Fixing the Melee Line

[Kurtbob]

You took 3-5 stats and made it 12.

Fine for a tactical combat game, but not a 4x strategy game.

Well, I did take the list directly from panzer general so it probably wouldn't work as well for CiV as a custom stat list (how would we define soft, hard, and close targets for example?). You are right in pointing out that there are a dozen stats in the list,which looks excessive, but it dosent necissarily have to be so. Attack melee, defense melee, attack ranged, defense ranged would be perfectly fine with me.


Panzer general is a turn based combat tactical game using hex maps. I really don't see any vast differences between its combat system and CiV's. Units in both games have movement points, combat ratings (panzer general uses stats in different categories to define a unit while CiV uses two combat stats and promotions to define a unit), sight, abilities, ect. IMO Changing the number of unit combat stats won't change anything else about the game.

 

[KrikkitTwo]

And as it turns out Firaxis did want to make a tactical combat game, as shown by the fact that Civ V has tactical combat. Therefore, it appears that you agree with me that we're better off without stacks? Although honestly I don't think Firaxis's intent is much of an argument either way.

Civ V is more a Sim City game with tactical combat, than a tactical combat game.

A true tactical combat combat game might have unit production, but definitely not Settlers, Science, happiness, food, culture, religion, social policies, diplomacy, different players at peace, etc.

Civ is Not a tactical combat game. It is an empire builder game that has tactical combat (just like it has Diplomacy, Religion, Technology, Culture, Economy, Policies, etc.)

Just like civ would not be better if you did diplomacy with each of the 100 most powerful people in each empire. Who could each lose or gain power....as well as the 10 most powerful people in each city.

That would be a diplomacy game.... Civ isn't a diplomacy game (although more diplomacy/politics would be better)

 

[Arachnofiend]

Civ V is not Sim City at all because Civ V has win conditions and a competitive aspect. If you want a building sim you're playing the wrong game.

 

[KrikkitTwo]

Civ V is not Sim City at all because Civ V has win conditions and a competitive aspect. If you want a building sim you're playing the wrong game.

And if you want a tactical combat game, Civ is the wrong game.

 

[Arachnofiend]

As someone who has been playing tactical combat games for years (Fire Emblem is my baby) I can tell you that the combat mechanics as they currently are satisfy my craving for that style of play.

So no, I'm not playing the wrong game at all.

 

[kaspergm]

Civ I, II, and III had units with both attack and defense ratings. Civ IV changed that, giving all units one combat rating but giving every unit an ability to fit a specific niche (archer=city defense, spearman=mounted bonus, axe man=melee bonus, swordsman=city attack bonus). CiV continued this ability niche gameplay and added ranged attack, though as I stated before, in an awkward fashion.

Did they? It's been so long I don't even remember. Well so much more of a reason to bring it back, CIV did many things right, but I think this particular turnback would really improve some areas of the game.

Well, I did take the list directly from panzer general so it probably wouldn't work as well for CiV as a custom stat list (how would we define soft, hard, and close targets for example?). You are right in pointing out that there are a dozen stats in the list,which looks excessive, but it dosent necissarily have to be so. Attack melee, defense melee, attack ranged, defense ranged would be perfectly fine with me.

Yeah, I'm not really sure we need a Ranged defence, perhaps one general defence stat would be enough.

 

[KrikkitTwo]

As someone who has been playing tactical combat games for years (Fire Emblem is my baby) I can tell you that the combat mechanics as they currently are satisfy my craving for that style of play.

So no, I'm not playing the wrong game at all.

An example of what I talked about earlier.
By adding tactical combat to an empire building game, they appeal to a broader market (like adding Poland or GDRs)

However, if they appeal too much to one of those markets, then it is no longer a history based empire builder game. (Or it is a very bad empire builder game because one aspect of gameplay is taking up most of the time/thought, etc.)

Having Attack & Defense as well as Ranged Attack and 1upt would be too tactical for my taste.
I do prefer 1upt over SoD (mass repeated unit v. Unit battle)
However a Stack v. Stack system would be what I'd prefer (armies that act similar to air units with terrain interaction....ie interception)

 

[kaspergm]

Having Attack & Defense as well as Ranged Attack and 1upt would be too tactical for my taste.

So you say introducing one extra stat turns the game over the edge for you? Well, the line has to be drawn somewhere, I suppose ...

 

[KrikkitTwo]

So you say introducing one extra stat turns the game over the edge for you? Well, the line has to be drawn somewhere, I suppose ...

By too tactical for my taste, I'm talking about where it would start to be a negative ( not the wouldn't buy it point)

After all attack+defense seems like it is duplicative with 1upt, ZOC rules, and ranged combat.


However, to the OP

Big problems with melee
1. Strength of Range
2. Wierdness with swords pikes
3. Short LS Musket gap
4. Short GW/Infantry gap


Solution to 1
Decrease damage done by all ranged attacks overall...
(May need to beef up the Archer, and R1 units which can't focus fire as well)
(possibly Also have it be less effective v. Damaged units... Same as damaged units do less damage)

Solution to 2 and 3
Move Swords + longswords 1 tech earlier
( for swords, move Iron working itself from 195 cost to 105 cost, but add Masonry as a requirement)
(For LS, move them to Metal Casting, and reduce their str to 18-20)
(Possibly mov Forge up to Steel and make it better to compensate)

Solution to 4
Switch Marines and Infantry
(Adjust str as needed)

 

[Seek]

Yeah, I'm not really sure we need a Ranged defence, perhaps one general defence stat would be enough.

I think a separate ranged defense would be very useful, especially for siege and certain melee units (UUs in particular). Siege would benefit the most, as they should be tough to take down via city and archer attacks but vulnerable to melee. I could also see the armory building granting a unique promotion to new units which increase it's ranged defense.

Edit: Of course we already have a separate ranged defense stat in the game - re: the cover promotions.

 

[kaspergm]

Edit: Of course we already have a separate ranged defense stat in the game - re: the cover promotions.

True at that, but then again, the promotion has a different value than the stat itself, because the promotion allows you to improve a certain area of the unit when levelling up on behalf of another area - for instance, by choosing Cover, you automatically bypass a promotion that would increase your offensive properties. Having a separate stat that gives you a high initial ranged defence would obviously work in synergy with that, but is by no means the same as that, so I don't see a problem.

And good point about Siege engines vs. normal Ranged units.

 

[Xiao Xiong]

Make ranged units run out of ammo, which takes time to replenish, like healing. They are still a full health but run out of things to shoot.

Say archers get one attack, then must replenish. With a promotion, attack two turns in a row, then three. Replenish one attack per turn.

 

[Dunkah]

So to further hone my idea of Linked units.

Make it so that in order to fire more than 1 hex in a ranged attack that two ranged units must be linked, or a ranged unit must link to a Great General. The more units you have linked together the better the volley is on that target.

So it's like stacks but not stacked. Units that are linked are in good order and give max damage where units that are not linked are considered disorganized or skirmished and get a penalty.

I'm telling you this will work!

 

[HorseshoeHermit]

Presently there is a mechanic that makes melee and ranged units each extra vulnerable to attacks from the other domain. How about just removing this? Rebalance the Strength values to bring ranged units further below melee power levels. Or how about making the deep tier promotions available from two melee promos and three ranged promos instead of the other way?

Some creativity in this thread. What about just using a hammer? Range's dominance is a mathematical necessity. With city defense and certain civs being what they are, you can't mess with gameplay too much or war could just end up impossible.

Or my creative idea, ranged units cannot fire into any hex into which they could not reach when the turn started. Then they are worse at advancing. It leaves room for rebalancing the English artillery.

 

[AlazkanAssassin]

What about simple improvements to the cover promotion line?

I avoid this line for most units since it does not lead to the powerful promotions at the top of the promotion tree like the Shock and Drill promotion lines do. It feels somewhat 'wasted' when I'm not immediately fighting ranged units.

A few options for improving this promotion line:

1) Make Cover promotions lead to high-end promotions with no delay relative to the shock/drill promotions. e.g. Shock1->cover1->cover2->march

2) Make cover promotions a full third line parallel to shock and drill, with identical connections to high level promotions. e.g. cover1->cover2->cover3->march, cover1->cover2->siege. This allows production of units with cover specialty using only a barracks.

3) Make cover promotions also effective on ATTACK against units with a ranged attack value (not cities). This could make melee units very effective at killing archers once they get to them.

 

[KrikkitTwo]

Replacing Shock and Drill (terrain based) with cover and ?shock? As anti- ranged or anti melee would also be Interesting.

 

[Big J Money]

So to further hone my idea of Linked units.

Make it so that in order to fire more than 1 hex in a ranged attack that two ranged units must be linked, or a ranged unit must link to a Great General. The more units you have linked together the better the volley is on that target.

So it's like stacks but not stacked. Units that are linked are in good order and give max damage where units that are not linked are considered disorganized or skirmished and get a penalty.

I'm telling you this will work!

I like this. It encourages battle lines. And actually the game almost already has this in the honor tree. The only thing it needs to fit your idea is an increasing bonus for more linked units (the bonus for adjacent units doesn't currently stack)

 

[mitsho]

What about simple improvements to the cover promotion line?

*snip*

It's a good idea to start, but it hinges on two problem for me: Does that promotion line make the other two redundant, i.e. if you have to take it, it's not really a choice. And secondly, does the AI understand it? Say, can it target the best units to attack, meaning the ones without the promotion? It already has problems with that. Which would be beneficial more for the human player.

I still see a "-33% damage to wounded units" promotion as the best solution, give it to all ranged units and you weaken them quite a lot. Include that together with a fix to the 'multiple attacks from cities' bug and you got something workable. Not something pretty, or great, but something that walks...

EDIT: Big J Money's quoted proposal though seems way to complicated, I had to read it through twice...

 

[HeraldtheGreat]

I like this. It encourages battle lines. And actually the game almost already has this in the honor tree. The only thing it needs to fit your idea is an increasing bonus for more linked units (the bonus for adjacent units doesn't currently stack)

And, of course, adding a bonus for ranged units. I really like, though. Linking gives CoDing a whole meaning!

 

[GhostSalsa]

Yes this thread is way too circuitous at this point. Anyway more ideas:

All this reference to rock-paper-scissors has me of mind that swords are superfluous in balance because they are two broadly medium-strong. The pike and sword lines need to essentially merge.

-Spearmen out, swordmen available sooner like in Vanilla*. That is, for everyone except UUs: swordmen replaced by iron-free spearmen version for Greece and Persia. Against, horses, it should really just be assumed that the swordmen also have some spears, I mean they did tend to at the time I'm pretty sure.

-Chariot Archers can go or stay I never build them either way.

-Longswords out, replaced by / swords upgrade to pikemen. Pikemen are on bottom of tree and require ironworking tech. We talk all the time about tradeoffs, ignoring military tech early game should mean YOU DON'T GET TO HAVE A MILITARY. No free protection for education beeline.

-Pikes have temporary anti-mounted triangle that can be beefed up by the regular promotion. Only the regular promotion will stay past upgrade. Pikes upgrade to muskets.

-This makes for a clean melee line, especially remembering that LONGSWORDMEN AREN'T REALLY A THING (they're just KNIGHTS with no horses). So they can go. Except of course for UU longswords, who are really the only reason that class exists it seems like, leading to:

-Samurai and Berserkers replace knights. This makes Japan and Denmark interesting because they won't have a middle-ages calvary. Inaccurate for Japan, I know, but Japanese Knights are distracting to look as currently stands. Either way fun to play and play against. Yes horse>melee>horse will generate complaints but it's only two civs instead of the entire game as currently stands. As corresponding buff, Samurai maybe could get two choosable free promos after build or upgrade from horseman.

All of this should be done with the other obvious ideas, especially iron revealing at bronze. The main way it buffs melee is: one unified line with sturdier and more constant time period relevancy.