Nerfing ranged units range to improve early war

[Tom Sawyer]

I've been reading some of the excellent posts regarding rebalancing the game. It strikes me a chief complaint is that it is too easy to "turtle" in the game, to focus on growth as opposed to war. Also, war is unbalanced in that range units currently out-perform melee and mounted units.

So-
What would the game be like if archery units had a range of 1, like the later game Gatling units etc? Their role would be to 'soften up' an enemy before melee units attack in that same round. I'd consider a 'move after combat' property, such that they are not so easy to attack (although still just 2 moves/round) - a shoot then withdraw tactic. I suspect this would make melee and mounted units much more valuable. It would be harder to avoid building a real military as well.

I'd also reduce cities to a range of 1.

I suspect AI behavior could be saved somewhat by using the AI behavior script that goes with range 1 Gatling guns .

What do you think?

 

[Sturmgewher88mm]

Definitely against reducing city range. A better idea is to lower combat strength so archers take more damage in a fight.

And I don't think there's a "war = no growth" problem. It's actually helpful to DOW and then farm xp, gold, and civilians if you don't take cities.

 

[reddishrecue]

If you save your ranged units and rank them up, eventually they will get to range ajd logistics which increases the ranged units' attacks..

 

[Kouvb593kdnuewnd]

Well ranged units could get lower strength making them easier to kill in melee.

Instead of doing alot of damage ranged unit could be more of a support thing like then they shot at a unit they maybe only do like 10 damage but they give the enemy unit the suppresed effect which make your units able to move in its zone of control without losing all its movements and maybe make the enemy unit lose stength or be more vurnable to flanking espacially if flakning is made much more important then ranged units could still be very important but not being the killers they are know

 

[Ryika]

I think range units are okay, it's just that there's nothing to counter them. Cavalry seems to be made to fill that gap, but cavalry is underperforming and not countering them efficiently. Most of the time a cavalry-unit can't attack an undefended archer and get out of his (and his buddies) range in the same turn, so the unit either dies horribly or it's useless until it regenerated its health while the archer is just moved into the second row.

Imho, cavalry should ignore terrain and get the Cover1-upgrade for free, instead of limiting the tactical combat by making a range-unit pseudo-melee. (and later on, when XBows become Gatlings, Artillery is there to fill the gap.)

 

[Fluffball]

Melee and mounted units need a damage/hp percentage buff in general so that they can actually be used to attack without pretty guaranteeing their death next turn.
As it stand melee are very strong as simple meat shields where they fortify, usually in rough terrain and sit there taking the hits while the ranged units do all the damage.
The core losers are mounted units, they can't defend as they get no bonuses and they can't use their speed to roam around and attack because it they attack anything they can be one-shotted next turn.

Where this all comes together is that the AI will attack with melee so they put themselves at an easy disadvantage even when attacking with large numbers.
Most defensive battles for me tend to go...swarm of enemy against my fortified melee on a hill with forest/jungle with ranged behind and protected. Melee attack my melee taking heavy damage then i just finish them off with the ranged units then wait for next wave.

Most attacks involve me moving a melee into a rough terrain tile in range of the city and camping it there while the ranged pound it to zero health before i move the melee unit in.

Why do i do this? If i defend with my melee in good terrain they can take 4-5 hits easily and probably spread over a good number of turns before i have to move them or swap them so i can usually deal with the first wave and just sit in place waiting for any successive waves where as if i used them to finish off the damaged units i would lose all advantages i had, likely moving into poorer terrain, taking away their fortification/defensive bonuses and severely weakening them for successive attacks.

In attack if i move the melee to a good terrain spot and fortify it with some promotions and maybe even a medic along for the ride i can take pretty much whatever a city and a ranged defensive unit can throw at it forever only having to worry if their are more units nearby (i should have already killed them). If i use that unit to attack the city it will barely scratch it while taking heavy damage and next turn either the city or the ranged defender i guaranteed to kill it so not only do i lose my ability to take the city once it is weak enough i also have to spend extra time and resources replacing that unit.

In simplicity melee and mounted need to be able to attack without certain death next turn for any real choices to arise or flexibility of tactics to be available.

 

[Cerilis]

I think range units are okay, it's just that there's nothing to counter them. Cavalry seems to be made to fill that gap, but cavalry is underperforming and not countering them efficiently. Most of the time a cavalry-unit can't attack an undefended archer and get out of his (and his buddies) range in the same turn, so the unit either dies horribly or it's useless until it regenerated its health while the archer is just moved into the second row.

Imho, cavalry should ignore terrain and get the Cover1-upgrade for free, instead of limiting the tactical combat by making a range-unit pseudo-melee. (and later on, when XBows become Gatlings, Artillery is there to fill the gap.)

This, except the ignore terrain-thing. Maybe ignoring hills, but not forests/jungles/marshes. Or give them more movement points. Or give them bonus damage against ranged units. Or make attacking for them not cost movement points, no matter what tile they attack.

 

[Ryika]

Yeah, after thinking about it some more I also came to the conclusion that flat-out ignoring terrain would probably just be way too strong. I think attacking without having to spend movement points would solve that issue quite nicely. My own idea was to make their attacks replenish 1 movement point, which... well... is basically your idea, just unnecessarily complicated.

I think that would even passively "fix" melee units and give them an actual job other than just "sitting on a tile and taking the hits" - if mounted units were capable of threatening and killing ranged units, using melee to zone out mounted units would become a very important tactic.

...the problem is: So much synergy ... but the AI would never use it. :/

 

[notyourtypical]

I would love it if horse units and tanks ignored ZoC by default. This would make them far better at hit-and-run tactics, as well as raiding and pillaging.

 

[DoWnowbrowncow]

I actually don't think archers/comp archers need to be nerfed as much as I think gatling/MG/bazooka range needs to be extended to 2. It's just flat ridiculous that a bow and arrow can fire further than a machine gun or bazooka, and it's unseemly when you upgrade a unit and lose range. If extending the range of GG/MG/BZ makes them OP, then how about introducing friendly fire damage to any friendly unit between the gun and the target?

And while we're discussing ranged units, I don't understand why battleships come with Indirect Fire by default and missile cruisers don't. I also think there should be an upgrade path between the two.

 

[danaphanous]

I've thought about this too. I think cities should retain 2 range as sieged units like trebuchets and cannons could realistically shoot farther than archers and should retain 2 range. Just imagine each city has a few. Otherwise trebuchets/cannons would be untouchable (although honestly this was kind of the case in a real battle)

I agree that this would balance things. It would change a lot of current strategy for the better and would be the easiest way to make melee more useful again. The main reason for upping range to 2 was the penalty of no movement after attacking, so that's the tricky part in protecting them. I predict horse with their 4 movement will become invaluable in protecting archers with only 1 range or flanking them which is quite realistic.

However, I think a better solution to protecting archers with 1 range is changing 1UPT to a class-overlap system as I earlier suggested. All ranged are 1 UPT with respect to each other. Same with all melee and horse. All civilians are 1 UPT with respect to each other. But all three classes can overlap so a swordsman can move on top of an archer and a worker can move under the pile too but only one of each class per hex. They already kinda do this with civilian/military and embarked/navy. so this is essentially only changing land-based combat and only by 1 extra unit, but is far closer to realism. Your archers are still vulnerable as and enemy can kill the protecting melee unit and expose the archer as it's still on the front line, but it will raise the incentive to make melee as front-cover from them will be the only protection for most ranged units. You'll lose them yes, but that's how they were used in real battle: cover, charging, and clean-up. This change also eliminates the archer has same range as a cannon problem and reduces the surprise when gatlings are appropriately set back to 1 range. In reality, all archery and gatling/machine guns were something close to 1 range only being able to hit the front exposed side of the enemy army.

 

[Ryika]

I agree that this would balance things.

How exactly would that be? Not that I'm generally against the idea, I just don't really understand what exactly a 1-range-archer would be useful for. They would need to be buffed, or else they would just be eaten be melee, because they have to stay in melee range (that's why any "range" unit beginning at gatling guns has comparable strength to their melee-counterpart), so they would basically become melee-units that get a free attack and are very good at holding ground - it would become easier to defend, ESPECIALLY in chokepoints if you don't have any actual range-units that can focus their fire on a single tile. A player who is able to swap his units in that single tile can basically hold a position forever.

What am I missing?

/edit: Oh, and... nah, I really don't like the "mini-stack"-thing. Positioning is one of the strengths of the 1upt-system, that idea would just remove all strategy.

 

[danaphanous]

It's the 2-range that is overpowered for anything other than trebuchet, cannon, or onward.

First-off it doesn't make a lot of intuitive sense and was mainly just implemented because the devs couldn't find a good way to make early ranged distinct without them being too easy to kill.

Second, because the 2-range is so good early, have an army of 1 horse, 4 melee, and like 10-15 ranged is a great combination for a long time. I'm mainly saying it will balance by making melee more valuable again, as they are mainly just a distraction while the ranged carries out the main battle in a lot of early battles--especially city conquest.

Dropping to a range of 1 does 2 things: makes archers closer to their realistic use and strength, and makes melee more like their historical value. I'm predicting you'll need about 2/3 composition melee to screen a nerfed-range archer army as opposed to just a few on the front and shuffling the archers in the back which is kinda lame.

As for a 1-range archer now being useless: yes, it would be for the way it's currently used, but the way it's currently used is like long-range cannons and trebuchets, the classes overlap way too much for my taste. Archers in a real battle were close. They would fire first, soften the front, then melee or horse would close to screen them and kill the weakened enemy. They were always vulnerable to the melee breaking and were pitiful in defense so the devs did get that right. On the other hand Gatling/machine guns were a terror to attack and appropriately have a high defense. Have you read WWI stories? Charging a sole gatling was the quickest way to get your whole platoon mown down. Reason being the fire rate on them was so high. Archers shouldn't have this and it wouldn't be accurate.

What archers were specialized for was weakening/thinning infantry so a bonus vs. infantry or melee promo and 1 range would seem a more realistic role for archers. They were never supposed to or able to do most of the battling by themselves but be support for the melee who then clean up.

 

[Ryika]

But again, if archers were 1 range, how would you balance them? They're either too weak and can't hold off anything - or they're just better melee units that don't take damage when they perform an attack. Either way, I don't see any reason why someone would create a mixed army if the system was to be changed that way, I think reducing their range would just make it really boring. I mean a weak archer is a waste - why not use a melee instead? You could of course compensate by reducing their cost significantly, but I don't really see what that would accomplish. A combat system that is about positioning would just become a game of numbers - whoever has more units wins.

 

[BigChiefLizzy]

I would like to see ranged changed to be less effective against cities, both offensively; their ranged attack does less damage, and defensively; they take more damage from cities and units garrisoned in cities. Or maybe ranged can only reduce a cities strength to 50% of max, 75% if has walls - how much damage can you do to stone walls+wooden gate/iron portcullis with arrows or quarrels or bullets? Assuming the garrison keep their heads down until the lone warrior in the attacking force has to charge in on his own

This could be balanced by increasing siege units defense against cities and ranged attacks (and maybe make them weaker against mounted attacks?). I might then be inclined to bring a few along, instead of half a dozen CBs or X-Bows, if the siege will actually get to fire one or two shots before getting obliterated.

Have gone off track a bit from OP. Maybe also make ranged more vulnerable to mounted? Could be nerfing them too much though.

 

[danaphanous]

I do agree with you though, which is why another change would be required to make a way to protect them.

The OP suggested allowing them to move after attacking, however, I don't think this'll fix anything as this only works if they begin their turn right next to enemy melee, which if you're in that position you made a mistake.

My idea of class overlap would balance things back beautifully, but a lot of ppl won't like it. It's not really bringing back stacks though, just making 3 classes that all units fall into and applying 1 UPT for each, a true stack would be 3 units regardless of type which I strongly disagree with. I don't like stacks in general. This change is the same as the military/civilian or embarked/navy system that the devs already compromised on already to make defending the weak easier. so it is the same, but adding in 1 extra class: ranged military which would allow melee to move forward to screen them after attacking. So sorta creating a mini melee/ranged army for each hex if you chose. Not unkillable by an enemy, but allowing archers to serve in their natural role without being super-vulnerable. aka, you need to kill the melee before you can finish the archer.

Alternatively: (saw another user suggest this) you can pool health and damage everything on the hex with each attack (maybe even add a -% modifier for crowding the hex in defense) so if you finish the melee the archer is dead too, just like the current overlap system (worker is auto-captured, embarked is auto-destroyed...etc). This would serve to make overlapping riskier and not always the answer if you want even more options. Anyway, this is all brainstorming. I can't think of a way my idea will be OP, and it certainly preserves the distinct roles of siege, melee, horse, and general ranged. General ranged are valuable because they are good against melee.

 

[Ryika]

This could be balanced by increasing siege units defense against cities and ranged attacks.

I still don't understand why siege weapons (at least those before artillery) don't start with Cover 1. ^^ Always seemed like a nobrainer to me.

 

[subtledoctor]

Reducing archery units to 1 range would be problematic: do you raise their combat strength since they have to get closer to opponents? (I.e., make them like Gatling guns?) If so, they become utterly superior to melee units, since in a 1 vs. 1 exchange they would damage the opponent twice as often. In which case, why ever build anything else? Even then, it would be okay if they were constrained by a strategic resource... but they're not.

On the other hand, if you weakens both their combat strength and ranged strength to balance that advantage, they become too weak, and lose their tactical advantage, of ranged fire. I hate that the game simulates archers with the ability to fire arrows two miles... but in this 1upt world, I think it's a necessary evil.

What my personal mod does to fix this:
1] Archery units get a penalty to city attack. So to go a-conquering, you need siege units and/or melee with the city siege promotion (which I've moved up to level 2);
2] Mounted units get a 25% bonus when attacking. They will completely tear up any archery units, and have the speed to reach them; but spears/pikes + ZOC will protect the archers. (And swordsmen can clear out the spears. Tactical!)

 

[danaphanous]

What my personal mod does to fix this:
1] Archery units get a penalty to city attack. So to go a-conquering, you need siege units and/or melee with the city siege promotion (which I've moved up to level 2);
2] Mounted units get a 25% bonus when attacking. They will completely tear up any archery units, and have the speed to reach them; but spears/pikes + ZOC will protect the archers. (And swordsmen can clear out the spears. Tactical!)

I still think my idea should be implemented at some point to add even more tactical realism, but I must say! This is a very simple way to address the main problems. Good job! What makes siege vulnerable? I guess cities themselves will target them but the AI never seems this smart.

This may seem cheesy, but I'd like to see a few more bonuses put in kinda like a weakness-round:
1. Archery/gatling/machine-gun units get 25% bonus vs. Melee
2. Melee have 25% bonus attacking siege and have a 25% chance to capture. This seems a no brainer since siege is a physical machine.
3. As you said, horse have a 25% bonus attacking ranged
4. And melee with spears/pikes have bonus vs. mounted already so that completes a round of bonuses

As you said, archery units should be nerfed vs. cities drastically, requiring siege or melee to complete the main portion of the conquest.
This will encourage a bit more tactics as well as troops can be used any-which way but will be more effective against certain units that are historically appropriate.

 

[Crafty Bison]

Yeah, this is a standard gripe about the game that seems to have been there since GnK at least, probably not gonna be changed now. I would like to see the 'weak vs cities' part reinstated for ranged, and having weaker melee cs would be balancing too.