The archer line is in a weird spot in the early game, which forces the 2 existing units in Ancient and Classical to be stretched too thinly. I will outline the problem in greater detail, and propose a solution: adding a new slinger unit, unlocked immediately at the game's start.
SpoilerThe problem :
For most of the game, the Archer line of units is unlocked in the 2nd tier of any era (eg. Crossbows at Machinery, Muskets at Metallurgy). The two exceptions to this are the Archer (Trapping), and Composite Bows (Mathematics). In that time, land combat changes a lot around these two units as many more tools are unlocked. By the time crossbows have come out, Warriors have gone through 2 upgrades, plus swordsmen, which are a half-tier strategic resource-locked upgrade to the standard melee line. This has created a lot of difficulty balancing these two units, either making them overwhelming at their unlock, or completely irrelevant for a long stretch of time before their next unlock brings them into line.
This problem affects the Archer and Composite Bowman in different ways:
Archer:
Archers oversee a rapidly changing land war, with many new tools unlocking. This means there are many small gradations of time where Archers can either be oppressively strong or pitifully weak.
Archers unlock 1 tech before Walls, meaning there is a full tech level where they can hit cities with no reprisal. This can be strong enough that a 4 archer rush was proven to be an almost guaranteed method to knock out a nearby AI civ.
They are your first tool that lets you clear barbarian camps with ranged attacks, letting you fight barbarians without risking damage to your own units
At late Ancient, spearmen and horsemen come out, which can both deal 60-90% damage to an archer in a single hit. Once horsemen appear, barbarian horses can appear with double-movement through rough terrain and destroy archers in 1-2 hits
Once walls come up, Archer damage becomes negligible. It's nearly impossible to bring enough archers to bear on a walled city so that it couldn't just heal through the damage. Overall this has resulted in Archers being a unit with a short useful window and anemic stats, even for their unlock.
Many things have been tried to keep archers from completely dominating that window before walls. nerfing them to 1 range was tried, but people hated it. ultimately, the community settled on nerfing the Archer's base RCS and CS to the point that they could still be used for early barb hunting, but that they weren't viable for taking cities until you had spearmen that could deal better damage to cities.
Composite Bowman:
Originally, Composite bows were unlocked at Engineering and they were a bit stronger than they are now. They were brought forward for a few reasons, most prominent of which was that Archers were completely blown away by Horsemen and swordsmen, and simply couldn't survive until late classical.
Swordsmen needed a soft counter that could deal with them in their window, but bringing the CBow forward had a few drawbacks:
By weakening the CBow slightly, they couldn't present a harder counter to Swords later on, until the Longsword unlock at Steel
Weakening them also made them even easier to knock out once knights unlock. They no longer function as a transitional unit into early medieval.
The power and flavor of unique CBows was hurt considerably by moving them forward. This is most noticeable with the Atlatlist, which used to have an earlier unlock, but now only has a bonus vs wounded to distinguish it from a base CBow
CBows were the only 2nd-tier unit unlocked in Classical. Without any units in late Classical, combat in Classical goes stale, with no military unlocks for half an era. This also means that the strongest unit in the Classical meta, Swordsmen, stay the strongest unit for longer, making them even more dominant.
The transition from 1st-line tech to 2nd-line creates a 3 tech level gap between Composite bows and Crossbows. Knights unlock in that window and can completely blow CBows away.
SpoilerProposed Solution: New Slinger unit :
I propose to add a new ranged unit unlocked immediately from the start of the game, but NOT given for free: the Slinger. Slinger unit model by Civitar
Archer would be made a bit stronger and more expensive, and unlocks at Calendar
Comp Bow would also be made a bit stronger/more expensive, and go back to unlocking at Engineering
All ranged units now unlock at 2nd-tier techs in their era.
Engineering Tech / 110cost (10 more than Sword, 25 less than Pike)
2moves / 2Range
14RCS / 13CS
Compared to the current archer, the Slinger is a bit cheaper, and available immediately, but has the major drawback of 1 range. This is enough for early barbarian hunting, and not much else, but gives you that early tool to handle barbarian incursions. In turn, if barbarians start to spawn slingers it will be like an earlier, weaker axeman. Annoying, but manageable.
Then, at Calendar, you have Archers that have 2 range and enough RCS to be a credible threat to cities if you rush them. They can hold up against spears and horsemen, and even catapults and skirmishers, but will crumple to Swords.
Swords get to keep their dominant niche, but with the later composite bowman unlock and the CS/RCS bump, CBows go from a soft counter to a window-shutter. Swords are still relevant, but they don't have an entire era to rule unopposed. I think they need a nerf, since Crossbows won't be available to resist a sword rush anymore, but I have been saying swords are OP for a long time, even with the current CBows.
SpoilerTech Housekeeping :
As with any change adding a component, it would take a bit of shuffling things around on the tech tree to make it all fit neatly:
To summarize:
Give New Slinger to Agriculture
Move Archer back to Calendar
Move Composite Bowman to Engineering
Move the Farming Process to Trapping (Pottery is already a high-value tech with Settlers, so it won't miss it, and Trapping is looking a bit thin)
Move Catapult to Mathematics
this was the Catapult's original tech before Comp Bows bumped it off.
this fills the Mathematics tech out more and gives the middle of the tree more tools to handle the sword
Allows non-conquerors more military tools so they don't have to pursue the bottom techs to defend themselves
SpoilerUnique Units :
SpoilerInca :
There's already a unique slinger unit: The Incan slinger.
I would propose that the Inca be given a unique slinger, with the same unit model and art (the base model is new).
We can name the unit the Waraq'ak (this is a Quechua term for a slinger used in civ 6 for a similar unit). "Slinger" was a pretty generic name for a unit anyways.
Waraq'ak:
45 7/7 (+1/+1)
2 Moves / 2 Range
Dazed promotion (-15% CS to units hit by Waraq'ak)
SpoilerBabylon :
With the Inca moved to a unique slinger, there are no unique archers. The best candidate is the Babylonian Bowman, which was a unique archer in Vanilla:
Bowman:
Unlocks at Calendar / 70 11/10 (+2/+2)
2 Moves / 2 Range
Indirect Fire
SpoilerMaya :
In BNW and until the CBow change, Atlatlist had an early unlock. Currently, the Atlatlist is not any earlier, and the only difference from a base CBow is its unique bonus vs wounded. With the tech change, we can keep them at Mathematics, which is now an early unlock again. It is a high priority tech for the Maya because it unlocks their UA as well:
Atlatlist
Unlocked at Mathematics (1 tech earlier) / 110cost
2moves / 2Range
13RCS / 13CS
Atlatl Strike (+33% vs wounded)
I would encourage people to not focus on the UU stats just yet, as its more important to decide if we look the greater proposal before digging in to the UU nuances.
Talking about it on discord, there is a lot here that I like:
1) We can have a stronger archer without the worry of the archer rush that was prevalent for a while. This allows for early rushes but not so early that the other civ doesn't even have a chance to defend.
2) It makes mathematics less of an all around amazing tech. Right now math is just always a good tech to get, and now you spread around the love a bit more.
3) A later but stronger cbow cushions the blow when medieval knights come out. They still aren't amazing versus medieval units but can stand up a little bit better.
In terms of the slinger stats, I do think 7 RCS / 6 CS is a better start based on the combat math (1 range is a major drawback, and with brute force warriors actually do a lot of damage against barb units compared to this new slinger). That said, we could start 6/6, I think its the absolute lowest you can go. 5 CS is completely out of the question, the unit at that point is so squishy that it won't serve a viable purpose in early barb hunting.
Swords will probably have to be nerfed in response to this. While cbows are a respectable way to deal with swords, this new archer will NOT cut the mustard, and swords will have to receive some nerfing imo.
A key question is whether a mathematics player can go top side tech tree and rely on catapults as a ranged solution. Not an aggressive one, that's what the bottom tech tree is for, but for core defense. My main worry at the moment is that players will be "forced" to go bottom tech tree to survive, but with the catapult moved back to mathematics I think its worth trying out.
I don't get the scaling of / . For instance, Spearman unlocked at Bronze Era has 12 CS and new Composite Bowman unlocked at Engineering has only 13 RCS?
Swords will probably have to be nerfed in response to this. While cbows are a respectable way to deal with swords, this new archer will NOT cut the mustard, and swords will have to receive some nerfing imo.
I have been advocating for a sword nerf for a long time. I think they are too strong anyways, their CS is pretty much at the ceiling for what a Classical unit's CS can be before they can just solo face-hit cities. This means there is not design space to go even 1 or 2 CS more for any swordsman UU.
My proposal has been to reduce their RCS by 1, and weaken their free promotion:
Swordsman
16CS
Professionalism (10% defense against Ranged attacks, 10 HP)
The unique promotion is basically a weaker version of the entrenchments/DFP promotions that melee units already get from Riflemen onwards.
I don't get the scaling of / . For instance, Spearman unlocked at Bronze Era has 12 CS and new Composite Bowman unlocked at Engineering has only 13 RCS?
It needs playtesting, but my gut instinct is that 9RCS is a better starting point than 10 for the Calendar Archer. Current Mathematics CBow is 11/11, so this is 2 RCS weaker and 1 tech earlier, which seems fair.
I'm less sure about what the later Engineering CBow's stats should be. Crossbows are 19/15, which is 3 less than the Longsword's 22CS and unlocks 1 tech later. 14RCS for the CompBow is probably more fair.
? That's invented solution to nonexistent problem.
Archers at trapping are vital to barb hunting and comp bows for survival, esp. as tradition, when AI has tons of swordsmen they rush you with. You can barely get gold to upgrade one unit in classical, not to mention two. Tradition and progress usually too need to rush top tech tree like education to stay relevant in the game with all bonus science and production AI gets, many times not having mining even, not go engineering. Comp bows were moved from engineering because they were useless so late, not because archers are destroyed by horsemen. You propose to a step backward in VP we already tried. Strength of comp bows at offensive was brought to balance by increasing AI bonuses along.
Catapult disjointed from iron working is even more terrible and makes authority very weak and all military civs lose momentum which they need as cities are too though to even weaken with Legions or other unique swordsmen before catapults.
If you can "dominate" cities with archers before walls I suggest going up in difficulty when it's no longer a case. Classical warfare is dynamic, deadly and in good place.
I ran a number of different sword options on discord, trying out 15 or 16 CS swords with cover or these changes. Overall I think this idea fits the model best. If we make the archer change, this would be the sword I would recommend starting with
I don't get the scaling of / . For instance, Spearman unlocked at Bronze Era has 12 CS and new Composite Bowman unlocked at Engineering has only 13 RCS?
So the change from an 11 RCS -> 14 RCS is an 27.2% increase in attack strength, that's pretty darn large. Cbows today are still able to wound and damage medieval units, its just they tend to get trampled by knights (which they should based on their original position at mathematics). So the fact that we are increasing the cbow this much is a big deal, it will make it much more competitive against early medieval armies. It won't be equal by any means, but it is a solid increase.
Second its the simple fact of ranged vs melee. Melee units have to have powerful CS to be relevant, as they take damage every time they do their job. The Cbow gets to sit back and plink plink plink, so any damage increase is a bigger deal than it is on a melee unit.
? That's invented solution to nonexistent problem.
Archers at trapping are vital to barb hunting and comp bows for survival, esp. as tradition, when AI has tons of swordsmen they rush you with. You can barely get gold to upgrade one unit in classical, not to mention two. Tradition and progress usually too need to rush top tech tree like education to stay relevant in the game with all bonus science and production AI gets, many times not having mining even, not go engineering. Comp bows were moved from engineering because they were useless so late, not because archers are destroyed by horsemen. You propose to a step backward in VP we already tried. Strength of comp bows at offensive was brought to balance by increasing AI bonuses along.
Catapult disjointed from iron working is even more terrible and makes authority very weak and all military civs lose momentum which they need as cities are too though to even weaken with Legions or other unique swordsmen before catapults.
If you can "dominate" cities with archers before walls I suggest going up in difficulty when it's no longer a case. Classical warfare is dynamic, deadly and in good place.
So this is a great summary of concerns with this proposal, so lets dig in and look at each part.
Archers at trapping are vital to barb hunting
The idea of introducing the new slinger is because we agree, there should be an early ranged unit for barb hunting. Also the new archer (on calendar) is not a super late unit, and once out will be more capable of killing barbs in your initial expansion phases than the current archer can.
Cbows are vital for survival
This is a key question. In terms of swords, we agree that swords need some kind of nerf along with this change, they could not remain as they are today, and we are debating some ideas on the discord currently. Beyond that, are catapults with the new archer enough to mount an effective offense/defense at mathematics to allow players to move into the north side of the tech tree and operate? The bottom side of the tree is still meant for more hardcore warring, but the math -> north tree path should still be viable....and I think this is most immediate question to look out in playtesting.
Catapult disjointed from iron working is even more terrible and makes authority very weak
This change does make the immediate move to iron working weaker, there is no question. We do give it a bigger power spike in Engineering, but is that enough? Swords are strong, but are they strong enough to carry the load of city taking without catapults?
Iron Working would be a slightly less valuable tech without catapult. I don't actually think it's a considerable downgrade for ironworking, because if I am teching towards swords then I am building swords. Swords can deal enough damage to cities without the need for catapults, which need to be defended and can slow you down.
There has been a lively debate on the Discord about how catapults fit into this. Catapults are 13RCS, but with a -25% penalty right now. If moved to math, they can help defend top-tree techers from sword rushes. Maybe catapults could drop their siege inaccuracy, but I don't think that's necessary.
The combination of Iron Working being a slightly worse tech, swordsmen being made slightly weaker, and catapults being added to the toolkit of a top-of-tree defender means the classical era combat will emphasize swords a little less, but they will still be the strongest unit in the era.
I do like most of the changes here, putting a Slinger unit in feels long overdue at this point, but I have some reservations. Moving Cbows back to give the Sword rush some more breathing room is alright, but Skirmishers are still around and they're still at Mathematics, and I think by the time you get both Iron Working and Mathematics and build both units, the time to rush before the AI gets Cbows and eventually Knights is now even shorter. Rushing cities with Swords with no siege just feels kind of bad and is fairly easy to counter.
This isn't too relevant, but why Calendar? Wouldn't Construction make a bit more flavor sense?
Tbh I never really thought Archer rushes were all that OP, you're sacrificing early Settlers/wonders for a chance at taking cities but the window was always ridiculously short and once the AI got Walls (which they could invest in), it was pretty much game over.
There has been a lively debate on the Discord about how catapults fit into this. Catapults are 13RCS, but with a -25% penalty right now. If moved to math, they can help defend top-tree techers from sword rushes. Maybe catapults could drop their siege inaccuracy, but I don't think that's necessary.
The issue isn't swords, its knights. As soon as knights are on teh field, you new archers and your cats will be wiped out, and you will have nothing to defend yourself with.
Current archers are on the top of the tech tree, and Caldenar has the temple of Artemis, which boosts ranged unit production. I felt it was thematic there.
VP Discord is a place where no more than ten people are active, pineappledan included, and they all play so heavily modified VP, with loads of submods, a person who just plays normal VP wouldn't been able to recognize it's the same game from the screenshots they post there, with new/altered resources, beliefs and buildings. Everyone can check it themselves. I oppose any change to VP based on what tested/needed on no-longer-VP. Submod stuff belongs to submod section.
I haven't seen a single post mentioning a "problem" with archers here in months, to the contrary they were quite a few praising classical warfare.
You won't have cbows if you go the north side of the tree, that's the problem. South side sure your good, which means that we are saying is the only way to play the game now is to go south side, else you just die when the AI medieval push comes.
If majority of people who propose and see the reason for balance change play lots of mod mods which completely rebalances and changes what VP is, it should be invalitated with all force.
If someone thinks that adding lots of stuff or changing settings like game pace doesn't change anything and then finding base VP features unbalanced is VP problem: it's not and everything in the Civ 5 engine is intertwined. Disable all addons VP isn't balanced for and your imagined "problem" will disappear. This reminds me of an idea for changing Conquistador into explorer, Gazebo shot down thankfully. The fact that it was accepted as "needed" despite no one ever mentioning it earlier and that it was proposed and supported by roughly the same people as now, along with some other heir remark, makes me wonder if they understand what balance in VP is at all and if they would be able to build a civilization to stand the test of time in normal VP game on emperor, base VP, continental map the mod is balanced around.
Moderator Action: You are welcome to debate whether or not you think a proposed balance change is a good idea. You are not permitted to make personal attacks against other users' intelligence/skill level or insinuate they have ulterior motives. This is flaming and is against the forum rules. Attack the argument, not the opponent. - Recursive
Please read the forum rules: http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=422889
People who make new content for VP know what is doable, are familiar with the code and databasing in VP, and have tampered with different possibilities. That’s a unique perspective which can be valuable for exploring solutions to problems in base VP.
There hasn’t been talk in months about archers, no, but in Jan-Feb 2020, there was vigorous debate and a few different solutions were tried to make archer rushes less effective. The end result was the archer we have now, which is anemic and ineffective once walls and other ancient units are unlocked. One thing that wasn’t tried back then was moving archers back to the same level as walls, and adding an earlier, weaker unit before it.
you can consider this a continuation of that round of testing, after 2 years of the current archer I suppose.
I dislike how trapping becomes the worst first ancient tech like this. I have never used the food process, so maybe that is on me, but it doesn't feel like a relevant move.
Maybe also add the forest chop of mining there. (or was it jungle(?))
I still think it's the worst opener then, but maybe there are niches possible like deer/camp luxury/chopping forests with an early worker.
---
I voted no on this poll, because I don't have a problem with current ancient warfare. I think archer rushes weren't that problematic, since you are putting off infrastructure for so long just to hurt one neighbor. I think it will take several iterations of this proposal to get it to a fully better state, so I'd rather have resources be used on things that are more evidently not right at the moment like tourism or the spy system.
there was also a long discussion about moving the composite bow to currency, not engineering. This takes composite bow from requiring iron working as a prerequisite to requiring writing. That gives top tree rushers faster and easier access to the composite bow, so they can be ready to defend against knights
I voted no on this poll, because I don't have a problem with current ancient warfare. I think archer rushes weren't that problematic, since you are putting off infrastructure for so long just to hurt one neighbor. I think it will take several iterations of this proposal to get it to a fully better state, so I'd rather have resources be used on things that are more evidently not right at the moment like tourism or the spy system.
I can’t contribute to tourism or spy changes, because I don’t have the skills needed to add dll code. This isn’t taking any resources from those issues
We already moved forests and marsh clearing forward. And brought jungle clearing to calendar from the bottom of the tree which doesn’t make sense. Jungle starts require playing around them, they are challenging and unique. Jungle clearing even earlier is robbing them if their uniques and effectively a difficulty lowering without any rationale.
This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.
/
. For instance, Spearman unlocked at Bronze Era has 12 
Trapping Tech / 55
cost
moves / 2
Range
