Ranged combat should be more like melee combat.

[VanitysFiend]

As in when a ranged unit engages another ranged unit the target should fire back. Atm ranged combat feels too one sided where several ranged units can gang up on one unit and wipe it out. This is fine against melee units, but feels off against other ranged units.

Anyone agree (or disagree)?

 

[Tdot1]

Yeah I really like this idea!
Maybe a good way to implement it would be to have a unit on standby in a 'return fire' mode. So it would make ranged combat a bit trickier and more interesting. Or maybe they always shoot back but on 'return fire' mode they are much more effective.

 

[diamond geezer]

Suppression?

 

[A+ombomb]

As in when a ranged unit engages another ranged unit the target should fire back. Atm ranged combat feels too one sided where several ranged units can gang up on one unit and wipe it out. This is fine against melee units, but feels off against other ranged units.

Anyone agree (or disagree)?

I suggested the same (among other similar things), and got alot of "it's realistic the way it is" comments in response. I also believe that ranged should take some damage from melee, but reduced. Furthermore, less or no support bonuses from adjacent army. This would allow ranged units to be buffed a bit in power and make everything smoother.

 

[Tdot1]

Suppression?

Yeah? That could be a fun new aspect to more modern warfare. I've always felt that Civ combat should change with the ages, as it stands its just a never-ending grind and it's hard to remain interesting. There just should be other techniques and units with varied abilities to force different combat play styles.

 

[TomKQT]

I also believe that ranged should take some damage from melee, but reduced.

You mean that a ranged unit should take some damage when it attacks a melee unit? When an archer shoots a warrior 2 tiles away, the archer should be somehow magically damaged by this? I'm not a big fan of the silly attempts to compare everything in a turn-based strategy game with reality, but this suggesting is way too over what I should accept in the game It would be extremely counter-intuitive and the question "How on the earth did the unit get damaged, did the archer hurt himself by poking the arrow in his eye? Or did the warrior throw his club so far?" would be very logical.

Btw, in the case of a ranged unit attacking another ranged unit, I wouldn't be against the idea. It would be completely reasonable and intuitive, because the attacked unit is technically able to shoot back. I would however reduce the damage or attack strength of such a counter-attack, because of the moment of surprise.
Maybe it could be designed this way: the attacking unit shoots and damages the defending unit. The defending unit takes some damage. Then (still the same turn of course) the defending unit shoots back, if it survived, and this counter-attack is calculated from its actual REDUCED health/strength.

 

[diamond geezer]

Yeah? That could be a fun new aspect to more modern warfare. I've always felt that Civ combat should change with the ages, as it stands its just a never-ending grind and it's hard to remain interesting. There just should be other techniques and units with varied abilities to force different combat play styles.

There is a suppression upgrade (Tier 3) for Ranged attackers...

 

[A+ombomb]

You mean that a ranged unit should take some damage when it attacks a melee unit? When an archer shoots a warrior 2 tiles away, the archer should be somehow magically damaged by this? I'm not a big fan of the silly attempts to compare everything in a turn-based strategy game with reality, but this suggesting is way too over what I should accept in the game It would be extremely counter-intuitive and the question "How on the earth did the unit get damaged, did the archer hurt himself by poking the arrow in his eye? Or did the warrior throw his club so far?" would be very logical.
.

Unintuitive? So let me get this straight...a ranged unit attacks a melee unit, in what is represented by hundreds of miles of distance on a map, over what is considered hundreds of years of time. The result is often that the melee unit is still alive....yet for some reason these melee troops made no attempt to attack back? The damage return would be based on: the more damage done, the less is returned. If the attacked unit is killed, then the ranged unit takes no return damage.

 

[diamond geezer]

Unintuitive? So let me get this straight...a ranged unit attacks a melee unit, in what is represented by hundreds of miles of distance on a map, over what is considered hundreds of years of time. The result is often that the melee unit is still alive....yet for some reason these melee troops made no attempt to attack back? The damage return would be based on: the more damage done, the less is returned. If the attacked unit is killed, then the ranged unit takes no return damage.

So what would have happened in a real battle? The ranged troops would have been deployed to thin the ranks of the enemy - and then they would retreat (being able to move faster as not weighed down with heavy gear) behind their lines. Which is why the clever enemy would have countered with its own ranged troops (or possibly cavalry if it had superior forces in that area). For an example of ranged attacks against an army with none you only have to look at the Battle of Carrhae.

 

[VanitysFiend]

Yeah I really like this idea!
Maybe a good way to implement it would be to have a unit on standby in a 'return fire' mode. So it would make ranged combat a bit trickier and more interesting. Or maybe they always shoot back but on 'return fire' mode they are much more effective.

There's no need to overcomplicate things, melee combat happens simultaneously, so why not ranged combat?

 

[Tdot1]

I just feel like a lot of the combat is so static, and it could use some changes in the types of units available, like you could get more defensive units, or units that have speed but low armour, but not as fast as horsemen. The problem is that combat doesnt change between the ancient era and the atomic, with the exception of naval and airplanes, these are good additions, but ultimately, by and large the combat remains the same and this ought to change.
A return fire idea for ranged combat units could be a good one, this would also incentivise attacking melee units with ranged. Another would be having melee that are strong at defending against ranged attacks and a cheaper and faster and weaker ground melee unit, this would force people to change battle tactics.

My only reservation about all this is that the AI is already struggling hardcore, so maybe this would just make it worse?

 

[TomKQT]

Unintuitive? So let me get this straight...a ranged unit attacks a melee unit, in what is represented by hundreds of miles of distance on a map, over what is considered hundreds of years of time. The result is often that the melee unit is still alive....yet for some reason these melee troops made no attempt to attack back? The damage return would be based on: the more damage done, the less is returned. If the attacked unit is killed, then the ranged unit takes no return damage.

You cannot pick just some aspects of reality, apply them to the case and use it to defend your idea.
Why do you say the unit made no attempt to attack back? That's exactly what you can do by moving the melee unit closer to the ranged unit and attack it on some following turns. Exactly as they would in real life - they wouldn't be able to counter-attack immediately after the ranged attack (because they really have no means how to do it). They can either retreat or move CLOSER and attack. Both this reactions require them to move, which is represented by taking a turn or two in the game.

If it was as you said, with your reasoning, then let me give you another question that would naturally rise (instead of the one I gave you in my previous post): "The archer shoot at the warrior, the warrior got damaged and marched quickly to the archer to strike back. But why the hell did the warrior then marched all the way back to the previous tile to be again vulnerable by the ranged attack?"

Your "intuitive" solution would in the game appear as teleporting or magic.

 

[diamond geezer]

If it was as you said, with your reasoning, then let me give you another question that would naturally rise (instead of the one I gave you in my previous post): "The archer shoot at the warrior, the warrior got damaged and marched quickly to the archer to strike back. But why the hell did the warrior then marched all the way back to the previous tile to be again vulnerable by the ranged attack?"

Tiles are just the way the game works. Let's say instead that the warriors advanced and the archers retreated, reloaded and fired again. That allowed the warriors to engage with the vanguard. And so on until one unit routs.

 

[TomKQT]

Tiles are just the way the game works. Let's say instead that the warriors advanced and the archers retreated, reloaded and fired again. That allowed the warriors to engage with the vanguard. And so on until one unit routs.

I'm sorry, I don't fully understand your view. Could you please use another wording or more detailed description?
I still don't see how can you justify the behaviour where a ranged unit shoots a melee unit 2 tiles away and the end of this one simple action is that both units are still ocuppying their original tiles, the melee unit is damaged (by the arrows or whatever), but the ranged unit is damaged also (by what exactly?).

Another reaction to the original post (by A+ombomb):

The result is often that the melee unit is still alive....yet for some reason these melee troops made no attempt to attack back?

..yet for some reason (in this case) the ranged unit made no attempt to run away when they saw that the melee unit was running at him? Or shoot it again? Or simply do anything usefull? As I said - all this already IS in the game and tooks place very logically on the following turns and is fully under your control.

 

[VanitysFiend]

I just feel like a lot of the combat is so static, and it could use some changes in the types of units available, like you could get more defensive units, or units that have speed but low armour, but not as fast as horsemen. The problem is that combat doesn't change between the ancient era and the atomic, with the exception of naval and airplanes, these are good additions, but ultimately, by and large the combat remains the same and this ought to change.
A return fire idea for ranged combat units could be a good one, this would also incentivise attacking melee units with ranged. Another would be having melee that are strong at defending against ranged attacks and a cheaper and faster and weaker ground melee unit, this would force people to change battle tactics.

My only reservation about all this is that the AI is already struggling hardcore, so maybe this would just make it worse?

At the very least I think having ranged units fire back automatically without having to toggle the ability would help the AI quite a bit. It would also encourage players to send melee units against ranged units and ranged units against melee units, rather than just pounding everything into the dust at a safe distance...

 

[Tdot1]

Its true, there needs to be some tactics in combat which go beyond having melee meat shield and ranged units behind them. What I have said previously and I think should be done in some way is to have different kinds of melee units and maybe different kinds of ranged (less important). What this allows is a combat situation which is a little bit more nuanced, one where melee units are no longer simply meat shields. This I believe will help make combat a bit more interesting, which I think is one of the more central issues people have with Civ AI.

For the idea of melee engaging ranged combat units, I think this could only work if a ranged unit attacks when next to a melee unit, and the damage that the melee unit does would have to be reduced quite a bit in such a situation. Here, we dont have a weird tile swapping scenario where units magically move around the map.

 

[RealAntithesis]

A form of counter-attack for ranged units definitely makes sense. Perhaps this can be implemented as a promotion to reflect better troop discipline and reaction times at higher veterancy levels.

Ranged counter-attacks should be limited by the range of the unit though. A 1 or 2-ranged unit should not be able to retaliate against a 3-ranged artillery that is 3 tiles away.

Retaliation should be weaker than a full attack.

Since this will significantly nerf ranged units, melee units should not be able to retaliate against a ranged attack (even though it may make sense for musket men or tanks to be able to, civ 6 treats these as melee units with a range of zero).

My 2 cents.

 

[Tdot1]

A form of counter-attack for ranged units definitely makes sense. Perhaps this can be implemented as a promotion to reflect better troop discipline and reaction times at higher veterancy levels.

Ranged counter-attacks should be limited by the range of the unit though. A 1 or 2-ranged unit should not be able to retaliate against a 3-ranged artillery that is 3 tiles away.

Retaliation should be weaker than a full attack.Since this will significantly nerf ranged units, melee units should not be able to retaliate against a ranged attack (even though it may make sense for musket men or tanks to be able to, civ 6 treats these as melee units with a range of zero).

My 2 cents.

I fundamentally agree with you RealAntithesis, even musket-men were in effect melee units, same with modern infantry, as their ranged counterparts were considerably more ranged than them, just as archers were considerably more ranged than swordsmen.

I do think however, that there could be - maybe as a promotion - an opportunity for melee units to retaliate against ranged units if they are in the tile next to them, the fact is, at current it is simply too difficult to breakthrough lines of ranged combat units and melee units have been reduced to cannon fodder where ranged units rule the game. I think that this small change could help make melee units slightly more useful.

 

[diamond geezer]

I'm sorry, I don't fully understand your view. Could you please use another wording or more detailed description?
I still don't see how can you justify the behaviour where a ranged unit shoots a melee unit 2 tiles away and the end of this one simple action is that both units are still ocuppying their original tiles, the melee unit is damaged (by the arrows or whatever), but the ranged unit is damaged also (by what exactly?).

What I'm saying is that in real battles, ranged troops were either used as skirmishers (when they would melt away from any counter attack, their purpose being to disrupt the enemy formations) or as a softener against an advancing enemy (when they would retreat back behind the defensive formation as soon as the advancing army got close). Therefore it is realistic (IMNSHO) for them to take no retaliation damage. It's also quite realistic, if the melee units survive the barrage and get in among the ranged troops (i.e. the ranged troops don't retreat), for them to do a lot of damage; and guess what? They do.

It's not perfect, but this is not a wargame and the level of combat complexity reflects that. It would be a hell of a lot less realistic for the melee units to retaliate. The most unrealistic aspect is horse archers, which ought to be able to fire and retreat from the off.

 

[TomKQT]

What I'm saying is that in real battles, ranged troops were either used as skirmishers (when they would melt away from any counter attack, their purpose being to disrupt the enemy formations) or as a softener against an advancing enemy (when they would retreat back behind the defensive formation as soon as the advancing army got close). Therefore it is realistic (IMNSHO) for them to take no retaliation damage. It's also quite realistic, if the melee units survive the barrage and get in among the ranged troops (i.e. the ranged troops don't retreat), for them to do a lot of damage; and guess what? They do.

It's not perfect, but this is not a wargame and the level of combat complexity reflects that. It would be a hell of a lot less realistic for the melee units to retaliate. The most unrealistic aspect is horse archers, which ought to be able to fire and retreat from the off.

Oh, so you actually agree with me that the idea of A+ombomb would not be realistic and a ranged unit should not be damaged if it attacks a melee unit. Then it's clear