Fixing the Melee Line

[mitsho]

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...)

 

[Babri]

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...)

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

 

[kaspergm]

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.

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]

What if Archers couldn't attack at one tile away?

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]

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)

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]

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).

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]

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.

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]

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]

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.

But even by that logic, melee units are still useless. Cavalry does the trick, but melee units still have no use.

 

[GhostSalsa]

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.

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]

But even by that logic, melee units are still useless. Cavalry does the trick, but melee units still have no use.

Melee protect against cavalry.

 

[Altisma]

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.

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]

Melee protect against cavalry.

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]

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]

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.

And your point is that melee units should remain worthless and never used?

 

[Louis XXIV]

Not at all. Just that perspective is necessary. I tend to use melee units, so my experience differs anyway.

 

[RRtexasranger]

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.

 

[GhostSalsa]

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.

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.

 

[ahawk]

Currently, I build pikes to ward off mounted units for hundreds of turns, then eventually anti-air guns to help with planes. Otherwise, I only build melee sparingly, usually to be the one unit that takes the city after ranged units knock it down to about 0 hp. Of course, sometimes a UU is good enough to justify building it, so there are a few other melee units I build (Samurai, Jaguar Warriors, Pictish, Hoplites) but melee just doesn't cut it anymore (pun intended).

Now to BNW:

1) Zulu. The Zulu look geared to make melee more relevant.

2) I'd like to see melee units in general (including gunpowder units) have a couple more promotion lines. I hope the promos the Zulu get for free will be available to everyone else after a certain level of XP.

3) I'd like to see the Siege promotion unlockable earlier for melee units than it currently is. Let melee units make it to this promo sooner than ranged units can.

4) Move the Iron strategic resource, as well as the Swordsman and Longswordsman, earlier on the tech tree. We already have the swordsman nerfed by having composite bows come very early, as well as by having pikes get buffed in G&K, so why not allow swords to appear earlier?

All this said, I don't really put too much stock in BNW making melee units in general all that relevant again. I do hope, though, that BNW will in the very least make Iron worth having for reasons other than Frigates (which appear very late as far as Iron is concerned) and Forges.

 

[kaspergm]

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.

But even by that logic, melee units are still useless. Cavalry does the trick, but melee units still have no use.

Melee protect against cavalry.

Yes, this is pretty much the thing. Ranged are good against melee, Cavalry are counter to Ranged, and Pikes are counter to Cavalry, but where does that leave Swords? Pretty much out in the cold.

As I see it, Archers, Cavalry and Pikes should be your favored choice for field combat. Siege and Swords should be your choice against cities. This is why I've advocated the following changes:

• Swords get a bonus against cities.
• Archers get a penalty against cities, like Horses.
• Siege weapons start with Cover I.
• Pikes get cut in strength but increased bonus against Cavalry.
• Cavalry get an overall strength boost.

These changes will mean that Pikes become an overall worse choice than Swords except for countering Cavalry, making them specifically defensive units. CB city rush becomes much less viable, and Catapults will actually have a chance of doing damage to a city and not just be killed first turn it moves into range before it even gets to set up. Cavalry become your all-round skirmisher unit effective for taking out particularly Ranged and Siege units, whereas Swords will actually be able to play an active role in sieges.