I have a fundamental disagreement about how ground combat in general plays out. Every conflict is reduced to a small handful of melee units keeping ZoC for a vast array of ranged units that can obliterate anything with ease, reducing melee units to a glorified support role for the archer and skirmisher line. Shouldn't this be the exact opposite? Shouldn't archers be the support unit? There's always been something that feels off about combat, and I think it's the role reversal of what is supposed to be "front line" units massively under-performing in comparison to their ranged counterparts. When I assess whether or not to engage in a war with a rival civ, the question is never how many swordsmen, horsemen, or spearmen they have, it's ALWAYS how many ranged units they have - ie: can I even make it two tiles into their territory without being obliterated by ranged units. I really dislike this feel. War should be a brawl, a slugfest, not a lightning strike of ranged units that deletes an entire military in a two turns. As for solutions? Something like: Nerf the damage of ranged units by half. Yes, half. Or give an explicit cap to the amount of ranged units a civ can make. Two separate supply caps: One generalized for all units, and one specifically for ranged units that is substantially lower than the general cap. This makes ranged units important, but not the one-above-all dominant units on the battlefield they currently are. Or give us REAL tools to deal with ranged units. Horsemen that ignore terrain cost or ZoC to actually allow REAL flanking maneuvers, melee attacks against ranged units that stun archers for a turn, reducing their damage, or movement speed by one, or disallow them to attack for one turn, etc. Or maybe only allow ranged units to attack the second tile out, not the first, but give them all indirect fire as a base ability to compensate, which from a tactical perspective could be interesting, as it would give you an incentive to actually keep them at RANGE, like they are meant to. This would give the current meta of melee baby sitting real meaning, as having an enemy melee unit close in on a ranged unit always amount to a small tactical defeat, rather than just a modest inconvenience like it currently is. Or fundamentally change what ranged units are. Substantially reduce their damage, maybe disallow them from even being able to finish off a unit, but give their attacks debuffs - reducing their target's movement down to one, or reducing their target's damage by half for one turn, or "open their defenses", making them take increased damage for the next turn, each capability decided by what promotions you give them. This would give ranged units a special role in war - debuffers. Weakening the enemy unit to allow a more effective follow-up from your melee units and introducing an entirely new dynamic to the frontlines that isn't oppressive or overpowered like current mass archer spam currently is. I don't know. I'm just brainstorming. Maybe it's just me, but I feel that something needs to be done to reduce to dominance of ranged units on the battlefield. And don't even get me started on the change to city attack damage - too high. Way. Too. High.