Age of Strategy Forums

In these days I had a conversation with Daniel about melee units with range 2, particularly regarding anti-cavalry units.

Daniel tought that we should avoid having more range 2 units since he doesn't like the attack animation while I think that having units with range 2 adds more strategy and allows us to create different kind of units and strategies (e.g. range 2 pikemen can be defended by broadswordsmen and be more effective against cavalry).

What is your opinion about range 2 units?

Do you like them and would like to have others in the future?

I would say from an animation point of view, I can see what he means. This being said, I don't pay enough attention to the animation to care. It's great for strategy, and almost necessary to be willing to use some troops, like spearman.

Having range 2 melee units is ok. About the animation, I don't really care about it.

Beside animation part things like attacking-over-wall and attacking-over-river are concerns here.

It would look wierd sometimes, so I would avoid distributing polearm weapon users 2 range commonly.

Puss_in_Boots wrote:It would look wierd sometimes, so I would avoid distributing polearm weapon users 2 range commonly.

It is mostly for upgraded units or with techs (just to make it clear)

Detros wrote:Beside animation part things like attacking-over-wall and attacking-over-river are concerns here.

very good point!
here we must have a solution on this.

To fix the wall issue we could have them get a different kind of ranged attack that can get blocked by any units standing in the way of the target. That way you have to get more creative than otherwise walk up and hit the unit behind another.

Daniel (the dev) wrote:

Detros wrote:Beside animation part things like attacking-over-wall and attacking-over-river are concerns here.

very good point!
here we must have a solution on this.

Could maybe adding some kind of javeliner that has 2 range, anticavalry bonuses and maybe also does, similar to catapult, melee damage instead of range one, be a way around this extra-long-halberd infantry?

The wall thing it is something engin-related and it is the same thing that allows shooting arrows over the mountains or behind a wall.

Only coding the line of sight for attack can solve this.

There is no point making an anti cavalry javellineer since if you can't hit with a poleaxe because there is a mountain you can't with a javellin orcan arrow either.

Attacking at range 2 this way is not more unrealistic than with a bow.

Alexander82 wrote:The wall thing it is something engin-related and it is the same thing that allows shooting arrows over the mountains or behind a wall.
Only coding the line of sight for attack can solve this.
...
Attacking at range 2 this way is not more unrealistic than with a bow.

not exactly, LOS would complexitize the game that i dont want, so i plan not to put in.
this is not LOS but a "line of attack" or something, meaning: melee damage via walls should not be.
(maybe via a river it could be... but would be weird again in some cases.)

These weird contradicions i fear of, not only the visuality problem (as u mentioned: "he doesn't like the attack animation")
however i like the "pikes can stand behind swordmen" concept, and would nicely strategic - that is why i suggested this open discussion.

Yes. They would add a lot of tactics and would make formations count more.

Anyway can you implement a line of attack that stops attacks st any range through obstacles?

Admittedly, melee at range is a complicated issue. I don't​ want a line of attack system stopping archers, since they can typically aim in a higher arc to shoot over obstacles. I'd say the best option for the topic at hand is to leave 2 range melee attacks to giants and the human units already getting it.

Realistically speaking archer might shot over a wall (not mountains) but they would just shot hoping to hit something and not really aiming to someone.

In reality you wouldn't really see what's behind a wall and in maps like the mansion they can teleport their arrows through the walls. It is the same thing. You can't teleport an arrow more than you can teleport a spear.

I think that hitting through a wall in range 2 is totally the same and we might accept that as part of the game engine as we did with arrows (in AoS there have been already topics regarding line of attack so it shouldn't be taken for granted that it is normal the current behaviour).

Yeah. Now, given that this is AoF, I wouldn't put teleportating arrows or portal spears out of the question actually.

Exactly. This is the same logic. It is not an issue imho.

Could make a technology like that, "Portal arrows," if this topic results in walls blocking lines of attack.

Puss_in_Boots wrote:To fix the wall issue we could have them get a different kind of ranged attack that can get blocked by any units standing in the way of the target. That way you have to get more creative than otherwise walk up and hit the unit behind another.

We could use the ability of blocking certain trajectories of certain units to be blocked by others. Could make escort missions more easier or attacking a unit with escort require more skill and strategy. Sorta like a chess game.

I'd rather not have the engine expanded to change range based on obstacles. That complicates things a bit, and honestly weakens elves a lot, since they rely entirely on ranged attacks.

That's not a problem. If we go that way every race will need some rebalance.

So, in the end i assume that range 2 hitting over obstacles is not a bigger problem than archers hitting over walls and mountains, right?

Considering that would you like more 2 range for pikemen of every race to make them a second line of units to keep behind swordsmen?

Depending on the unit. For example, goblins are small, weak, with short arms that can't possibly hold a pike long enough to make up for it.

Why not? Pikes exceed by far the height of his wielders. Pikes were just kept in balance and used thrusting or held onto the ground. From wikipedia: "While stationary, the staff of each pike could be butted against the ground, giving it resistance against attack. "

It was not a matter of strength or height but just of how it was used.

The range is part of the weapon and not of the wielder.

Alexander82 wrote:So, in the end i assume that range 2 hitting over obstacles is not a bigger problem than archers hitting over walls and mountains, right?

i think archers case look normal, pikes case look weird.

so ween some coding to avoid pikes to hit hills - eg. a new property or something telling it is a ranged but still melee attack - that should not go tru obstackles, especially can hit to and trough only a tile that is walkable by the same unit.

It is just that we got used to it... I remember when first playing at AoS that i tought it was really strange how archer and walls or mountains were acting but i accepted it as part of the game.

For units like giants it even makes sense that they can get past through obstacles thanks to their height. The only thing we should define are walls in maps that should be interiors (e.g. in the mansion map it is really absurd for both range 2 and archers that they can attack through different rooms of a mansion).

I find the Range 2 units to be stategically beneficial. The animation for range 2 units is the same as melee, thus I find it amiable. Beyond that... I would find it disturbing. In Short, I support the Range 2 units.

IMPLEMENTED