Question about archers attacking melee units

[civzombie]

If a lone archer attacks a lone melee guy, will the archer get to make the attack w/o any counter? Thus will the archer be able to do damage w/o damage being done to itself? This wouldn't apply if an archer was attacking another archer, or if the melee guy was attacking the archer.

Anyone here play Fantasy General? Or panzar general? That is how it worked in those games. If a long range unit attacked a short range unit the short range got no counter attack b/c it couldn't reach the unit to respond. In contrast, if a short range unit attacked a long range unit, the long range unit was able to respond b/c it could reach the short range unit.

From the info page.
"Units will only be able to attack other units they can reach. An example is that a Pikeman cannot attack a fighter, such as the F-15."

 

[KrikkitTwo]

Well they do mention having a 'First strike ability' so my guess is that an archer will have an ability like that. So that One round of the combat will involve no risk to the archer (after which the range is closed), because melee units Can attack archers, they just have to run at them (unlike planes or other Very long range artillery, an archers range would only give it one round of free attacks rather than a whole turn.)

 

[mitsho]

Your system is unrealistic, because one Archer unit represents more than one archer, namely a whole bataillon. Thus, when they are involved in a fight, it's more than two people fighting, it's an army fighting, and it's highly unlikely, that noone of the 'short-ranged unit' reaches the Archer bataillon. But of course, the Archer should get the first hit.
In addition, your system is gameplay wise not realistic, because it'd make archer too strong, and then what about the mongol, parthian, nomadic, etc. Horse Archers? Would they be invincible?

mfG mitsho

 

[civzombie]

Good hypothesis Krik. I bet you are right.


"In addition, your system is gameplay wise not realistic, because it'd make archer too strong, and then what about the mongol, parthian, nomadic, etc. Horse Archers? Would they be invincible?"

Mitsho,
Uhh, I was asking a question not proposing a system. I don't know why that was not clear.
Besides, that system was used in the SSI 5 star series, widely regarding as one of the best turn based strategy games ever. If anyone has the time, I recommend that series. You have to carefully consider each movement you make with one of your pieces, much like a game of chess.

 

[UCFCSGuy]

I think it would be realistic to allow the archer one free shot before they start trading off hits. I know that in CIV3 if you've got more than one unit fortified and one of those units is an archer that they get the free bombard hit. I think that should be extended to a lone archer unit. In reality if a bataillon of swordsmen were charging a whole bataillon of archers, the archers would likely be able to get a shot apiece off before being engaged in melee attacks.

 

[Crayton]

Certain units get certain 'free shots' before engaging back and forth blows. The archer, for example, gets 1 'free shot'. I know there is a more correct term; but, it escapes me.

 

[frekk]

Pikemen can't actually reach F-15's, ever. But they can (and did quite often) reach archers (eg the famous Tortoise formation etc) in the space of just a few minutes. No matter how you cut the scale of things, civ is a strategy-level game, at the very least large theater (ie continental) level, and the concept of a field battle such as you're mentioning is really only applicable at the tactical levels (note that the Panzer General series and its spin offs like Fantasy General were all tactical level or "small theater" games, and I'd say even the scale in those was far too broad for such concepts - something at the scale of, say, Steel Panthers would be a better scale level for concepts like that).