[Brainstorming] The Problem with Archers and in general the range units

[wowgetoffyourcellphone]

3 minutes ago, Lion.Kanzen said:

So melee cavalry needs get rid the artillery and ranged infantry.

In general, this can be done by giving melee cavalry high pierce and crush armor. Those armor stats, coupled with their speed, would make them great against siege weapons and ranged units in general. We need to get rid of the pierce attack for spearmen (and transfer that to hack) for them to effectively counter cavalry without a hard bonus. 

[Lion.Kanzen]

20 minutes ago, wowgetoffyourcellphone said:

In general, this can be done by giving melee cavalry high pierce and crush armor. Those armor stats, coupled with their speed, would make them great against siege weapons and ranged units in general. We need to get rid of the pierce attack for spearmen (and transfer that to hack) for them to effectively counter cavalry without a hard bonus. 

@Yekaterina Please, can we see this in any of your mods?

[LetswaveaBook]

47 minutes ago, wowgetoffyourcellphone said:

Indeed, ranged troops should be (mostly) relegated to a support role. They can be useful by themselves in niche situations, but in pitched battle they're just support units. The melee infantry should be the primary force, supported by ranged or skirmishing troops, with cavalry used for flanking maneuvers. 

The chief benefit of infantry is a slow rolling brute force. Cavalry's chief benefit is speed. Ranged infantry's chief benefit is, well, range (and the relative safety range provides; this allows them to support the heavy infantry from afar). 

 

37 minutes ago, Lion.Kanzen said:

How do we make it work like this?

By reducing ranged damage overall. Currently all ranged units have to much DPS for my taste.

 

The current meta revolves to much about ranged units, so people compare how archers and Javelineers fight against each other, whereas hystorically the fair thing to do is to compare how Archers and Javelineers can support melee infantry. In current meta it is the other way around, how can melee units support/soak damage best? Being pikemen.

[alre]

10 hours ago, ChronA said:

Regardless, the main question remains: what role is the javelinist for? Right now it can't be anti-melee-infantry, because that is a job archers already do incidentally in their primary role as ranged superiority weapons. Making javelinist anti-cavalry would be too absurd! Anti elephant they already do, but is too niche. Maybe make them anti-building?

If we gave them shorter training time than archers and slingers, that alone would be a very significant change. It would give them a different role economically.

10 hours ago, BreakfastBurrito_007 said:

Archers have always been (and should be) quite good at defending buildings like fortresses. However, the main change in a24 is that archers are the fastest infantry, so they can pull a turtle-like defense of a huge area. In a24 you can not be over-extended with archers, because archers are effectively faster than every other infantry. 

To be honest, ranged infantry balance only needed a nerf to slingers from a23, and archers needed a slight buff. 

Archers currently have the same speed of other light infantry. It's only logic.

2 hours ago, BreakfastBurrito_007 said:

I think a great option is to make “archery tradition” a free trade off tech available in p3 that would no longer be an absolute buff, but instead  make archers more vulnerable to melee cavalry and melee infantry.

Have you checked out how was it changed in SVN? Now it only gives the range buff, and maybe it's also more expensive, I don't recall.

10 hours ago, BreakfastBurrito_007 said:

These no longer can counter archers because 1 archers can kill them quite quickly and 2 no more splash damage :I.

The best siege against archers right now is siege towers. So in a24 Rome has worse siege overall than ptol.

They need an attack buff, I agree here. But spash damage was changed in line damage, that should be still good.

Note that it's quite logic that artillery is not cost-effective against archers, because otherwise they would be op against all infantry, and guarding them with pikes would be enough to make them absolutely imbeatable.

1 hour ago, LetswaveaBook said:

There are some myths that tell about ranged troops prevailing over melee troops in battlefields, but as far as I know, most of them are untrue. For example the mongols, they decided battles in melee, not in range contrary to what people think. It is true that ranged troops were an important tool, but the deciding factor was melee troops beating opposition that was lured out of position. Also in the battle of Agincourt, the French knights were bested in melee. Maybe we should invoke our historians to judge on the matter, but I think your statement is wrong.

Do you mean that at Agincourt bows had little influence, and that 25 000 heavely armored knight and gros valets were defeated by around 2000 english knights and some 6000 peasants?

Of course melee troups were employed by all armies, but many of them made much more reliance on ranged troups. Also, you are biased because you are only considering pitch battles, which are by definition decided by melee troups. The rest of the war was an affair for light troups.

1 hour ago, LetswaveaBook said:

I disagree with this reasoning. When you see that javelinists deal lots of damage at short range it seems logical that its role is killing melee infantry (but requires a meatshield). In sandbox mode, it already performs that role very well. On the other hand, such a description seems like they should be vulnerable without meatshield, which is also currently the case. I think the problem is that archers/slingers are too good at performing the role of skirmishers and therefore you don´t need skirmishers.

For me the problem is that archers do a job that they shouldn´t be doing and that is the core point on which I disagree with the statement.

The role of the archer should be doing damage from a large distance. If archers and slingers are nerved, then skirmishers will probably become very useful. I think the javelineers problem is on the fact that slingers and archers are too strong. I think the environment is flawed and the skirmisher itself is not flawed as much.

I agree here. Consider the importance of micro though.

1 hour ago, wowgetoffyourcellphone said:

The chief benefit of infantry is a slow rolling brute force.

That's it. In an RTS, heavy infantry can only be that. (and a guarding force protecting siege).

1 hour ago, wowgetoffyourcellphone said:

In general, this can be done by giving melee cavalry high pierce and crush armor. Those armor stats, coupled with their speed, would make them great against siege weapons and ranged units in general. We need to get rid of the pierce attack for spearmen (and transfer that to hack) for them to effectively counter cavalry without a hard bonus.

I agree, let's just buff melee attack of cavalry and infantry alike. Spears and pikes already have a bonus against cav.

That said, I don't think rising damage dealt by melee inf will change much in higher level games, but it will make even less convenient to confront it with cav, and will encourage nubs to use melee more I think.

Edited May 13, 2021 by alre

[Yekaterina]

2 hours ago, wowgetoffyourcellphone said:

This is generally what DE does. Now, EA doesn't have to do this with attack bonuses; it can try to do it with stats and maybe a few targeted hard bonuses where stats fail, but the chart gives a general idea how it could look in practice. 

Sooner or later Delenda Est will become a separate game  

Age of Delenda Est

 

[Yekaterina]

1 hour ago, Lion.Kanzen said:

@Yekaterina Please, can we see this in any of your mods?

Working on it right now, just finished my maths test. 

[Dakara]

1 hour ago, wowgetoffyourcellphone said:

Ty, it already the case for mose proposals, but I understand the idea. Agree or already the case, so no need multiplier dammage.

Spear Cav 2x vs. Ranged Infantry

Spear cav already good againt ranged infantery, and more good with the nerf 0 armor proposed. 

Sword Cav 1.5x vs. Ranged Infantry, 1.5x vs. Cavalry

Sword cav already good againt ranged infantery, and more good with the nerf 0 armor proposed. 

Bow Cavalry 1.5x vs. Melee Infantry

Bow cav already good againt melee infantery because move speed, so its ok already. 

It is the cream of the crop in ranged units, only cav and long range ranged units can compete if a good player plays them (kiting etc.) But thanks to the little nerf to choose they will be less unbeatable, they will kill slower the attacked units.

Javelin Cavalry 1.5x vs. Support Units

Support units = ?

Jav cav have already the most big dammage. So it already ok. The main issue is archers easy kill jav cav cuz range precision op in A24. 

With the small nerf of ranged units to choose, this will allow more use jav cav like the past. rush, dammage dealer, run unit, etc. 

Spear Infantry 2x vs. Cavalry

Pike Infantry 3x vs. Cavalry

For me spear and pike is ok actually with X3. So don't change that. If archers will be really bad with my proposol we should 4X these 2 units for allow to protect archers with infantery. 

To sum up my thought: ranged units get knocked down by everyone in melee. But these units force the opponent to create units to fight against (ranged unit and cav), in addition to forcing him to engage or retreat under the constant pressure of projectiles.

Sword Infantry 1.5x vs. Infantry, 1.5x vs. Elephants

No need it ok curently, we need a siege unit, for the moment elephants are the only decent unit. 

Bow Infantry 2x vs. Melee Infantry

No, it already ok. Don't change. 

Javelin Infantry 1.5x vs. Spearmen, Elephants, and Ranged Cavalry

No, it already ok. Don't change. 

Slingers 1.5x vs. Swordsmen, 1.5x vs. Ranged Infantry

No, it already ok. Don't change. 

This is generally what DE does. Now, EA doesn't have to do this with attack bonuses; it can try to do it with stats and maybe a few targeted hard bonuses where stats fail, but the chart gives a general idea how it could look in practice. 

Taking into account the future change on arrows and stone projectiles and the nerf armor. We must not nerf the stats of ranged units too much to keep their support / harassment role.

Are we agree ? 

[Yekaterina]

Yes Dakara. I will just give cavalry bonus against archers. 

 

[Dakara]

1 minute ago, Yekaterina said:

Yes Dakara. I will just give cavalry bonus against archers. 

 

Ok try it

archers should be very weak at melee fight, but if they are really HARDDDD weak we can remove the buff dammage against archers or buff the pique/spear dammage against cav? 

Can we try together the mod when you end it ?

 

[Yekaterina]

rangedUnits.zip

First revision is done. 10 Athenian sword cavalry attacked 20 Carthaginian archers, 7 sword cavalry survived. 5 of the survivors were wounded and 2 were not even scratched. 

@Dakara now

[Dakara]

good, you can try the same with 5 spear infantery in the archers group? 

Ok i'm connected

Edited May 13, 2021 by Dakara

[Yekaterina]

5 minutes ago, Dakara said:

good, you can try the same with 5 spear infantery in the archers group? 

Can you download the mod and try for yourself? My A24 is broken because on windows they use the same directory as A25 and there are clashes. A25 doesn't have scenario editor ready so...

[Lion.Kanzen]

44 minutes ago, Yekaterina said:

Sooner or later Delenda Est will become a separate game  

Age of Delenda Est

 

and still I want some mechanics for the main game.

[Lion.Kanzen]

12 minutes ago, Yekaterina said:

Can you download the mod and try for yourself? My A24 is broken because on windows they use the same directory as A25 and there are clashes. A25 doesn't have scenario editor ready so...

Install it in C: / 0ADSVN

[Yekaterina]

5 minutes ago, Lion.Kanzen said:

and still I want some mechanics for the main game

Yes of course. I have implemented the following:

All melee cavalry have 2x counter against archers. 

All melee cavalry have 7 pierce, 10 crush, 3 hack armour. 

[Yekaterina]

@Lion.Kanzen please just download it and try for yourself. I don't have working A24 and A25 git does not have Atlas. I can't use SVN. So effectively I can't use scenario editor. 

[Stan`]

14 minutes ago, Yekaterina said:

@Lion.Kanzen please just download it and try for yourself. I don't have working A24 and A25 git does not have Atlas. I can't use SVN. So effectively I can't use scenario editor. 

Just download the AtlasUI.dll from https://trac.wildfiregames.com/browser/ps/trunk/binaries/system

(you can also download pyrogenesis.exe there.)

[Yekaterina]

Thanks, @Stan`

I don't need to compile this right?

[Stan`]

Not that I know of. But testing is the best way to know

[ChronA]

I should state my bias: I don't like when games use attack multipliers to effect their counter networks. I think it makes it harder to construct balance analysis spreadsheets, and it stifles opportunities for creative emergent gameplay by reducing the relative importance of situational gameplay systems. However, I do agree with the plan @wowgetoffyourcellphone is proposing to copy from DE. It is well conceived.

1 hour ago, alre said:

I agree, let's just buff melee attack of cavalry and infantry alike. Spears and pikes already have a bonus against cav.

That said, I don't think rising damage dealt by melee inf will change much in higher level games, but it will make even less convenient to confront it with cav, and will encourage nubs to use melee more I think.

Is it within our scope to test a large, general melee-buff or ranged-nerf? I think it's a good idea, but would the community accept it? It would drastically rewrite the state of play. If we have a go, I vote for just doubling RepeatTime on all the ranged units. I really don't like the way that right now you can barely see the attack animations of ranged units because they play so fast. Kill 2 birds with 1 stone

 

1 hour ago, Yekaterina said:

First revision is done. 10 Athenian sword cavalry attacked 20 Carthaginian archers, 7 sword cavalry survived. 5 of the survivors were wounded and 2 were not even scratched. 

Good test, but I agree that 10 Athenian sword cavalry vs 10 Carthaginian archers and 5 spearmen might be the more relevant question. Even more so if the archers were hiding behind buildings, or put 4-6 towers around the archers and see if the cav can still get out alive.

[Lion.Kanzen]

Do several tests with combined units.

 

[alre]

1 hour ago, Yekaterina said:

Yes of course. I have implemented the following:

All melee cavalry have 2x counter against archers. 

All melee cavalry have 7 pierce, 10 crush, 3 hack armour. 

Why not give the same bonus to infantry?

Why only archers and not also slingers/skirms?

21 minutes ago, ChronA said:

I should state my bias: I don't like when games use attack multipliers to effect their counter networks. I think it makes it harder to construct balance analysis spreadsheets, and it stifles opportunities for creative emergent gameplay by reducing the relative importance of situational gameplay systems. However, I do agree with the plan @wowgetoffyourcellphone is proposing to copy from DE. It is well conceived.

Is it within our scope to test a large, general melee-buff or ranged-nerf? I think it's a good idea, but would the community accept it? It would drastically rewrite the state of play. If we have a go, I vote for just doubling RepeatTime on all the ranged units. I really don't like the way that right now you can barely see the attack animations of ranged units because they play so fast. Kill 2 birds with 1 stone

It's something that many players would like, and comes out sometimes. I don't know why it's not in the main game. Maybe there's fear that if melee was stronger, the game would change too much too fast, unsettling the community.

I would test with pleasure a mod that buffs all melee. I mean, player vs player.

Edited May 13, 2021 by alre

[Lion.Kanzen]

28 minutes ago, alre said:

Why not give the same bonus to infantry?

Why only archers and not also slingers/skirms?

It's something that many players would like, and comes out sometimes. I don't know why it's not in the main game. Maybe there's fear that if melee was stronger, the game would change too much too fast, unsettling the community.

I would test with pleasure a mod that buffs all melee. I mean, player vs player.

We are going to test the mods in multiplayer A24. (If we coordinate well.)

[PyrrhicVictoryGuy]

Should we homogenize  the damage type done by both spear and sword cavalry? Like giving spear cav only hack damage?

[BreakfastBurrito_007]

no, but Seleucids should get some kind of non-champ melee cav XD.

I feel the melee units do not need an over all attack increase. I think that the main problem with them is that the longest range infantry unit is also the fastest, so non-cav melee units have a hard time getting close enough. If ranged infantry speeds are differentiated so that skirms>slings>archers in speed, then this will be enough to make using melee inf less frustrating.

 

Edited May 16, 2021 by BreakfastBurrito_007