Is ranged combat too OP? (esp. early eras)

[Matjillam]

Hello all

I've recently taken up MP CiV. It's fun and extremely challenging (humans are mean! )

One thing that bugs me though is RANGED COMBAT. Every MP battle in CiV seems to be mostly about whose got the most composite bowmen or crossbows.

When ppl invade OR defend, they build and buy lots and lots of ranged units. Ppl only bother to buy melee or cavalry when they actually want to capture a city. So it's better to just have 1/2 spearmen/horsemen standing in the rear, rdy to take the city when you have killed the other players ranged units with your own ranged units. If you dont intend to take any cities, you are better of not building any melee.

And I think it's a shame. To me it would be great if combat had a variety of units. But it seems that ranged units are just too damn powerfull not to build.

I've grown a little tired to fight battles where I have 6 Composite bowmen and my opponent has 4 and a city to bombard. It just gets a little boring to me. And it's all about positioning, shoot and retreat faster than the other.

In my oppinion, ranged units needs more hard counters. If my opponent build 5/6 composite bowmen without any spear support, I should be able to decimate his army with my 5 horsemen. But as for now, that just isnt the case. If he positions well, he will come out better than me buying only ranged.

Would it ruin the game if ranged units got a little nerfed? Say like Composite Bowmen go from 7(11) to 6(10) or 6(9)?

When was the last time you saw someone come at you with 4/5 swordsmen and you thought "damn, that's a powerfull army!"? You dont think that, you only think "nice, easy slow targets for my bowmen!"

Ranged units are strong in the fiel and strong against cities. And they dont risk much, because they take no hits when shooting (duh). The only problem for ranged units is, if the opponent has more of the same kind of unit than you...

It really takes some of the "Civ-feeling" away for me...

What are your thoughts?

 

[tommynt]

same as in sp, every1 builds best units ..

 

[Matjillam]

same as in sp, every1 builds best units ..

Well of course. And that leads to the question: Are ranged units simply too strong? Are they 'ruining' the part of the game where you battle each other with a variety of units, each with their own forces and weaknesses?

Because as I see it right now, ranged units don't have any weaknesses you can exploit.

 

[tommynt]

Are they 'ruining' the part of the game..

this part was never there

 

[BuilderFTW]

"When was the last time you saw someone come at you with 4/5 swordsmen and you thought "damn, that's a powerfull army!"? You dont think that, you only think "nice, easy slow targets for my bowmen!""

^^ before gods and kings 4/5 swordsman were op

I agree with the main post though ranged units are way to strong right now. Mounted units are supposed to counter ranged units so 4 horses should destroy 4 unsupported composite bows.

 

[tommynt]

I agree with the main post though ranged units are way to strong right now. Mounted units are supposed to counter ranged units so 4 horses should destroy 4 unsupported composite bows.

They ll do that on open ground with clever hit n run
Doesnt change the fact that ranged units dominate.

Also atm the perfect army is maybe 60% ranged, 15% Horse, 10% melee, 5% siege, 10% workers

with other balance the numbers might shift a bit, but there ll allways be a type being bit better as another.

In fact, just play with Rome and u ll see how a small change of numbers totaly change the balance, its really not that easy to get overall balance.

 

[Smote]

Yeah, ranged units are OP right now. Their powers are simply too high compared with melee units. Try melee attacking a xbow with something, and see how much damage your melee unit takes. It will probably be about 2/3 the amount you did to the xbow. Then watch as it shoots you, and takes 0 damage for the combat.

I think melee attacks simply don't do enough damage. If you are using a melee unit, they should do about 50% more damage. I'm ok with how much damage ranged units do when they shoot a melee unit, but the low amount of damage when a melee unit attacks a ranged unit makes melee units inefficient (with the exception of horsemen/knights/lancers/cavalry because of the mobility advantages).

Of course it doesn't have to be quite as one-sided as the old days where horsemen could 1-shot longbows... XD

 

[Matjillam]

Yeah, ranged units are OP right now. Their powers are simply too high compared with melee units. Try melee attacking a xbow with something, and see how much damage your melee unit takes. It will probably be about 2/3 the amount you did to the xbow. Then watch as it shoots you, and takes 0 damage for the combat.

I think melee attacks simply don't do enough damage. If you are using a melee unit, they should do about 50% more damage. I'm ok with how much damage ranged units do when they shoot a melee unit, but the low amount of damage when a melee unit attacks a ranged unit makes melee units inefficient (with the exception of horsemen/knights/lancers/cavalry because of the mobility advantages).

Of course it doesn't have to be quite as one-sided as the old days where horsemen could 1-shot longbows... XD

Exactly. Civilopedia says that "crossbowmen are vulnurable to melee attacks". No they aren't! They have str 13, that's 2/3 of a knight. If they just get a little defence bonus from a hill, they are allmost even with a knight! And then ofc, they can shoot every other turn taking no dmg....

Balance is ofc hard to obtain. But really, it doesn't take a genious right now to see that ranged units are grossly overrepresented on the battlefields.

 

[Atlas627]

Some problems may arise from simultaneous turns. With ranged units it is easy to queue up orders, and easy to soften (or eliminate) enemy units before they enemy player can respond. This is the purpose of ranged units, and it is good in consecutive turns, but with simultaneous it is possible to shoot TWICE before the enemy moves once (on defense).

Right now melee units should kill enemy melee in 3 hits, and kill ranged in 2.5

Ranged units should kill melee in 3 or 4. And enemy ranged in 2 or 3.

If you were playing consecutive turns, you could move your melee units into the correct positions for massive flanking bonuses, sometimes taking out ranged units in 1 hit (usually 2). This makes ranged units not OP with consecutive turns. Unfortunately, the AI is pretty bad with the positioning of its units, so ranged units are OP against the AI because you can punish everything at no risk.

 

[Tachii]

I think horse units should have advantage over ranged (like maybe 10% or something). At least when I was playing Total War cavalry can usually screw up ranged units easily. When Knights can't even deal more than 50 damage in G&K to ranged units in the same era sounds a bit too much in terms of a balance game.

 

[Matjillam]

Some problems may arise from simultaneous turns. With ranged units it is easy to queue up orders, and easy to soften (or eliminate) enemy units before they enemy player can respond. This is the purpose of ranged units, and it is good in consecutive turns, but with simultaneous it is possible to shoot TWICE before the enemy moves once (on defense).

Right now melee units should kill enemy melee in 3 hits, and kill ranged in 2.5

Ranged units should kill melee in 3 or 4. And enemy ranged in 2 or 3.

If you were playing consecutive turns, you could move your melee units into the correct positions for massive flanking bonuses, sometimes taking out ranged units in 1 hit (usually 2). This makes ranged units not OP with consecutive turns. Unfortunately, the AI is pretty bad with the positioning of its units, so ranged units are OP against the AI because you can punish everything at no risk.

I dont think simultaneos turns are the main problem.

Because even if you DONT get to shoot 2 times or even first, ranged units still stand very very strong against melee.

I really just think their melee str are too high. Yes, ranged units should be powerfull, they WERE very powerfull historically. Mongols used the bow very effeciently. But if mounted units caught up with ranged units without taking many losses, it was a massacre! Right now they are not very vulnurable at all.

A unpromoted crossbow on a hill has 16,25 str. An unpromoted knight has str 20. So an attacking knight deals more dmg than the crossbow in the first fight. Then the crossbow shoots with str 18 and takes no dmg. Suddenly crossbow is far ahead. Even when knight attacked first. And if the crossbow gets to shoot first, well then the knight is just fcked.

Promotions are also kinda of a problem. When ranged units stay behind, they dont die and therefore get many promotions. That makes them snowball compared to vulnurable melee units.

The ability to focus fire much better than melee (no ZOC) is also part of the problem. I may be ahead in units, but my opponent with more ranged units can easily focus fire and kill my units, while pulling wounded units behind. I cant get to him because of ZOC...

I really think ranged units should be nerfed. Players exploit then against the AI, and MP combat is all about ranged units....

 

[Atlas627]

I dont think simultaneos turns are the main problem.

Because even if you DONT get to shoot 2 times or even first, ranged units still stand very very strong against melee.

I really just think their melee str are too high. Yes, ranged units should be powerfull, they WERE very powerfull historically. Mongols used the bow very effeciently. But if mounted units caught up with ranged units without taking many losses, it was a massacre! Right now they are not very vulnurable at all.

A unpromoted crossbow on a hill has 16,25 str. An unpromoted knight has str 20. So an attacking knight deals more dmg than the crossbow in the first fight. Then the crossbow shoots with str 18 and takes no dmg. Suddenly crossbow is far ahead. Even when knight attacked first. And if the crossbow gets to shoot first, well then the knight is just fcked.

Promotions are also kinda of a problem. When ranged units stay behind, they dont die and therefore get many promotions. That makes them snowball compared to vulnurable melee units.

The ability to focus fire much better than melee (no ZOC) is also part of the problem. I may be ahead in units, but my opponent with more ranged units can easily focus fire and kill my units, while pulling wounded units behind. I cant get to him because of ZOC...

I really think ranged units should be nerfed. Players exploit then against the AI, and MP combat is all about ranged units....

The point of mounted units is threefold:
1.) Hit and run. You should be able to withdraw your units before counterattack, or at least allow multiple attacks from the same hex (because you can remove your unit and replace it on the same turn)
2.) Avoid combat/ZOC/get to the back lines. With high movement, often you can send 1/2 mounted units to pillage or flank from the rear to get the ranged units. And with the new pillage-heal, they can actually hit and run in the back lines better than before
3.) Provide flanking bonuses. You can move multiple mounted units into the right position at any point on the front before attacking to give free "10% damage promotion".

Oh, and they can reinforce the front quickly, but that's a different matter.

All 3 points of those mounted units are excellent against ranged, but are all negated by simultaneous turns!

The specific example you cite is probably the worst spot for balance. Composite Bowmen will die to Swordsmen and Pikemen, and can die to Horsemen in open terrain. Archers die to Spearmen and Horsemen, but will do ok against Warriors. Crossbowmen come at the exact same time as Longswordsmen and Knights. This is why they can stand up against them (but still not OP well). Fortunately, Musketmen are not far behind, and they do plenty of damage to Crossbowmen.

 

[tommynt]

The point of mounted units is threefold:
1.) Hit and run. You should be able to withdraw your units before counterattack, or at least allow multiple attacks from the same hex (because you can remove your unit and replace it on the same turn)
2.) Avoid combat/ZOC/get to the back lines. With high movement, often you can send 1/2 mounted units to pillage or flank from the rear to get the ranged units. And with the new pillage-heal, they can actually hit and run in the back lines better than before
3.) Provide flanking bonuses. You can move multiple mounted units into the right position at any point on the front before attacking to give free "10% damage promotion".

Oh, and they can reinforce the front quickly, but that's a different matter.

All 3 points of those mounted units are excellent against ranged, but are all negated by simultaneous turns!

thats just wrong again

That injured units might retrieve in sim turns, isnt a problem of mounted units in fact its other way round. With mounted units u can attack start of turn then stay in open - take 1-2 shoots and retrieve before dieing.
While when u attack with a archer unit early in the turn the unit is stuck and vurnable to get killed off.

Also espacially in medi era when roads at front are up Mounted Units (knights which you can also upgrade to) get a lot of use, mainly cause of their never die usuage, the army of mounted grows bigger and bigger and once u got like 8 of them they can really really tire of an opponent, every unit the opponent uses and is stuck after is kind of dead allready.

But all this "tactic stuff applies to duel situations mainly, cause both in singleplayer and in bigger ffas u want kill an opponent fast rather then fight out tactical battles and there archers with their much better use at inviding and attacking cities are just superior

oh and btw pls get experience before writing, I have now often seen uj post stuff which is just lacking gaming experience and then seems to be just made of in mind.

 

[The_J]

oh and btw pls get experience before writing, I have now often seen uj post stuff which is just lacking gaming experience and then seems to be just made of in mind.

Moderator Action: *sigh* tommy, a bit friendlier please .

 

[Atlas627]

thats just wrong again

That injured units might retrieve in sim turns, isnt a problem of mounted units in fact its other way round. With mounted units u can attack start of turn then stay in open - take 1-2 shoots and retrieve before dieing.
While when u attack with a archer unit early in the turn the unit is stuck and vurnable to get killed off.

Also espacially in medi era when roads at front are up Mounted Units (knights which you can also upgrade to) get a lot of use, mainly cause of their never die usuage, the army of mounted grows bigger and bigger and once u got like 8 of them they can really really tire of an opponent, every unit the opponent uses and is stuck after is kind of dead allready.

But all this "tactic stuff applies to duel situations mainly, cause both in singleplayer and in bigger ffas u want kill an opponent fast rather then fight out tactical battles and there archers with their much better use at inviding and attacking cities are just superior

oh and btw pls get experience before writing, I have now often seen uj post stuff which is just lacking gaming experience and then seems to be just made of in mind.

Are you sure you quoted the right person? What you just said is what I just said...

I never said Mounted units had any problems, I was stating their strengths. The problem is simultaneous turns hurts all of their strengths.

And don't give me the "you're an idiot" BS. This is a FORUM the whole point is to share opinions, ideas, and information. If you only want the best of the best to give their opinions, how are any other golden ideas ever going to be found? This is the same problem with academia, where you have to be certified by the current academia (your degree) just to participate, which means you have to (at some level) buy in to all of their theories.

Just because I say something different doesn't make me an idiot. And I didn't even say something different, you just misinterpreted what I said (unless I am misinterpreting what you are saying and we actually ARE saying different things).

 

[tommynt]

I never said Mounted units had any problems, I was stating their strengths. The problem is simultaneous turns hurts all of their strengths.

And i tried to explain you that its in fact other way round, mounted units shine with sim turns

 

[Atlas627]

And i tried to explain you that its in fact other way round, mounted units shine with sim turns

Ah I see what you are saying, your shorthand was very confusing. Yes while that is true that you can use the Mounted unit as a tank later in the turn to soak up just barely enough hits to not die, you still lose the benefits of Mounted units that you would normally use them for.

So they get a new ability I had not thought of, which is to soak up hits that would otherwise go elsewhere. One problem with this is the strength of both mounted and ranged units, which is to hit where it hurts and not where it doesn't. So how effective is this tanking, really? Ranged units can usually find something more useful to bombard anyway, and mounted units should be able to maneuver elsewhere.

They still lose all of their "classic" strengths. That is certainly not wrong, and that was my point. I also still think simultaneous turns overall makes mounted units weaker and ranged units stronger.

 

[Tabarnak]

Promos can screw things too. If you have to promote a unit before moving, you can be sure that this unit will die if he's surrounded by ennemies. No time to retreat and save his ass.

If you build horse units, Don't build only 1 or 2 of them. You want to ''circle'' the ennemy to get maximum benefits. You might want to kill some too with your ranged ones. If you put his unit in the red he will :

-need to use a promo before acting(good timing to kill this one on next turn)
-retreat and wait to heal

And for longer games, these horse units are good against artys too.

 

[Stolen Rutters]

thats just wrong again

That injured units might retrieve in sim turns, isnt a problem of mounted units in fact its other way round. With mounted units u can attack start of turn then stay in open - take 1-2 shoots and retrieve before dieing.
While when u attack with a archer unit early in the turn the unit is stuck and vurnable to get killed off.

Also espacially in medi era when roads at front are up Mounted Units (knights which you can also upgrade to) get a lot of use, mainly cause of their never die usuage, the army of mounted grows bigger and bigger and once u got like 8 of them they can really really tire of an opponent, every unit the opponent uses and is stuck after is kind of dead allready.

But all this "tactic stuff applies to duel situations mainly, cause both in singleplayer and in bigger ffas u want kill an opponent fast rather then fight out tactical battles and there archers with their much better use at inviding and attacking cities are just superior

oh and btw pls get experience before writing, I have now often seen uj post stuff which is just lacking gaming experience and then seems to be just made of in mind.

This makes no sense. Mounted units should be able to attack and retreat in the same turn. If you use a promotion to heal/retrieve(?) them first they are stuck in place. Second, if you have 8 mounted units, they won't wear out from an opponent, they will kill the opponent with even less damage. Granted, the two points I make only assume you have the time to dance with the units. In MP, you have to just hit the opponent hard and take their units off the board as fast as possible, trying to finesse the attack by attacking and retreating a large number of units within a turn can actually hurt you, especially if the timer runs out before you moved all your units, or have a chance to apply all of your damage that turn.

edit - wait, if retrieve means retreat, not refill hit points I take my first point back... your point then sounds similar to what I am trying to say. (Retrieve doesn't work in the sentence so you have to mean something else. I may have made the wrong assumption.)