Idea: Ranged attacks can suppress enemy units.

[Kurtbob]

What do you guys think of ranged attacks suppressing units? I think it would add an interesting element to the use of ranged units and naval units. Let me elaborate.

1. When a unit is hit by a ranged attack, they may incur a one round negative modifier which reduces their movement by one. Multiple ranged attacks can reduce a unit's movement to zero.

2. Fortified units hit with ranged attacks lose a portion (say 5%) of their fortify bonus when hit by a ranged attack.

3. The odds of losing movement points and a reduction in fortification bonuses can be reduced or nullified with Cover I and Cover II promotions. Fortresses and cities can further reduce the odds of suppression.
The odds of losing movement points and a reduction in fortification bonuses can be increased with Volley Promotion.

4. To balance things out, ranged units may require a reduction in ranged attack or the odds of suppression should be very small and increase over time.

 

[CYZ]

I like the idea but you should make a decision on the exact mechanics.

I'd do it like this: Every ranged attack reduces movement by 1. So 2 ranged attacks will take away most early units movement completely.
Damage reduction is a must for this, for ranged units not to be overpowered. The movement reducement is very powerfull on it's own already!
I'd leave out the fortified part, it doesn't really add to your idea and isn't really needed. Fortified units take longer to take down but lose their bonus if they move, this won't change with your idea.

Also think about the pros en cons. This will make battle more dynamic for sure, and cavalry will be a must. They are the only ones that will easily reach those pesky ranged units slowing and pounding your army.

 

[Kurtbob]

I like the idea but you should make a decision on the exact mechanics.

I'd do it like this: Every ranged attack reduces movement by 1. So 2 ranged attacks will take away most early units movement completely.
Damage reduction is a must for this, for ranged units not to be overpowered. The movement reducement is very powerfull on it's own already!
I'd leave out the fortified part, it doesn't really add to your idea and isn't really needed. Fortified units take longer to take down but lose their bonus if they move, this won't change with your idea.

Also think about the pros en cons. This will make battle more dynamic for sure, and cavalry will be a must. They are the only ones that will easily reach those pesky ranged units slowing and pounding your army.

Thanks for the reply CYZ. The reduction in fortify bonuses was an afterthought of mine. As you said, its probably not really needed.

I agree with your idea for a reduction in ranged damage. Right now, I feel ranged attack is a bit too powerful. Two shots from an artillery piece either drastically reduces a unit's health or outright destroys it. I don't think ranged attack should be implemented as a means to destroy enemy units but reduce their mobility so your own units can take advantage.

I am a bit scared of ranged attacks always causing suppression. I can imagine an archer shooting a melee unit two spaces away, the melee unit moving one space after being suppressed to chase it, and the archer moving back one and shooting again. This could continue turn after turn until the swordsman is gone. Of course, such a cat and mouse game probably wouldn't happen since multiple units usually comprise an invading/defending force.

If ranged attack always suppresses units, than Cover I should give the promoted unit a 50% chance that it won't be suppressed and Cover II should prevent suppression.

If their are odds involved, it should look something like this.

Archer: 25% chance
Catapult: 30% chance
Crossbowman - Trebuchet: 35% chance
cannon:40% chance
Artillery:45% chance
Rocket artillery:50% chance

Volley increases the % chance by 15%
Cover I reduces it by 15%
Cover II reduces it a further 20% (35% total)

 

[CYZ]

Thanks for the reply CYZ. The reduction in fortify bonuses was an afterthought of mine. As you said, its probably not really needed.

I agree with your idea for a reduction in ranged damage. Right now, I feel ranged attack is a bit too powerful. Two shots from an artillery piece either drastically reduces a unit's health or outright destroys it. I don't think ranged attack should be implemented as a means to destroy enemy units but reduce their mobility so your own units can take advantage.

I am a bit scared of ranged attacks always causing suppression. I can imagine an archer shooting a melee unit two spaces away, the melee unit moving one space after being suppressed to chase it, and the archer moving back one and shooting again. This could continue turn after turn until the swordsman is gone. Of course, such a cat and mouse game probably wouldn't happen since multiple units usually comprise an invading/defending force.

If ranged attack always suppresses units, than Cover I should give the promoted unit a 50% chance that it won't be suppressed and Cover II should prevent suppression.

If their are odds involved, it should look something like this.

Archer: 25% chance
Catapult: 30% chance
Crossbowman - Trebuchet: 35% chance
cannon:40% chance
Artillery:45% chance
Rocket artillery:50% chance

Volley increases the % chance by 15%
Cover I reduces it by 15%
Cover II reduces it a further 20% (35% total)

I'd go with the first. There's always suppresion, damage done by ranged units is minimal. Cover 1 reduces chance of suppresion to 75% and cover 2 reduces it to 50 %. Perhaps a cover 3 should be implemented. Decreasing suppresion chance to 75% for all neighbouring units?

You're right about the cat and mouse game. But indeed, battles comprise three types of units. Melee, ranged, and cavalry. And there should be a rock, paper, scissors idea here.

So: Ranged kills melee because it won't be able to reach the unit due to suppresion. Cavalry destroys ranged because they will move to fast (even if hit once or twice) to avoid them reaching your archers. Melee kills cavalry because they are stronger and cheaper (although cavalry should still lose a few attack points since ranged will be alot weaker too).

 

[filli_noctus]

I think adding this would make ranged units too powerful. Having said that I like the idea, perhaps give ranged units an alternate suppression attack that does less damage but has a chance to limit the movement of the target. I would say the cover promotion should make no difference, the idea of suppressing fire is to keep the target in cover.
Additionally a suppressed unit should have no ZoC, allowing you to get units through enemy lines without having to take a few turns making a hole.

 

[sukritact]

One thing to consider is that this would make Cho-ku-nu over-powered. It's an interesting idea however.

 

[Kurtbob]

I think adding this would make ranged units too powerful. Having said that I like the idea, perhaps give ranged units an alternate suppression attack that does less damage but has a chance to limit the movement of the target. I would say the cover promotion should make no difference, the idea of suppressing fire is to keep the target in cover.
Additionally a suppressed unit should have no ZoC, allowing you to get units through enemy lines without having to take a few turns making a hole.

Being able to choose between a normal ranged attack and a suppression attack is a great idea. Should the damage be halved when using a suppression attack? Lower? Higher?

Eliminating a unit's ZOC is a very good idea. The whole idea of suppression is give your units increased mobilty through the reduction of your opponent's mobility.

Logically yes, cover should make no difference. Currently I never find myself promoting my units with it unless in a dire situation (like facing an opposing longbow or Cho-ku-nu army). I think boosting cover would grant it a much needed boost. Or perhaps another promotion could be created to defend against suppression?

"One thing to consider is that this would make Cho-ku-nu over-powered. It's an interesting idea however." -sukritact

Cho-ku-nu would become quite powerful. However, I still think that suppression ranged attacks should not always cause suppression but have a percentage chance based upon a unit's ranged attack strength. This would help tone down the Cho-ku-nu. Injured ranged units would have a lower chance to suppress than a fully healed unit. Perhaps suppression can also be determined by the health of the defending unit. A fully healed unit may not be phased by a barrage (we have the numbers! CHARGE!), but a unit in the red may be suppressed 100% of the time (This is the last of us!? I don't want to DIIIEEEEE!!!!!) Friendly adjacent units could also increase a unit's resilience against suppression attacks. What do you guys think?