Fixing the Melee Line

[andrewlt]

To me, the biggest problem is cities. Melee units take too much damage attacking cities and heal too slowly afterwards. Additionally, if the city is surrounded by forests/hills/jungles, it is difficult to maneuver fresh melee troops into the front line without wasting a turn moving archers out of the way. I think it is less that archers are too effective but more that melee is too ineffective.

The problem is not as bad for field battles, though ranged units could stand to lose a little melee defense, especially foot ranged units.

 

[ds61514]

To me, the biggest problem is cities. Melee units take too much damage attacking cities and heal too slowly afterwards. Additionally, if the city is surrounded by forests/hills/jungles, it is difficult to maneuver fresh melee troops into the front line without wasting a turn moving archers out of the way. I think it is less that archers are too effective but more that melee is too ineffective.

The problem is not as bad for field battles, though ranged units could stand to lose a little melee defense, especially foot ranged units.

Agree 100%. If you:

- Reduce damage to melee on city attack

- Increase damage to units from city ranged attack

Then melee become comparatively stronger, and range comparatively weaker

 

[Zango]

I think the best way to fix the melee line would be to erase it and redraw it with a ruler to make sure it's straight this time.

 

[Altisma]

This discussion needs to be brought back up since it appears Firaxis is ignoring combat balance.

 

[MrL567]

I have several ideas to fix the combat line, mostly be nerfing range and pike units, and boosting "pure" Melee units.

1. Musket-men requires iron. While it makes it harder to get them, it nerfs pike and crossbow spammers who do not have iron because they now have weaker units in comparison, with 24 STR Musket-men steamrolling them.

2.Swords-men, Longswords-men, and Musket-men, start with the Cover 1 promo. This represents that these units would have better armor then a pike or a crossbowmen would, so it makes them stronger towards range attacks. Also because its innate on this side, the range unit will never be able to ignore the cover effect.

3. Pikes get city damage nerf. While this may seem unfair, it is semi-realist because most pike units are more mobs of militia or mercs then anything, so are not really professional. Only the German Landskert would not have this penalty, representing that it is actually professional.

4.Bring back the range penalty. Very simple, bring back the penalty towards archery units attacking cities.

5. Fix the Spear---pike line. Very simple, makesure that the techs you need to a spearmen and required for pikemen, so it will be harder to spam them.

 

[KrikkitTwo]

The general fix would be to weaken all ranged attack damage. (Side benefits: siege weapons survive city first strike better)

For the melee line, other wierdness
Longsword-Musket (small gap)
Pikes better than swords on tech tree (op top of tech tree)
[anti-mount/tank line in general is a separate matter]

To solve that I would
Change Ironworking (drop 1 tier to cost 105.. but require Masonry. Possibly drop swords to 12-13 str. Depending on balance)
Switch Longswords and Forges in the Tech tree
New Longsword=MetalCasting str18-20
New Forge: Steel
Consumes 1 Iron
+1 production
+1 for Iron (and Copper?) worked
+25% military unit production

 

[Seek]

This may be obvious to some, but it just occurred to me that Trade Routes give an indirect bonus to moving quickly through the bottom of the tree, thereby buffing swords because they'll potentially be in play before Civil Service more often. 1) Getting to and building Workshops will be more important than ever as they allow DTRs to transport production (and this looks extremely strong) and 2) the Collossus has been changed, most likely giving a bonus to ITRs, which would make it more of a priority for many civs.

Thoughts? Will these changes be enough to make swords relevant again? Of course ranged still need a nerf.

 

[MrL567]

If you wanted a rather hammery way to nerf range units. Require crossbowmen a timber resource that would be shared with some ships (Galles,Privateer,Frigate/SOTL) \. This would make it harder to spam them, and force you to think if you want to fleet or more Cbowmen.

 

[Konsti]

What if every time an archer did damage to a city, it took some damage back?

Techically speaking, how does that make sense?

 

[Zodan_Mir]

In my view, the main problem with ranged units is that there is significantly reduced risk when using them. Being able to slaughter things from two tiles away, with focused fire, just makes the game way too easy. Personally, while I understand the two-tile range mechanic, I've often felt that it's a little ridiculous. (Don't even get me started on longbowmen). Melee just move too slowly, and when forest and hills can just shut you down, ranged units are the "go to" choice. Why use slow-moving melee, when you can just fire arrows from two city lengths away?

I always liked the ranged mechanics in the old Shogun boardgame. Archers didn't kill things from miles away (like in Civ). Instead, they were subject to the same range restrictions as your melee units (they were all part of the same army). The difference, though, was that ranged units got a "free" shot at the enemy units at the start of every battle round, simulating their safe attack distance.

I've often wondered how Civ V would play if something similar were introduced, where ranged units could only attack one tile away (like melee), but got a free shot every combat round to simulate this safe firing position. Sure, some strategic "depth" might be lost, as true ranged combat would be limited to air units, bombs, etc., and certainly units strengths would have to be reworked, but I wonder if the balance between melee and ranged would be improved. I wouldn't even mind a special stacking rule, that would allow one ranged unit to be stacked with a melee unit (but no more). It's currently just way too easy to position/use ranged units on a map that is so constricted by 1-hex movement. It would also be less ridiculous--no more longbows hitting targets ten lightyears away.

 

[Konsti]

no, I dont believe that idea is useful. yOu would only be able to attack cities with less units at once elongating a siege, and a big part of the 1UPT strategy is based on the placement of melee and ranged so that all can use their abilities best.
Last, i doesn't really reflect the "safe shot" because in real life too, archers would shoot from a distance knowing they can't be attacked. Hence archers facing up when shooting = better distance coverage.

 

[Circuit]

You people seem to forget that mounted units exist...

 

[KrikkitTwo]

You people seem to forget that mounted units exist...

While mounted units deal with the range (free first shot) of ranged units, they don't do well with the focused fire.

Both mounted and melee units need a buff, right now their main use is taking 1 hp cities.

This would be solved by making ranged attacks weaker. So the focus fire is not as deadly (also making bows worse v. Cities.. The cities would heal more of what they lost)

 

[Dunkah]

I always liked the ranged mechanics in the old Shogun boardgame. Archers didn't kill things from miles away (like in Civ). Instead, they were subject to the same range restrictions as your melee units (they were all part of the same army). The difference, though, was that ranged units got a "free" shot at the enemy units at the start of every battle round, simulating their safe attack distance.

The problem is that the melee unit would then be able to attack the ranged and wipe it out after taking the first round.

This is why there needs to be an army mechanic. So you can combine melee and ranged in the same unit and actually have the combat fought like a real life battle would be fought, with combined arms all fighting simultaneously.

It's also the reason why there should be a tactical 1 hex movement near the enemy and away from the roads and strategic movement when away from the enemy.

 

[Zodan_Mir]

This is why there needs to be an army mechanic. So you can combine melee and ranged in the same unit and actually have the combat fought like a real life battle would be fought, with combined arms all fighting simultaneously.

That's why I suggested being able to stack 1 melee and 1 ranged unit per tile, with the notion that enemy melee units couldn't attack the ranged unit until it's defending melee unit was first defeated. This creates a realistic combined arms mechanic that is sorely lacking. (This is also how Shogun worked, IIRC).

When you start talking about army stacks, though, a la Age of Wonders, etc., you run the risk of heading back down the "stack of doom" rabbit hole. I think there is better strategy in a more "carpet oriented" approach. I just think ranged units are too damn good, and destroy the need for combined arms tactics (or any melee at all). Currently, melee serve one purpose: take 1hp cities. That's it. Hardly worthy of the word "strategic".

Edit: I've been playing a game as China (first time), and have been laughing the whole way to a domination victory. Chu-ko-nu are stupidly overpowered in a game that already favors ranged so heavily (same goes for Arabia's camel archer). Most boring/e-z mode domination game I've ever played. Just crank out chu-ko-nu and mow down anyone on your continent until industrial, then take your huge lead and mop up the rest of the map.

 

[Seek]

No thoughts that the lower half of the tech tree will become more critical to all playstyles because of trade routes, thus giving swords more time to shine?

 

[mitsho]

Possible, if internal trade routes are really as strong. Do we know for sure these bonuses are located in the lower half? Seems like additional trade route might more come with the "naval" techs at the upper limit?

 

[kaspergm]

Possible, if internal trade routes are really as strong. Do we know for sure these bonuses are located in the lower half? Seems like additional trade route might more come with the "naval" techs at the upper limit?

You need a Workshop to send production. The trade routes themselves are not located in lower half, but the ability to send production is.

 

[Seek]

Possible, if internal trade routes are really as strong. Do we know for sure these bonuses are located in the lower half? Seems like additional trade route might more come with the "naval" techs at the upper limit?

The host city requires a Workshop to be able to send production. It is known.

I think at least one of the economy techs (lower-mid on the tech tree) will grant an additional ITR and Guilds allows the building of Artists Guilds (so it could be decent for culture players too).

 

[mitsho]

I know, but that doesn't seem that strong at all. Gold Trade Routes seem to have the potential for much more yields than Production or Food ones (let's call them that instead of International and Domestic ones).

Certainly not a reason to go for it specifically. Of course it might be a good ability for conquest empires, but not sure if this is really that big a deal...

Hard to say when we don't know the exact new bonuses...