Since range can easily stay clumped the entire fight and for some dumb reason have high damage, attack, and initiative, they shouldn't receive any bonuses from morale.





Let's see. In reality, their defense should be ridiculously low. You know how supports have gimped attack. Ranged should have gimped defense.





Its sad seeing your infantry finally get into melee range only to attack an enemy archer with way more defense then you because he has archers near him...





What? That makes no sense. If anything, all melee attacks should do bonus damage to archers. Historically and in every single video game created, melee jacks up ranged if they get in range.





Considering how hard endless legend makes getting into range for melee, I think it is stupid for them not to have massive bonuses against them.



Ranged Slayer bonus. Why the hell is this such a rare weapon. Why do certain factions have absolutely no option for ranged slaying at all? This only increases the problem.

Maybe instead of removing a mechanic that promotes tactical play, we could simply adjust damage/attack/defense/life/cost of ranged unit types (or buff stats for melee types)?



Many of the things you want to accomplish can be fixed by adjusting stats for ranged units and the equipment attached. If pure stat fixes (which should be easy for Amplitude to implement) don't do the trick, some sensible new mechanics applied to ranged attacks (ex. line of sight, damage reduction at range 3+, dramatically reduced point blank damage (except crossbows) and/or penalty to moving and firing) would help and make the tactical battles more interesting.



I 100% agree that ranged units are generally better than melee units, but lets not toss out some of the interesting tactical elements just to fix a cost-benefit problem...

I disagree from an immersion and logical point of view - Safety in numbers. Regardless of whether or not you're wielding a bow or a sword (in fact I'd argue that ranged units would be more morale drop prone)

Mansen wrote:
I disagree from an immersion and logical point of view - Safety in numbers. Regardless of whether or not you're wielding a bow or a sword (in fact I'd argue that ranged units would be more morale drop prone)

then why historically, a large army of archers would run from 40 cavalry?



Oh yeah, because they have no defenses, no way to fight back against cavalry killing them at an alarming rate. When you have a sword, you can kill anything in range. When you have a bow, goodluck killing a fully armored knight on a fully armored horse.



and yes, this is why ranged should have a huge drop in morale if melee is in range. Especially if more then 1 unit is next to them

In fact, ranged units should have very very very low attack so that they would usually get only their half damage. After all bows were deadly but hard to aim with.

That... was exactly what I wrote, Godman. I really wish you'd paid more attention buddy. Morale is important to archers and other ranged units. Strength in numbers, but as soon as your numbers wear thin you're desperately SOL.



Also your analogy about knights is flawed - An archer would obviously aim for the horse, not the knight if they weren't already running. That's what will kill someone wearing that much gear when suddenly thrown (or droppped) off of your mount.

VieuxChat wrote:
In fact, ranged units should have very very very low attack so that they would usually get only their half damage. After all bows were deadly but hard to aim with.

You don't really need accuracy when you've got numbers (and are up against numbers). The units shown are obviously an abstraction of a squad or regiment of that unit. Just like you wouldn't expect three cavemen to beat up a helicopter in Civ

Sure. But the real damage of bows has always been leader than what it could do because of the poor aim when they fired in volley. The first effect of bows was... fear. It mostly had an effect on morale.

What do you think is the best short-term modding solution to this problem? Thanks in advance

JetJaguar wrote:
What do you think is the best short-term modding solution to this problem? Thanks in advance

It really depends on how far you want to go. There are 3 layers of stats on units (and this doesn't include Empire plan, terrain, Morale or General's bonuses), Base stats, Wepon/Armor Base bonus, Weapon/Armor Material/Tier bonus..



I think the easiest fix would be to add a damage bonus to each melee unit in the game. All of this is stored in:











For each melee unit, increase their by some amount.

godman85 wrote:
then why historically, a large army of archers would run from 40 cavalry?



Oh yeah, because they have no defenses, no way to fight back against cavalry killing them at an alarming rate. When you have a sword, you can kill anything in range. When you have a bow, goodluck killing a fully armored knight on a fully armored horse.



and yes, this is why ranged should have a huge drop in morale if melee is in range. Especially if more then 1 unit is next to them

Just saying, but historically a large army of infantry might very well run away from 40 cavalry. Since you didn't specify the amount of infantry, I'll say 100. So, depending on the time period and the type of cavalry and infantry (heavy / light cavalry and infantry), the outcomes could be different. All in all however, the only defense against cavalry back then were rigid formations. A lone soldier with a sword or a pike is almost worthless against a lone horseman with a sword or a lance. No matter how big an infantry force was back then, a soon as formation was broken a cavalry force could easily decimate any infantry. Plus there is the fact that a sword isn't very effective against cavalry anyway, because of its short reach and the fact that a horseman is going to be taller than any foot soldier. Also, while a formation of pikemen would probably win any battle against so few cavalry, you did specify swords.

godman85 wrote:
then why historically, a large army of archers would run from 40 cavalry?



Oh yeah, because they have no defenses, no way to fight back against cavalry killing them at an alarming rate. When you have a sword, you can kill anything in range. When you have a bow, goodluck killing a fully armored knight on a fully armored horse.



and yes, this is why ranged should have a huge drop in morale if melee is in range. Especially if more then 1 unit is next to them

I think you are confusing what morale is in this game, vs "real life" morale. In EL, "Morale" is a term used to define percentage-based Attack/Defense bonuses for being supported (adjacent to) by friendly troops and/or being in a city hex.



No units break and run in this game as all of that stuff is baked into the Life stat. When a unit loses life, it represents wounds, fleeing etc. If you want to represent an Archer unit being weak against attacks, you lower it's Life stat.

Propbuddha wrote:
Maybe instead of removing a mechanic that promotes tactical play, we could simply adjust damage/attack/defense/life/cost of ranged unit types (or buff stats for melee types)?



Many of the things you want to accomplish can be fixed by adjusting stats for ranged units and the equipment attached. If pure stat fixes (which should be easy for Amplitude to implement) don't do the trick, some sensible new mechanics applied to ranged attacks (ex. line of sight, damage reduction at range 3+, dramatically reduced point blank damage (except crossbows) and/or penalty to moving and firing) would help and make the tactical battles more interesting.



I 100% agree that ranged units are generally better than melee units, but lets not toss out some of the interesting tactical elements just to fix a cost-benefit problem...

I agree with you; morale is a nice feature that should be universal. Still, I understand the OP's frustration with ranged units having outlandishly strong melee capabilities and being generally OP.