that is basically what the total war series does.  and i approve

  Good idea

If there's a dexterity modifier that attacks the use of weaponry, loading up your archers with plate mail and a broadsword would leave them unable to operate their longbow effectively.  You'd then have an expensive and unwieldy unit that sucked at the primary job.

In fact there should be an option in the unit designer to give several weapons to it.

  I agree, they should have light melee weapon aside from their ranged weapon.

I really like the idea of having separate proficiencies for different weapons.  Being able to train specific uses instead of everything together sounds outstanding.  You can give your longbows short swords so they aren't completely screwed in melee, but only spend time training them for ranged combat.

I like the idea even better if weapons and armor are use trained in combat, instead of just having generic leveling.  Perhaps a slightly less demanding system more along the lines of the Civ4 upgrade system where you pick a boost instead?

wouldn't pikeman need secondarys as well?

Well, you COULD pay the extra equipment cost to equip your archer with a melee weapon (which is perfectly viable, and probably the choice used most often with Archer-integrated armies)

However, if your archer only has a Bow n Arrow, then I suggest that a ranged weapons melee attack is 20% its normal attack. Or something to that effect.

Of course, champions using Bow n Arrow could have a workaround via feat, skill, or something, but the average trooper with a bow n arrow (if only equipped with a bow) should be relatively slaughtered up-close.

Equipping an archer with only a bow should make them cheaper and for a more specialised role. Sure, you can have more of them, but you have to protect them. Also, the level of secondary weapon will also be a decision. Should your secondary weapon just be a sword? A dagger and Shield? a Broadsword? All interesting decisions, for varying levels of cost/numbers and troop reliability.

And yes, I think all units should have the option for two attacksets. Each attack set should be either Weapon or Weapon + Shield, so theoretically both attack sets could be Weapon + Shield ... however its probably not a good choice if the strategic use is much the same. THe only time I see two attack sets both being Weapon + Shield would be if its a Champion that has an Uber Fire Sword and an Uber Ice Sword. Other than that, alts will most likely be a Pike, Bow, Axe, or Mace/Hammer.

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.

Hmm, well I suppose you could do that, and you wouldn't need a button to switch between weapon sets ... however I prefer the flexibility of weapon sets (see Dragon Age).

In a weapon set, its not always restricted to one Ranged Weapon and one melee weapon. Perhaps my Pikemen wish to carry Axes on their backs for when they meet armored Swordsmen instead of Mounted Knights.

Being able to equip troops with multiple/backup weapons would be useful.

Knights who use lances on horseback, swords on foot...or soldiers with javelins to throw before switching to a melee weapon.

Would make things interesting.

Yes you are right he did, so this thread is kind of irrelevant now.