For a near‑future paper strategy game, should units use true range or only melee movement attacks?

[SeekerOfTruth007]

To simplify things, I've been doing it with moving onto the target space. Previously, I wanted to make it so units attack with real Range mechanics, except intentionally melee units. What would you do?

The game is set in the near future, so mostly modern technology.

Implementing Range allows me to have Attacks of Opportunity for Defender's Advantage, and Rolling Retreat for Defender's Advantage. I think both should be researched at the Academy to prevent them from being too powerful early on.

Yes, try to make it have real range mechanics for weapons

No, keep it simple

Other//See Results

Updates

2 mo

Update:
I changed Workers to Range 0 and D8 Melee attack.
Commandoes are Range 2 now with D10 attack.
Hell Hounds are Range 1 with massive damage to small units.
Most other units have 2 range now.
Tanks in Siege Mode have 4 range.
Destroyers (heavy air) have 3 range.

[msc545]

For a near-future strategy game with modern weapons, I would strongly lean toward using true ranged combat rather than making everything “move onto the target space to attack.” The setting itself creates player expectations: rifles, machine guns, drones, IFVs, tanks, and missiles all imply standoff engagement rather than adjacency combat.

That said, your instinct about simplicity is also correct. The key is usually not “range vs melee,” but how much range complexity you introduce.

A good compromise is:

Most units use short-to-medium true range
Only dedicated assault/melee units require adjacency
Keep ranges intentionally compressed:

For example:

Unit Type
Suggested Range
Infantry rifles
1–2
Machine guns
2
Snipers
3–4
Tanks
2–3
Artillery
4–6
Shock troops / riot units
Melee
Drones
2–4

[msc545]

That preserves the modern feel without turning the game into a giant measurement exercise.

The mechanics you mentioned — Attacks of Opportunity and Rolling Retreat — actually become much more interesting once ranged combat exists.

How true range improves your design:

1. Positioning becomes meaningful

If attacks only happen by entering a target hex/square, then positioning mostly becomes:

“Can I reach the enemy?”
“Can they reach me next turn?”

With range:

Cover matters
Elevation matters
Fire lanes matter
Suppression becomes possible
Retreat paths matter
Screening units matter

That creates tactical depth without necessarily adding rules complexity.

2. Defender’s Advantage starts feeling realistic

Modern combat heavily favors prepared defenders.

Ranged systems naturally support:

overwatch
suppression
crossfires
kill zones
fallback firing
covering fire

Your proposed academy research system is actually a very elegant way to control this complexity progression.

Your research idea is very good!

[msc545]

I especially like this:

Attacks of Opportunity for Defender's Advantage, and Rolling Retreat for Defender's Advantage.

That creates a phased learning curve.

Early game:

simpler
more mobile
more aggressive
easier for new players

Late game:

entrenched fronts
tactical withdrawals
layered defense
combined arms warfare

That progression feels appropriate for a near-future military setting.

[SeekerOfTruth007]

Yes. I have infantry with just 1 rqnge.
I have flamer infrantry with no range.
I have Tanks and Quad Bikes with 2 range for normal mode.
Tanks in Siege Mode have range 4, but they get a Minimum Range drawback of 2.
Static Defenses have range 2, which makes them great against infantry.

I'm also introducing a "charge" research which counters rolling retreat, and an "intercept" research which requires Charge, which allows defending player to move all his units by one space per turn to try to assist a mini-battle on defense. These rules will add depth to the game and make jockying for position very important throughout a game.

Yes, you are very insightful here. Thanks for your reply, and keep it up.

[msc545]

That actually sounds structurally solid already. You are naturally arriving at a system with:

positional warfare,
counterplay,
layered doctrines,
and meaningful tech progression.

The important thing is that your mechanics are beginning to reinforce each other instead of existing independently which is just excellent!

[msc545]

A few things stand out as especially good design choices:

Infantry Range 1

This is probably the correct decision for a near-future battlefield game.

Range 1 infantry creates:

firefights across adjacent spaces,
defensive lines,
urban combat,
trench-style exchanges,
overlapping support formations.

It also prevents infantry from becoming useless once tanks appear.

A huge mistake many tactical games make is:

“rifle infantry somehow attacks only by entering the same square.”

That unintentionally makes everyone feel like medieval swordsmen.

Range 1 solves that.

Flamers Having No Range

Excellent.

That gives them a real battlefield identity:

bunker clearing,
anti-infantry assault,
anti-static-defense breachers,
close assault terror units.

Because they must physically enter the target space, they become:

dangerous,
risky,
positioning dependent.

That is good asymmetry.

You may eventually want flamers to:

ignore cover bonuses,
negate rolling retreat,
or reduce defender advantage.

That would make them terrifying in fortified combat.

[SeekerOfTruth007]

Flamers can set fire to forests and grasslands, and gradually burn out enemy troops. I know how to write the rules for that too.

Each round, the fires spread to adjacent squares depending on prevailing winds.
A burning square deals 10 damage to all biological units trapped inside it at the beginning of that player's turn.

Drawback:
they can't hit air.
They don't do good damage against auto-turrets, but they do good damage against all other structures.

[msc545]

Thanks for MHO

[Anonymous]

I would divide them into three groups:

Melee (sword, saber, knife, dagger, machete etc)

Medium-range (long spear, halberd, chain whip, flame-thrower etc)

Range (bow and arrow, slingshot, crossbow, throwing spear etc).

[Opinion Owner]

Thanks for the MHO

[AI Opinion]

I’d absolutely use true range, especially with a near‑future theme 🔫

Ranged combat fits modern tech, creates more interesting positioning puzzles, and makes unit variety feel meaningful. Melee‑only movement attacks tend to feel chess‑like and a bit abstract, which clashes with rifles, drones, artillery, etc.

Gating Attacks of Opportunity and Rolling Retreat behind Academy research is smart balance‑wise and adds satisfying mid‑game depth.

[SeekerOfTruth007]

Okay.
Attack of Opportunity is limited to one free attack per defending Unit per Round.

Rolling Retreat is limited to one movement space per round for Ground Units and 2 movement spaces per round for Air Units.

This allows Static Defenses and Siege Warfare to make more sense. I'll need to write rules for Siege Mode attacks, which should be limited to one Salvo per round, but does a massive 10D10 damage per Salvo.

[strateguy632]

2nd.