Ranged Attacks

[Breez]

I envision ranged attacks in FF to be much like medieval warfare, where the 2 armys are too far apart to engage via melee, the longbowmen are firing volleys into the air on a ballistic trajectory, and their targets are hiding behind cover or their shields. Yeah you get SOME damage to people not paying attention, but you are not going to wipe out the opposition this way.

I like the changes Vehem is doing. Ranged combat is one of the big reasons I play FF over FfH, but that doesn't mean I want to see it become TOO powerful.

 

[Vehem]

These new changes look somewhat weaker than before, at least for archers...

kind of the opposite from what I was hoping to do with making this thread..

The main thing is that you highlighted the fact that tier 1 units could inflict significant damage on tier 4 units at no risk, which was something that needed to be resolved. The increased caps do allow archers to do more damage overall, but it'll take a couple of them to reach the cap reliably against some units.

If we implement the ranged resistance, it will work to decrease the cap of attacking units (so "Tower Shields" may reduce damage from ranged strikes by 10%). At that point, it may be feasible to significantly increase the caps as units of other types would have a counter to massed archers. If archery units of similar tech-levels are capable of inflicting 50% damage at no risk, before attacking (either a second unit attacking, or the same unit in the following turn), then the "defensive" archers are the strongest offensive unit available. No defending unit can defend against a same-tech unit if it is already damaged 50% - it has both 50% of the strength and takes 50% of the damage to kill. Damaged units are doubly weakened in that respect (which is why even 20% or 25% damage can cause such massive shifts in follow-up combat odds).

====

As an experiment, I'm trying a short line of promotions (Archer I-III) which add 10% each to the cap, and add to the rangedStrength as well (which will increase the amage per shot). They each require the relevant Drill promotion (Drill I-III), so it'll take a while to make the most of the increased cap - a level 6 unit *should* be able to make the sort of difference you were describing, but a base unit probably shouldn't... It does mean however that a level 6, expert archer could be causing damage upto a 55% cap, with a ranged strength of 5.

 

[[to_xp]Gekko]

nice changes, it looks like patch F is going to include quite a lot of fixes and assorted cool stuff. I'm especially looking forward to the day when archers fortified in cities will be able to use ranged attack without losing their fortify bonus

 

[WarKirby]

The main core of my suggestion here, is removing caps completely, and giving many different ways to reduce the damage instead.

A heavily armored phalanx with cover I and II, in a forest, could be taking something like 1% damage from a longbowman barrage. In circumstances like that, it would hardly be overpowered at all.

I guess there is a core problem here, though. Archery units have high defence strength. It's always struck me as odd, considering that most of the combat they visibly do is slashing things with those knives.

I've been playing medieval, total war a bt. It's where some of my perceptions here come from. Archers are an invaluable tool in weakening the enemy as they approach your walls, but once the enemy gets up there, the archers are useless because they're not designed for close combat. So you need a mixed defence force of archers to weaken the enemy, and blunt their attack, then a shield of melee units to fend them off. at the top of the ladders as they climb your walls, until they break and run.

I'm wondering if a system like that might be too much change to ask for. Effectively, change the focus of archers to the bombarding, rather than direct combat. Reduce the strength of archers to compensate for their improved range capabilities. Perhaps it's getting too far beyond the scope of FF.

 

[[to_xp]Gekko]

The main core of my suggestion here, is removing caps completely, and giving many different ways to reduce the damage instead.

A heavily armored phalanx with cover I and II, in a forest, could be taking something like 1% damage from a longbowman barrage. In circumstances like that, it would hardly be overpowered at all.

I guess there is a core problem here, though. Archery units have high defence strength. It's always struck me as odd, considering that most of the combat they visibly do is slashing things with those knives.

I've been playing medieval, total war a bt. It's where some of my perceptions here come from. Archers are an invaluable tool in weakening the enemy as they approach your walls, but once the enemy gets up there, the archers are useless because they're not designed for close combat. So you need a mixed defence force of archers to weaken the enemy, and blunt their attack, then a shield of melee units to fend them off. at the top of the ladders as they climb your walls, until they break and run.

I'm wondering if a system like that might be too much change to ask for. Effectively, change the focus of archers to the bombarding, rather than direct combat. Reduce the strength of archers to compensate for their improved range capabilities. Perhaps it's getting too far beyond the scope of FF.

my exact same thinking. I'd love to have the primal use for archers be ranged combat but have them suck at normal combat

 

[Vehem]

A heavily armored phalanx with cover I and II, in a forest, could be taking something like 1% damage from a longbowman barrage. In circumstances like that, it would hardly be overpowered at all.

Those circumstances won't account for even 1% of all combats in the game though, so it's a poor choice of example to show it isn't overpowered...

I guess there is a core problem here, though. Archery units have high defence strength. It's always struck me as odd, considering that most of the combat they visibly do is slashing things with those knives.

I've been playing medieval, total war a bt. It's where some of my perceptions here come from. Archers are an invaluable tool in weakening the enemy as they approach your walls, but once the enemy gets up there, the archers are useless because they're not designed for close combat. So you need a mixed defence force of archers to weaken the enemy, and blunt their attack, then a shield of melee units to fend them off. at the top of the ladders as they climb your walls, until they break and run.

I'm wondering if a system like that might be too much change to ask for. Effectively, change the focus of archers to the bombarding, rather than direct combat. Reduce the strength of archers to compensate for their improved range capabilities. Perhaps it's getting too far beyond the scope of FF.

I see where you're going now, but it's not something I'm going to consider in the foreseeable future. If archery units were effectively unable to perform direct combat (prohibitively weak in both direct offense and direct defense), then they could probably justify their bombardment being lethal, though there's still a balance issue where melee could defend the stack, but never attack, relying on bombardment from a large archer stack to do the killing. In those circumstances again, we have the "whoever fires first" scenario - the first archer stack to fire will be able to destroy much of the opposing stack. Small stacks will be unable to touch large stacks.

In FF - archery is a defensive/support line. City defense and weakening enemy units prior to attack by other units. That's a gameplay decision, which isn't shaped by the fact Civ4 shows the melee animation (knives) when animating the combat.

Oh, and if you think archers are good in Medieval:TW, you should see them in Shogun:TW *Those* archers are capable of destroying pretty much anything in the early-mid game. That's not something that FF wants to emulate though...

 

[[to_xp]Gekko]

good point. imho the most accurate representation of archers' behaviour so far is the defensive strike mechanic. firing volleys at incoming enemies, then retreating behind melee troops. so to better portrait this, archers could get a decreased combat rating, but the usefulness of defensive strikes could be boosted ( for example by making the number of archers in the stack matter when calculating damage: more archers will fire a lot more arrows etc. ) . cavalry could get the BTS "flanking" mechanic, which here would apply to both siege and archery units ( thanx to their speed, they can outmanouver melee troops and hit the vulnerable spots of the enemy army ) , although it should probably not work when attacking cities ( horses can't climb walls ) . couple this with the Combined Arms Stack Attack from Dale's Combat mod, or something similar, and you've got a very elegant combat system

 

[WarKirby]

good point. imho the most accurate representation of archers' behaviour so far is the defensive strike mechanic. firing volleys at incoming enemies, then retreating behind melee troops. so to better portrait this, archers could get a decreased combat rating, but the usefulness of defensive strikes could be boosted ( for example by making the number of archers in the stack matter when calculating damage: more archers will fire a lot more arrows etc. ) . cavalry could get the BTS "flanking" mechanic, which here would apply to both siege and archery units ( thanx to their speed, they can outmanouver melee troops and hit the vulnerable spots of the enemy army ) , although it should probably not work when attacking cities ( horses can't climb walls ) . couple this with the Combined Arms Stack Attack from Dale's Combat mod, or something similar, and you've got a very elegant combat system

I agree with you here mostly, but the defensive strike concept is flawed. It doesmn't address the prblem of an army just casually strolling past a heavily defended fortress. Realistically, they should be suffering a withering hail of arrows.

Defensive strikes only work if the enemy tried to enter yourtile directly, which, I think, is why theranged combat mechanic is still very important

 

[Breez]

I don't agree with your assumptions.

When units are NOT in your square, ie at range, they are a long ways away. The size of a square is not defined but it could be miles, it could be 500 yards.

When an archer is attacked THEN the attacker is subjected to a Wither Barrage of Arrows that it can do nothing about. I see that as reflected in the Increased Defensive rating of archer units. That is why they are effective defenders and 1 archer unit can hold off 4-6 melee attackers when behind city walls. I feel its increased Defense is indicative of everything you talk about.

The difference in your opinion and mine I think lies in that I see those times when the units are not in the same square differently. It seems to me you envision them standing around in formation being cut down by huge flights of arrows <insert Braveheart scene here>. Like you see the range of 1 square distance to be 100 yards or less.

Firing bows at incredible ranges is not the most accurate form of combat. They need HUGE numbers of arrows and Huge groups of targets. I see units at those longer rages more spread out, they have the opportunity to see arrows incoming and to take cover behind rocks, hills, trees, shields. Hence the severely reduced effectiveness of the archers.

Lastly, but most importantly, is the point Vehem is making. That is balance and playability mush be maintained. Changing 1 unit that much would require looking at the balance of every other unit out there.

Such a large rewrite might be an interesting modmodmod but I think it is too sweeping for FF.

 

[xienwolf]

You could also extend the defensive strikes to instead be "Opportunity fire" and have them apply when your stack is attacking as well. Afterall, if I am at the battle lines of a major confrontatino I expect to see archers on BOTH sides of the skirmish firing volleys while the cavalry/infantry close in upon one another.

 

[Hawkwood]

You could also extend the defensive strikes to instead be "Opportunity fire" and have them apply when your stack is attacking as well. Afterall, if I am at the battle lines of a major confrontatino I expect to see archers on BOTH sides of the skirmish firing volleys while the cavalry/infantry close in upon one another.

That is a really good idea. The one thing don't like about defensive strikes is, that while they correctly show archers as a support unit, they can't support another unit's attack, while that was an important role of real archers.
While the ranged attack shows that to some degree, I think this is a far better option.

 

[Willgar]

Interesting thread but i dont really agree with the premise that the current archer implementation is broken. Defensive strikes simulates the archers ability to blunt an attack Ranged barrage simulates supporting an attack or harassment of passing enemies. While the low attack strength and lack of city assault bonus makes archers clearly a support unit and not shock troops.

Getting the AI to use archers effectively (some form of combined arms) should be a much higher priority then working out what icing you need on the cake.. (poor metaphor - sorry)

PS - Thanks to .50 my wife thinks i have an internet mistress due to the obscene amount of time i spend in my computer room ... worth it though...

 

[Vehem]

You could also extend the defensive strikes to instead be "Opportunity fire" and have them apply when your stack is attacking as well. Afterall, if I am at the battle lines of a major confrontatino I expect to see archers on BOTH sides of the skirmish firing volleys while the cavalry/infantry close in upon one another.

That's partway to Dale's Combat Mod though, with "True Stack Attacking"... If we're going that route, it'd be better to go the whole way (though I suspect that should be a game option rather than a standard feature).

====

For the moment though, higher level archers can do some significant damage from a distance, standard archers make good support troops and they all fill the role of city defender more than adequately. That'll probably do for me until there's a pressing need to rework them...

 

[Zurai]

Not so keen on Archers and lognbowmen. having Barrage attacks ... it seems like quite a long distance to be shooting arrows.

Quite happy to see Seige Weapons getting barrage attacks though.

Longbows have a longer effective range than mangonels, which are the style of catapults depicted in FFH/FF.

 

[GASherbert]

sure, the AI not using it is actually smart since they know that they would lose a 25% bonus in exchange for 20% damage, a bad tradeoff. but that's exactly the problem: if using a ranged attack is actually detrimental, something is wrong imho

I must respond to this, because the math is erroneous. Losing a 25% defensive bonus in order to do 20% damage to the attacker does not mathematically affect the relative strength between the units. Losing a 25% bonus is only a 20% reduction from the improved strength. Since both units are decreasing by the same ratio, nothing is lost from the defender's perspective.

But as Vehem mentioned above, the attacker has suffered a hit to his hitpoints, which negatively affects his combat odds. So it's actually a good tradeoff for the defender.

 

[Thunder_Gr]

I must respond to this, because the math is erroneous. Losing a 25% defensive bonus in order to do 20% damage to the attacker does not mathematically affect the relative strength between the units. Losing a 25% bonus is only a 20% reduction from the improved strength. Since both units are decreasing by the same ratio, nothing is lost from the defender's perspective.

But as Vehem mentioned above, the attacker has suffered a hit to his hitpoints, which negatively affects his combat odds. So it's actually a good tradeoff for the defender.

Assuming that the same attacker is going to fight the defender next turn. Which is not the case. Usually the attackers are much more than the defenders, so losing the 25% fortification is a very bad thing for the defender, which will not be able to defend effectivelly as many times next turn.

The math may have been wrong, but the concept is sound. It is a bad tradeoff to lose 25% against all attackers next turn, to do a 20% damage to a single attacker this turn.

 

[[to_xp]Gekko]

I must respond to this, because the math is erroneous. Losing a 25% defensive bonus in order to do 20% damage to the attacker does not mathematically affect the relative strength between the units. Losing a 25% bonus is only a 20% reduction from the improved strength. Since both units are decreasing by the same ratio, nothing is lost from the defender's perspective.

But as Vehem mentioned above, the attacker has suffered a hit to his hitpoints, which negatively affects his combat odds. So it's actually a good tradeoff for the defender.

actually, my point still stands. if using a ranged attack in the situation you mention would be a good tradeoff, then the AI not using it is an issue.

 

[Vehem]

I must respond to this, because the math is erroneous. Losing a 25% defensive bonus in order to do 20% damage to the attacker does not mathematically affect the relative strength between the units. Losing a 25% bonus is only a 20% reduction from the improved strength. Since both units are decreasing by the same ratio, nothing is lost from the defender's perspective.

But as Vehem mentioned above, the attacker has suffered a hit to his hitpoints, which negatively affects his combat odds. So it's actually a good tradeoff for the defender.

Assuming that the same attacker is going to fight the defender next turn. Which is not the case. Usually the attackers are much more than the defenders, so losing the 25% fortification is a very bad thing for the defender, which will not be able to defend effectivelly as many times next turn.

The math may have been wrong, but the concept is sound. It is a bad tradeoff to lose 25% against all attackers next turn, to do a 20% damage to a single attacker this turn.

actually, my point still stands. if using a ranged attack in the situation you mention would be a good tradeoff, then the AI not using it is an issue.

It's a moot point now anyway - Ranged Attacks no longer cause the fortification level to be reset. So long as you don't move, you'll gain/maintain fortification on a turn in which you make a ranged strike.

 

[kenken244]

Does that still cancel defensive strikes?

 

[Thunder_Gr]

It's a moot point now anyway - Ranged Attacks no longer cause the fortification level to be reset. So long as you don't move, you'll gain/maintain fortification on a turn in which you make a ranged strike.

Thats nice.