Nothing is currently planned, and everything is currently prepared for. However I don't see any reason to separate ranged attack from Melee. A melee weapon can ONLY attack from direct contact and a ranged weapon can ONLY attack from indirect contact. In truth all ranged weapon's melee attack should be 1 because you are essentially just hitting your opponent with an un-optimized stick at that point .... unless your actually trying to draw your bow and fire. In which case I decided to call Yatzi and say that a Ranged Weapon should only get 20% attack in the melee as a fair abstraction ... as the initiative of the melee attacker would TRULY determine wether the ranged player lived or died (if the ranged player had no secondary weapon).
If, however, the Archer had a dagger, then it would be Broadsword vs Dagger when close-up as opposed to Broadsword vs Swinging Bow or Broadsword vs Quickly retreating Archer.
Honestly in Champion vs Champion situations, I would prefer (in sword vs bow applications) the bow gets a FULL powered shot each round after a melee miss, and only a half powered shot after a melee hits. So, if the sword hits the bow (lets say their attacks are both 8), then next round the bow would attack at 4. However if the Sword misses the bow (dodge) the Bow would attack at 8. And by that, I mean the max RNG value, not the actual roll. Its very possible for the 4 attack to roll a 4 and the 8 attack to roll a 1.
In any case, if a sword is locked into a melee involving physical contact (which happens if two large units engage each other via connected borders or overlap for any number of rounds longer more than one) then the bow shouldn't get full attack power. I suppose if you felt you needed a melee attack, then this could be your 20% power ... or merely an attack of one ... although any melee attack by a bow (in reality) is going to be pathetic ... so really its just an abstraction of their ranged prowess at point-blank range while being stabbed, grabbed, and bashed.
Personally I go with the 20%, or 50% for Champions (correctable to 100% with a Skill or Feat) ... if the Archer has no secondary weapon. Otherwise, if the archer DID have a secondary weapon, the first round of melee contact I would allow the archer to pull off a full ranged attack of opportunity, and then the second round start swinging the melee weapons. Of course, without the secondary weapon, first round is a full ranged attack, and all subsequent rounds are at 20%.
This brings me to my next point. An archer unit without secondary weapons (or even with) should have an option called "Friendly Fire". This is when archers forming a multi-row unit work semi-independently. Lets say the first row or two is caught in the melee ... clicking "friendly fire" will cause the Units in the back to attack into the melee, with a 40% chance of hitting a friend in the melee, a 35% chance of hitting an enemy in the melee, and a 25% chance of hitting an enemy behind the melee (or missing if there is nothing behind the attackers engaged in combat).
Friendly Fire, then of course, would be unwise to use in many situations ... however if there are many archers and no way to safely disengage from the melee, it might be wise to sacrifice the ones in the front lines to save the many. If its half in half however ... its a tougher call. Also, once you start giving them secondary weapons to defend themselves ... you might be tempted to commit all your archers to the melee (assuming running away is not an option).
In short, melee attack vs ranged attack only works if its "The unit" instead of "the weapon". An Axe of 7 attack isn't going to have a real ranged attack, same as a Bow of 7 attack isn't going to have a real melee attack. I suppose you could attach blades to the end of your bow to make a makeshift butterfly-knife defense, although that is too hypothetical, and you might as well have forged a bow and some knives instead of making a heavier and unwieldy bladed bow.
Essentially, the weapon's attack is removed from the function, as both attack armor equally. I will admit, however, that with the introduction of Fantasy monsters (especially if such monsters can wield weapons) we might very well NEED a ranged attack vs melee attack .... because the 6 armed Swamp-Rhino-Gorilla might have a melee attack of 10, as well as wielding 2 crossbows each with a ranged attack of 7. Or you have a Hydralisk that spits for a ranged attack of 6 and eviscerates opponents at a melee attack of 12.