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

[alre]

About myself, I played a23 quite much, and I'm a 100% team player. You know what I think.

32 minutes ago, BreakfastBurrito_007 said:

We could just make all ranged units the same speed as archers when on "eco gather" order.

While something like this has been wished for a long time (not just for ranged units), it's not so simple. Soldiers can go all the map to gather whatever you ask them to gather, I hope for a better solution. I can see that it would make for a decent patch though. [edit: I just saw @Freagarach's post, well scratch this part]

In general, it seems that although archers have longer range than all the other units, you want them to perform at the same level, by making them slower (you say that they have the greatest "effective speed", I had said before, that they have a particularly high "effective range", we are talking about the same thing here). My question is (and is not limited to you): why the hell would someone want to have different units, with different stats, perform the same? For example, I'm asking, on solid historical grounding, that slingers and archers are given the same range and stats overall: then of course they will perform the same and everybody will be able to tell that, with no ambiguity and no balancing hassles, but javeliners will lose to them because that's realistic and because they will have other strong points.

On 17/05/2021 at 6:21 PM, BreakfastBurrito_007 said:

archers being able to hit and run (meaning they have greater effective speed) is a capability that will prevent them from being balanced. 

Hit and run can be frustrating, I get that, but saying that it denies balance for certain is plain wrong to say the least. Archers and ranged in general must be balanced with melee, which doesn't mean that they destroy each other in 1v1, but that they fill different roles, and those are equally effective in the gameplay.

Edited May 18, 2021 by alre

[BreakfastBurrito_007]

21 minutes ago, LetswaveaBook said:

Even if we could, players could instead of sending out archers to the fortress send them to a nearby resource, such that they would move faster. So that would be a nice ¨feature¨.

Please don't mock me mate. :I 

I think I mentioned in my post that the gathering movement speed for all ranged units would never be faster than their normal movement speed, so this would not be abused to make any unit move faster.

22 minutes ago, Freagarach said:

We cannot.

Why not? is it a programming constraint?

21 minutes ago, LetswaveaBook said:

Do you have any non-hand-waving arguments those support this idea?

My main point is that ranged/ melee balance is fairly close to ideal, and that further adjustments to that balance should be careful and slight. 

If ranged infantry are to all have the same speed, then something must be done to limit archers' mobility in some other way, otherwise skirmishers will never be a viable option, and the wide-area turtling will be just as prevalent in a25 as it is in a24 right now.

 

Edited May 18, 2021 by BreakfastBurrito_007

[BreakfastBurrito_007]

31 minutes ago, alre said:

but javeliners will lose to them because that's realistic and because they will have other strong points.

If you like the way ranged infantry are balanced in a24, then what are the the strong points of skirmishers currently in a24?

I can only think of one: de-garrison quickly from fort or temple to kill an ele.

Edited May 18, 2021 by BreakfastBurrito_007

[Freagarach]

8 minutes ago, BreakfastBurrito_007 said:

Why not? is it a programming constraint?

Kind of. As noted by @LetswaveaBook, having different speeds for different tasks makes for a hard time. It means you _have_ to micro your units to keep up with a high APM player (if they walk slower when gathering, just task them to walk next to a tree and then gather, task them back to the storehouse and then drop off).

It is also hard to sell to players. Why are archers slower when gathering, but other (ranged) infantry not?

It has been proposed several times before, feel free to look up those posts.

[BreakfastBurrito_007]

Just now, Freagarach said:

It means you _have_ to micro your units to keep up with a high APM player (if they walk slower when gathering, just task them to walk next to a tree and then gather, task them back to the storehouse and then drop off).

It is also hard to sell to players. Why are archers slower when gathering, but other (ranged) infantry not?

This micro is only possible in early game and with  2-5 units. Players would probably wind up slowing down eco because of misclicks and neglect of other micromanaged eco opportunities like hunting.

I am not suggesting to discriminate ranged inf in eco walk speed, I think I may not have been clear earlier. If all the ranged inf were the same walk speed as archer when gathering, then this would negate any eco advantage that skirms and slings would have over archers, and mean that no ranged unit is faster when gathering res than when walking to battle.

[LetswaveaBook]

51 minutes ago, BreakfastBurrito_007 said:

My main point is that ranged/ melee balance is fairly close to ideal

This is a hand waving argument if you never say what you mean with ideal.

52 minutes ago, BreakfastBurrito_007 said:

otherwise skirmishers will never be a viable option, and the wide-area turtling will be just as prevalent in a25 as it is in a24 right now.

This is no logic reasoning. This only holds if there are no other changes that impact the meta, which seems unlikely.

 

40 minutes ago, BreakfastBurrito_007 said:

what are the the strong points of skirmishers currently in a24?

Having a higher DPS than achers is a strong point. This is not impactful in current meta, but it is a strong point. The thing what we should do in my opinion, is shape balance in such a way that is can be impactful.

[PyrrhicVictoryGuy]

2 hours ago, BreakfastBurrito_007 said:

Excuse me for being off topic, but don't spearcav have better HP and armor?

I think i was not very clear, sorry about that. I meant to say that spear cav do tend to fair worse against ranged infantry than sword cav, in that way they do outperform in the traditional cavalry role.

As you seem like a sceptic, letswaveabook provided a few tests:

 

Edited May 18, 2021 by PyrrhicVictoryGuy

[BreakfastBurrito_007]

@PyrrhicVictoryGuy Thanks for the info, I think I ought to change my cav selections.

@LetswaveaBook I say it is ideal because most of the time armies fail without at least some melee, preferably with enough to pressure other armies archers. I have also been seeing armies of 1/3 ranged to 2/3 ranged infantry where in alpha 23 it was more like 80% to 100% ranged.

17 minutes ago, LetswaveaBook said:

This is no logic reasoning. This only holds if there are no other changes that impact the meta, which seems unlikely.

 

What are some other ways to balance ranged infantry?

I observe:

1.  add armor to skirms and slings (most people dislike this one)
2. decrease accuracy of archers
3. establish minimum range for archers

I think something must be done to allow the non-archer ranged units to use their damage advantage against archers in more situations (other than de-garrisoning from building or ram). I think the best way to do this is to differentiate ranged infantry speeds based upon range.

What are your main gameplay concerns about re-differentiating ranged infantry walk speed?

Do you think archers should be the most maneuverable unit?

[PyrrhicVictoryGuy]

6 hours ago, PyrrhicVictoryGuy said:

Ranged Infantry:

 

Archer civs: Eastern Empires( kush , maurya and persia)

Skirmisher/javelineer civs: Greek States, Successor kingdoms

#Like the pike/spear dichotomy I presented earlier these will fill the same roughly the function with some specialization here and there, but also be exclusive to some factions with exceptions of course in the form of mercenaries/champs.

 

·        Archers

Archers should  have minimum range and way less damage than what they currently have (these values could be restored to archer civilizations via two upgrades: archer tradition, and a new one, or maybe just raise the cost of archer trad.).

 

.       Javelineers

The dedicated heavy infantry and elephant killers, contrary to the archers these shouldn't have a minimum range but have their attack interval increased to 2 seconds. Also dedicated skirmisher civs could have an upgrade  that improves their armor a bit ( "iphicratian peltast" or whatever). I still don't have an idea how to make them less effective against spear cav ( other than giving spear cav more armor) , which they should be.

 

.        Slingers  

 Slinger civs: Barbarians

Keep the ability to dmg buildings as normal but  could inflict a bit more damage to other ranged troops than what they do now, namely archers due to their lower armor. This will make the slinger a tad bit more specialized to counter archers and buildings. 

 

 

#With these changes I hope to make ranged infantry a minority in most armies save for Athenians, Mauryans and Persians. Where the archer would be all around unit, the skirmisher and slinger would be more specialized troops.

#Carthage and iberians are omited because they are/should be jacks of all trades in regard to ranged troops.

#Slingers would be the primary response to ranged infantry for the barbarian factions.

 

11 minutes ago, BreakfastBurrito_007 said:

@PyrrhicVictoryGuy Thanks for the info, I think I ought to change my cav selections.

@LetswaveaBook I say it is ideal because most of the time armies fail without at least some melee, preferably with enough to pressure other armies archers. I have also been seeing armies of 1/3 ranged to 2/3 ranged infantry where in alpha 23 it was more like 80% to 100% ranged.

 

What are some other ways to balance ranged infantry?

I observe:

1.  add armor to skirms and slings (most people dislike this one)
2. decrease accuracy of archers
3. establish minimum range for archers

I think something must be done to allow the non-archer ranged units to use their damage advantage against archers in more situations (other than de-garrisoning from building or ram). I think the best way to do this is to differentiate ranged infantry speeds based upon range.

What are your main gameplay concerns about re-differentiating ranged infantry walk speed?

Do you think archers should be the most maneuverable unit?

Kinda beat you to the punch there eheheh.

 

[LetswaveaBook]

20 minutes ago, BreakfastBurrito_007 said:

What are some other ways to balance ranged infantry?

reduce the attack of all ranged units.

That way melee units become more important and the difference between ranged units becomes less important. Also it make people think in reverse: how can ranged units support the melee army instead of how melee units can support the ranged army.

20 minutes ago, BreakfastBurrito_007 said:

What are your main gameplay concerns about re-differentiating ranged infantry walk speed?

1. historical accuracy.

2. To give them equal value as economic units.

3. making them slower might lead to more defensive play, which might only stabilizes the game more.

4. I don´t think it solves some real issues, among them that they are too good at defending a fortified spot and the snowball effect.

20 minutes ago, BreakfastBurrito_007 said:

Do you think archers should be the most maneuverable unit?

I think they should be, but they should be nerfed in other ways.

Edited May 18, 2021 by LetswaveaBook
I changed the real issue to some real issues since I there are more of them.

[BreakfastBurrito_007]

29 minutes ago, LetswaveaBook said:

1. historical accuracy.

2. To give them equal value as economic units.

3. making them slower might lead to more defensive play, which might only stabilizes the game more.

4. I don´t think it solves the real issue, namely that they are too good at defending a fortified spot.

1: I can't argue with this except with: not everything that was historically accurate will make the game more fun to play. Example: WW1 fps games. 

2: All ranged units could have the same resource gathering speed that is no faster than any of their walk speeds. I don't know about the programming situation, @Freagarach  did not elaborate about it being impossible to program into 0ad. 

3: making them slower would lead to them being unable to defend a huge area, meaning that archers would need to be closer to the place they want to defend, reducing the total area that is impenetrable in a turtled base, and therefore decreasing the extent to which players territory boundaries form blocks to general movement across the map. Buffing building arrows and archer move speed meant that once the archers arrive under their local defenses you must either retreat or die.

4: this is one reason why catapults should be given splash damage as it existed in a23, and why forts should lose their territory root given in a24. Archers should be defeatable at a fort and flankable for faster armies (which should not be limited to cavalry as it is in a24). However, the main issue is not their power in defending one spot as you said, it is their ability to defend in any point in the territory area as if they had been waiting there the whole time.

• I agree with your logic about reversing the roles of ranged infantry and melee infantry (ranged should support melee rather than the other way around). Keep in mind that we are closer to this than any point in the last 5 years (if my memory is right).

I don't think I have any more points to make to try to convince you that archers should not be most maneuverable. Only that this is the reason why archer cav were made slower in a24. I should also say that there is a group of people trying to balance britons and gauls as mobility/guerilla oriented civs, they won't be this way if archers are more maneuverable than skirms and slings.

 

 

 

Edited May 18, 2021 by BreakfastBurrito_007

[soloooy0]

chariots and options
could the tanks have a special technology to change them from ranged units to melee units?
it's a pity that the murian and celtic chariots, especially because they are champions, don't have double function 
the persians being regular troops, it is understandable that they only have one function, but the specialists ....

[Stan`]

You can use the upgrade feature to make unit switch between melee and ranged. DE does that.

@Freagarach worked on turrets to make the chariots a bit more smart but it's currenrly unused because it is missing stuff.

 

[LetswaveaBook]

32 minutes ago, BreakfastBurrito_007 said:

3: making them slower would lead to them being unable to defend a huge area, meaning that archers would need to be closer to the place they want to defend, reducing the total area that is impenetrable in a turtled base, and therefore decreasing the extent to which players territory boundaries form blocks to general movement across the map. Buffing building arrows and archer move speed meant that once the archers arrive under their local defenses you must either retreat or die.

4: this is one reason why catapults should be given splash damage as it existed in a23, and why forts should lose their territory root given in a24.

I think that slowing archer infantry could work this way, but I think it could also suffer from effects as I meantioned. The catapult splash damage might not be enough and we just don´t know what the effects will be. I think it will have both positive and negative effects and I am not sure if they cancel out or which one will be dominant. So betting on that would be a risky move, in my opinion.

Also there is still the snowball effect in 1v1s: if archers get a good fight, you can just mass more of them and you can snipe the inferior numbers of your opponent from range, which I dislike from a balance perspective.

If all ranged units were weakened, then it seems logical to me that the differences between them are less impactful and melee units come to prevalence.