They can do that in tactical combat though.  Why on the strategic map as well?

Have you tried to design a fast custom sovereign (tracker + boots with + 1 speed) with a bow? Very nice for killing from distance monsters with only 2 move points in few turns: move to be at range 2, shoot volley unitil you have only one movement point, step back to be at range 3. This allows you to kill monsters with great combat rating compared to yours.

not sure I agree here.. archers should have the chance to fade away.. guerrilla style, this allows for interesting strategies..

I like the idea that faster ranged units could reek havoc on a for that relied strictly on slower higher offensive/defense units.. this provides for more depth think fast moving longbow unit vs full blown knight in armor..

yes they should that could also be used to pin down the attacking force (i.e. slowing them down so escape is less likely)  this would allow for earlier mention units of knights escorted by faster archer or even light cavalry to engage eliminate them pesky archers..

as far as monsters on the map go the simply need to either fiercely chase down any unit that attacks them .. up to and including into cities.. or they need to run away.. that or perhaps have a chance to get a temp speed bonus when faced with annoying run in, sting and run out units.. call it an enrage option where for one move they get bonus movement... ) conversely when a unit with a lower combat rating attacks one with a higher combat rating add a defensive damage mitigation bonus based on difference....

just brainstorming here..

It seems that it will be too overpowered (My Sov with a bow is doing 3 damage per stratagic movemnt), and the only armies yuo;'ll have running around are armies of pure archers (mounted or unmounted).  Being able to damage and kill units on the strategic level would force EVERYONE to use the same units, ie FAST RANGED units, and you will find that tactical battles almost never occur.    And before you say it ( i know you're thinking it ), really fast melee units will still not have any chance to counter the strateic damage option available to Ranged units.

A possible alternative to doing damage at the stratgic level could be it forces agro.  But this would work extremely poor in multiplayer.

@Twohawks, I agree with you that archers should be able to volley and hide, but that is a tactical manouvre, which should not be allowed at the strategic level.

Just out of curiosity, I wonder if the volley command is only temporary while tactical battles aren't implemented, just to give archers a bit of a heads up.......

I think I'd like to see this tested over some real games (once there is a decent ai or multiplayer) , on the basis it could become too powerful but it's hard to say without having seen tactical battles. Maybe we should get access to tactical battles?

Too obvious that I'm begging there?

This is far, far too powerful - with just a bow and terrible equipment otherwise (something like 10 attack, 4 defense, 20 hp), my sovereign can easily kill an 80 attack/40 defense/150 hp drake with no risk or even damage to himself. Granted extreme examples such as that won't be possible when it's fixed to not ignore armor (I assume that has to be a bug), but even so it's just a bad idea to give free damage without risk of retribution. Archers can weaken and even kill units that have no chance to fight back? Why is this happening at all on the strategic map - I thought that's what tactical battles were for? Archers will already get some free attacks in on the tactical map as the melees charge them, it doesn't make sense to give them more free attacks on the strategic map with no risk/chance of being hit back.

This mechanic works for Civ (by the way, Civ4 already has ranged attacks with some mods, you don't have to wait for Civ5 to try them out) because Civ has no tactical battles - archers get a ranged attack in first, then melees charge in and their advantage disappears. In the absence of tactical battles, ranged attacks on the strategic map are Civ's only way of actually giving a unit "range" (well, except for first strikes, which.. have their own problems) - there's no need for any of this in a game with tactical battles.

I'm assuming that once we have tactical battles, 'auto resolve' will simulate tactical combat to some extent, at least enough to give ranged units the same advantages they'd have in a tactical battle. It should go without saying that auto resolve needs to give similar results as a tactical battle, if not (say if you simplify/abstract the calculations too much) you're facing serious balance issues.

Agreed, I should've mentioned that too - all the great tactics you can think of for your archers, should be able to take place on the tactical map. There's no need to abstract this stuff out to no risk attacks on the strategic map - that works well enough for games without tactical battles, but we (will soon) have those, it's just redundant to have any of this also taking place on the strategic map.

Keep in mind that tactical thresholds are a player defined option. You want every battle to be a tactical battle? You got it. Set the tactical threshold to 0.  It's meant to be a convenience tool, not a limitation.