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

I agree with:

1a. archers being able to get a starting hit from an adjacent square that would be mitigated by any armor the opponent had;

1b. starting hits from any archer/s would result in tactical combat automatically being joined between their square and the square they just attacked; and

2. archers being a lot less likely to be attacked early in automatic combat resolve.

I like vollies, but only as a once off shot that takes into account armor *and* which automatically results in a tactical battle immediately.

Best regards,

Steven.

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.

Yeah, fully agree with you here.  Tactical combat needs to be forced as soon as a volley is fired.  The original volley from the archers should alos count as their first turn in the tactical battle.  So the attacking player only gets to move their melee fighters in their first turn.

Should the archers of the defending side get a retaliate attack on the strategic arrow volley?  Before the tactical battle ensues?  I'm of the mind that they do.....  although this is based a little around assuming in tactical combat the defending stack gets a retaliation.

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..

I feel that Melee units should have a 0 tile attack radius, and Ranged units should have a 1 tile attack radius.**

However, I guess I could see archers in a Fortress (or city) having a 2 tile attack radius if "Area of Control" is not implemented.

melee units have to ENTER the defending unit's tile in order to attack, while archers may stay in previous tile to "attack from range."

(Of course, this means multiple tile tactical battles right?)

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 :P), 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.......

Uh, if they already have range in a tactical battle, why give them range on the overland map?  I can see this feature being gamed to high hell.  Not only that, but you are also adding an autocalculation feature to the game whether the players like it or not.  After all, once archers fire a volley from the strategic map, casualties would have to be calculated against the player's tactical deployment.  Not a good thing. 

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?

I think a better idea would be for archers to be able to initiate tactical combat from 2 squares away.  The units will just start out further apart initially and the archers will therefor get 1 or 2 extra shots but the melee units will still have an opportunity to fight back eventually.  I like that better but that is still probably too much.  In a game of this scale each square is probably 5-25 miles across.  Archers just don't have that kind of range.

Beyond realism though attacking from the strategic map is a huge advantage.  It a free attack with no chance of retaliation if the defending stack doesn't contain archers.  If this stays in then we will see large stacks of archers screened by melee units that the opponent can't target.  This could really throw balance out of wack depending on the effectiveness.  They already have the advantage of range on the tactical map, no need to give them even more of an advantage.

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.

I agree with this but not the implementation.  How this should work is you or the opponent initiates tactical combat.  Archers fire 1 or 2 times or whatever is appropriate then retreat from the battle field.  Similar effect but the opponent has a chance to counter it.  He has options on which units advance, has a chance to try and interrupt the maneuver with a cavalry charge or whatever.  I don't like the idea of a free attack with no chance of retribution.  Much better solution in my opinion.

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.

see i disagree with this.. i do not want to have  to go to tactical each and every time i want to bloody some ones nose.. and since we have tactical thresholds this almost has to have a strategic level.. again an archers ability to kill units slower then them can be mitigated in other ways. just off top of my head have any shots on strategic level cost 2 movement point or for that matter half of remaining... this should restrict it enough while still allowing for some interesting game play..

just my 2 cents .. no mater how it works out i will handle it heh heh...

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.

Well, the initial idea (I thought) was that tactical battles would eliminate the cheesiness of Dueling on the Strategic Map. Guess I was wrong??