Ranged units should retaliate

[mzprox]

As the title says: ranged units should attack back when they are getting shot by other ranged units, and do so even when it is not their turn.

Mostly for balance reasons. In melee fight usually both sides take hit, but in ranged combat very often those who fire first can kill the enemy. (making this possible would also eliminate some nasty tactic, exploit against the ai)

This retaliation would also speed up naval combat, making it better and more balanced.

What do you think?

 

[shadowplay]

You can't move after firing, I think that makes for an ample opportunity for retaliation.

 

[Thry]

I disagree completely. Ranged combat is fine the way it is. If you're killing other ranged units in one hit you're out-teching them, or they're fighting at a huge disadvantage.

 

[Thoughtful Thug]

You can't move after firing, I think that makes for an ample opportunity for retaliation.

This has been debated before the game's release. As some argument pointed out that there should be some kind of a retaliation by the ranged unit being attacked by another ranged unit. I think 1/3 of strength ought to be fair on the behalf of the ranged unit being attacked by another ranged unit.

 

[Thry]

If ranged units retaliate, there would be no reason to fire on them. This is a Turn-based game, not an RTS.

 

[Thoughtful Thug]

If ranged units retaliate, there would be no reason to fire on them. This is a Turn-based game, not an RTS.

I think it would be a fair balance that having a range unit being able to counterattack at the same time it is receiving fire by another range unit. They would still have the decisive advantage of range attacking other non-range units.

As the first guy in this thread said -it would eliminate how easy it is to pick off one by one, and wave by wave of the AI's onslaught in higher difficult setting.

 

[mzprox]

Melee units retaliate, ranged units should do the same when they are fighting.

The problem is that if you have enough ranged units you can just massacre any number of the enemies, and at least the AI totally inept to do anything.

 

[Gaizokubanou]

Maybe as a promotion for cannon/artillery/rocket artillery as "counter barrage" type of deal, but for vanilla trait this might make lot of range units just obsolete.

 

[Me,myself,and,I]

The main problem with ranged units NOT being able to retaliate is naval combat. If ranged units could retaliate naval combat could be made faster, and less broken.

 

[mzprox]

Yes, I also wrote that naval combat would benefit from this.
And I don't think it would make units useless..
some rules:
-Every unit would have maximum one retaliation per turn, so if you attack with more ranged units you have the advantage.
-maybe retaliation attack would have some penalty, but still they would do some damage, not just having themselves slaughtered. They move, they get killed. next wave..same story..

 

[Thoughtful Thug]

Melee units retaliate, ranged units should do the same when they are fighting.

The problem is that if you have enough ranged units you can just massacre any number of the enemies, and at least the AI totally inept to do anything.

The problem is that when another opponent has a numerical advantage of range units, the AI does not learn from it by producing horseman or other units with more movements. I learn that by playing with many players online that they thought that having a lot of crossbowman, or other range units, that they think they can deal with me and a lot of mounted units. They thought they can apply the same tactics of playing with an AI opponent with an human player.

 

[Kruelgor]

As the title says: ranged units should attack back when they are getting shot by other ranged units, and do so even when it is not their turn.

Mostly for balance reasons. In melee fight usually both sides take hit, but in ranged combat very often those who fire first can kill the enemy. (making this possible would also eliminate some nasty tactic, exploit against the ai)

This retaliation would also speed up naval combat, making it better and more balanced.

What do you think?

I disagree because it would discourage the use of ranged vs ranged attacks since it would essentially give the enemy ranged unit TWO attack turns instead of its normal one.

 

[Thoughtful Thug]

I disagree because it would discourage the use of ranged vs ranged attacks since it would essentially give the enemy ranged unit TWO attack turns instead of its normal one.

Well the rule still apply to melee units, and other non-range units of the same quality and health. Usually this game requires a lot of retreat, healing after being wounded, and some occasion of taking the kill after being damaged by another unit. The game is setup for players to be more cautious rather than be discouraged when they use their units in any way.

 

[AriochIV]

We talked about this before release, and I agree that ranged units ought to be able to fire back. It's not a serious problem in land combat, but it's a huge potential problem in naval combat.

Since there currently IS NO naval combat in Civ V, the problem hasn't yet reared its head, and since there are so many more glaring, game-breaking balance problems, it's hard to get too worked up about the potential ranged combat problems. But if the AI is ever made competent, I still think this is going to be a balance problem.

 

[SGRaaize]

Yeah, Archers should fight against Archers, the advantage of Archers should only be against Non-Range fighters