Slinger v Warrior

[MIS]

One balance issue in Civ5 was that Ranged units were OP relative to other units. So let's compare Slinger to Warrior. Both have 2 movement points, and are available at the start of the game.

The Warrior costs 30 and has a Melee strength of 20 (+5 vs. Spearman/ Pikeman).

The Slinger costs 25, has a Melee strength of 5 and a ranged strength of 15 (range = 1). We also know winning a fight with a Slinger gives a Eureka for Archery.

It appears to me more balanced than Ranged in Civ5. What do y'all think?

 

[Krajzen]

In civ5 difference between strength 20 and strength 5 in melee fight meant essentially one hit death of the latter with almost no damage do the former.

Unless the entire dmg calculation for civ6 was radically changed, slinger seems to be ridiculously bad seeing as it has to come to the next tile to enemy than can 1 shoot him, while it would need like 5-6 hits to destroy it.

I hope this will be more balanced in practice on release.

 

[chaosprophet]

Slinger for defense, warrior for offense. At least with only range 1 and that low of an melee attack it doesn't seems much useful for offense.

 

[Acken]

I wouldn't care too much about the numbers currently shown.

That said it seems it will be more similar to beyond earth where melee properly can act as your front line because of ranged units being too squishy. Otoh movement changes may indeed upset that. Hard to tell.

Edit: Range one means you have to be on adjacent tile ? Then Slinger is bad.

 

[DemonMaster]

Slingers perhaps will be good for defense, behind a wall, with other units or something. IF combat works as in Civ 5, then a slinger will do approximately 20 HP, while the warrior will overrun the slinger if he attacks (although, he will just about do it if he has been hit first by the slinger). A slinger is a hit-and-run unit so doing that vs. barbarian warriors (they might even survive that) to earn a promotion could be a thing, depending on what type of promotions they have in Civ 6.

IF combat works as in civ 5 that is.

 

[m15a]

With those numbers and Civ V rules, a slinger would only be useful for defending a city or maybe killing a barbarian scout. It's possible that's the intention and that you'd want to quickly get the tech to upgrade archers to do anything else, although it still sounds like a narrow use for a unit.

But the numbers are way different than in Civ V, so I wouldn't be too surprised if the math is also different.

 

[Lucius_]

I have a feeling slingers will only be relevant for a very, very short time in the beginning. Also, barbs have "scouts" now, I'm assuming it's an actual scout unit not a scouting warrior unit, in which case slinger may be used to chase down these barbarian scouts.

 

[AriochIV]

Talking balance four months from release is INSANITY.

 

[qwerty25]

Im gonna operate under the assumption that the slinger vs warrior is like machine gunner vs infantry. It doesnt make much sense for the slinger to be oneshotted by the warrior.

Perhaps with 2 or 3 slingers you can easily destory a warriro without taking damage? Idk

In any case i hope they have more special abilities or attributes with units


Sent from my LG-H850 using Tapatalk

 

[isau]

I did always wish they had fixed the balance of Ranged units in Civ 5.

I don't think Ranged units should get to counter attack against Melee units at all. That's what made them so overpowered. Their range attack can't be counter-attacked, but they get to counter-attack a melee strike. Very unfair to melee units.

That has nothing to do with the value of Slingers, but I do think thats the balance they should strive for in 6.

 

[Martin Alvito]

Grog no want sling. Grog want TANK.

Talking balance four months from release is INSANITY.

I actually disagree, in that it's not unreasonable to assume that known and persistent series imbalances are likely to continue to persist. As outsiders, we have far from an ideal framework to build upon when talking balance. But we can infer a substantial amount.

 

[m15a]

Talking balance four months from release is INSANITY.

Yes, but speculating on intention is perfectly sanitary. It's all just a guessing game anyway, but "maybe ranged is weaker in Civ VI" is reasonable in a way that "slingers are underpowered" is not.

 

[Acken]

I did always wish they had fixed the balance of Ranged units in Civ 5.

I don't think Ranged units should get to counter attack against Melee units at all. That's what made them so overpowered. Their range attack can't be counter-attacked, but they get to counter-attack a melee strike. Very unfair to melee units.

That has nothing to do with the value of Slingers, but I do think thats the balance they should strive for in 6.

Not entirely. The reason why they are so powerful in Civ5 has more to do with focus fire, damage, not having to move after killing a unit and the fact that ranged units dont take damage when attacking.

I wouldn't start to switch to melee units just because I don't counter attack when being attacked by a melee. The attack efficiency is just that good.

But to be honest it's just a number problem. A couple adjustments like I did can make melee incredibly important.

However giving ranged units both crappy defense and 1 tile range is not the way to go either. But these numbers may simply be not the final ones and just a misunderstanding.

 

[isau]

...and the fact that ranged units dont take damage when attacking.

That part specifically is why I don't think Ranged units should have a counter attack. A ranged unit attacked by melee (or melee-style units like calvalry) should be a free attack for the melee units. When you look at how much damage a melee unit has to take to kill a ranged unit it's really apparent why Ranged rules. The melee unit has to use its own HP to attack the Ranged unit, but no vice versa.

I always wanted to mod this out of Civ V but never got a chance to do it.

 

[Craig_Sutter]

What about the possibility of unit stacking? Could a ranged act as a support unit?

 

[stiiknafuulia]

Remember that you now need more movement points to enter rough terrain. This means that with proper use of Scouts + positioning, it's possible to set up bottle-necks where the enemy has to stop as he comes into the range of multiple Slingers.

Even with that considered, the Slinger does seem kind of weak. It could be that they will search the proper balance by starting with terrible stats, then working the way up with each ranged unit. A good approach imo, given their dominance in Civ V.

Edit: ranged as support would be both boring (you'd always use it) as well as op (the AI likely wouldn't). Perhaps it could be made to work with some special rule(s), but I'd rather they not go this route, as if they fail to get it right it could be a balance disaster (like a Part II to Horsemen of the Apocalypse from vanilla Civ V )

 

[Schuesseled]

With the change to movement rules, the slinger may be weaker but can attack a rough terrain tile straight away whereas a warrior has to move adjacent and wait til next turn. Similarly a slinger can attack a melee unit first that charges towards them in a situation where they are in rough terrain everytime.

 

[Schuesseled]

What about the possibility of unit stacking? Could a ranged act as a support unit?

Yes and no. A catapult is a support unit, an archer is not.

 

[Louis XXIV]

Is a catapult? I know battering rams are, but I hadn't heard anything about catapults.

 

[Red Pearl]

getting a single slinger unit would be useful for acquiring the archery eureka.