New Beta Version - Feb. 9th (2-9)

[crdvis16]

The whole point of archers is that they can attack at range. Even if you balanced 1-range archers to be in line with warriors, what’s the purpose of having them? And again, no one asked for this change.

They just chariot archers with 2 moves and no horses now. Can only reach things 2 tiles away in a turn on open ground. Makes the game feel slower. Feels bad.

They can attack without taking damage in return which is a ranged benefit they retain. That's useful against cities, barbarian camps, and when parked in your own city on defense.

They can also attack ships so they are superior for defending/attacking coastal cities.

They probably need their production cost reduced if they are to stay at 1 range, though.

 

[Stalker0]

If rushing archers was too good a strategy, then it would have sufficed to set a penalty vs cities.

Unless you nerfed them to where they did so little damage to a city that it wouldn't matter...than such a nerf wouldn't help. Even if there damage was halved, the ability to pound a city with 4 archers with no retaliation is just too good...especially once they got through the garrison.

There is an archer nerf to city that would likely do the trick, but its not -25%....its probably more like -66%.

Ultimately I still think range is the better approach...where its 1 range archers or 2 range cities...that is the better vehicle to the stop the problem.

 

[WarDude76]

All units that formerly had the anti-mounted promotion now start with formation (except indian naga-malla), and the CS on some of them was raised alongside counterparts.

G

Are you sure you meant to give India's Naga-Malla the Anti-Mounted promotion instead of giving it to Siam's Naresuan's Elephant in the newest hotfix? Because Siam's UU, the Naresuan's Elephant, now lacks its anti-mounted promotion from the last patch even though its civilopedia entry says that it has a bonus vs other mounted units. As of right now, the Naresuan's Elephant's benefits over the standard Knight only includes -1 movement, +2 CS and Feared Elephant. Oversight?

 

[crdvis16]

However, ranged promotions were designed with their role in mind. With a different range, the role changes and then promotions are not designed for this situation any longer. We have to wait until composite to regain their usefulness.

If rushing archers was too good a strategy, then it would have sufficed to set a penalty vs cities. If you read that archers have - 25%RCS vs cities, any one could guess that capturing cities with just archers is no longer useful.

The people testing out archer rushes seemed pretty confident that a modest city damage penalty might slow them down a little but certainly not stop them. The real problem was that they could attack a city without the city retaliating. That led to the obvious solutions of 2 range cities pre walls or 1 range archers. Both have some collateral damage to balance.

 

[Delvemor]

Even if there damage was halved, the ability to pound a city with 4 archers with no retaliation is just too good...especially once they got through the garrison.

It sounds to me that the problem here is the inability of the city to retaliate as it should, not the archers having 2 tiles range, because otherwise archers are just fine. Also if you reach a point where your archers can do this in impunity, it means the AI simply can't oppose you. Plus, if you simply nerf archer to 1 tile range, nothing prevents the player from doing the same thing with composite bowmen, at least in my experience in immortal difficulty or below.

 

[civplayer33]

Are you sure you meant to give India's Naga-Malla the Anti-Mounted promotion instead of giving it to Siam's Naresuan's Elephant in the newest hotfix? Because Siam's UU, the Naresuan's Elephant, now lacks its anti-mounted promotion from the last patch even though its civilopedia entry says that it has a bonus vs other mounted units. As of right now, the Naresuan's Elephant's benefits over the standard Knight only includes -1 movement, +2 CS and Feared Elephant. Oversight?

Pretty sure that's an oversight...I'll submit the fix along with some other fixes.

 

[pineappledan]

The problem was that unwalled cities sucked and that archers were rad. So instead of making unwalled cities rad, the patch made archers also suck.

Between the choice of two sucky things and two rad things, choose radness. Never preserve suck if it means you have to make other things less rad.

 

[crdvis16]

The problem was that you would bring 4 or so archers at a time where the AI only has warriors. 4 archers with 2 range slaughter warriors easily and then bombard the city without taking any damage. People were able to consistently conquer a neighbor like this with relative ease.

It doesn't necessarily work at cbows. The AI will often have walls up by then which means 2 range cities and retaliation against the cbows, not to mention horsemen. You can still conquer with cbows of course but you will at least take some damage and maybe losses- in other words, you'll have to earn it.

The main problem is archers out ranging cities. So you either go 1 range archer or 2 range cities pre walls. G decided on 1 range archers so here we are.

 

[Recursive]

Is it intended that Barbarians can pillage their own camps to heal? This fellow did that just before I killed him...he had moved out of the camp shortly before; then I attacked once with my Archer and he moved back in and pillaged to heal before I killed him there:

Spoiler camp pillaged by Barb who was previously guarding it :

View attachment 545870

That's definitely a bug.

 

[Stalker0]

It doesn't necessarily work at cbows. .

Comparing archers to c bows is a night and day difference. By c bows the AI has multiple cities, walls, an actual army, and probably a decent tech advantage. I've never seen an AI "just roll over and die" to a c bow push the way I have seen with an archer rush.

 

[kenneth1221]

The main problem is archers out ranging cities.

No, the problem is that some people can't shut up and just accept that Gazebo's design choices are not up for debate. Praise zebo!

 

[tothePAIN]

No, the problem is that some people can't shut up and just accept that Gazebo's design choices are not up for debate. Praise zebo!

No, the problem is that some people are lick spittles and praise Gazebo more matter what. Vox Populi is great. That doesn't mean every decision Gazebo makes is great. This isn't an autocracy or a monarchy. I'll note that Gazebo repeatedly has welcomed design input as well.

1 range archers don't feel fun. A -50% cs mauls vs cities would have stopped the archer rushes. A 4 archer rush would still hurt the nearest AI but failing to take the capital would make the archer rush too costly.

Sure, a 1 range archer doesn't take damage when attacking. But now, if it attacks an enemy, the enemy can attack back, no matter what I do.

 

[andersw]

1 range archers don't feel fun. A -50% cs mauls vs cities would have stopped the archer rushes. A 4 archer rush would still hurt the nearest AI but failing to take the capital would make the archer rush too costly.

Sure, a 1 range archer doesn't take damage when attacking. But now, if it attacks an enemy, the enemy can attack back, no matter what I do.

I have to agree, I'd rather have -dmg vs cities, the range1 makes them just placeholders waiting for upgrades in my games so far.

 

[JamesNinelives]

Can we avoid the personal attacks please? The same points can be made well enough without ad hominem.

 

[crdvis16]

No, the problem is that some people are lick spittles and praise Gazebo more matter what. Vox Populi is great. That doesn't mean every decision Gazebo makes is great. This isn't an autocracy or a monarchy. I'll note that Gazebo repeatedly has welcomed design input as well.

1 range archers don't feel fun. A -50% cs mauls vs cities would have stopped the archer rushes. A 4 archer rush would still hurt the nearest AI but failing to take the capital would make the archer rush too costly.

Sure, a 1 range archer doesn't take damage when attacking. But now, if it attacks an enemy, the enemy can attack back, no matter what I do.

My guess is that archers probably get used differently now. They can still go toe to toe with warriors favorably. They can defend coasts and can work well as a garrison. But they probably can't contribute meaningfully once spears/horses show up kind of like warriors. You're probably suppose to build a few in the very early game but not rely too heavily on them because their window is small. Once they upgrade to cbows they become a major threat again.

For the record, I was one of the people that initially thought a modest city attack malus would do the trick but those that tested it said otherwise. After that I figured defaulting back to 2 city range was the best path. I'm also fine with 1 range archers too, though. It just seems relatively minor to me when you upgrade to cbows pretty quickly and you can choose to just not over do it with archers. I'll adapt to the new unit design.

 

[DeAnno]

Honestly I think the problem with Archers wasn't just the rush, they were much too brainlessly the "good unit" of Ancient in general. You got them one tech column earlier than Spears and without the resource of Chariots with them being significantly better choices than either, and it hurt because that destroyed the niche of the Warrior as a useful unit; if you need to fight at all why not just research Trapping? I like the Archer more as a Warrior alternative with a different upgrade path, especially with Comp Bows so quick to come into the game now. The main issue now is that they are too slow to build to be worth it, but drop them to the Warrior price of 40 hammers and their role will become clear.

 

[Gazebo]

The problem was that unwalled cities sucked and that archers were rad. So instead of making unwalled cities rad, the patch made archers also suck.

Between the choice of two sucky things and two rad things, choose radness. Never preserve suck if it means you have to make other things less rad.

Making cities range 2 hurts all ancient units, but leaves archers top tier. Bringing archers down to range 1 only makes archers weaker, thus leveling the playing field for all other units.

If a Civ is profoundly good at something, we don’t change the game mechanic enabling their power and thus affecting all other civs, we just nerf the civ.

G

 

[Bromar1]

The problem was that unwalled cities sucked and that archers were rad. So instead of making unwalled cities rad, the patch made archers also suck.

Between the choice of two sucky things and two rad things, choose radness. Never preserve suck if it means you have to make other things less rad.

That kind of mentality is what leads to power creep which leads to endless cycles of rebalancing every year. I will agree that archers could be cheaper but Gazebo is definitely making the right call with the range nerf, however unpopular they might be.

 

[vyyt]

I still don't understand what was wrong with the anti-city malus. It slowed down the ancient 4 archer rush too little? Then make the malus bigger, no? So big that it will take ages to take a city. Meanwhile, your war weariness rises and the AI will produce some units? (Ok, they will be probably destroyed by the said archers?)

 

[tu_79]

Making cities range 2 hurts all ancient units, but leaves archers top tier. Bringing archers down to range 1 only makes archers weaker, thus leveling the playing field for all other units.

If a Civ is profoundly good at something, we don’t change the game mechanic enabling their power and thus affecting all other civs, we just nerf the civ.

G

Yeah, but the problem seemed to be just the interaction between archers and cities, and the change has modified how archers interact with everything, forcing everything in the early game to adapt.
It might be as crdvis16 says, but honestly, it is hard to believe that 4 archers at -50% vs cities are a real menace that can't be countered. The early aggressive tactic was like that anyways: sacrifice early development in favor of some units, and expand aggressively through those units. Fail to capitalize on your army and you are doomed. Get some victories and you are good to go... for a while.
Now, I see how that could be a problem in multiplayer. But anyone should know that neglecting defense is dangerous. Are 3 warriors really not able to stop 4 archers in owned territory? Can those 4 archers find always a safe place to fire? Don't barbarians meddle with the invassion?
Also, building an all ranged army was very risky, since archers died easily under horseshoes. Even after capturing a city, it's still a weak army to have without horsemen.

We had a similar problem with the rush horseman tactic back then. And that was changed by timing technologies.

I don't say archers didn't need a nerf, but having them close ranged feels bad. It's like having a horseman than moves at the same speed than a footman.