Apolyton Civ4 PREVIEW (By Solver) - Part 1 online

[notyoueither]

Resources are veering off into lands that I am not sure are public yet. I have to decline to comment, other than saying that there is a rich trading game to be had.

[The_Aussie_Lurker]

Well, that makes a nice segue into my next question for Solver. Can I assume that one of your upcoming previews will deal with trade and resources (and how they link into diplomacy)? I for one am keen to find out how trade routes are formed, and what determines their underlying value.

Yours,
Aussie_Lurker.

[Ennet]

Originally posted by The_Aussie_Lurker
Hmmmm, maybe I am simply missing something important-but I do feel vagualy underwhelmed by siege weapons in Civ4.

I trust the designers and test team on this one, if anything siege weapons seem almost too overwhelming too me. If you wouldn't risk loosing the siegeweapons when bombarding, a bunch of siege equipment could take down any army in the game with that collateral damage.. =)

There must be a price

[Freddz]

Originally posted by Ennet


I trust the designers and test team on this one, if anything siege weapons seem almost too overwhelming too me. If you wouldn't risk loosing the siegeweapons when bombarding, a bunch of siege equipment could take down any army in the game with that collateral damage.. =)

There must be a price

I agree. But in realistic terms it sounds a bit silly. Wish there was another solution. But then again, after playing the game I might think this actually is the most fun and interesting solution in regard to tactics.

[Ennet]

Originally posted by Lorizael
It depends on what the goal of the combat is, really. We don't know, because there is no context here, if the artillery will be needed later. For example, if I'm on the defensive here, trying to protect a city, I'd much rather keep the siege weapons alive throughout the offensive, to ensure the survival of my city. I'm not really going to care if my units level or not.

Well, I think I would do like NYE, I take it siege weapons are more for softening up defences rather than killing them off. (Question to beta team: Can siegeweapons even kill? Not the defening unit, but the rest of the stack, with their collateral damage.)
If four units are defending a square and you are going to attack it, if you attack it with the siege equipment first it will most probably die, but will deal damage to all defenders (probably), whereas otherwise they would only deal collateral damage to the remaining survivers.
Also on promotions, veteran units will be more likely to win battles, so i think you should care if they level or not. (my conclusion)

[alva]

(Question to beta team: Can siegeweapons even kill? Not the defening unit, but the rest of the stack, with their collateral damage.)

Don't think so as there is no lethal bombardement (didn't Solver mention this somewhere?).

[Ennet]

then sending in you siege equipment last certainly is no good idea

[The_Aussie_Lurker]

For me, I think the balancing factor is this:
If you have a stack which is siege-weapon heavy, then once the first round of collateral damage is done, these siege units are gonna get hacked to pieces (because they are not very good in a toe-to-toe fight). So, if you have a stack of 6 units, you might have 2-or at most 3-siege weapons, just to soften someone up a bit before the attack using first strike capability. As I said, though, this is just how I see it, but perhaps I need to see how the whole thing works in-game before I make a final judgement!

Yours,
Aussie_Lurker.

[conmcb25]

I seriously doubt if seige units can kill.

I remember reading somewhere that they wanted to get away from a SoD full of arty being essentially invulnerable.

[Freddz]

I think the collateral damage can't kill, tho I would like it very much if siege collateral damage could kill.

[Ennet]

Originally posted by conmcb25
I seriously doubt if seige units can kill.

I remember reading somewhere that they wanted to get away from a SoD full of arty being essentially invulnerable.

They must be able to kill, as they'll battle when they bombar or they would get killed no matter what they were up against. But i do doubt the collateral damage is mortal no. That would imbalance artillery way too much

[kolpo]

If artillery doesn't survice most attacks shall gaining levels with them be hard. Some of the possible artillery promotions seem really good(like the +% collateral damage line). So people would maybe "train" there artillery on backwards civilizations or barbarians.

The bonus from the aggressive trait doesn't include artillery so artillery with many promotions shall be rare(but powerfull).

[Lorizael]

Originally posted by Ennet


Well, I think I would do like NYE, I take it siege weapons are more for softening up defences rather than killing them off. (Question to beta team: Can siegeweapons even kill? Not the defening unit, but the rest of the stack, with their collateral damage.)
If four units are defending a square and you are going to attack it, if you attack it with the siege equipment first it will most probably die, but will deal damage to all defenders (probably), whereas otherwise they would only deal collateral damage to the remaining survivers.
Also on promotions, veteran units will be more likely to win battles, so i think you should care if they level or not. (my conclusion)

I didn't want to send the artillery in first. I want to send them in second. It seems that an enemy stack is going to have different types of units in it. Some of these units will be better on the defense.

If you attack with your siege weapons first, certainly you will soften up the stack, but the powerful defensive units will certainly kill off the siege weapons. It seems like a waste to throw them away so easily, considering that they too can level up.

I think it might not be a bad idea to send in your elite troops first to take out the elite defensive troopers the opponent has. That way those troops win and level up. Then your artillery attack, soften weaker units up, don't die in the ensuing combat, and level up. Then your more basic troops attack in an attempt to finish off the opponent. Hopefully, they too do not die and are able to level up.

This strategy here could be totally wrong. But it seems reasonable. Also, I would think that this strategy would only be effective if indeed the AI is making use of combined arms stacks.

[sophist]

Is the order of battle something you necessarily even need to think about? I mean, if you want to speculate, sure, that's fine, but didn't they say stuff about how moving a stack to attack would automatically choose the best unit to attack at any given stage and cycle progressively through the next best based on terrain, defenses, opposition, etc.? So worrying about this may be moot.

[Lorizael]

That's only on defense. Stacked combat does not exist. You choose which units you attack with.