Why ranged units so strong in defense?

[maxf]

On screenshot the base strength of Heavy Skirmisher is 15, and it has 10% bonus, but overall strength is 27.3, so they take a little damage. Why so?? This units are extremely overpowered with this bug or feature.
With non-ranged unit seems all ok.

 

[Stalker0]

On screenshot the base strength of Heavy Skirmisher is 15, and it has 10% bonus, but overall strength is 27.3, so they take a little damage. Why so?? This units are extremely overpowered with this bug or feature.
With non-ranged unit seems all ok.

Ranged units defend against Ranged Units with their Ranged Attack, that is why its so high. If a melee unit was attacking it, than you would see the 15 number used.

 

[Rekk]

The Heavy Skirmisher also has accuracy I, which gives it +10% CS, and an additional +10% because your skirmisher is >50 health. The combat UI isn't displaying the accuracy I bonuses and should be reported as a bug.

 

[maxf]

Hm, I think it is not good idea to use ranged attack value as defense strength vs ranged units. Why this units should defend better than melee units? They have enough other benefits.

 

[vyyt]

Hm, I think it is not good idea to use ranged attack value as defense strength vs ranged units. Why this units should defend better than melee units? They have enough other benefits.

I think the reason for this is that ranged units should be squishy if melee get through to them, but you should not be able to one-shot them with ranged. Imagine having a ranged unit stationed in a city, picking off the attacker's siege units one by one. This would not be fun. Also, if I am not mistaken, this works the same in vanilla Civ5, this is not a VP thing.

I personally reduce both melee and ranged strengths for all archer-line ranged units a bit, because I find them too durable when attacked by melee and too powerful when you amass them in one point on the frontier, but that's another topic and people seem to like the stats as they are (it always discussed in the balance thread long time ago).

 

[Stalker0]

I think the reason for this is that ranged units should be squishy if melee get through to them, but you should not be able to one-shot them with ranged. Imagine having a ranged unit stationed in a city, picking off the attacker's siege units one by one. This would not be fun. Also, if I am not mistaken, this works the same in vanilla Civ5, this is not a VP thing.

I personally reduce both melee and ranged strengths for all archer-line ranged units a bit, because I find them too durable when attacked by melee and too powerful when you amass them in one point on the frontier, but that's another topic and people seem to like the stats as they are (it always discussed in the balance thread long time ago).

Mostly this. The current model ensures both melee and ranged units have a good niche. Ranged Units would be too weak if they used their strength score for all defense. But by using it against melee, it ensures melee units have a good niche as they do a lot of damage against ranged units.

 

[maxf]

In vanilla Civ5 ranged units seem much more squishy for long-range attacks.
Another dubious thing is the ranged units moving after shooting. It is not very realistic to attack without a chance to take counter damage.

 

[vyyt]

You mean the skirmishers? Not only gameplay trumps realism, but this IS realistic. They hit with arrows from afar and run without actually giving the swordsmen and spearmen a chance to hit back. You have to hunt them down after their attack. And come on, if they expend 1 movement on the attack AND they have to get to the next tile from the target, they are not that difficult to catch. You don't want these squishy units to attack and then stay in the same tile only to be slaughtered in the following turn, right?

 

[Minh Le]

Given how annoying Skirmisher in other strategy games is, I think Skirmisher in VP is actually very cute .

 

[Gazebo]

Given how annoying Skirmisher in other strategy games is, I think Skirmisher in VP is actually very cute .

<Nods in Civ 6>

 

[Bhawb]

Another dubious thing is the ranged units moving after shooting. It is not very realistic to attack without a chance to take counter damage.

That's literally exactly how cavalry units function in the real world. That is the entire point of sticking an archer onto a horse and losing the range/power/accuracy of a stationary archer with a larger bow.

 

[tu_79]

@maxf, we have tested thoroughly all these units until all of them are fun and balanced. Skirmishers have been around for at least two years and they got tweaked twice.
I'm proud of having proposed this type of unit and glad that Gazebo accepted to implement it, making a whole line up to helicopters.

Right now, Skirmishers are quite weak. If you leave them in the front line, they won't stand two melee hits. In fact, archers are usually better, but you can move your Skirmishers from one of your borders to the other in half the time. And Skirmishers may climb a hill, hit and retreat, while archers can only fire behind a hill with a promotion. Also, with an owned road, you can hit the same unit with 5-6 Skirmishers or more, guaranteeing a kill, and we know that a dead unit cannot retaliate.

 

[maxf]

My comments relate mainly to the storming of cities. It is not very realistic that ranged land and naval units can come,damage the city and get away quietly without any damage taken as if the fortress would not shoot back.

 

[tu_79]

My comments relate mainly to the storming of cities. It is not very realistic that ranged land and naval units can come,damage the city and get away quietly without any damage taken as if the fortress would not shoot back.

This is how all civilization games work. Ranged damage does not suffer from retaliation.

 

[Bhawb]

My comments relate mainly to the storming of cities. It is not very realistic that ranged land and naval units can come,damage the city and get away quietly without any damage taken as if the fortress would not shoot back.

Because the city gets a chance to attack during its own turn, and that is the in-game representation of the city's defenses attacking. A city is represented the same way any ranged unit would be, which is a better representation of how things would happen. A wall isn't going to deal damage to archers just because they shot at it, unlike a bunch of guys with sticks going to hit other guys with sticks, which will involve taking a bit of damage in return.

Is it perfectly realistic? No. Neither is turn based combat, or a trebuchet having the same range as a dude with a sling, or airplanes taking damage from bombing some dudes on horses. They are done for semi-accurate representations of things in a board-game form.

 

[Kim Dong Un]

That's literally exactly how cavalry units function in the real world. That is the entire point of sticking an archer onto a horse and losing the range/power/accuracy of a stationary archer with a larger bow.

I'm currently mowing my opponent down by utilizing "line of battle" technique with my English fleet. It's fun being able to apply real battle tactics in game.

 

[tommytoxen]

I think the idea behind it is VP isn't using defense/attack in the traditional sense. it's going for more 'realism' but using the mechanics available to it.

rather than 'defending', they're simply 'going into battle'. and in battle skirmishers/ranged attackers will fire, run away before they're attacked, fire, run away. While swordsmen etc in huge heavy armour will have trouble running and maneuvering etc. If you think about it it makes no sense before that if a swordsman attacked an archer, the archer would fire and then... just stand there and wait for the swordsman to keep running up to smack him with a sword. So I can see what VP is trying to do here.

While playing yesterday that's what I seemed to notice anyway. Rather than defense/attack in the traditional sense they're simply 'mutually engaging in battle' and performing their real-life counterparts function in that battle.

 

[vyyt]

There will always be some abstraction, after all, it is a turn-based (and a) game.