worthless and never used?
Louis XXIV
Le Roi Soleil
Not at all. Just that perspective is necessary. I tend to use melee units, so my experience differs anyway.
RRtexasranger
Warlord
- Joined
- Dec 8, 2007
- Messages
- 148
My first thought was instead of nerfing range units, make melee units better at attacking cities. For instance, when they attack, have them lose less HP. As it stands now, if a melee unit attacks a city, it usually loses like over half of its HP, meaning it probably won't even survive another turn. This creates a situation where all you do is bombard with range units and have just one melee unit (I actually prefer mounted) come in and take the city once it gets really low on HP.
By making the melee units more effective at attacking cities (the offensive damage would be the same, they just wouldn't lose as much HP as normal) melee units can play a big part of a siege instead of just being the unit that comes in and takes the city.
By making the melee units more effective at attacking cities (the offensive damage would be the same, they just wouldn't lose as much HP as normal) melee units can play a big part of a siege instead of just being the unit that comes in and takes the city.
GhostSalsa
Emperor
Oh! I just had an idea. Cities should lose their attack in the turn after a melee unit attacks. This would neutralize the "giant nuclear death city" effect which I've already come out for doing, and make melee attacking more valuable in a siege.
