Except they don't. They sit there and shoot, just like everyone else. And, really, who cares if they're closing range? They're still at range when they shoot, just like archers are.
Except most battle reports I see with MI not on defensive say otherwise. (I used to be a major MI user, and studied my battle reports pretty intensely.) Every round, MI shoot and move. If they move into melee combat, they hit twice. Of course, if this isn't intended behavior, then I concede the point. I've pointed it out in the past and I don't believe anything's been done about it (nor have I ever had it confirmed that it's a bug.).
As for the argument that they're both at range, I'd still argue that one is firing a volley and one is firing directly, even if they were to stay put while firing. In the case of a full-on woodland, a volley is going to be pretty ineffective.
I realize at this point I'm alternately using the realism argument and then the game mechanics argument as it seems to suit me and for that I apologize. MI are going to be a quirk either way. You can't give them blanket bonuses with Archers or you'd have to give them blanket bonuses with Infantry... But maybe that's the solution?
Ranged combat does increase as range narrows. While it'd be just as easy to do it by unit type, its easy enough to do it by ranged vs melee as well, and in case of the archer/MI/SF situations makes more sense.
To summarize: I'm all for modifiers by terrain and unit type; I just think that the archer modifiers should be extended to all ranged units, not just archers.
Although, damage already scales with range.
Oh, I didn't know this. Cool. Effectiveness decreases with farther range? (Guess my suggestion is pointless, then. Ah, well.)
