Fixing the Melee Line

[Altisma]

That would remove the point of even having melee units as a shield, wouldn't it? The idea of a shield wall with archers behind them was a common tactic, particularly in Mesopotamian warfare. It would be a shame to lose that. I'm not sure what changing it to a distance of one would really add.

If a mechanics change is needed (I'm not sure it is), I think removing the ability to completely kill through range would make the most sense overall.

Really most Archer warfare was done through skirmishing, the archers would take the front lines, exchange fire/rain fire down upon the opposing army, the melee charges making the archers retreat behind their melee.

 

[Louis XXIV]

That depends on where you were. That's more typical for Greco-Roman Warfare (although not usually Archers, rather other skirmishers like Velites or Peltasts), but Assyrian and Persian warfare was very much the way the game plays - spears and shield walls in front, archers behind them.

 

[Gaizokubanou]

That would remove the point of even having melee units as a shield, wouldn't it? The idea of a shield wall with archers behind them was a common tactic, particularly in Mesopotamian warfare. It would be a shame to lose that. I'm not sure what changing it to a distance of one would really add.

If a mechanics change is needed (I'm not sure it is), I think removing the ability to completely kill through range would make the most sense overall.

It's not just historical flavor either... the range units in combination with melee really adds depth to the combat. I was just brainstorming and wondered what would happen if all range were 1 range and can stack on melee like workers, but then realized that would just remove majority of army positioning out of the game and be really bad. So I agree I do see this as more of balance problem than design flaw even though longbow shooting over a city and a forest is kinda hilarious.

What if... one of honor policy gives cover promotion to melee units? It could solve 2 problems at once, to make honor opening competitive and to give better balance to melee vs range.

 

[Altisma]

It's not just historical flavor either... the range units in combination with melee really adds depth to the combat. I was just brainstorming and wondered what would happen if all range were 1 range and can stack on melee like workers, but then realized that would just remove majority of army positioning out of the game and be really bad. So I agree I do see this as more of balance problem than design flaw even though longbow shooting over a city and a forest is kinda hilarious.

What if... one of honor policy gives cover promotion to melee units? It could solve 2 problems at once, to make honor opening competitive and to give better balance to melee vs range.

Giving the cover promotion to melee units is not the way to solve it. It just forces a certain style of gameplay for melee where its the required strategy to make them even useful.

What at least needs to happen is range units should be useless against cities. What is a arrow going to do against a hard stoned wall? This would bring back early siege units at least.

 

[KrikkitTwo]

Simplest... Weaken ALL ranged units (attack mostly but also defense) and city ranged attacks

 

[Roxlimn]

I think it's important for all of us to remember that ranged units in Civ5 were not always dominant. In the heyday of the Horseman rushes, you didn't need to build any unit other than horsemen. Buffing melee to that point would bring about a similar change.

Right now, you still need melee to take cities. That's something of a balance. The true imbalance is between ranged and siege, since ranged are copying the role of, not melee, but siege. Siege themselves have an inherent "has to set up" and "stupidly vulnerable to melee" so they could use something. I think the Siege Tower and the Battering Ram are awesome points of reference. Ranged attack is nearly useless against them. If you want to kill them, you have to engage the enemy army.

Based on that, I feel that Catapults and Trebuchets (not Swordsmen) could benefit from an inherent Cover bonus, like Battering Rams and Siege towers. It bears mentioning that the unit you want when facing Huns is the Horseman (not the Spearman), though a Swordsman would be excellent as well.

 

[Gaizokubanou]

What at least needs to happen is range units should be useless against cities. What is a arrow going to do against a hard stoned wall? This would bring back early siege units at least.

All that will do is make taking early cities even harder and basically nerf pre-dynamite warfare even more. If you want to bring more emphasis on early siege units over range vs cities (which is indeed a good target goal), what Roxlimn suggested would be far better.

 

[wigwam]

Right now, you still need melee to take cities. That's something of a balance. The true imbalance is between ranged and siege, since ranged are copying the role of, not melee, but siege. Siege themselves have an inherent "has to set up" and "stupidly vulnerable to melee" so they could use something. I think the Siege Tower and the Battering Ram are awesome points of reference. Ranged attack is nearly useless against them. If you want to kill them, you have to engage the enemy army.

It is true that you need melee to take cities only in the most literal sense. You need to park a Horseman three hexes away and scoot in when the city is at 0 HP; you don't actually need to send any melee units into combat. Now that we've seen the Impi in action, Cover (or Cover-like) promotions actually seem to me like an excellent way to make melee units stronger, although it's certainly true that they won't solve the problem of archery units being effective against cities. I do wonder what other objections there are to the idea. Care to enlighten me?

To the question at hand: I do think that giving archery units a malus vs. cities is perfectly sensible. It worked for mounted units, didn't it? Something between 25% and 50% ought to do the trick; it could even be varied depending on city defenses (e.g. -25% against Walls, -50% against Castle). Buffing siege units alone won't work—if Composite Bowmen are strong enough now to be a primary defensive and offensive force and can crush cities, who cares what happens to Catapults?

Also, a simpler idea, unrelated to nerfing archery (but perfectly capable of working alongside it): nerf city strength and buff city HP. This tilts the field towards melee—the time it takes an attacking army to capture a city won't change (if you calibrate the changes to strength and HP correctly), but the amount of damage melee units take when attacking will be reduced.

 

[Matthew.]

I like the idea of making archer defense a bit weaker, although not sure how the AI would cope with such a change.

The idea being that ranged would 1.) still be just as powerful in city garrisons, as I think they should be 2.) still be just as powerful when fully protected from attacks.

The difference being that if and when they are attacked, they will actually die. A few responses in this and similar threads like to claim that the system is balanced, that cavalry is the counter to range. If you actually play the game you'd know it doesn't work out that way. A cavalry unit will run up and attack an archer unit, take a decent amount of health away from that unit, then die the next turn. The archer retreats and heals back up to full.

 

[jaldaen]

I wouldn't mind the following changes:

1) Ranged doing a lot less damage to cities. Preferably via the construction of walls (-33%) and castles (-33%). Open to having those penalties modified higher or lower depending on how this type of change effects game play.

3) Melee receiving less damage from cities ranged attacks (not melee attacks initiated with the city, those should still do the same damage).

3) Cities lose a certain amount of HP for each fortified melee unit next to it and the damage done increasing each turn. This would actually imitate sieges. You could of course still attack the city directly, but 2-3 turns of siege warfare would weaken the city enough to make an easy frontal assault.

Of course the big problem with change #3 is that the AI would have to be taught how to siege. Still, #1 and 2 should help.

 

[jaldaen]

wigwam,

I also wouldn't mind a change to city strength and hps, but it would have to be in addition to a ranged penalty vs. cities. If such a penalty wasn't include, then ranged would also benefit from the city's lessened strength, too.

 

[wigwam]

I also wouldn't mind a change to city strength and hps, but it would have to be in addition to a ranged penalty vs. cities. If such a penalty wasn't include, then ranged would also benefit from the city's lessened strength, too.

I don't think they would, apart from taking less damage from the city's attacks.

What I mean is this: let's say, right now, a city has 20 strength and 100 HP. If a Swordsman attacks, he'll do a small amount of damage (not actually sure how much) and take a huge amount of damage. If a Composite Bowman attacks, he'll do a slightly smaller amount of damage, but he'll take none.

Now change the city's strength and HP. I don't know how the combat damage formula works, but let's imagine that it's simpler than it is, and that if we halve the city's strength (to 10) and double its HP (to 200), the attacking units will simply deal twice as much damage (and take half as much). Now each attack, whether from the Swordsman or the Bowman, takes away the same percentage of the city's total health, but the Swordsman loses only half as many of his own HP when he attacks.

The actual combat numbers are more complicated than that, but the basic idea would make melee much more effective.

 

[funkymunky]

That would remove the point of even having melee units as a shield, wouldn't it? The idea of a shield wall with archers behind them was a common tactic, particularly in Mesopotamian warfare. It would be a shame to lose that. I'm not sure what changing it to a distance of one would really add.

If a mechanics change is needed (I'm not sure it is), I think removing the ability to completely kill through range would make the most sense overall.

Well, just my opinion, but I never liked having to make melee walls anyways. First, I think it messes up the AI in trying to find that perfect spot to put archers such that they can't get mowed down easily. If you buffed their strength - maybe say 30% - they could resist melee attacks better, so it wouldn't be so devastating when they get attacked by a melee unit, which I think could help the AI a bit.

As it is, they already get the benefit of not taking damage on their attack turn because they are ranged. Shortening their range could nerf that advantage somewhat to offer more balance. And I don't see why archers have to be so weak that they necessarily need melee protection, because it's not like archers were completely defenseless historically; usually they would carry short swords/knives for defense. If you compare an archer's strength to a warrior, I think the stats are 5 for the archer but 8 for the warrior. However, the archers actually have better technology, so I would think archers should be a little more on par, maybe 7 instead. And so having more strength would mean they wouldn't need as much protection, which would allows players to use melee more for melee attacks rather than defense so much.

As far as attacking cities, forcing them to be next to the city nerfs an advantage they have over siege units, which is that you can move archers within the 2 tile radius of the city and attack in that turn; whereas siege units have to be set up. By forcing archers to be next to the city, they can't move in and attack immediately, giving the city the attack advantage, and bringing them a bit more on par with siege. But, with better strength, the city attack wouldn't be so devastating and can give you the chance to move them away if they got too damaged, or even launch a volley the next turn and then swap with a melee behind it.

On the other hand, you wouldn't get as much advantage putting archers in your city since they can only attack units next to it. I suppose it somewhat evens out by the fact that the attackers are also limited in range. The city itself can still attack 2 tiles away, just not the archer. May make stationing melee in the city more useful as it give the city more strength. Guess you'll just have to make sure to have reinforcements to take out those damaged attackers trying to get away, since the archers wouldn't be able to reach, right?

Finally, somewhat of a side point, I think it's a bit silly that archers get a range of 2, but as you upgrade them to crossbow, and then Gatling gun, their range then decreases to 1. The 1 tile range seems to work well for Gatling & machine guns, so why not make archers work similarly?

Oh, and I would also add that horses will still have the advantage over archers in this scenario because they can move in, attack, and move out of range again. It probably couldn't kill the archer in one turn anymore, but it would still be a powerful attack. In fact, they probably would be more powerful because you wouldn't be able to camp an archer on a spot that is completely inaccessible to the horse and launch volley after volley on it any more. Best have some spearmen on hand now!

 

[unohu]

I skimmed this but I think it's an interesting debate of melee's role. What if they just move the cover promotions up to the first level, in line with open/rough promotions? Now you can specialize your melee easier - do I want "meat shields" to park in front of a city while I pelt it from the back or do I want melee units that are really powerful on their favored terrain. Additionally, when you barb farm you can now develop a cover II warrior or a open/rough II warrior or some interesting combo.

As it is, open/rough promos are your only choice and cover I/II come later. This also feels like it has the least balance impact since you're not messing with strengths or other factors and you aren't altering the strengths of city attacks. Edit: I'd also add cover I/II to the first tier of promotions for siege units too.

 

[Roxlimn]

It is true that you need melee to take cities only in the most literal sense. You need to park a Horseman three hexes away and scoot in when the city is at 0 HP; you don't actually need to send any melee units into combat. Now that we've seen the Impi in action, Cover (or Cover-like) promotions actually seem to me like an excellent way to make melee units stronger, although it's certainly true that they won't solve the problem of archery units being effective against cities. I do wonder what other objections there are to the idea. Care to enlighten me?

Once again, let us recall the history of horseman units in Civ 5. Their power came only from being movement 5. That was it. Their movement got reduced to 4 and they got a city attack penalty. They're still useful, but much less so, and Lancers suffer the brunt of the nerf.

For that reason, I'm not keen on nerfing the archer units so bluntly. In truth, I don't see them as being all that effective against cities. In use, I find Trebuchets to be much more powerful against cities than crossbowmen, especially in mixed terrain where crossbowmen cannot move in and shoot on the same turn. The Catapults though, are unfortunately positioned. Still, if a Siege Tower is worth building, a Catapult can't be that far off.

I've been using Cover and Cover 2 promotions since before BNW. They're awesome. There is no need to have so many ranged units if you have Cover promoted melee units because the AI prioritizes killing the melee units first. With these units, you can take a city with 2 Trebs rather than 6 crossbows, primarily because the AI doesn't attack the trebs. Still, I think it would be beneficial to give an independent range attack bonus to siege (they can already get Cover and Cover 2 promotions).

By the by, I also give my siege units Cover, not Volley. They already do +200% damage against cities. Adding +50% to that is a small bonus only. However, adding +66% resistance to ranged attack (usually from cities) is a great benefit.

 

[jaldaen]

I don't think they would, apart from taking less damage from the city's attacks.

This was my point, ranged units would also suffer less damage when attacked by the city. Also, I should note that cities have 200 hp right now, so if you doubled it, you'd need to go to 400 hp. Also walls and castles and I think arsenals add hp, too.

As you said, this number would probably need to be tweaked to math the underlying math, but I still wonder if people would still prefer to use ranged if there isn't a penalty to attacking cities because they can still suffer 0 damage, expect when being attacked directly by the city.

 

[Matthew.]

In truth, I don't see them as being all that effective against cities.

The reason ranged reigns supreme isn't because they are so effective at cities but because of the ability to move and shoot which results in 1.) more overall experience than siege units, which means quicker +1 range or double attack. 2.) they are effective at killing enemy military and do a decent job at cities. Two birds with one stone type of deal.

The siege and melee combo can work, too (and more fun IMO) but it is difficult to argue against mass ranged when it is just as effective and doesn't require a detour to those bottom techs, which means quicker universities and schools.

I've been using Cover and Cover 2 promotions since before BNW.

Indeed. Throw medic I and II on a horse/knight and have it move around the battlefield to whichever melee unit is fortified and taking damage.

In similar threads to this one I've made the argument that melee isn't that bad once you get promotions stacked on them. Perhaps a simple boost to their experience gain would be enough.

 

[Altisma]

All that will do is make taking early cities even harder and basically nerf pre-dynamite warfare even more. If you want to bring more emphasis on early siege units over range vs cities (which is indeed a good target goal), what Roxlimn suggested would be far better.

The cover bonus isn't going to do anything. I never had a problem taking down any units that had Cover 2 in multiplayer. Also, Cover 2 becomes Cover 1 when facing promoted archers.

The whole issue of cities being stronger needs to be addressed just by simply nerfing city attack or removing it. Cities should not defend themselves, only the men stationed inside it should do that.

 

[Hruberen]

Make it so that cities can't attack like in civrev.
or you could give melee units 3 movement so that they can close opposing rangers and attack cities easier

 

[jaldaen]

So I played a Medieval era game to run some sample numbers and here is what I came up with:

If we assume, the following (based off in-game numbers):
1) City Strength 10 and 400 HP, built on plains (as wigwam suggested)
2) Swordman Melee Strength: 14 (no upgrades)
3) Composite Bowman (CB) Ranged Strength/Melee Strength: 11/7 (no upgrades)
4) The Swordman deals 36 damage/attack and takes 24 damage/attack
5) The CB deals 31/attack and takes no damage.

Scenario #1:
4 Swordmen attack City with Strength 10 and 400 HP, built on plains
Round 1: Set-up 4 Swordmen to get flanking bonus, Swordman A gets damaged on the way in and is at 76 HP (100-24; only 76% effective on first attack).
Round 2: 4 Attacks dealing 146 damage (3x39 + 29 from Swordman A, who attacks last); Swordman A is attacked again by the city (which is damaged enough to suffer a 33% penalty to attacks); Swordman A now down to 44 HP (100-24-16-16), Swordmen B is at 76 HP, Swordmen C is at 79 HP, Swordmen D is at 81 HP.
Round 3: 4 Attacks dealing 116 damage (262 total; 146+29+30+31+26); Swordman A attacked again by the city; Swordman A at 12 HP (44-16-16); Swordman B at 60 HP; Swordman C at 63 HP; Swordman D at 65 HP. All Swordmen now below 67% Health and suffer -33% penalty to attack.
Round 4: Swordman A retreats; 3 Attacks dealing 78 damage (340 total; 262+[3x26]); Swordman B is attacked by the city; Swordman B at 28 HP (60-16-16); Swordman C at 47 HP; Swordman D at 49 HP.
Round 5: 3 attacks dealing 78 damage (418 total). City is taken. Swordman A at 12 HP; Swordman B at 12 HP; Swordman C at 31 HP; Swordman D at 33 HP.
15 attacks total, Swordmen almost all dead.

Scenario #2:
2 Swordmen and 2 CBs attack City with Strength 10 and 400 HP, built on plains
Round 1: 2 attacks deal 62 damage. Set-up 2 Swordmen to get flanking bonus, Swordman A gets damaged on the way in (Now 84 HP, only 84% effective).
Round 2: 4 Attacks dealing 133 damage (195 total:39+32+31+31); Swordman A is attacked again by the city (which is damaged enough to suffer a 33% penalty to attacks); Swordman A at 52 HP (84-16-16), Swordmen B is at 76 HP, CBs at 100 HP.
Round 3: 4 Attacks dealing 120 damage (315 total; 164+32+26+31+31); Swordman A attacked again by the city 20 HP (52-16-16); Swordman B at 60 HP; CBs at 100 HP.
Round 4: 3 Attacks dealing 88 damage (403 total; 315+31+31+26); Swordman B takes the city; Swordman A at 20 HP; Swordman B at 44 HP (60-16); CBs at 100 HP.
13 attacks total, Swordmen A almost all dead; Swordman B half dead; CBs unharmed.

Scenario #3:
4 CBs attack City with Strength 10 and 400 HP, built on plains; 1 melee held in reserve
Round 1: 4 Attacks dealing 124 damage (4x31); CB A is attacked by the city (which is damaged enough to suffer a 31% penalty to attacks); CB A at 84 HP (100-16), CB B-D at 100 HP.
Round 2: 4 Attacks dealing 119 damage (243 total; 124+93+26); CB A is attacked again by the city; CB at 68 HP (84-16) CB B-D at 100 HP.
Round 3: 4 Attacks dealing 114 damage (357 total; 243+93+21); Swordman moved up to assault city; CB A attacked by the city; CB A at 52 HP (68-16); CB B-D at 100 HP.
Round 4: 2 attacks dealing 61 damage (424 total; 357+31+30). City is taken by Swordman A. Swordman A at 84 HP; CB B-D at 100 HP.
14 attacks total, CB A half-dead, Swordmen A partially damaged, the rest untouched.

So what does that tell us? That even with halving City Strength and doubling City HP, ranged units would still rule in the city siege situation. Yes, melee do a lot more initial damage thanks to flanking bonuses (and at least one is needed to take the city), but attrition allows ranged to catch up and surpass them.

How do we fix this? I think a penalty to ranged attacks vs. cities would be very useful in addition to lower city strength (to help melee live longer). What should this penalty be? Here’s one more scenario that might work.

Scenario #4:
4 CBs (with -50% damage vs. cities) attack City with Strength 10 and 400 HP, built on plains
Round 1: 4 Attacks dealing 60 damage (4x15); CB A is attacked by the city (which is damaged enough to suffer a 31% penalty to attacks); CB A at 84 HP (100-16), CB B-D at 100 HP.
Round 2: 4 Attacks dealing 55 damage (115 total; 60+45+10); CB A is attacked again by the city; CB at 68 HP (84-16) CB B-D at 100 HP.
Round 3: 4 Attacks dealing 55 damage (170 total; 115+45+10); CB A attacked by the city; CB A at 52 HP (68-16); CB B-D at 100 HP.
Round 4: 4 Attacks dealing 55 damage (225 total; 170+45+10); CB A attacked by the city; CB A at 36 HP (52-16); CB B-D at 100 HP.
Round 5: 4 Attacks dealing 55 damage (280 total; 170+45+10); CB A attacked by the city; CB A at 10 HP (36-16); CB B-D at 100 HP.
Round 6: CB A retreats; 3 Attacks dealing 45 damage (325 total; 280+45); CB B is attacked by the city; CB B at 84 HP (100-16); CB C and D at 100 HP.
Round 7: 3 Attacks dealing 40 damage (365 total; 325+30+10); Swordman A moved up to assault city; CB B attacked by the city; CB B at 68 HP (84-16); CB C and D at 100 HP.
Round 8: 1 attacks dealing 36 damage (401 total; 365+15+36). City is taken by Swordman A. Swordman A at 84 HP; CB B at 68 HP; CB C-D at 100 HP.
27 attacks total, CB A almost dead, Swordman A and CB B partially dead, the rest untouched.



What does this scenario show? That with a -50% damage penalty against cities, ranged units would take almost twice as long as melee units to take cities. However, they would be a lot less damaged. This would make bringing melee (and siege!!!) units along to a siege very important. Even a -25%-33% penalty would shift the numbers enough to make adding melee units to the mix a bit more desirable.