Schuesseled
Deity
- Joined
- Mar 31, 2008
- Messages
- 2,081
ranged retaliation is fine as long as the retaliation is weaker than an attack by the same unit. HOMM STYLE!
Ranged Combat: Return Fire
- Thread starter AriochIV
- Start date
1) Well not necessarily. You are not going to run here & there to keep your opponent out of range. If your opponent surrounds you then this hit & run would fail. Also ships are going to have more purposes like bombarding land units so running won't be a very feasible choice.
2)Well that is the main purpose of archers i.e to damge melee infantry. Swordmen were good in melee but not fast moving while Horsemen were fast moving so could easily chase down enemy archers.
Even without return fire it can be balanced if ranged attacks are not so strong that 2 of them could destroy a full HP unit. (As 1 unit matters a lot now)
Yeah the only problem is that in Civ5 units strengths don't decrease when hurt, like when a ranged unit in HOMM kills some units off the other side before they can retaliate.
So the way Civ5 works would have to be completely changed before the "weaker retailiation" mechanic of HOMM could apply, and I actually like the whole unchaning strengths and variable health system that Civ5 will have.
....
As far as "setting up or fortification so that ranged units can retaliate," making it a more of a defensible action is an okay idea. This is how it could work.
The archer/ship unit will need to "set up" like a siege unit, which consumes a turn. Instead of setting up before they can fire, setting up will disable them from attacking but allow retaliation against ranged.
The archer/ship unit will need to "pack up" (assumeably) like a siege unit, will also consume a turn.
Instead of packing up to move and not fire, the pack up will allow moving and firing.
Retaliation can either be for all ranged attacks against the "set up" unit or just the first ranged attack against the unit, which then automatically "packs up" the unit.
Not available for siege units
This could work, but again isn't without its own disadvantages and really just complicates things a bit.
Zhahz
PC Gamer
This is my biggest fear/issue with the new combat too - it'll be interesting to see how it works out.
The ability to fire over tiles screams of the ultra cheese found in most versions of civ - some crap mechanic that AIs suck at (bombard in 3, collateral in 4) that players can leverage to easily wipe the floor with AIs. So, I'm really hoping the AI can use their ranged units well.
The ability to fire over tiles screams of the ultra cheese found in most versions of civ - some crap mechanic that AIs suck at (bombard in 3, collateral in 4) that players can leverage to easily wipe the floor with AIs. So, I'm really hoping the AI can use their ranged units well.
It would seem some of you are not familiar ranged combat in many other tactical wargames (1upt and hexes too, but that's a little different.)
This is exactly what anyone should expect and many folks like me have said it before, ranged combat can be very abusable, and the balance is razor-thin. Generally, being a minor but not overwhelming advantage is a good idea.
For land units, it should most likely just result in fortified archers/positions being really powerful, but tactics will exist to counter, numbers at the least, and positioning on land will be more static anyway. But lots of archers slaughtering AI attackers, that's entirely to be expected.
At sea, it's a big problem, I rightly agree with Arioch. The tactical positioning for attack range and massive use of focus firing/attackers advantage is common in every ship (and spaceship) game with such systems. It will become required for success in civ5 too if bombardment has any significant effects (rather than sailing to the adjacent tile for a regular attack)
So I think that removing ranged ship-to-ship combat altogether is really only the best solution for civ5, otherwise it's something we'll have to deal with/exploit too much. Ships should engage each other in regular combat - let them bombard land at whatever range they get, sure, but not other ships. Air units or missiles should be the only things that "bombard" ships, or maybe coastal batteries but I doubt the game has those around.
This is exactly what anyone should expect and many folks like me have said it before, ranged combat can be very abusable, and the balance is razor-thin. Generally, being a minor but not overwhelming advantage is a good idea.
For land units, it should most likely just result in fortified archers/positions being really powerful, but tactics will exist to counter, numbers at the least, and positioning on land will be more static anyway. But lots of archers slaughtering AI attackers, that's entirely to be expected.
At sea, it's a big problem, I rightly agree with Arioch. The tactical positioning for attack range and massive use of focus firing/attackers advantage is common in every ship (and spaceship) game with such systems. It will become required for success in civ5 too if bombardment has any significant effects (rather than sailing to the adjacent tile for a regular attack)
So I think that removing ranged ship-to-ship combat altogether is really only the best solution for civ5, otherwise it's something we'll have to deal with/exploit too much. Ships should engage each other in regular combat - let them bombard land at whatever range they get, sure, but not other ships. Air units or missiles should be the only things that "bombard" ships, or maybe coastal batteries but I doubt the game has those around.
I agree with Arioch.
Bombardment in its current form causes a lot of problems.
They could limit it to siege type units and allow a counterattack if the unit was capable. In a tactical game such as this, the strength of the attack should also be less than 50% of a full assault.
Catapult->Renaissance levels of technology (ironclad/galleon/cannon) with 2 range.
Industrial tech that uses direct fire (battleships, destroyers, artillary) with 3 range.
Missile-launching bombardment units (modern naval units, rocket artillary) with 4 range.
With something like that, you wouldn't have the awkward situation where you're trying to "skirt" the range of an enemy bombarding unit so they can't counter attack, and you don't have a situation where you can just abuse bombard and automatically win. It would allow artillary-type units and attacks to play a role, but one of support instead of sheer military dominance.
Bombardment in its current form causes a lot of problems.
They could limit it to siege type units and allow a counterattack if the unit was capable. In a tactical game such as this, the strength of the attack should also be less than 50% of a full assault.
Catapult->Renaissance levels of technology (ironclad/galleon/cannon) with 2 range.
Industrial tech that uses direct fire (battleships, destroyers, artillary) with 3 range.
Missile-launching bombardment units (modern naval units, rocket artillary) with 4 range.
With something like that, you wouldn't have the awkward situation where you're trying to "skirt" the range of an enemy bombarding unit so they can't counter attack, and you don't have a situation where you can just abuse bombard and automatically win. It would allow artillary-type units and attacks to play a role, but one of support instead of sheer military dominance.
BeastofStrength
Chieftain
- Joined
- Jun 27, 2010
- Messages
- 34
I thought I saw in one of the CIV V video that when the attacker did a range attack the defense unit returned fired. Like how in WWII you would have battery and countery battery fire going on.
IT looks like they will make it a turn by turn base.
I say, if someone as to mod it in even, do a % chance that the range unit -when doing a range attack- will hit the target between 0%-100% of the damage of the range attack strength.
Ex. You have a Cannon and your emeny have a Cannon. YOu do a range attack on your emeny's Cannon.
Your Cannon does 50% of it's range damage to the enemy Cannon. At the same time your enemy's Cannon does 60% of it's range damage to your Cannon.
Then you could do terrains/freatures/Improvements +/- to range effects.
IT looks like they will make it a turn by turn base.
I say, if someone as to mod it in even, do a % chance that the range unit -when doing a range attack- will hit the target between 0%-100% of the damage of the range attack strength.
Ex. You have a Cannon and your emeny have a Cannon. YOu do a range attack on your emeny's Cannon.
Your Cannon does 50% of it's range damage to the enemy Cannon. At the same time your enemy's Cannon does 60% of it's range damage to your Cannon.
Then you could do terrains/freatures/Improvements +/- to range effects.
ThorRex
Chieftain
I recall that Pacific General had not only counter battery fire but also defensive fire from supporting artillery. If Civ5 wants more realistic warfare, there should be defensive fire by ranged unit just like there is by melee units. Defenders will not get an extra shot either, since in the next turn the attackers will be the defenders. In each turn, every unit should fire, unless moving or unlimbering.
Ahriman
Tyrant
I was a bit surprised to see no indication of counter-battery fire in Civ5.
This is absolutely a delicate line to balance; its very easy to have ranged units be too powerful, and let high concentrations of firepower take out the enemy without suffering any damage of your own. Or I could imagine a narrow choke point where say the enemy can only send 2 units through per turn, and 5-6 defending ranged units can instantly annihilate them without taking any damage on their own.
This is always the difference between ranged and melee; ranged scales better with quantity than does melee.
RTS games struggle with this a lot; look at games like Dawn of War 2 and how hard it is to balance ranged vs melee.
Massing ranged firepower tends very often to be a highly effective tactic vs AI players in particular.
This is absolutely a delicate line to balance; its very easy to have ranged units be too powerful, and let high concentrations of firepower take out the enemy without suffering any damage of your own. Or I could imagine a narrow choke point where say the enemy can only send 2 units through per turn, and 5-6 defending ranged units can instantly annihilate them without taking any damage on their own.
This is always the difference between ranged and melee; ranged scales better with quantity than does melee.
RTS games struggle with this a lot; look at games like Dawn of War 2 and how hard it is to balance ranged vs melee.
Massing ranged firepower tends very often to be a highly effective tactic vs AI players in particular.
bjbrains
Man of U-235
- Joined
- Jul 14, 2007
- Messages
- 837
I think the key here is how vulnerable the ranged units are to counterattack (both ranged and melee). If you don't have a strong enough melee 'screen' to protect from opposing cavalry and infantry, then your entire army will crumble quickly. Archers and Ballistas (and presumably other catapults) have only 4 strength. A swordsman or horseman is (probably) going to one shot them. On the same token, archers in the video could barely scratch the legion- it took catapults (with their set-up time) to really damage them. Also, the set-up time on the stronger ranged units really makes them vulnerable to countefire by other ranged units- even two archers should be able to take a ballista. My current estimation is that ranged units will be essential support, but over reliance on them can lose you a ton.
Zechnophobe
Strategy Lich
This is a lot like bombers though isn't it? Except that it can be lethal as opposed to only 50% of the targets strength.
I don't think it is a problem, it is simply a different paradigm. Hero's of Might and Magic (And King's Bounty) have showed that tactics become MORE interesting when each turn has opportunities for one sided conflicts.
Heck, even CIv 4 had 'first strikes' on archers, that allowed them a few unretaliable strikes at the beginning of each fight. They rarely, if ever, were lethal. I see this as fitting in with all that.
I don't think it is a problem, it is simply a different paradigm. Hero's of Might and Magic (And King's Bounty) have showed that tactics become MORE interesting when each turn has opportunities for one sided conflicts.
Heck, even CIv 4 had 'first strikes' on archers, that allowed them a few unretaliable strikes at the beginning of each fight. They rarely, if ever, were lethal. I see this as fitting in with all that.
Also, Horsemen now have 4 movement, so it makes sense to keep them in reserve to be able to charge forward and destroy ranged units once you have been able to get the melee unit in front of them out of the way.
Thoughtful Thug
Deity
I just saw the video and wanted to make a thread about it too.
Any units with range capabilities under attack by another unit with range attack ought to have the ability to fire back with at least half the strength during the bombardment. Please Firaxis fix this!
Any units with range capabilities under attack by another unit with range attack ought to have the ability to fire back with at least half the strength during the bombardment. Please Firaxis fix this!
Why though?Thoughtful Thug said:
If an archer unit is firing every turn, its rate of fire is 1 shot per turn. If it's firing and being shot at by another unit, its rate of fire is 2 shots per turn. This doesn't seem to make much sense.
Because of this, if units can fire back and I'm presented with firing at both an archer and a swordsmen, I'd rather shoot at the swordsmen so the enemy doesn't do as much damage back to me. I think there's already enough incentive to fire at melee (as to break their front) without the added feeling that I need to so I don't get bombarded back.
For the sea, I really see your point. Afterall it's like the land but with only archers available. Either you have a situation where ships don't deal enough damage, and sea combat isn't nearly decisive enough, or they deal enough, and it turns into a "first attack wins" scenario.Earthling said:
Would you argue about the same thing with land, though? Melee units seem to have enough strength over archers that they can cream them in one round, making your own melee units necessary. I'd imagine that a solid mix is still probably best even with no retaliation bombards.
Land combat is potentially much less of a problem, because of terrain and the fact that the heavy-hitters (the siege weapons) can't move and fire in the same turn, so they have to survive an attack from any defending ranged weapons before they can attack. Archers can move and fire, but are less dangerous (and they already nerfed the Archer ranged strength from 7 to 6 in the latest IGN video).
But yes, I still think it's appropriate for land ranged units to be able to return fire when bombarded. It's fair to both sides because it works both ways, and it's a choice; if you don't want to risk return fire, don't bombard a ranged unit, but bombard someone who can't shoot back. I don't think a defender shoot be able to shoot back full strength every time it's bombarded, because that would be too generous. One counterattack per turn would be sufficient (like artillery in Civ III got one and only one defensive shot when its tile was attacked), or perhaps miltiple counterattacks at a reduced strength.
Like I said, I don't think this will be critical for ground units, but it looks to be very critical for naval units.
But yes, I still think it's appropriate for land ranged units to be able to return fire when bombarded. It's fair to both sides because it works both ways, and it's a choice; if you don't want to risk return fire, don't bombard a ranged unit, but bombard someone who can't shoot back. I don't think a defender shoot be able to shoot back full strength every time it's bombarded, because that would be too generous. One counterattack per turn would be sufficient (like artillery in Civ III got one and only one defensive shot when its tile was attacked), or perhaps miltiple counterattacks at a reduced strength.
Like I said, I don't think this will be critical for ground units, but it looks to be very critical for naval units.
I don't like the retaliate only once idea. If you retaliate, retaliate each time. Just like melee Otherwise it's a encourages a strange tactic of choosing who to attack first with.
The scale of civ is such that a mechanic for limited ammo does not make sense.
The scale of civ is such that a mechanic for limited ammo does not make sense.
vranasm
Deity
I think land combat is fine as is from the descriptions.
Naval combat is more tricky... I admit I am big fan of ship warfare and I think i didnt saw it done in good way, even in PG series the naval lacked too much.
In history of naval warfare we went from fights hand-to-hand to fights i-dont-see-you-but-kill-you and to simulate it I think it should be done that through the time the firepower rises quicker then hull strength. so in ancient naval warfare you absolutely have to go hand-to-hand, but in modern times you can outshoot enemy with proper scouting.
I would love some good ship of lines battles battled the way they were done
2 rows moving alongside shooting each other. But there were always great maneuvers splitting 1 row getting 2:1 attack:defense ratios etc. Concentrating firepower was always key in naval warfare...
one thing they could try is that ships dont shoot in 360° (except for modern ones) but they have their own arcs of shooting. In hexes it's easier...
for example some ships could shoot only on their broadsides etc. But that would need turning on hex... well maybe in CiVI
Naval combat is more tricky... I admit I am big fan of ship warfare and I think i didnt saw it done in good way, even in PG series the naval lacked too much.
In history of naval warfare we went from fights hand-to-hand to fights i-dont-see-you-but-kill-you and to simulate it I think it should be done that through the time the firepower rises quicker then hull strength. so in ancient naval warfare you absolutely have to go hand-to-hand, but in modern times you can outshoot enemy with proper scouting.
I would love some good ship of lines battles battled the way they were done
2 rows moving alongside shooting each other. But there were always great maneuvers splitting 1 row getting 2:1 attack:defense ratios etc. Concentrating firepower was always key in naval warfare...one thing they could try is that ships dont shoot in 360° (except for modern ones) but they have their own arcs of shooting. In hexes it's easier...
for example some ships could shoot only on their broadsides etc. But that would need turning on hex... well maybe in CiVI
Ahriman
Tyrant
How is it different from a melee unit? The unit can attack once per turn, but if it gets attacked during the enemy's turn, it fights defensively.
The only difference is the engagement range.
Why is this a problem? Archers should be for weakening melee units. Archers > melee > cavalry > archers, in some sense at least.
Retaliation for Archers is really a non-issue. For an Archer to range-attack another Archer, they have to be 2 hexes away, i.e. with only one hex between them. The outcome of the overall battle is going to be decided by who has a Swordsman or Horseman in the hex between the two archers to beat up the other guy's Archer, not by which Archer might be able to fire first at the other Archer.
