The New Movement Rules Cripple 2-Move Melee Units

[UWHabs]

I kind of like the new movement. I mean, don't get me wrong, I hate managing it, but the fact that I have to manage it I think makes sense. Especially before, it really wasn't as bad walking through the jungle, since if there was even one flat tile, then it was easy to just use that along the way. Right now, it feels like it takes forever to go through the jungle, which makes sense.

And do we forget that in 4 and before, units had move 1 by default? So yeah, it takes your sword one turn to move next to the archer, then attack, and then the archer can pick him off the next turn. You know what - that makes sense! If I have a single sword, I'm not going to go take out that archer on a hill. If I have 2, then they can tag-team and destroy him.

The main changes I would like to see would be a slight relaxing of the rules, mostly with roads. I think scouts should be able to move to a tile if they're within 1 movement point, so that they can still get 2 moves over hills, but hill+forest stops them. Also all land units should be able to move to a tile if they're within say a 1/2 move, so that when you get to industrial roads, the land units can get 3 tiles on the roads. Either that, or have archers not be able to fire if they have less than 1 move. Right now, it's easy to move 2 roads, and then you archer can still fire, but a melee unit is stuck as he only has half a move left.

 

[Chaleb]

I think a change of 3 movement standard for Melee units and making scouts 4 movement standard is the best way to go. This still doesn't make melee units that amazing but at least they would be dramatically better on the offensive than being relegated to blocker units.

 

[CaiusDrewart]

I think archers (and ranged units in general) shourld be quite substantially nerfed. Archers should not be able to completely kill off spearmen or swordsmen. They should act as support units that can weaken melee units, but other melee units should be required to finish them off. And in the case that a phalanx are able to attack an archer it should be able to kill it very easily.

I really, really like this solution. Cap the damage Archers can do as 40% or 50% or whatever. They had to give siege weapons a similar nerf in Civ IV, as I recall.

I am just so sick of the AI being completely helpless against massed Archers. It's been this way for so long. Make it not so.

 

[RealHuhn]

Great Generals increase movement by 1. If you want to go to war you need to invest in some encampments and the problem is solved.

 

[CaiusDrewart]

Great Generals increase movement by 1. If you want to go to war you need to invest in some encampments and the problem is solved.

Why should melee units need a great general to be at all viable, when none of the other unit types do? That's poor balancing.

 

[RealHuhn]

Why should melee units need a great general to be at all viable, when none of the other unit types do? That's poor balancing.

Then try to give them some other bonuses instead of changing the complete movement system again. Maybe I'm in the minority but I like the new movement rules. Firaxis added the +1 movement to generals to add a little more strategy to the war preparations. If you want melee units with 3 movement points, you need to invest more hammers into encampments.
I think the main balancing issue is the 100% production card for cavalry units (available after 3 civics) and the very early access to classical era horsemen (only two techs). That's just insane.

 

[SahintheFalcon]

We need to throw out the new garbage movement system. You just can't move enough in one turn. Combined with the lack of workers to move around, I daresay I've gotten bored of many matches because there just wasn't much to do and I wasn't really feeling it.

 

[Furycrab]

Am I the only one who's had almost opposite experiences? I mean the initial archer pushes are really good, but I've had a ton of success using other units. There's this timing where your Archers go from being godlike to almost crap because they do very little damage to Horses or Swords, but you don't have the gold yet to upgrade them all into Crossbows. Weird part I find is that it's cheaper to upgrade a Heavy Chariot into a Knight than it is to upgrade an Archer into a Crossbow.

 

[yung.carl.jung]

Am I the only one who likes it?

It rewards you for getting your troops set up in good position ahead of time. I mean if an archer has to spend 2 turns just to get onto that hill in the first place, is it really an advantage to ranged units vs melee? It seems more like an advantage to entrenched defensive positions. Which is entirely appropriate. Why should a melee unit be able to charge up a hill and take out archers? That makes no sense, that is what cavalry (or your own ranged units) are for...

Civ is not supposed to be realistic and realism is never a good angle to argue from. It's also not realistic that you can have a Civilization that has knowledge of nuclear bombs yet hasn't researched archery. That does not mean that it is a design flaw. This game should be designed to be just that, an ideal game.

Now this is just my personal opinion, but the more you help defensive play the less interesting the game gets. The way it works, even on Deity, is that if you can successfully repel the first two or three attacks you have already won, game over. In another thread I saw someone post that he won a spaceship victory on Deity on Turn ~320, something like that. If the AI cannot win peacefully in more than 300 turns that means they literally cannot win the game. It takes almost all the fun out of it.

I played my first Civ VI game on Immortal and won without any micromanagement or knowledge of the game. Right now every "boost" for the AI is a good thing, I'd say. And it is a matter of fact that the AI rarely to ever abuses strategic positioning while the player does it all of the time. Yes, something like that should be rewarded, but it already is just by the way ranged units and fortification work. No reason to "nerf" the AI even more with the indirect melee unit nerf.

Truly the scariest sight in Civ V was a mass or Impi or Roman Legions marching towards you (while you had no money for a bribe..). In Civ VI melees don't even scare me. The strongest opponents right now might just be barbarian horsemen..

 

[chazzycat]

Realism can be a good argument, if the game is so far from realism that it breaks immersion for the player. To me, a slow melee unit approaching across flat land and successfully assaulting a ranged unit fortified in rough terrain would do exactly that, because it's the complete opposite of what should happen. That's just awful tactics and should not be rewarded.

I would certainly admit there are issues with the AI, but blaming them all on the movement changes seems like a stretch. Just giving the AI the ability to move & fire ranged units in the same turn should theoretically be a massive boost to the AI in this regard. Ranged can be a much better counter for them than it used to be. Maybe they just need to build more ranged units.

There is a triangle of balance where ranged is good against melee, melee is good against horse, and horse is good against ranged. This makes a ton of sense both gameplay-wise AND is historically accurate. I'd much prefer to see the AI learn to use ranged better for their own defense, rather than throw the entire system (which is good) out the window.

 

[nimzo28]

About "Melee are weak against Ranged": Maybe the game will be better with a risk for using ranged units against units located 2 tiles from the them?: Attack reduced by 25% (and/or) 50% of chance to miss the target... How an arrow can be so precisely devastating?

 

[CaiusDrewart]

I agree with this. In fact I wrote a mod that does exactly this, for the same reasons you posted.

After thinking about it more though, I think I may need to change it so that Melee units get 3 moves, Scouts are bumped to 4, everyone else stays where they are. That way Archers can't try to run from Melee as easily.

I do agree this change should be in the base game.

Here's the mod:

http://forums.civfanatics.com/resources/quos-rocketboots.25476/

Isau, I finally got around to playing a game with extra movement, and I've got to say, the game plays so much better. Everything is smoother and less painful. Terrain still matters, quite a lot (more than it did in Civ V), but moving melee units is no longer an agonizing crawl. And scouts are worth building again. As a final added bonus, the extra move on melee units makes the AI a little bit more threatening, too. It's really great. I encourage everyone to try it.

 

[ilker]

I don't agree with this, since a well placed archer should have this advantage i guess. And I also experienced quite regularly the reverse situation, where my single archer unit couldn't run away from a single melee unit and easily destroyed, especially when you first saw and not flee instead attacking first.

 

[Roxlimn]

What's the difference between adding 1 movement to a Swordsman over just building Horsemen, or Warriors vs Heavy Chariots? The AI does build Heavy Chariots, when it has the tech.

 

[SeismoGraf]

Idea for some minor rebalancing changes:

• Replace the pretty useless vet2 promotion Commando ("Can scale Cliff walls") with +1 movement
• Lower ranged units' strength slightly and their melee strength significantly
• Give the Spearman ZoC against cavalry units

Reduce Spearman's cost, increase his strength. Tone down the Square promotion ("Double Combat Strength when occupying the same hex as a support unit") to compensate.

What i don't like about above changes is that currently you can rely on all melee units having 2 movement, except the vet3 spearman, who can have 3. Furthermore the left side of the warrior tree is already superior in most cases.

I'm pretty sure, that a few relatively minor changes can fix the current imbalance

 

[Trebjonn]

The changes they need to have is that static melee units(Warrior, Swordsman and Spearmen) makes it so that you cant retreat more than one tile when you have gotten into their zone of control(this means directly backwards too).

Cavalry(jousters) should do more damage the more tiles they move before attacking, but less than "Static melee units"(Warrior, Swordsman and Spearmen) when you attack from 1 tile away.

Ranged stays the way it is or perhaps remove their retaliate when attacked or halve that dmg.

 

[SeismoGraf]

The changes they need to have is that static melee units(Warrior, Swordsman and Spearmen) makes it so that you cant retreat more than one tile when you have gotten into their zone of control(this means directly backwards too).

Cavalry(jousters) should do more damage the more tiles they move before attacking, but less than "Static melee units"(Warrior, Swordsman and Spearmen) when you attack from 1 tile away.

Ranged stays the way it is or perhaps remove their retaliate when attacked or halve that dmg.

Interesting ideas!

In any case IMO the typical archer VS warrior fight should end in such a way, that the warrior always survives with around 10% health, if the archer gets the first shot in and they fight to the bitter end 1vs1. Along those lines for units of later eras. Seems fair to me, considering how flexible and strong ranged units are.

Horsemen going toe-to-toe with Swordsmen (at 35 strength both) does not feel right at all! Both require a strategic resource. But horseman can just avoid a direct fight, if they wish and attack another city before the melee units can relocate. They can retreat much easier. They can relocate and defend multiple places much faster. They can quickly surround a city, while taking one turn of enemy fire max.

This kind or "charge mechanic" sounds cool. It would make cavalry stronger in open terrain and on roads, where they can move further. Maybe cavalry would move backwards before charging in again... unless the bonus should count from the starting tile relative to the attacked target.

 

[Trebjonn]

Interesting ideas!

In any case IMO the typical archer VS warrior fight should end in such a way, that the warrior always survives with around 10% health, if the archer gets the first shot in and they fight to the bitter end 1vs1. Along those lines for units of later eras. Seems fair to me, considering how flexible and strong ranged units are.
Horsemen going toe-to-toe with Swordsmen (at 35 strength both) does not feel right at all! Both require a strategic resource. But horseman can just avoid a direct fight, if they wish and attack another city before the melee units can relocate. They can retreat much easier. They can relocate and defend multiple places much faster. They can quickly surround a city, while taking one turn of enemy fire max.

Yeah, cavalry units are so much better than swordsman in any scenario except versus spearman(which isn't enough to counter cavalry).

This kind or "charge mechanic" sounds cool. It would make cavalry stronger in open terrain and on roads, where they can move further. Maybe cavalry would move backwards before charging in again... unless the bonus should count from the starting tile relative to the attacked target.

I dont know what would feel most balanced as to how calculate the dmg(some might feel the run back and forth tactic to be an exploit perhaps?), but I feel that the cavalry should flank and try to take out key targets like Ranged and Siege units, but should be weak towards melee units like Spearmen, warriors and swordsman. Thats why we need to give the cavalry a higher damage ceiling in terms of burst, but when you cant charge your damage starts to dip.

Its the Mage/Tank/Assassin triffecta

Mage/Archers: does alot of damage, but is weak towards cavalry, but is versatile and do alot of dmg
Assassin/Cavalry: fast and alot of dmg, but weak towards tanks who can limit their movements and do less dmg when they cant charge.
Tank/Melee units: Can hold enemies within their vicinity IF they can get into their vicinity and take alot of punishment.

 

[Big J Money]

Agree with the simple +1 movement to all unit. My only gripe with the new system is just that it slows the game down.

And if this nerfs cavalry too much, give them an additional +1. But I doubt it would.

Edit: I will say though, that the current system greatly rewards you for focusing on Great Generals, which also is a good thing. I love the GGs.

 

[Roxlimn]

I think it would be easy enough to adjust the strength to make things right. For instance, you could adjust Spearmen to be 30 Strength instead of 25 (so Hoplites go up to 40 Strength when adjacent, and 50 Strength against Cavalry). Pikemen get to be 51 Strength - commanding even against Cavalry, and deadly to Knights. They'll also be less susceptible to ranged attacks because of the added Strength.

To compensate, Melee units would get an additional +10 against anti-cavalry, so they'd be +20 Strength against anti-cav units. A Swordsman would normally be Strength 35, but against Spearmen would be Strength 55.