How to render archers more attractive?
- Thread starter Calavente
- Start date
He won't without a hammer cost adjustment, and I wouldn't either. For zone defense if you give me a choice between 60 
for an archery range plus another 60 for an archer with 3/5 with a +20% attack within cultural borders, versus 4 bronze warriors, I'll take the 4 bronze warriors every time. Giving +3 XP to the archery range as an additional bonus might help. This would mean that under Apprenticeship you could produce an archer with the counter promotion for whatever unit you're being choked by.
I might use an archer if it had some good properties for defending a stack moving through enemy territory, though. That or if archers hard countered some kind of common unit type, like how axemen counter swordsmen in base Civ4 or spearmen counter chariots.
for an archery range plus another 60 for an archer with 3/5 with a +20% attack within cultural borders, versus 4 bronze warriors, I'll take the 4 bronze warriors every time. Giving +3 XP to the archery range as an additional bonus might help. This would mean that under Apprenticeship you could produce an archer with the counter promotion for whatever unit you're being choked by.I might use an archer if it had some good properties for defending a stack moving through enemy territory, though. That or if archers hard countered some kind of common unit type, like how axemen counter swordsmen in base Civ4 or spearmen counter chariots.
That sounds pretty cool, actually. The real test is if would Q ever build em.
Q builds "only" bronze warriors- so I woud not hope much from him
My main problem are not archers - can ignore and that's all, but horse line - high withrawal rate "owns" everything , speaking of tactics, survivalibity and cost -effectivness.
There are multiple problems. From what I understand, Kael and Co intended on each civ/leader focusing on a different branch of units and a smattering of secondary units. What wasn't intended is that we would learn how to abuse aristocracy and only spam warriors until T3 units arrive and use warriors for defense. Honestly, horse archers are weak when you focus on flanking promotions. The bigger problem is that you have a million of them.
To effectively balance the game and promote the original intention, several things have to be done:
1. Fix the massive price difference between warriors and T2 units (done in some mods).
2. Weaken aristorgrarian so its NOT OK to have 5000(ish) units per city.
3. Prevent warriors from using iron/mithril (done in some mods).
4. Improve archers so they are a competitive alternative to other units.
5. Observe the rock, paper, scissors, rule when balancing units (archers beat axes, horses beat archers, axes beat horses...I miss pikemen.)
6. Lift/remove barriers preventing usage of secondary units without affecting T3/T4 units.
7. Don't overpower Ljo in the process.
To effectively balance the game and promote the original intention, several things have to be done:
1. Fix the massive price difference between warriors and T2 units (done in some mods).
2. Weaken aristorgrarian so its NOT OK to have 5000(ish) units per city.
3. Prevent warriors from using iron/mithril (done in some mods).
4. Improve archers so they are a competitive alternative to other units.
5. Observe the rock, paper, scissors, rule when balancing units (archers beat axes, horses beat archers, axes beat horses...I miss pikemen.)
6. Lift/remove barriers preventing usage of secondary units without affecting T3/T4 units.
7. Don't overpower Ljo in the process.
Where did I get such a rep for warriors 
But yeah I wouldn't build them with that.
I was actually expecting something like 5-6(total) attack in borders - with that and ~40h id build them.
Archery range doesn't need a boost - I definitely think AR should =TY and stable, and not make any of them better or worse.
Most of your suggested adjustments are rolled into EitB
But yeah I wouldn't build them with that.
I was actually expecting something like 5-6(total) attack in borders - with that and ~40h id build them.
Archery range doesn't need a boost - I definitely think AR should =TY and stable, and not make any of them better or worse.
Most of your suggested adjustments are rolled into EitB
Something simple might be to just have archers at 4 str, 50% vs melee, and some collateral.
No need for withdrawal or city defense then. After that, defensive promo can take care of the rest, combined with Better Walls (tm)
Perhaps boost axes to 20% city attack to compensate/ aid in balance.
Melee should have it harder to get cover and easier to get formation
No need for withdrawal or city defense then. After that, defensive promo can take care of the rest, combined with Better Walls (tm)
Perhaps boost axes to 20% city attack to compensate/ aid in balance.
Melee should have it harder to get cover and easier to get formation
@Q : why not give collateral to a "mainstay unit" ?
it's not a mainstay unit : you don't build it ever ... [/sarcasm]
I think an improvement of the idea of akastosh would be nice :
same hammers as axe (or a bit more : 50 instead of 45)
3/5 (as normal), and
a "super homeland : +2 attack str, +25%attack in civ).
and for "outside borders stack defense" : a weakenend guardsman effect:
if guardsman make the unit be considered as 50% more effective, have archer be considered as 25% more effective
+ increase the defensive strike : maybe lower % but can be "always" fired (not limited to 1/per turn)
it's not a mainstay unit : you don't build it ever ... [/sarcasm]
I think an improvement of the idea of akastosh would be nice :
same hammers as axe (or a bit more : 50 instead of 45)
3/5 (as normal), and
a "super homeland : +2 attack str, +25%attack in civ).
and for "outside borders stack defense" : a weakenend guardsman effect:
if guardsman make the unit be considered as 50% more effective, have archer be considered as 25% more effective
+ increase the defensive strike : maybe lower % but can be "always" fired (not limited to 1/per turn)
Sorry if what I said came out wrong, but I feel collateral has a specific role and that its best not meddled with in that way. (Besides we do not know if I will build a different iteration of an archer, if you give it snowfall or a summonable dragon, I'm not going to avoid it because the name is archer 
. More seriously, where did I get this rep as a archer hater?? I mean sure I posted a bit about it in the sg, but still - you guys make me sound like I've started a society to hack into peoples computers and make the game crash each time they build one or something...)
Firstly one has magical collateral, taking the form of maelstorm and fireballs as well as the more subtle collateral form (but which I still consider as such as it is a suicide unit sent in to damage enemies) of spectres pitbeasts, hosts and so on.
All of this collateral requires significant beaker investment as well as work in training adepts to get it to work, and thus has a positive (most effective and repeatable, gets better over time) and a negative (high cost in investment, requires an elite so big cost if lost).
Secondly we will examine religious collateral. Religious collateral is based on the idea of joining a religion and running it (at least for 10 turns) in return for building units that have a set collateral. Of the two available we firstly have the ashen veil who come at the cost of turning one evil, have the same effect as maelstorm except with less radius and can have a negative effect on nearby tiles (smoke on forests). Thus ashen veil are able to get to the maelstorm collateral earlier (but still requiring significant investments in tech) but are less versatile and do not get as good a effect.
OO on the other hand, have a significantly higher result (2 range, 75% cap) but at the cost of extreme situational use (coast cities are crap in base) and destroying improvements.
Finally we have siege. This is a very cheap (both to access and to use) source and is basically intended as a poor man's collateral, supporting the branches of the mundane - melee, recon, mounted etc. Its cost is in speed (which is why mounted units can receive semi colateral in the form of withdrawal) and in repeated cost - hammers are required for each attack (unless it survives...). This is balanced by it being weak and slow - if collateral was available on a mainstay unit like the archer (mainstay because you can make a army out of them - sure no one DOES but the point stands (mages/priests have been dealt with earlier - mages are really support troops and priests one doesn't need an army of - collateral is still the same with 15 or 50, and they are weaker then others and best accompanied by other religious units (corpses, drowns)).
Where was I?
Mainstay unit that's right - yeah if you give an archer it you have to either make it too weak (why are people going to use it then?) or strong enough to be worth building over siege. If you manage that you have easily accessible, early game units with the ability to take mobility/haste, and to attack and win.
And that's broken and would destroy any use of siege, and greatly distort the balance that the team managed on collateral.
In conclusion, adding collateral to a archer will either alter the game balance considerably and remove the use of a unitclass or be of no consequence, in which case why bother?
That's my view anyway.
. More seriously, where did I get this rep as a archer hater?? I mean sure I posted a bit about it in the sg, but still - you guys make me sound like I've started a society to hack into peoples computers and make the game crash each time they build one or something...)Firstly one has magical collateral, taking the form of maelstorm and fireballs as well as the more subtle collateral form (but which I still consider as such as it is a suicide unit sent in to damage enemies) of spectres pitbeasts, hosts and so on.
All of this collateral requires significant beaker investment as well as work in training adepts to get it to work, and thus has a positive (most effective and repeatable, gets better over time) and a negative (high cost in investment, requires an elite so big cost if lost).
Secondly we will examine religious collateral. Religious collateral is based on the idea of joining a religion and running it (at least for 10 turns) in return for building units that have a set collateral. Of the two available we firstly have the ashen veil who come at the cost of turning one evil, have the same effect as maelstorm except with less radius and can have a negative effect on nearby tiles (smoke on forests). Thus ashen veil are able to get to the maelstorm collateral earlier (but still requiring significant investments in tech) but are less versatile and do not get as good a effect.
OO on the other hand, have a significantly higher result (2 range, 75% cap) but at the cost of extreme situational use (coast cities are crap in base) and destroying improvements.
Finally we have siege. This is a very cheap (both to access and to use) source and is basically intended as a poor man's collateral, supporting the branches of the mundane - melee, recon, mounted etc. Its cost is in speed (which is why mounted units can receive semi colateral in the form of withdrawal) and in repeated cost - hammers are required for each attack (unless it survives...). This is balanced by it being weak and slow - if collateral was available on a mainstay unit like the archer (mainstay because you can make a army out of them - sure no one DOES but the point stands (mages/priests have been dealt with earlier - mages are really support troops and priests one doesn't need an army of - collateral is still the same with 15 or 50, and they are weaker then others and best accompanied by other religious units (corpses, drowns)).
Where was I?
Mainstay unit that's right - yeah if you give an archer it you have to either make it too weak (why are people going to use it then?) or strong enough to be worth building over siege. If you manage that you have easily accessible, early game units with the ability to take mobility/haste, and to attack and win.
And that's broken and would destroy any use of siege, and greatly distort the balance that the team managed on collateral.
In conclusion, adding collateral to a archer will either alter the game balance considerably and remove the use of a unitclass or be of no consequence, in which case why bother?
That's my view anyway.
on the other hand, few people uses cats...
one of its main advantage being collateral, true, but also city defense bombardment.
if archers were a weak collateral, that wouldn't lessen (IMO) the siege niche.
the siege niche is already broken by maelstrom, tsunami, ring of fire, fireball, cheap summons and any mounted withdrawing units.
Collateral Archers would only be one more nail on the coffin, but one out of many.
and truthfully, even if collateral archer would hamstring cats even more (which I'm not sure), I'd rather have useful archers and highly situational cats than situationnal archers and situational cats.
thus, instead of getting archers one in 10 games and cats one in 10 games you'll get archers almost every game (like you have in almost every game at least 3 of melee, recon, mage, disciple and mounted) and cats one in 20 games.
thus, at least one of archer and cat get some use.
they can be balanced properly... especially by
-hammer-wise by making such that you would need multiple archers to have the same effect as 1 cat.
-movement wise :creating a +1 mvt for un-living units (at magic level 2?)
-effect wise : improve archers as an out-of-city collateral and cats as an city collateral (from city or against city).
I'm sure there's a way to make the collateral depend on the tile-innate-defense + attack str : less collateral effect in cities for all, increased / compensated for catapults due to their innate +%city attack.
one of its main advantage being collateral, true, but also city defense bombardment.
if archers were a weak collateral, that wouldn't lessen (IMO) the siege niche.
the siege niche is already broken by maelstrom, tsunami, ring of fire, fireball, cheap summons and any mounted withdrawing units.
Collateral Archers would only be one more nail on the coffin, but one out of many.
and truthfully, even if collateral archer would hamstring cats even more (which I'm not sure), I'd rather have useful archers and highly situational cats than situationnal archers and situational cats.
thus, instead of getting archers one in 10 games and cats one in 10 games you'll get archers almost every game (like you have in almost every game at least 3 of melee, recon, mage, disciple and mounted) and cats one in 20 games.
thus, at least one of archer and cat get some use.
they can be balanced properly... especially by
-hammer-wise by making such that you would need multiple archers to have the same effect as 1 cat.
-movement wise :creating a +1 mvt for un-living units (at magic level 2?)
-effect wise : improve archers as an out-of-city collateral and cats as an city collateral (from city or against city).
I'm sure there's a way to make the collateral depend on the tile-innate-defense + attack str : less collateral effect in cities for all, increased / compensated for catapults due to their innate +%city attack.
I think giving catapults a bonus to city attack would render them more attractive 
as far as Archers, how about this proposition?
4 str, +25% vs melee, +50% city defense. -25% city attack. +1 first strike. 45 hammers, requires training yard (as do the other t2 and t3 units of melee, mounted, and archery)
Specialty unit spearman is 4 str, -50% vs melee, +50% vs mounted, 60 hammers, requires hunting and training yard.
Its upgrade Pikeman is 4 str, iweapontier2, +100% vs mounted, 120 hammers, requires Engineering and Barracks.
with the introduction of early spearman (if hunting is split into hunting and tracking like in ETMP), then I do not think formation needs to come earlier. If no spearman, it needs to come earlier. It can also come earlier if the lowly spearman requires the T2 martial building Barracks like its upgrade Pikeman does.
Spearman's main weaknesses are its vulnerability to axemen (and warriors), as well as its inability to use metal weapons. However this later weakness is also its strength: Instead of 3 str with +1 if copper, spears are always 4 str.
Perhaps we could increase the Axeman city attack bonus from 10% to 20% but I am not sure that such a change would be necessary. Instead it would be largely unchanged in every discipline except for its weakness to archers.
I understand that adding spearmen would complicate the issue somewhat, but it would also bring new defensive strategies to the table.
Spearmen are more costly than axeman and also get torn apart by axeman, but are indispensable n the defens vs cavalry. Perhaps '6' vs '5' is not much IF you have copper, but if you do not have copper the spear would literally be a godsend.
Obviously if you have horses you could just build horses to counter their horses ... but with the beauty of the unified Training yard philosophy you can do both! Spear for static defense and horse for mobile defense.
Archers would remain primarily a defensive unit (at least until flaming arrows) but they can now attack out into the opposing army rather than uselessly hiding behind walls.
Additionally without 5 (or 6 with Scorption Clan), defense ... the archer will be less of a barricade and more of a fluid unit. More useful to the user, and less hindering to the attacker.
Or in other words, the one downside is that, by increasing your zone defense (+25% vs melee, 4 attack) you are decreasing the utility as an offensive support unit (5 defense) ... but then again ... are you?
After all. With +25% vs melee, most attackers would view the archer as a 5 str unit. Only mounted, recon, and other archers would feel the difference (or anything else non melee I suppose).
Ultimately for mounted defense you would need to bring spearmen, and I suppose there would no longer be a convenient defense vs recon but they are not the most strong unit line necessarily.
(and we can also talk about a propositional 'guardsman' unit .... but I think for now the introduction of spears into the discussion is enough )
as far as Archers, how about this proposition?
4 str, +25% vs melee, +50% city defense. -25% city attack. +1 first strike. 45 hammers, requires training yard (as do the other t2 and t3 units of melee, mounted, and archery)
Specialty unit spearman is 4 str, -50% vs melee, +50% vs mounted, 60 hammers, requires hunting and training yard.
Its upgrade Pikeman is 4 str, iweapontier2, +100% vs mounted, 120 hammers, requires Engineering and Barracks.
with the introduction of early spearman (if hunting is split into hunting and tracking like in ETMP), then I do not think formation needs to come earlier. If no spearman, it needs to come earlier. It can also come earlier if the lowly spearman requires the T2 martial building Barracks like its upgrade Pikeman does.
Spearman's main weaknesses are its vulnerability to axemen (and warriors), as well as its inability to use metal weapons. However this later weakness is also its strength: Instead of 3 str with +1 if copper, spears are always 4 str.
Perhaps we could increase the Axeman city attack bonus from 10% to 20% but I am not sure that such a change would be necessary. Instead it would be largely unchanged in every discipline except for its weakness to archers.
I understand that adding spearmen would complicate the issue somewhat, but it would also bring new defensive strategies to the table.
Spearmen are more costly than axeman and also get torn apart by axeman, but are indispensable n the defens vs cavalry. Perhaps '6' vs '5' is not much IF you have copper, but if you do not have copper the spear would literally be a godsend.
Obviously if you have horses you could just build horses to counter their horses ... but with the beauty of the unified Training yard philosophy you can do both! Spear for static defense and horse for mobile defense.
Archers would remain primarily a defensive unit (at least until flaming arrows) but they can now attack out into the opposing army rather than uselessly hiding behind walls.
Additionally without 5 (or 6 with Scorption Clan), defense ... the archer will be less of a barricade and more of a fluid unit. More useful to the user, and less hindering to the attacker.
Or in other words, the one downside is that, by increasing your zone defense (+25% vs melee, 4 attack) you are decreasing the utility as an offensive support unit (5 defense) ... but then again ... are you?
After all. With +25% vs melee, most attackers would view the archer as a 5 str unit. Only mounted, recon, and other archers would feel the difference (or anything else non melee I suppose).
Ultimately for mounted defense you would need to bring spearmen, and I suppose there would no longer be a convenient defense vs recon but they are not the most strong unit line necessarily.
(and we can also talk about a propositional 'guardsman' unit .... but I think for now the introduction of spears into the discussion is enough
)Ok, lets take a step back here, now that we are discussing units other than archers.
Here is how it is setup in civ:
Horses beat Catapults and Archers, but lose to Spearmen.
Archers are the unit of choice for city defense, but lose to Horses.
Spearmen kill Horses, but are killed by Axemen.
Swordmen kill Cities, but are killed by Axmen.
Catapults weaken cities and stacks of death.
Warriors should obsolete quickly.
Hunters are good vs animals, and should be able to hold their own in most terrains.
Assassins kill weak units and magic users.
Magic users buff/assist the SoD.
Animals belong in cages or to supplement your SoD.
Here is how it is setup in civ:
Horses beat Catapults and Archers, but lose to Spearmen.
Archers are the unit of choice for city defense, but lose to Horses.
Spearmen kill Horses, but are killed by Axemen.
Swordmen kill Cities, but are killed by Axmen.
Catapults weaken cities and stacks of death.
Warriors should obsolete quickly.
Hunters are good vs animals, and should be able to hold their own in most terrains.
Assassins kill weak units and magic users.
Magic users buff/assist the SoD.
Animals belong in cages or to supplement your SoD.
What is it setup in - FFH or BTS?
BTS doesnt have assasins/hunters/magic, and ffh obviously doesn't have spears.
If the first is intended to be BTS and the second basing it around FFH then I strongly disagree - unit composition is intended to be primarily one line and this is why they are so seperate.
In BTS you arrive at different classes at around the same time, so unit composition is intended to be such that units counter one another.
In FFH you can easily get to tier 4 units before getting tier 2 in another class, and this is why you can't have a unit that counters another like that as it destroys the functionality of that entire line if it can be so easily ignored.
BTS doesnt have assasins/hunters/magic, and ffh obviously doesn't have spears.
If the first is intended to be BTS and the second basing it around FFH then I strongly disagree - unit composition is intended to be primarily one line and this is why they are so seperate.
In BTS you arrive at different classes at around the same time, so unit composition is intended to be such that units counter one another.
In FFH you can easily get to tier 4 units before getting tier 2 in another class, and this is why you can't have a unit that counters another like that as it destroys the functionality of that entire line if it can be so easily ignored.
again, I agree with Qgqqqqq
(see the other thread).
FFH is not built around a rock-paper-cisor philosophy (or even balance).
the lines are not about countering an other line, but about
-effect
-strategy.
-ressources
-melee is the city taker and the core army,
-mounted should be the harasser, the main pillager (however it became OP due to high withdrawal making them anti-stack collateral units on top of the rest, and thus they became city takers)
-recon is the exploration / land-counter-defense /anti mage, NO RESSOURCE ATTACK UNIT : no promotion as counter, mid mobility, advantages of terrain bonus, quite high str
-ranged should be THE DEFENDER; however it is limited to 1) static defense as it cannot do preemptive attack on stacks, 2) city defense as a consequence and thus cannot defend against pillage and get xp much more slowly ==> thus melee or even recon become more useful for the DEFENDER purpose as they at least can defend by reducing the opponent's stack + can be used for attack.
-cats are the main mundane collateral + city softener
-arcane : buffs + powerful magical collateral : but slow to get to the adequate level, and expensive to get there.
-disciple priests : collateral / buff : alternative/complement to mage : quicker to get, less versatile, a bit more powerful in spell and str.
-disciple melee : alternative melee / recon units : same main role as melee / recon.
The rock-paper-cisor in FFH comes from powerful boosted promotions
+40 (+80%!) vs melee / ranged or mounted
+40% vs disciples !
MAYBE formation could be really lessened to combat 1, but need warfare tech ?
and cover migh need drill 1 ? (thus melee cannot take it "by opportunity" after combat 1).
Adding spears would be to add a "counter unit" into a system that doesn't use counter units but that balances strategies and mechanics.
a counter to high mobility raider horse should be a mechanics and not a unit.
archers should not be transformed into an "anti-melee" unit, but rendered truer to their paradigme:
-empire defender,
-stack defender
-skirmisher
I think you propose an anti-melee because melee is the main attacking force and thus you propose spears to counter the mounted attacking forces.
IMO one should just render archers as good attackers/ skirmishers, at least in their own land, and good stack defenders (or at least "attacker softener") (improved defensive strikes) everywhere.
and maybe mounted should be toned-down to remove a bit of their "collateral" effect.: or maybe they could become more expensive to maintain : gold upkeep ?
(see the other thread).
FFH is not built around a rock-paper-cisor philosophy (or even balance).
the lines are not about countering an other line, but about
-effect
-strategy.
-ressources
-melee is the city taker and the core army,
-mounted should be the harasser, the main pillager (however it became OP due to high withdrawal making them anti-stack collateral units on top of the rest, and thus they became city takers)
-recon is the exploration / land-counter-defense /anti mage, NO RESSOURCE ATTACK UNIT : no promotion as counter, mid mobility, advantages of terrain bonus, quite high str
-ranged should be THE DEFENDER; however it is limited to 1) static defense as it cannot do preemptive attack on stacks, 2) city defense as a consequence and thus cannot defend against pillage and get xp much more slowly ==> thus melee or even recon become more useful for the DEFENDER purpose as they at least can defend by reducing the opponent's stack + can be used for attack.
-cats are the main mundane collateral + city softener
-arcane : buffs + powerful magical collateral : but slow to get to the adequate level, and expensive to get there.
-disciple priests : collateral / buff : alternative/complement to mage : quicker to get, less versatile, a bit more powerful in spell and str.
-disciple melee : alternative melee / recon units : same main role as melee / recon.
The rock-paper-cisor in FFH comes from powerful boosted promotions
+40 (+80%!) vs melee / ranged or mounted
+40% vs disciples !
MAYBE formation could be really lessened to combat 1, but need warfare tech ?
and cover migh need drill 1 ? (thus melee cannot take it "by opportunity" after combat 1).
Adding spears would be to add a "counter unit" into a system that doesn't use counter units but that balances strategies and mechanics.
a counter to high mobility raider horse should be a mechanics and not a unit.
archers should not be transformed into an "anti-melee" unit, but rendered truer to their paradigme:
-empire defender,
-stack defender
-skirmisher
I think you propose an anti-melee because melee is the main attacking force and thus you propose spears to counter the mounted attacking forces.
IMO one should just render archers as good attackers/ skirmishers, at least in their own land, and good stack defenders (or at least "attacker softener") (improved defensive strikes) everywhere.
and maybe mounted should be toned-down to remove a bit of their "collateral" effect.: or maybe they could become more expensive to maintain : gold upkeep ?
Similar threads
