Hey everyone!

In the course of our previous OpenDev events, we received a lot of feedback about combat from our players. Some of the recurring themes of this feedback were that stronger units easily dominated battles, it was difficult to tell units with certain common abilities apart at a glance (e.g. telling anti-cavalry units apart from melee units), and that the anti-cavalry trait should work against all units that are mounted in some fashion, and that cavalry shouldn't just charge across walls.

For this OpenDev, along with general improvements to the flow of combat, we have implemented the following changes:

• Improved Reinforcement UI: Deploy the unit of your choice to the reinforcement tile with the click of a button
• New Unit Class: Anti-Cavalry units gain a bonus against mounted units
• Anti-Cavalry bonus now works against all mounted troops (e.g. Markabata, Mounted Nomads, and elephants)
• New Unit Class: Heavy Cavalry units receive a charge bonus to combat strength, but do not ignore zones of control (incudes chariots, knights, and several Emblematic Units)
• Mounted Units can no longer cross or attack over undamaged walls
• Rebalanced damage formula: Maximum damage of the weaker unit is reduced less than before, making the exchange more risky for the stronger combatant
• Reduced combat strength of some early game units

Let us know what you think of the new unit classes, the tweaked damage formula and unit abilities, and the balance of combat as it is now.

When on the default difficulty, expansion felt problematic due to the AI's behaviour and rate of progression. For example, I attempted to take my time by sitting back and expanding when able, focusing much more on infrastructure than military personnel. Though my settlements were in non-aggressive placements, the act of having a bordering territory made the AI think I was in the process of invading them. (There were specific notes claiming this, whereas lower difficulties where I played the same way did not have this, even when done prior to diplomatic actions to mitigate issue.)

As a result, I wound up finding my locations plundered in pincer attacks from multiple units that were 2-4 levels above what I had stationed there. I suspect I could have reliably gotten additional XP for the growth of my units, if I hadn't been required to plunder sanctuaries to generate influence for the first deployment. I like that this is a viable tactic, however it should not be a requirement to start the game. Alternatively, there should possibly be more neutral/bandit units wandering around so that this doesn't become an issue. With three regions occupied, I think I only ever saw one on the lowest difficulty (and they retreated as soon as I got close). Other difficulty playthroughs did not yield any.

Ranged units I deployed were unable to attack without being on an adjacent tile, which seemed a little strange. It feels like they should have the option of attacking with a single tile between them and their target.

Yeah, I agree with that - I had on standard diffculty two Nubian archers on a hill top with a cliff guarding an outpost and then a bunch of nasty independet people showed up for a party with three sets of two chariots each, and I couldn't shoot at them form somewhere save. Also agree that it felt the AI is actively seeking my starting position out to sneak around with individual scouts to find any possible chance for looting in my outposts. Bit hard to develop a decent spot for you then with a little corner of the map to build up something. At least that was a very obvious change from Lucy for me. Made me think that I always have to play Harappans in the beginning. Anyway thanks again for the chance to play it.  

Pls rework the UI, I hate it. It looks so bad and intrussive. Just remove the horrible milky opacity layer and add some sort of effect on the border. I rly rly rly dislike it, im sorry but It gets so much in the way. 

Combat UI is looking much nicer since Lucy.

Combat also feels a lot smoother now, there are much less outright stomps and the AI almost seems to be better at using the various EUs to their advantage. Combat seems to just be outright smoother.

I could've sworn it was mentioned to be adjusted but I cannot recall where, but enemy units can still wander into your units, and then retreat, thus draining your unit of all it's movement, which is a tad annoying.

I've also found combat to be much improved! Now I can figure out what everything is, and I'm happy with the pacing of combat - usually I'm able to win with exactly 3 rounds. I like that you can still click while the animations are on-going. I like how it's easier to know how to bring reinforcements into the battle, and that you can add new units into an ongoing siege by simply marching in. I also like the reduced movement if you retreat before battle.

I did my first city invasion last night, and stacked archers behind scouts. When scouts invaded, the tile the archers were in was also blue, but they didn't join the battle? The archers didn't take turns while I sieged for 4 turns, and I didn't see where to get them as reinforcements (they were on top of a cliff). Is this a bug or did I do something wrong? Did I completely miss the new reinforcement UI? 

RyanAstoria83 wrote:

I did my first city invasion last night, and stacked archers behind scouts. When scouts invaded, the tile the archers were in was also blue, but they didn't join the battle? The archers didn't take turns while I sieged for 4 turns, and I didn't see where to get them as reinforcements (they were on top of a cliff). Is this a bug or did I do something wrong? Did I completely miss the new reinforcement UI? 

Reinforcements only become available after researching organized warfare, mb you didn't have that researched?

AndreyP wrote:

RyanAstoria83 wrote:

I did my first city invasion last night, and stacked archers behind scouts. When scouts invaded, the tile the archers were in was also blue, but they didn't join the battle? The archers didn't take turns while I sieged for 4 turns, and I didn't see where to get them as reinforcements (they were on top of a cliff). Is this a bug or did I do something wrong? Did I completely miss the new reinforcement UI? 

Reinforcements only become available after researching organized warfare, mb you didn't have that researched?

That's it 100% AndreyP... thanks! 

Thanks for the feedback regarding the AI behavior. I've noted it down in our tracking files.

Hssarth wrote:

Ranged units I deployed were unable to attack without being on an adjacent tile, which seemed a little strange. It feels like they should have the option of attacking with a single tile between them and their target.

reich238 wrote:

Yeah, I agree with that - I had on standard diffculty two Nubian archers on a hill top with a cliff guarding an outpost and then a bunch of nasty independet people showed up for a party with three sets of two chariots each, and I couldn't shoot at them form somewhere save.

The only ranged unit that should have a range of only 1 tile are the Hunnic Hordes, so if you encounter any situations in which your ranged units cannot shoot to their full range, please make a save and report the issue in the bug reports section.

Overall I find battles improved from the Lucy Opendev, all the info is more clear and the overall experience is more pleasant. 

One thing that I am a bit confused about is about bringing reinforcements once a battle has started. If one battle starts in one turn, but the next turn I can bring a second army to the battle, can I add them as reinforcements? When I try to add them to the battle zone it seems like if I can't do it, but I believe the enemy has done it to me once or twice. 

I had two units in adjacent tiles. One included a single scout, the other contained two archers and two warriors, An AI chose to engage my singleton unit in battle. I told the scout unit to retreat and then engaged the enemy unit with my stronger force. This strategy would appear to be sensible. However, after selecting "Retreat," I was unable to control my unit's movement. Further, my nation immediately withdrew war support because of the retreat.

It seems that rather than being called a "retreat" option, the selection should be called "Rout" instead if the movement afterward is uncontrolled. I think the player should be able to select an orderly retreat (i.e., the player should be able to choose where the unit moves after selecting "Retreat"). Similarly, a nation shouldn't condemn a leader's choice to retreat if the aggressing unit is engaged in the very same turn. Historically, various military groups have used retreats strategically. Not every retreat is a rout. 

Also, it seems as if my scout is attacked in a tile adjacent to a unit containing four more powerful fighters that my fighters should automatically be allowed to participate in the resulting battle whether I've researched reinforcements or not. Otherwise, it's as if my scout pitched his tent next to where my army is patrolling, and my fighters sit there eating dinner watching the enemy burn him out and slaughter him. It doesn't make a whole lot of sense.

Last, I may be missing something here, but I could not find a way of disengaging from a battle once it became clear my fighters were going to lose. They were forced to fight to the death and could not retreat (in an orderly fashion or otherwise).It seems that every battle shouldn't have to result in victory or utter annihilation.

Combat in this game feels like a breath of fresh air coming from Civ V and Civ VI. Terrain plays an actual role, giving my unit orders (attack, fall back, defend) more meaning than I had come to expect from hex grids. Managing units' passive bonuses and effects adds a distinct feel to this game, as well. Overall, great stuff, maintain this level of engagement.

One thing that surprised me in a negative sense: my vassal cannot get drawn into combat as a reinforcement despite meeting the conditions (tech researched, vassal's stack is within the zone). I get that having proper command over one's vassal troops disrupts the flow of the game, but I feel I should be able to coerce them in this fashion, at least.

Playing on hard difficulty, classical era atm.

g2gon wrote:

Combat in this game feels like a breath of fresh air coming from Civ V and Civ VI. Terrain plays an actual role, giving my unit orders (attack, fall back, defend) more meaning than I had come to expect from hex grids. Managing units' passive bonuses and effects adds a distinct feel to this game, as well. Overall, great stuff, maintain this level of engagement.

One thing that surprised me in a negative sense: my vassal cannot get drawn into combat as a reinforcement despite meeting the conditions (tech researched, vassal's stack is within the zone). I get that having proper command over one's vassal troops disrupts the flow of the game, but I feel I should be able to coerce them in this fashion, at least.

Playing on hard difficulty, classical era atm.

I experienced this from the other side. I was sending 2 armies too deal with a 4 stack that was raiding me. His vassal managed to block my army from moving and engaging him by having a single army that was directly adjacent to the main raiding stack attack me and the overlord's raiding army did not enter the battle as a reinforcement as I expected. The attack prevented both of my armies from moving or attacking afterward even though I only moved one stack that turn. This was the last tun before the raid completed.

On that not it feels like raiding was over nerfed. I feel like there should be some small per turn awards during raiding to make it worth while. Maybe have raiding grant resources faster but  have it only damage and/or capture infrastructure rather than destroy it. That way you don't lose the territory unless you lose the war. As it stands there seems to be little reason to raid since your army will have to sit there and fight off the enemy main army anyway since they have 8 turns to reach you. Its faster to just take a city.

Units must be able to be extracted from “newly peaceful” territory after a war. (suggestion: Trespassing units should be allowed to move through enemy territory ...still taking damage though)

Combat seems ok. AI rushes ranged units nicely but doesn't seem to care about elevation advantage. 

It's still very easy to keep using ranged units and just make sure the opponent can't reach them. I think it would be good if the AI would build more ranged units to go with their melee ones. In general, I felt the AI didn't have enough units ready at the higher difficulties. It would make the games a tad more challenging if they had significantly big armies as a deterrent.

Combat has been greatly improved since Lucy dev. Do like the changes made to cavalry and anti cav. Didn't fully utilize heavy cav v.s. light cavalry because I didn't know there was a difference beside changes in strength and movement till late game. I think there needs to be changes/adjustments to both missile and regular melee units among others. Here's my recommendations I don't necessarily think all these changes need to be implemented only say one or two:

- Missile / Range units are way to over powered at least when defending. Because they can attack without taking damage and then while being attacked deal almost the same amount of damage its almost impossible to defeat any sort of all range unit stack especially if you are in a choke point / bottle neck or they have the high ground. Recommendation would be to give them separate strength score for when they are being attacked and when they are attacking. 

- Range units should not get a range attack bonus from having high ground position. At most it should just give them a boost when defending against a melee attack like any other unit. The only thing that high ground should effect for range units is the the height and distance limit they can attack. Say higher ground can attack a lower ground tile two/three spaces away v.s. only one tile away if its higher. 

- During my play I thought I saw an enemy unit get a defense bonus from a range attack because the unit was on a forest or woodland tile. Not sure if that was unit specific or not but should be applied to all unit defending a range attack. 

- I know civ 6 does this but it should be implemented in some way that regular melee units have an advantage over anti cav. I do know they have a slight increase in strength compared to anti cav but that is not nearly enough to offset it. Pretty sure the meta for this dev and maybe the game would be range, cav, and anti cav doom stacks. Unless of course your playing mongol / hunnic horde which are basically still doom stacks because they are still way to over powered. I think the only possible way to make them semi-ok is if you take away their ability to attack twice in one turn. Its ok that they can move, attack, and then move again but attacking twice as a range unit that won't take any damage like a melee unit makes them way to overpowered. 

- Lastly I think humankind should implement separate defensive stances for units that help counter range v.s. cavalry. The two options would be loose spacing and closed ranks. Loose spacing would decrease damaged taken from range attacks but leave units open to devastating cavalry charges. This would be opposite for closed ranks which would mitigate the damaged taken by cavalry charge but leave the unit open to more damage from range attack. 

A couple of nitpicks I've noticed about combat is units still get forced into battle as reinforcements and have their movement drained even if I don't need them. Not sure if I missed a button or something but it's very annoying. I also dislike the fact that any attack always has a chance to do up to 25 damage no matter how weak it is. I think 20 or maybe even 15 would be a better number because as of right now this heavily encourages large armies of ranged units who can whittle down opponents in better positions unless they happen to roll low damage consecutively. There's also the buff to spear infantry and removing their ability to scale walls which might've too harsh of a nerf for cavalry. I find them to not be worth the effort when doing activities besides scouting, maybe weaken the overall anti-cavalry bonus since it's just extremely oppressive. Cavalry already requires horses to produce and more industry than infantry or archer units.

If cavalry kept the inability to scale walls but could still attack units behind them, I think that would be a good compromise since doing neither in the current Opendev seems a bit harsh. This would also still let siege help cavalry enter fortifications by breaking them down but not have cavalry be completely useless without their support. 

On a brighter note I do enjoy the buffs to militia/city guards they actually feel a bit more threatening now, siege combat overall feels more enjoyable.

Much improved combat no real issues apart from siege battles, AI does not understand how walls are important and attacks from behind the walls (levies attack elephants who cant even really harm them) and even leaves cities all together if you move your troops outside of the walls.