[.77] Ranged combat and it's problems.

There is a stat called Air Dodge to prevent focus fire. A low level Air Mage can counter focus fire pretty well. Adding a higher level AoE defense for higher level Air Mages would be an appropriate balance. The stat reducing idea is better suited to special abilities for heroes. As you say, heroes have no incentive to become an archer. Adding several new attack types and a Path of the Archer to contain them is a good solution to this problem. Perhaps a unique bow tech could be balanced in to give this ability to regular troops, but it doesn't work well as a default attack for all bows. 

Every army needs a counter to bows. Fast units, archers, and mages are the intended counters. We just need better AI to present this to the player. Keep in mind that if the AI was using platemail, longbows would actually be a better tool than blunt weapons. If the AI would use chainmail, Longbows will once again own them compared cutting weapons. Piercing has an advantage compared to blunt and cutting. There are also shields that are better at blocking air attacks. Focus fire is not that deadly unless you are unprepared to counter it. An Air Elemental is also a good emergency counter. There is room here to make bows more useful by making Dexterity add damage to all ranged weapons. Otherwise bows function fundamentally different than melee, preventing balance with the rest of the game.

I am developing an Archer class for heroes that offers a great many new abilities. Some of those abilities are special short range weapons like poison darts and throwing axes. Take a look at Sheet 1. There is an Archer Path and a few optional Paths that require Path of the Archer. Each one adds some interesting bow abilities. 

Chart Here.

I think the range distance can use some tweaking as well with ranged attacks. Maybe have more powerful bows also have a bit more range. Having the initials bows not being able to fire the whole battlefield would probably help balance things a bit. Couple different types of ranged items would definitely be welcome as well. Line of sight would be nice, but that may be getting a little too complex, but would surely be cool with some random trees/large rocks or whatever on the battlefield for cover.

Something along the lines of Crossbows might be interesting as well.  Considerably higher attack values for punching through armour, but also considerably higher penalties to initiative (-6?).  You'd have a strong initial strike, but it takes a long time to reload.

Be a good mod for you Seanw3

- Manii Names

Why should it be like that? Right now, all what standard units do is applying their standard attacks and that's it. No special attacks nor abilities of note. Pretty bland, pretty boring and tactically not very challenging to use.

And it's not said that melee weapons should stay as they are. They're also in need of some extra love    

Trained units are supposed to have one standard attack. That is the design scheme. They are to be only as good as the weapons they are carrying. Traits will give them a little flavor, but it is specifically limited to having each unit be designed for one function on the battlefield. 

Heroes are unique individuals and can have many options, both strategically and tactically. This is a unit that evolves as the game goes on. They are limited, making them all the more interesting and valuable. If you clicked that link, there are a whole bunch of traits there that would really add some depth to combat without changing the core game. 

I like this design, but more importantly the devs are pretty firm on this being the final design scheme for the game. It is an interesting idea to have trained units have more abilities and utility. Could make for an interesting mod if you are willing to learn how to make traits. It isn't, however, a flaw in their design scheme. That is what I was pointing out. Some of the other things you posted about are IMO core game problems. 

Right now nothing is really challenging to use because we don't have a great tactical AI. There is alot one can do with the current archers. Different levels of armor, mounts, traits, and bows lend to some pretty different archer strategies. Making arrows and swords take away stats as well as hp would make every spell and ability exactly the same as regular attacks. That is not fun. It would discourage tactical variety and interesting choices. Sure there could be one bow that poisons and one that does fire damage, but this should be rather rare. Once the AI is in place, combat will be much more exciting, we just have to wait a while. 

Which doesn't make it a good design scheme. Even good old Master of Magic [published in 1994] has more to offer on different "weapon properties". Don't get me started on what was possible in Age of Wonders series [2000; 2002; 2003]. Now we write the year 2012 and the game  still tries to catch up what others offered before.  

Yeah, I clicked your link, but putting all the emphasis on heroes is the wrong way. This game is already too hero-centric. Tactical and strategic options shouldn't just come from heroes. Especially as most likely all heroes. the player has. will be grouped together to form a stack of doom and steam roll hordes of faceless units which don't offer anything beyond their basic attack as retaliation.

Sounds not very varied in my book.

What happens when two generic armies meet up to battle it out? Most boring battles ever. 

So handing out the spice to just heroes is not a good design decision.  

Ok. I agree that it's not a flaw on their design scheme when they aim for a low level tactical combat. But what's the point of adding tactical combat after all when it is not much more than a time sink?

Not really. Everything runs along the "the more the better"-scheme. As long you have the resources you just put the best of the best on them. Only to slightly adjust to avoid the encumbrance penalty and that's it.

The archer pretty much stays the archer. Variating his equipment changes his general strength on the battlefield but doesn't open up any tactical niche roles. You will always place them in the back, avoiding contact and focus fire on jucy targets. 

Same goes for the melee units. It doesn't matter much if I mount them or not or if I give them maces or sword beyond the trade of resources for better fighting stats. I still either run them up to the enemy and smash their faces. Or if I have the range attack dominance I just sit there and wait for the enemy to walk towards me and then smash his face.

For example they're wouldn't be an instance I can think off in there i would miss out on warg mounts for my archers if i have the choice and available resources.  

How I built my units is less determined by my tactical needs more by resource and tech-level restrictions.     

Even if the AI get's a massive boost the tactical combat is still not very enticing. It just lacks tactical options beyond heroes casting spells. And if we agree that this is supposed to be a strategy game and not some kind of rpg grinder than this is a bad sign.   

Alright, I am convinced. Trained units need more options. The Traits they get are decent, but most of them only modify one stat or give a slight trade off between two. Traits need to be more creative. Mounts are a not all too well implemented in .77. They should be vulnerable to spears. 

But here is what I was talking about with archers:

Mounting them makes them immune to all knockout attacks, an excellent archer counter.

Leather makes them slightly more expensive, but also more durable.

Chainmail makes them very durable but more expensive.

Platemail makes them the perfect counter to other archers, but also very expensive. 

Trait combos can reduce encumbrance with Strength, give extra Initiative, extra damage, extra moves, extra defense, or make them cheaper. 

Combining these options in meaningful ways is not necessary right now because the AI will never threaten my archers. I can stop at leather and longbows with no worry or mages, archers, or cavalry killing them off.

I agree though. There is something left to be desired here. I know exactly how I would fix it, but for some reason I am not the head of Stardock. I don't know what happened there, but I think me and Brad got mixed up by the storks.   (joke of the day)

We could brainstorm some new trait ideas as examples for the devs though:

Some Traits should come from the Magic and Civic Trees.

Hardy: Units get +25% HP. 

Tech: Aggriculture

All current bonuses should either give a larger boost or increase with level.

+6 Dexterity, -3 Strength could replace +3 Dexterity, -1 Strength. 3 Dexterity only matters for about 50 turns and then gets really pointless. Plus trained units cannot ever crit. I think this is a bug. It kind of ruins trained units.

+1 Dexterity per 2 levels.  An excellent trait that will reward units for leveling. Trained units get 50% less XP, remember. There is no danger of the overshadowing heroes.

Then there could be abilities for regular troops.

Staggered Fire: +3 Initiative, -33% Accuracy when activated.

Barrage: Attacks a radius of 2, -3 Initiative for next round. AoE should be possible for archers.

First Strike: +10 Initiative for first round.

There should also be a Path of the Leader that has mostly bonuses to the rest of the group. A command class if you will.

Command I: All units get +1 Initiative.

Battlecry: All units get +20% attack for one round.

Banzai: All units get +2 Movement for one round and -1 Initiative for two rounds.

There is alot that can be done. What would you add?

I feel that instead of having the ability to pick bland trait options during unit design, traits should come with the equipment chosen during this phase.  And perhaps units gaining levels could open up new traits down the line (you don't get to choose them, per se, they just get unlocked.)

For instance:

Mounted Spearmen

Level 1:

Flanking Charge(active): May only be used against an enemy who is already engaged in melee combat (being flanked.)  Unit gains unlimited tactical movement this turn.  Unit gains +50% attack and +75% accuracy.  -3 Initiative next turn.

Spooked(passive): Unit receives -50% Dodge and -50% Accuracy in melee combat. 

Level 3:

Horsemanship I(passive): +1 tactical Move and +15% Dodge in melee combat.

Level 4:

Mounted Engagement I(passive): +15% Dodge and +15% Accuracy in melee combat.

Level 6:

Maneuverability(active): Regardless of flanking, unit may give up its attack to move its normal movement during this turn.  -3 Initiative next turn.

Level 10:

Set-spear Joust and Retreat(active): As long as the unit starts at least 4 tiles from target enemy, unit gains unlimited tactical movement this turn.  Unit gains +100% attack and +150% accuracy.  Successful attack also causes 50% of damage bleeding for next 3 turns.  After the attack (any any valid counter-actions), the unit may also move an additional 3 squares, regardless of flanking.  -3 Initiative next turn.

Horsemanship II(passive): +1 tactical move and +15% Dodge in melee combat.

etc.

I am for more range weapons. But the only limitation I want with range in general is distance. You can have a set distance like the throwing kniges do plus you could take a minus to hit at longe range.  But focus fire should not be taken out of the game that is the advantage of  multiple ranged units.

The counter to this is to build fast high initiative units. I build light Calvary with a lot of movement and high initiative plus I have then use the poison ability.   And it works well. 

This is not related but there should be a difference between Horses and Worgs.

Horses should have a higher move and initive setting (as well as a higher encumberance rating)

Wargs should give more defence and attack ratings

Horses, Warhorses, Wargs, and Spiders all have different bonuses. I think you are right about those bonuses needing some more differentiation. There seems to be a fundamental problem with the mounted unit bonuses. They are immune to prone, get +1 moves, and make encumbrance a non-factor. I would like to see some redesign here. There is no penalty to spears. The prone thing feels like an inability to animate the function rather than a logical bonus. Movement makes sense, but I would be happier with a +2 move bonus for horses. Then the other mounts could have only +1 but get other bonuses to compensate. 

Focus fire shouldn't be taken out, but it should be possible to mitigate the damage of ranged attacks with Air Dodge. Using large body covering shields that are heavy would be a great start. But you are right, cavalry is generally the best solution to archers. Better armored archers, faster archers, and higher level archers are also a reasonable counter. Archers are something that needs to be countered primarily at the design stage of a unit. There are of course other ways to counter, but this should be the main way to do so. 

That gets me to another point. I have finally been able to put my finger on why the Warfare Tree feels like a grind rather than strategic choice. Each new weapon and armor tech gives better stats, but it doesn't introduce more choices on a tactical level. There needs to be more types of items. Longshield, Shield, and Buckler would be a great leap forward in unit design. Instead of making armor and shields counter weapons, they should be countering strategies. Longshield provides better cover from archers, but is heavy, causing the unit to need a light weapon and adding no extra dodge. On the other end of the scale, Buckler would have less defense but more dodge. Great for melee against weaker units and very cheap to produce. Shields as they are would be the middleground. There are several weapons and other items that should be expanded to counter a strategy rather than a damage type. Then Traits can be added to give those units some extra options during combat. Otherwise trained units are rather uninteresting. 

While I understand balancing is a key focus in a good game, I find it highly unrealistic to have ranged weapons being so underpowered at middle and high level

of course this is FANTASY still it is inconsistent with the effects of the other weapons.  A player/Champion should have ways of keeping his/her ranged weapon skills useful into the middle and late stages of the game.  Bows and Cross Bows were game changing inventions in their time because they were deadly at a distance...not a mere nuisance.

As it stands there is not a lot of incentive to make a Champion a bow user.  Spells and Melee are the only two really viable options as things stand.

There should be ways to improve the damage and or add effects such as fire arrow, or debuff effects.