Ranged units in the game

[Ohio9]

Ranged units kind of suck. Their pitiful two-tile range means they are sitting ducks for melee units and can easily get run down if any enemy squad nearby survives till the end of your turn. They can still be useful, but overall, ranged units are way less effective than they should be.

Gun units are essentially melee units without armor, since they don't even have a 2-tile range. This may be the first game I've ever played where gun units aren't ranged units in actual effect. As such, they are really only good when mixed with traditional melee. Exclusive gun squads are even more vulnerable than archers. They are basically suicide squads who can just get off one shot before being slaughtered.

This is really a shame because my playstyle for army commander games is usually based heavily around ranged units, and I really love medieval combat games that include black powder firearms. The fact that this game included guns is one of the biggest reasons I decided to check it out. But in this game, the weaknesses of ranged units and gunners really limit how many you can use.

One last thing I noticed: If an AI squad has a single archer unit mixed in with melee troops, the AI will still often consider that squad ranged and waste a turn firing a ranged attack with its pitiful one archer rather than use it more efficiently fighting in melee.

[Kyutaru]

So they're vulnerable to counterattacks is what you're saying.

[Ohio9]

Originally posted by Kyutaru:

So they're vulnerable to counterattacks is what you're saying.

They are too vulnerable to counter attack due to how close they have to be. Most games like this give them longer than a 2-tile range. And they certainly give gunners more range than a melee unit.

[Scriptic]

Originally posted by Ohio9:

Originally posted by Kyutaru:

So they're vulnerable to counterattacks is what you're saying.

They are too vulnerable to counter attack due to how close they have to be. Most games like this give them longer than a 2-tile range. And they certainly give gunners more range than a melee unit.

"Most games like this" are not this one, and 2 tiles is just fine. Fire Emblem has strayed away from this in the past and it has made archers the most overpowered units in the game by far. And gunners have a short range for balance reasons, they'd invalidate every class in the game if they could attack from range.

[Ohio9]

Originally posted by Scriptic:

Originally posted by Ohio9:

They are too vulnerable to counter attack due to how close they have to be. Most games like this give them longer than a 2-tile range. And they certainly give gunners more range than a melee unit.

"Most games like this" are not this one, and 2 tiles is just fine. Fire Emblem has strayed away from this in the past and it has made archers the most overpowered units in the game by far. And gunners have a short range for balance reasons, they'd invalidate every class in the game if they could attack from range.

Well this game goes in the opposite and makes ranged units too weak by giving them such a paltry short range. Now basically any time an enemy unit engaged with your army survives till the end of the turn, your ranged units will get slaughtered. And no, it's not necessary to completely remove ranged attacks from guns, which are, as it goes without saying, ranged weapons.

[Scriptic]

Originally posted by Ohio9:

Originally posted by Scriptic:

"Most games like this" are not this one, and 2 tiles is just fine. Fire Emblem has strayed away from this in the past and it has made archers the most overpowered units in the game by far. And gunners have a short range for balance reasons, they'd invalidate every class in the game if they could attack from range.

Well this game goes in the opposite and makes ranged units too weak by giving them such a paltry short range. Now basically any time an enemy unit engaged with your army survives till the end of the turn, your ranged units will get slaughtered. And no, it's not necessary to completely remove ranged attacks from guns, which are, as it goes without saying, ranged weapons.

Guns in this game are so ridiculously overpowered that it's not even funny. You don't need an entire squad of guns. Put two of them behind your heavy infantry and they'll make opposing squads disappear. If they had 2 range the AI would just surround you with gunners from two range and nuke you while you are incapable of attacking back, them getting a turn would effectively mean you lose the map, and in several instances the game is designed to force you to take attacks from them.

[Ohio9]

First of all, right now it's pretty easy to just wipe out archery units before they get a single shot off due to how short their range is, and that would apply to guns too if they had the same range.

Second of all, if gun units are too overpowered, then the solution is to simply nerf their power a bit, not illogically turn guns into melee weapons.

And yes, I know guns are effective when used behind melee troops in close range. But that shouldn't be the only way to use them. I should have the option of creating all-gun squads and using them exclusively from long range, you know, like guns were/are actually used in real life.

[Nox]

Are siege cannons not what you are looking for then? They seem like a quite powerful ranged option.
Archers were pretty disappointing to me early game, but as time went on I eventually went to an all archer squad that performed so well I ended up making another all archer squad. Yeah theyre squishy, but they can attack like few else can when needed putting a tougher squad between them and incoming melee wasn't too harsh ever.

[Ohio9]

Originally posted by Nox:

Are siege cannons not what you are looking for then? They seem like a quite powerful ranged option.
Archers were pretty disappointing to me early game, but as time went on I eventually went to an all archer squad that performed so well I ended up making another all archer squad. Yeah theyre squishy, but they can attack like few else can when needed putting a tougher squad between them and incoming melee wasn't too harsh ever.

Cannons do have the range, but they take a long time to get, and I'd still like to have a ranged attack with guns.

Archers can be effective, but the problem is you have to be so focused on keeping them out of danger due to their short range that I find they never achieve the efficiency you would get if you replaced them with a melee unit. Right now I have put one or two of them in my army for the sole purpose of my personal desire for ranged units. If I was going for optimal efficiency I'd probably just go exclusively melee, except for maybe a few crossbowmen or gunners mixed in with my melee squads.

Right now having a melee unit in front of the archers doesn't really protect them since due to their short range, enemy melee units can easily just go around their "protectors". The only time this isn't the case is when you are using a bottleneck, such as a bridge. And even then, you still can't bring a swarm of archers to bear on the enemy because the 2-tile range means only one archery unit can attack in that situation (unless it has specialty archers with the 3-tile range)

Even at their best moments, archers are just too "situational". For the majority of cases, a melee unit will do the job far better.

[Lampros]

Ranged units are fine as it is; if the devs increased range on guns, then you'd have to lower the damage.

[Bobby Benchod]

Ranged units are actually really good. You just have to position them properly. I can delete an entire unit from 2-3 tiles away

[Kyutaru]

Originally posted by Ohio9:

First of all, right now it's pretty easy to just wipe out archery units before they get a single shot off due to how short their range is, and that would apply to guns too if they had the same range.

Second of all, if gun units are too overpowered, then the solution is to simply nerf their power a bit, not illogically turn guns into melee weapons.

And yes, I know guns are effective when used behind melee troops in close range. But that shouldn't be the only way to use them. I should have the option of creating all-gun squads and using them exclusively from long range, you know, like guns were/are actually used in real life.

So about that. Bows actually fired further than early medieval cannons. The cannons went about 275 yards while war bows could fire around 315 yards. Bows from Mongols and Turks claimed to shoot even further. Vikings claimed to shoot over 1500 yards in legends. At this distance, the cannon is still not even accurate too and pretty much just annihilates structures and doors like an explosive melee weapon. Kind of acceptable given it's for balance reasons since guns have massive penetration and delete all troops.

[Lampros]

Originally posted by Kyutaru:

Bows actually fired further than early medieval cannons. The cannons went about 275 yards while war bows could fire around 315 yards. Bows from Mongols and Turks claimed to shoot even further. Vikings claimed to shoot over 1500 yards in legends. At this distance, the cannon is still not even accurate too and pretty much just annihilates structures and doors like an explosive melee weapon. Kind of acceptable given it's for balance reasons since guns have massive penetration and delete all troops.

I agree with most of the things you say, but 1500 yards with a bow shot? Come on; why even reference that? I know you put the qualifier "legends," but that number is so ridiculous that it does not even deserve mentioning. It'd be like bringing up, in a debate about how long can humans realistically live, that Dangun (the legendary founder of Korea) supposedly lived some 2000 years in "legends."

[Kyutaru]

Originally posted by Lampros:

Originally posted by Kyutaru:

Bows actually fired further than early medieval cannons. The cannons went about 275 yards while war bows could fire around 315 yards. Bows from Mongols and Turks claimed to shoot even further. Vikings claimed to shoot over 1500 yards in legends. At this distance, the cannon is still not even accurate too and pretty much just annihilates structures and doors like an explosive melee weapon. Kind of acceptable given it's for balance reasons since guns have massive penetration and delete all troops.

I agree with most of the things you say, but 1500 yards with a bow shot? Come on; why even reference that? I know you put the qualifier "legends," but that number is so ridiculous that it does not even deserve mentioning. It'd be like bringing up, in a debate about how long can humans realistically live, that Dangun (the legendary founder of Korea) supposedly lived some 2000 years in "legends."

Purely for thoroughness. It is a fantasy game with wizards and "legends" after all. The Mongols claimed 400yds while the Turks claimed 900yds according to this source. Kind of doesn't matter what the range should be since all of them are further than cannon range.

[Ohio9]

Originally posted by Kyutaru:

Kind of acceptable given it's for balance reasons since guns have massive penetration and delete all troops.

Like I said, if guns are too powerful for balance issues, then the solution is to make them less powerful, not turn them into the functional equivalent of swords.

[Lampros]

Originally posted by Kyutaru:

Purely for thoroughness. It is a fantasy game with wizards and "legends" after all. The Mongols claimed 400yds while the Turks claimed 900yds according to this source. Kind of doesn't matter what the range should be since all of them are further than cannon range.

As someone who's done a lot of martial arts in the past - including traditional weaponry - I can tell you 900 yards is not possible, even with the heaviest Asian recurve bows.

Sometimes being "thorough" weakens your argument. In my profession, it's called the "kitchen sink" approach in litigation, and it will frequently lose you winnable argument. Sometimes the litigator will throw every type of argument at the judge/jury, and he will invariably include some outlandish ones. As a result, his credibility is sometimes irreparably damaged, and he loses the case when sticking to one or two dispositive arguments would've won the day.

Originally posted by night4:

Archers have a lot going for them. They're amazing on all the arena maps and any battle with walls, and get extra range on walls too. They help prevent the "melee cluster" issue you'll have if you run too many melee range squads. They can soften up enemy squads to reduce risk to your other squads, especially when attacking garrisoned enemies and/or enemy squads with mages. They make very good use of some artifacts that other squads might not, like the magic-to-strength ones (they don't need magic to help survive magic attacks) and Temporal Modulator (they can preemptively destroy cannons when defending). They have great single target and low-number-of-targets damage.

If anything, archers are a bit overpowered. And cannons are crazy overpowered, especially with the 3 range attack upgrade.

But the game is such that if you don't have to use any one type of unit. If it's easier for you to play without archers, just don't use them.

As usual, we see eye-to-eye, my friend.