Discussion in 'Community Patch Project' started by dailyminerals, Jan 18, 2020.
1 archer beats 1 warrior, even if the warrior attacks first.
How often do you have 1 archer-1 warrior matchups in an actual game? Don't barb camps spawn more barbs once they're attacked? Don't AI civs get fairly large bonuses to unit production?
I imagine this concern vanishes completely once Spearmen or Horsemen are on the table. Can 1 archer beat any 1 other unit except a warrior?
If you can station your archer on hills, forest, or across from a river, ranged attacks are much more valuable.
Basically it would make archers much more situational instead of becoming a mandatory early units
Honestly, that's part of my concern. I'm not sure it would be fun to turn archers into a unit that benefits highly from high level tactical play at the expense of lower level enjoyment.
Barbs in camps are much more aware of getting damaged by attacking. If you are able to attack first, the chance is high that the unit will not attack afterwards. Even after a first strike of the barb, he will never attack after getting harmed a second time.
Maybe not, but a group of them can seemingly bring down a city, which never occurred in any historical context, as they would have been shot down & destroyed by the city. Adds little to the game either.
There's another solution to that. Restore 2-range to cities.
Or just add -50% malus vs cities.
2 range archers are fine as is except for the recent changes to cities making them easier to take that made it possible to take cities with archers. Before it was technically possible but very difficult.
I think there is not a consensus against 2 range archers except for the issue with taking cities with archers. When I can take out a deity AI with a pathfinder and 4 archers, that's an issue.
Another easy solution to this would be, don't do it. I've never seen AI doing such a rush, so it's only the human doing such thing.
This is kinda weird to me 'cause 2 years ago the AI rushed me with warriors and archers all the time on epic Deity games. Always seemed a legit strat to me but then I often did 22 civ epic games.
QFT. If you don't like it, that's a you problem.
Between the people whining they can't store 10k gold without repercussions and people whining that they can do a thing with archers, and therefore we should break the other 5 things archers do, I'm starting to go a bit insane here.
Apparently AIs countering humans is bad and humans countering AIs is bad. Guess we just need to become lekmod and take the AI out, or we need to become CBRX and take the humans out.
This thread was supposed to be a more general complaint about the strength of the entire ranged unit line and it got derailed into another archer thread. Between the umpteenth skirmisher change, the tech tree rework, and now this crap, it feels like ancient era is not only sucking the oxygen out of every other topic, it feels like it's getting worse. I really do feel like the early game is becoming chopped to pieces; the first 100 turns were more enjoyable 6 months ago than it is now, and the community is obsessing over every aspect of every early game unit to an insane degree while the late game continues to be mostly ignored.
Ideologies are super close, late game buildings are getting there. WC resolutions, enhancers and reformations all need another pass. These things don't get done because people can't stop talking past classical era. Skirmishers don't need to be tweaked every 2nd patch for 4 months straight, and we sure as hell don't need to start doing the same to archers.
Can we please move on?
This thread has not stopped any high activity discussions on your religious belief threads. People are more than capable of having multiple discussions at the same time.
We have focused on archers at the moment, if someone has a specific complaint about another ranged unit that think is a bit out of whack, they are welcome to bring it up and we will discuss it. Right now, archers and c bowmen seem to be the largest concern that has been voiced....hence the most discussion.
Have you ever heard of the author Jared Diamond and his book "Collapse"?
Its my number 1 fact book and its about the collapse of former civilizations, the reasons for it and also take a look at the current state of the world. (I really recommend this book for everyone)
Why Iam asking this? A passage of this book take a look about the benefits of complexity and how the benefits change with the increase of the complexity. Complexity/Specialisation creates a lot of efficiancy and benefits, but somewhere, there is a point, where more complexity creates more disadvantages than advantages.
I got the feeling that the balancing aspect of this mod have already crossed that point, leading to such discussions you see here. The amount of different promotions some (a lot) units get, shows this to a great degree. Starting from experience level of 5 or 6, I cant see anymore all the promotions my own units have, cause they get pushed under the picture and cant be looked at.
Another example would be the happiness system. The pleasure was big, after an easy and local happiness system was announced, but do we have this now?
Since 2 years, a lot of (in my eyes) unnecessary stuff was added, like the population modifer, the "save median" mechanic, the "show how many people will be unhappy after growth" mechanic, the happiness gained by archeological digs, the public project, also a weird experiment with national meridan. I dont know when this was introduced, but happiness by vasalls is also a weird addition in my eyes.
I really really dont want to belittle the effort of all the developers, I love what you have done, this is the game and mod I would take to an isolated island, and I can already hear the sarcastic comment from Gazebo incomming like a Stuka in WW2, but Iam simply missing the brutal and objective methodic to balance things out against each other. Adding more extra rules to an already very complex game didnt make it necessarily better, but definitly unfriendlier for new players.
The most simple and understandable solution would be the 2-range-for-city-attack change, cause its the "normal" case and it would help to solve the archer rush problem.
In addition to this, the RCS of archer and Composite Bowman should be lowered by atleast 1, making it a bit less attractive to field 90% archer armies and be successful with it. If the archer have less ranged defence abilities and the city can always retaliate at 2 range, any archer rush would be a lot more difficult to be done. And everything without changin the range of a unit or adding another promotion.
I'll reiterate my support for restoring 2-range city attack from the very start.
I haven’t added any new major systems in months. Just cleaning up bugs and improving user experiences. Don’t make this about me.
frankly, I think that’s a bad assessment. It’s absurd how archers became the target of scrutiny
City defense was reworked last version and a few versions before that city defense was lowered across the board. Now starting city defense is so low that archers can pick cities off with impunity. Does that sound about right?
So... the fix is breaking Archers? Why? We've had nerfed archers before. in vanilla we had 1 range units after renaissance and they were trash. Prior to 2019, archers in VP were 6/5, and they were trash. People on this forum agreed that archers needed a buff, G increased them to /6, and it has been better for over a year. Archers with 1 range is a harder nerf than -1/-1 ever was, And it looks like people are asking to bring back trash 2018 archers by way of trash vanilla Gatling guns. Either everyone collectively forgot that we've been here before or there's so much fresh blood that no one remembers.
can we just get cities right first, before we discuss breaking things? Why aren't we talking about continued tweaks to cities? That’s what started all of this.
I think the scrutiny came because of the realization of the power of the 4 archer rush. Speaking personally, I had no idea how powerful it was until people recently mentioned it, and when I tried it out, I was astounded at how easy it was. Now I do agree the city reduction increased the power of that rush, but even at the old values I still think the 4 archer rush would have been successful. So I think this "exploit" got a spotlight on it by the community, and so now its being debated if we should do something about it.
I'll also say, I am not opposed to the 2 city range adjustment over archers, I think there is still merit to that. But I do feel something should be done to curb it.
So as an experiment I just tried a 4 archer rush with a self imposed limit of 1 range. I wanted to see how it looked. My notes:
1) Barb hunting really didn't change much in the early game. 2 archers was more than enough to snipe 3 barb camps in short order (with authority). My archers did get hit a little more than normal, but I found that my initial promotions healed up that damage regardless.
2) My opponent.....was Monte!!!! Man....talk about the ultimate test of the rush. So range 1 archers vs jaguars. How did I do?
So initially a lot better than I expected. 2 archers can take on a jaguar without issue, and 4 archers can take on 2 jaguars if they are a bit split up. The trick is letting them both attack the same archer, that's when I would get into trouble. But all of that said, I was doing fine....until Monte build his own archer. I realized the flaw in my plan, the enemy archers were still 2 range
So ultimately I killed several jags and was able to forward settle and wall right next to Monte's front door. I have cleared plenty of space for me to continue my expansion while greatly slowing down Monte's (he had a settler in his city during the whole battle). I also got about 50 gold out of him, and now my archers are nice and promoted.
So alll in all, the range 1 definately made a difference in assaulting Monte. I feel confident I still could have handled him with range 2. Still, I don't regret the rush, it gave me positional advantage and still weakened my neighbor while letting me quickly take down barbs for culture. Now, I do think a spearman push focused on tribute might have worked in similar fashion...but I was on a calendar heavy terrain, so that would have pushed me off that path.
I'll try the experiment a few more times to get my thoughts. If anyone actually knows the quick way to just adjust archers to 1 range please let me know.
It doesnt have to be major changes. Adding the +hp/cover promotion for higher melee units or the Skirmisher Doctrine are an increase in complexity too.
I think changing the cities to 2 range as base and reduce the RCS from archers should need you 5 minutes and should cause less trouble in balance than 1 range archers or additional promotions.
What do you have to lose? If it doesnt work, you can revert the change and try 1 range archers.
I did Deity archer rushes as Venice on old patches. They were not nearly as effective. The damage on capitals was low enough that the AI could get walls up usually. Sometimes I could still take the city, but barely. I would need lucky terrain. As Venice, where I could rush that many archers without much opportunity cost. I'll concur that it's more a city issue.
The early game is the most important part, and archer rushing being such a great move regardless of social policies or your long term goals is a real problem. The core problem, IMO, is cities being so much weaker. They heal a lot slower too, I captured Madrid, Spain redeclared war after the peace treaty, and my city wasn't even at half its full health yet.
I really think cities to 2 range is better than archers to 1 range. Rushing cities remains possible but is harder. It becomes a lot harder to just use early cities as free XP. Walls can give a city indirect fire, if we want walls to change city behavior.
Comp bow need a nerf too. Even if I give myself a rule of no archer rushing, the next best thing is just to comp bow rush. They've been too strong every since they got moved to mathematics, a ranged unit this early shouldn't have the CS of spearmen. Last game my classical army was like 14 comp bows , 1 scout, and 1 swordsman. I easily beat the Zulu, the civ designed to use melee against ranged, the only units that gave me grief were his own catapults. Cities with walls couldn't hold. Comp bows are so strong it is affecting balance of other things, like luxuries or civ UUs (LOL hoplites), because researching any techs that don't lead to mathematics is questionable.
Separate names with a comma.