Range Combat Mechanic Discussion

[unmerged(170187)]

A friend and I were discussing the range combat mechanic in this and other games like Civ 5. The discussion mainly started because he recently got around to trying out the new G&K Civ5 expansion. We both seem to agree that range combat is a bit over powered in Civ 5.

But given it's basically the same in Warlock we starting discussing how it didn't feel as overpowered in Warlock. The reason we think this is comes from range units tending to have lower HP, lower Resistances, and Lower Damage. But even then strong range still seems to be the way to go. The problem stems from the fact that range units can attack without retaliation so they don't suffer the same penalties as melee units who take damage on the offense. In fact the common tactic to take down really strong units, such as avatars, seems to be surround the unit but don't attack and then pelt it from a distance.

Anyway enough background information and on to the topic of discussion. We were wondering is and how other tactical games may of handled this differently or if they could really handle it differently? I tried to think of some and all of them seem to handle it the same, from advance wars to final fantasy tactics and ogre tactics to numerous other tactical games I've played over the years. I recall someone mentioning it was handled differently in other games, but I don't recall who or in what forum.

So I'm curios of how others handle it or any ideas of how it could be handled different. And who knows maybe the topic will bring up some interesting retro tactical games I haven't tried.

 

[unmerged(6940)]

Units like Avatars could have an ability to kill several units per turn. Or it could be general behavior - if defending unit retreats, then attacker can attack once more, assuming it still has movement points. This way strong melee units will have additional bonus as soon as it is their turn to do damage.

 

[unmerged(489718)]

Spyre2000 has brought up an interesting subject. Ranged combat generally rules. The most common counter is a rush by fast units like cavalry. Donkey cavalry are very good for this. The one game I can think of off the top of my pointy head where ranged combat was somewhat minimized was the Baldur's Gate sequel, but that was mainly because the opponents were at a generally higher level than in the original Baldur's gate.

 

[unmerged(458871)]

One obvious option would be allow other ranged units to retaliate as with standard melee if in thier range. Another would be to reduce their damage during melee.

 

[unmerged(490344)]

But given it's basically the same in Warlock we starting discussing how it didn't feel as overpowered in Warlock. The reason we think this is comes from range units tending to have lower HP, lower Resistances, and Lower Damage. But even then strong range still seems to be the way to go. The problem stems from the fact that range units can attack without retaliation so they don't suffer the same penalties as melee units who take damage on the offense. In fact the common tactic to take down really strong units, such as avatars, seems to be surround the unit but don't attack and then pelt it from a distance.

Compared to civ I think the different damage types make a huge difference since you can give units heavy ranged resistances with specialized spells and perks, and half the races have access to cheap spammable assassins early on. Also, summons.

Really the only damage type comparable to civs is spirit damage, and that's pretty rare and generally better in masses.

Also I disagree about ranged damage being supreme in this game, to me mixed armies are generally the way to go. Stuns do change things up a bit midgame, but massed ranged units are susceptible to the AOE spells you get around that point as well, so it's fair enough. Also that tactic to take down avatars is pretty cheesy, I wouldn't base too much on that.

Anyway enough background information and on to the topic of discussion. We were wondering is and how other tactical games may of handled this differently or if they could really handle it differently? I tried to think of some and all of them seem to handle it the same, from advance wars to final fantasy tactics and ogre tactics to numerous other tactical games I've played over the years. I recall someone mentioning it was handled differently in other games, but I don't recall who or in what forum.

Well yeah, except for things like damage types, limited ammo or cover it does pretty much follow the formula from what I've played. For me biggest change happens when moving from TBS to real time since mobility tends to play a much bigger part.

 

[unmerged(537382)]

We both seem to agree that range combat is a bit over powered in Civ 5. ...But even then strong range still seems to be the way to go.

You seem to be trying to imply that hand-to-hand combat is somehow equal to ranged combat. So I put it to you like this: What weapons are used in war TODAY? Rifles and aircraft and artillery. The longer the range the better the weapon. Most jet fighters have weapons that fire BVR, Beyond Visual Range. They can target things that are past the horizon. Range is a major asset, and a definite advantage. Perhaps you've heard "Don't bring a knife to a gun fight"?

After range, then I would say that speed is the most important. Damage or DPS is only important in preventing the pew-pew-pew for ten turns to wear down a freakin huge hp bar. Because that's not really fun, that's drudgery. If damage causes changes in the amount of threat the opponent can present next turn, then it becomes more interesting.

 

[unmerged(170187)]

Also I disagree about ranged damage being supreme in this game, to me mixed armies are generally the way to go. Stuns do change things up a bit midgame, but massed ranged units are susceptible to the AOE spells you get around that point as well, so it's fair enough. Also that tactic to take down avatars is pretty cheesy, I wouldn't base too much on that.

I did say they were not as strong as the difference between Melee and Range in Civ5, as well as stating part of the reason being the same ones you mention regarding less damage and lower HP/Resistances. Also mass groups of Melee units are just as vulnerable to AoE spells.

And the tactic for taking down avatars is exactly the point. Since the range units operate without fear of retaliation as long as they have a blocker they can dish out attacks, while melee units risk themselves in every attack. Even if an attack is only 75% as effective the fact that no damage was taken back makes it all the better. If a unit attacks and takes 10 damage while doing 10 damage then it's an even trade off as it leaves the unit vulnerable to counter attack. If however the unit only does 7 damage while attacking but takes no damage then even if that unit's total HP is slightly less it will be in a much greater position than the melee unit.

From some of the other post thus far it seems to be drifting a bit off topic. I'm am quite experienced in Warlock with over 300 hours playtime and can typical beat 4 AI on Impossible Normal size map in under 80 turns. I've also played quite a bit in MP and know various counters.

The discussion is meant to be one on the mechanics of Range combat in ALL games not just warlock so you can't assume things like AoE spells will be present. Such as how do they work in those games that differ from here, how do they try to offset the inherent imbalance of the doing damage without taking damage if present.

You seem to be trying to imply that hand-to-hand combat is somehow equal to ranged combat. So I put it to you like this: What weapons are used in war TODAY? Rifles and aircraft and artillery. The longer the range the better the weapon. Most jet fighters have weapons that fire BVR, Beyond Visual Range. They can target things that are past the horizon. Range is a major asset, and a definite advantage. Perhaps you've heard "Don't bring a knife to a gun fight"?

And why shouldn't it be? Take Civ 5 which was the source of the original discussion between me and my friend. A gatling gun and machine gun are both considered range 1 weapons. Yet if they attack one another then why wouldn't you get a counter attack? They are both ranged weapons weapons so combat between the two would seem on par as two rifleman going at it, which are viewed as melee in Civ 5, go figure.

If Range combat is going to be so one sided then why not simply have Melee combat be as equally one sided? The melee unit is making it's attack during it's damage for the turn. This is how combat is handled in the majority of RPGs where counter attacks are rare to non-existent, and when present they are limited in scope.

It makes no sense the melee units would get a counter and range units would not. For example a melee unit could be attacked by any number of units in a turn and the counter attack could kill them all, while a range unit could be fired on by any number of units and never get a retaliation shot off.

I know the balance is suppose to be Range is weaker so it needs to kill melee at a distance, while melee is strong so if it can rush range it should win in theory. But the issue of Range vs Range arises leaving this gap where whoever gets first shoot off tends to win with little to no damage.

 

[Mardagg]

Ranged attacks have the surprise element.Imagine you being an Archer unit and out of sudden you are hit by a wave of arrows.Since you have no idea where they came from you cant retaliate.This is a typcial phenomena of turn based strategy games.The unit that is moving is the one that is scouting and therefore can fire without retaltiation,whereas during melee attacks the opponent has no problems to retalitate since its obvious where the opponent is,even though in some other similar games there was the element of suprise melee attacks as well.

Ive played games where some very powerful units could get ranged retaltiation abilty...not sure but could be in Fantasy wars among others iirc.
In most other games i played that had similarities to Warlock, ranged attacks had been a bit more penalized:
-It was tougher to hit with ranged weapons because units with shields for example would get huge bonus to avoid to be hit at all.
-archer units in general would use sword and other melee weapons when being attacked and not their bows,often having very,very bad melee skills.Not like in Warlock where archers would make same damage when defending in melee as well as when attacking with bows.

edit:

Master of Magic had no ranged retaliation but an attack could entirely miss and it had many units with shields for bonis vs ranged attack.MoM is the greatest fantasy strategy game of all time imo and the devs took many ideas from it/said they want warlock MoM-like in many areas.

Fantasy General,another real gem of old times, is the game that fantasy wars and elven legacy are based upon almost 100%.
And warlocks battle mechanic and perk system is almost identical to fantasy wars/elven legacy.
In FG iirc you did not have ranged retaliation as well and archers where even able to give passive fire support to surrounding units,i.e. if you would attack a unit in melee and an enemy archer unit would be placed right beside then the archers would should at you before you would engage in melee.In that game though Archers haven been extremly vulnerable to melee attacks and actually felt underpowered.

 

[Xeorm]

Civ 5 has the issue that all the units are roughly the same. Units have 10 hp, defense is heavily based on the tile they're on, etc. Combine with focus fire from ranged, and ranged having decent strength compared to a melee, and things are bad for melee.

 

[osserpete]

I think the HOMM series had a fairly nice balance with ranged units. If the enemy was in an adjacent hex then most ranged unit were forced to use melee attack and some ranged units were able to retaliate to ranged attacks. A similar system could be interesting for Warlock, with some of those skills available as perks or abilities.

 

[unmerged(170187)]

Fantasy General,another real gem of old times, is the game that fantasy wars and elven legacy are based upon almost 100%.
And warlocks battle mechanic and perk system is almost identical to fantasy wars/elven legacy.
In FG iirc you did not have ranged retaliation as well and archers where even able to give passive fire support to surrounding units,i.e. if you would attack a unit in melee and an enemy archer unit would be placed right beside then the archers would should at you before you would engage in melee.In that game though Archers haven been extremly vulnerable to melee attacks and actually felt underpowered.

Warlock is a lot like FW/EL because as I recall someone else mentioning it is the games the studio previously worked on. People often pointed to those games whenever some new forum member tried to claim Warlock was a Civ 5 rip off.

The fire support option is something I hadn't seen before. I have seen setups where the range unit gets a free attack on melee units before combat begins, but not giving near by units a free shoot.

Ranged attacks have the surprise element.Imagine you being an Archer unit and out of sudden you are hit by a wave of arrows.Since you have no idea where they came from you cant retaliate.

Sure if the attacking unit has some sort of stealth ability. But most units have a sight range greater then that of the firing range of enemy units. I would find it hard to believe the enemy would not notice a group of enemy troops gathering and then firing on them. Especially since you can see them on the map which means your units should know they are their. If the unit had invisibility and you can't see them on the map because your units can't see them then it would make perfect sense.

Also your example is based on an opening surprise attack. Once the unit comes under fire they are on alert so the following turns they are likely to be aware of the enemy and exchange shoots with them.

Civ 5 has the issue that all the units are roughly the same. Units have 10 hp, defense is heavily based on the tile they're on, etc.

I'm guessing maybe you haven't played Civ 5 in a while? Or perhaps it was just changed for G&K. They did make some changes to Civ 5 combat. Units now have 100 HP instead of 10 to allow for a finer level of fractionating bonuses, so instead of 3-4 damage you can have 30-40. Also cities now actually get more HP with defense buildings. But over all the combat remains the same, it's part of what got the discussion started on how they had changed things and if they actually improved, as well as the problems that still remained.

But yea the fact that all units are basically the same is what gives range the advantage in Civ 5.

 

[unmerged(81995)]

In fact I am an enormous fan of ranged attacks in any tactical wargame, sometimes to an extent missing finer points of melee. Reasons are already delivered in other posts, no need to restate them.

And if it would be me there are 3 obvious solutions to counter the tendency for ranged units, which is absolutely not merited for any game centered on medieval warfare (with or w/o magic elements):
1) The HOMM/Total War answer - melee attacks against ranged units go against a totally different set of values, putting ranged units at a big disadvantage against melee. This has the additional advantage to be totally historical - ranged units only ruled battlefields after the invention of the flint locked musket.
2) The resistance increase solution. Certain units would be nearly immune to ranged attacks. Already implemented in Warlock and again totally historical, where only longbowmen and crossbowmen were reported (!) to be able to pierce armour, but even these were hapless against units using shields.
3) An answer I did not see implemented in tactical games yet (except modern settings) - counterfire.

As it is right now in Warlock the balance for me seems to be quite right. Any army solely consisting of ranged is in great danger to be overrun by sturdy melee units (or skeletons). The notable exception being the Elven bowmasters, which ARE slightly overpowered but at the same time necessary for the Elves to go anywhere given their combined disadvantages elsewhere.

For games later than 18th century settings we do not have to discuss the "ranged" question as there was nothing than ranged combat after.

Regards,
Thorsten

 

[harmonius]

I think archers are OP. In civ 5 spearman usually defeats archer in one blow. In Warlock archers have too much HP, especially elven archers. Reducing archers HP by 20% can solve this issue.

 

[GamingFather]

I think its fine as it is. Its more about how you move and place your units, than one sort of unit being overpowered.

 

[unmerged(170187)]

In fact I am an enormous fan of ranged attacks in any tactical wargame, sometimes to an extent missing finer points of melee. Reasons are already delivered in other posts, no need to restate them.

I am the same way. The benefits of range often greatly out weigh their short comings. In the vast majority of tactical games I go heavy ranged. For example in Advance Wars I use to play Griff a lot for his range boost to Artillery units.

In the various tactical wargames I often find myself building 2 or more range units for every one melee unit. The common argument is you need a good mix of units to be effective and I know this. But it rarely seems to be an even mix. Melee units are limited to only tiles next to them along with retaliation risk so you can only cram a limited number in the space. Where as range units can shoot multiple tiles away and thus you can fit more in range.

An example of this is on a hex board you have 6 tiles around any one tile meaning you can in theory surround a unit for 6 melee attacks. But then the next outer group of tiles is 12 so you can effectively surround the unit with 12 range units all getting off an attack without retaliation. I know the odds of actually surrounding a unit like this are rare but the more common formation is the half circle which gets the same basic benefit and only re-enforces the need for more range than melee units. So the very board positioning is contributing to it.

And if it would be me there are 3 obvious solutions to counter the tendency for ranged units, which is absolutely not merited for any game centered on medieval warfare (with or w/o magic elements):
1) The HOMM/Total War answer - melee attacks against ranged units go against a totally different set of values, putting ranged units at a big disadvantage against melee. This has the additional advantage to be totally historical - ranged units only ruled battlefields after the invention of the flint locked musket.
2) The resistance increase solution. Certain units would be nearly immune to ranged attacks. Already implemented in Warlock and again totally historical, where only longbowmen and crossbowmen were reported (!) to be able to pierce armour, but even these were hapless against units using shields.
3) An answer I did not see implemented in tactical games yet (except modern settings) - counterfire.

The melee units attacking range units with a bonus to the attack or facing different stats is one I've seen a few times. It just tends to make range units more vulnerable but not really change the mechanic.

Resistance is a somewhat viable alternative, but like you said a lot of medieval units had shields and were thus virtually immune to range. While I do think that does help balance things out, it does so by making the range units virtually worthless against those unit types and doesn't do anything interesting with the mechanic.

Counterfire seems to be the most straight forward answer. I'm kind of surprised more games haven't tried it. Some may say it doesn't make sense in a fantasy setting but I think it makes about as much sense as a group of swordsman getting to retaliate at full strength when attacked from 6 different directions.

Thinking about the issue though a "under fire bonus" could be an interesting addition to range combat. Basically when a unit receives their first range attack they take cover and get a bonus from all future range attacks until they move. This way focused fire would be somewhat negated by the fact that the unit is already prepared for an incoming attack. It's like if a group of archers surprised a group of sword and shield fighters but now they have their shields up in preparation, or those without shields jump into cover.

An accuracy reduced over range mechanic might be interesting. Say most units have 3 range but when they attack 1 tile away it's 100% chance to hit, 2 tiles is 75% chance, and 3 tiles is 50% chance to hit. Thus the further distance hinders their effectiveness forcing them to risk them selves more to get off more damage which would play into the fact that in melee they are very weak.

Also in addition to accuracy a scatter effect could be done where they might hit nearby tiles which means if their own units are nearby they could risk hitting them. This was of course a common worry in medieval combat where range weapons we not that accurate. The idea was throw as many shoots at the enemy and hope something hits. I've seen scatter mechanics in a lot of table top war games but not really in any tactical computer wargames.

As it is right now in Warlock the balance for me seems to be quite right. Any army solely consisting of ranged is in great danger to be overrun by sturdy melee units (or skeletons). The notable exception being the Elven bowmasters, which ARE slightly overpowered but at the same time necessary for the Elves to go anywhere given their combined disadvantages elsewhere.

Yea I think warlock does a decent job of balancing out their range units, though I feel it is mostly do to high resistances and missile damage being very weak vs most units. Their lower HP and resistances also tends to make them more vulnerable. So their way of balancing it was reducing the effectiveness of range unit and not really changing the core mechanic.

For games later than 18th century settings we do not have to discuss the "ranged" question as there was nothing than ranged combat after.

Well it's more about the game mechanics than historical accuracy. After all lots of games use real life range units in a melee combat style mechanic. For example Civ 5 in which most of the units still act as melee even in late game.

Another game that has range units acting as melee is Advance Wars series. Only artillery and rocket trucks were able to fire multiple spaces away for the "range" effect. When it comes to more modern games it seems the mechanics remain it's just shorter range weapons are treated in the same way medieval melee weapon combat is and the really long range weapons like artillery, cannons, and etc. are treated the way bows and arrows are.

I think archers are OP. In civ 5 spearman usually defeats archer in one blow. In Warlock archers have too much HP, especially elven archers. Reducing archers HP by 20% can solve this issue.

The spearman are a tech level above the archers, besides they need to get in the first attack and usually on open terrain to pull that off.

Also this discussion is meant for range mechanics in general. As such balance change suggestions to the units in warlock is a bit off topic.

Besides existing range combat mechanics I'd like to further clarify the original intent of the discussion as to also include range combat ideas. Sort of like the ones I mentioned earlier with accuracy and scatter. Who knows, maybe it has already been implemented in some tactical game you don't know about. So feel free to add your ideas to the discussion and perhaps it will spark someone's memory of a game that actually did employ such a mechanic.

 

[osserpete]

An accuracy over range mechanic, that improved progressively, as the unit leveled up would be interesting strategically.

 

[Bored Peon]

My answer to ranged units in mass is firestorm. Something like that eliminates the "overpoweredness compared to civ5" because Civ5 has no area effect damage except for missles late in game. Nevermind how many units hit multiples units with abilities. So comparing Warlock and Civ5 is a waste of time.

Every ranged damage has a damage type, use the proper units or buffs to counter it.

Reminds me of a saying, "if it aint broke, dont fix it."

 

[unmerged(490344)]

I did say they were not as strong as the difference between Melee and Range in Civ5, as well as stating part of the reason being the same ones you mention regarding less damage and lower HP/Resistances. Also mass groups of Melee units are just as vulnerable to AoE spells.

Not really, since they tend to be mixed in with your own units, and front line fighters are usually the ones that get decked out with defensive perks.

About the avatars, fair enough. It's just a weird example because if some of them could actually counterattack (Helia :wacko when surrounded they'd utterly demolish puny ranged units.

And you've played Starcraft 2 right? If you want to nerd out about ranged units it deals with that classic imbalance in a lot of ways. Timing, mobility, AOE etc etc

 

[unmerged(170187)]

My answer to ranged units in mass is firestorm. Something like that eliminates the "overpoweredness compared to civ5" because Civ5 has no area effect damage except for missles late in game. Nevermind how many units hit multiples units with abilities. So comparing Warlock and Civ5 is a waste of time.

Every ranged damage has a damage type, use the proper units or buffs to counter it.

Reminds me of a saying, "if it aint broke, dont fix it."

OMG I don't know why I have to keep saying this but the point of the thread is NOT to discuss balance issues in Warlock. It's to discuss the range combat mechanic in general and how it is used in various tactical games including warlock. As well as potential interesting range combat mechanics that could appear in hypothetical nonexistent tactical wargame. It's meant to be a thought exercise.

I started the thread in part because the original discuss with my friend got me nostalgic of my college days when me and some fellow classmates would hang out and discuss the pros and cons of various UI, mechanics, and data structure design choices. I figured a forum filled with a bunch of tactical war game fans would be a good place for that.

And you've played Starcraft 2 right? If you want to nerd out about ranged units it deals with that classic imbalance in a lot of ways. Timing, mobility, AOE etc etc

Starcraft 2 is a RTS game and there is no comparison to TB tactical wargames.

Not really, since they tend to be mixed in with your own units, and front line fighters are usually the ones that get decked out with defensive perks.

My comment about melee units being just as vulnerable was on the approach. You can see a large group of melee units approaching and hit them on the approach. Also it's very easy to move your units back a space so you can AoE the enemy lines, I do it all the time, and then have them step back forward and attack.

On the topic of the AoE mechanic in general though, whether it's magic or technology, it basically just adds a new form of range attack. In warlock it's an unlimited range attack that it only limited by the owner's resources and cooldown(casting time). The main counter is spread your units apart and/or raise their resistances to the point that the resources the other player spends casting it are not worth the damage done thus making it so they won't cast it, or if they do it's just wasting their resources.

I've seen other games actual give AoE to units which makes them an even more devastating range combat, though this is offset by a minimum range thus making them completely worthless in close quarters. Though minimum range tends to only work if the unit have a long range to begin with. The closest comparison for warlock would probably be catapult with range 3 if it were given a min range of 2 so it couldn't attack units next to it.

 

[unmerged(529460)]

OMG I don't know why I have to keep saying this but the point of the thread is NOT to discuss balance issues in Warlock.

Deleted comments

It's to discuss the range combat mechanic in general and how it is used in various tactical games including warlock. As well as potential interesting range combat mechanics that could appear in hypothetical nonexistent tactical wargame. It's meant to be a thought exercise.

... oh, too complicated.

Why do you hate ranged attacks in Warlock?

I figured a forum filled with a bunch of tactical war game fans would be a good place for that.

Do you know where I might find one? (Other than BFC, where we're still largely occupied with complaining about the new game's mechanics?)

Starcraft 2 is a RTS game and there is no comparison to TB tactical wargames.

The both have ranged attacks.

You're welcome.


AI vs. Human:

One that that strikes me about ranged attacks in TB games (and to some extent RT) is that they tend to favor human players because a human player will be smarter about
a) Pulling vulnerable ranged units out of melee range.
b) Concentrating attacks
c) Finding "Unanswerable attacks".

I suspect "c" is one of the big differences between Civ5 and Warlock. In Civ5 I'm pretty disgusted with how often I can blast away at the AI while it does bupkis in return. Doesn't happen nearly as often as in Warlock. I think a big part of the difference is the general unit density and Civ5's more complicated terrain + ZoC model: It's easier to find opportunities for unanswerable attacks. Plus, of course, the extended range on some units. (So far I've been avoiding the Archers of Helia. Oh... and I've begun avoiding putting "Invisible" on ranged attackers.)

In addition to the factor's you've already mentioned, I see Warlock's AI buying far more ranged units than Civ5's AIs. I think that helps balance the human player's ranged units. Plus ranged units are probably a little easier for the AI to use.

I think another interesting comparison is between "empire" games such as Warlock and Civ5 or "army" games like Panzer General/Corps or the Elven Legacy games: In the "army" games you've got only so many unit slots. Each ranged unit has a big opportunity cost: That's another "blocker" unit (or flyer, or whatever) you absolutely cannot get. That's one thing that I think tends to make ranged units more powerful in empire games: If you push ranged production you can also get lots of skirmishers.