Using artillery

[Footie Mad]

Allright i read the last part of your question now, no I don't use them alone. The game is created so that each unit has a counter, therefore you should put combined arms together in a stack.

[Shaka II]

Originally posted by Francis Xavier
Siege weapons are probably the best overall units in the game for land-based armies, as opposed to Civ3 were they were totally useless. An attack against an enemies forces condensed in a stack, whether they are defending or attacking with a couple siege weapons significantly weakens their power, especially if they're mired in your territory and can't heal easily.

Yes, this is a great improvement. Catapults were pretty useless in Civ 3. Now, we really need them, and its fun, as it should be.

There's a bit of a learning curve with Civ 4, but it's all falling into place. A bit like riding a bicycle, you never forget how, but with a new bike, you have to learn how the gears shift, stuff like that.

[tekbj]

I don't quite like the idea of the siege weapon in Civ4. I think it should have the functions of what artilleries have in Alpha Centauri. It should allow catapult, cannons and artillery to attack a city or a stack of units without risking damage, after all that was the idea of artillery, right?

To make it realistic, catapult's range is only to the adjacent square, cannon 2 squares and artillery 3 sqaures away.

I don't see any advantage of hauling your siege units at 1 square per turn only to be destroyed at a blink of an eye. For that matter, I only concentrate on using bombers and fighters.

[Mayfield]

Originally posted by tekbj
I don't quite like the idea of the siege weapon in Civ4. I think it should have the functions of what artilleries have in Alpha Centauri. It should allow catapult, cannons and artillery to attack a city or a stack of units without risking damage, after all that was the idea of artillery, right?

If this would happen then the player would just make stacks of arty and bombard the enemy until there was no risk to attack them. At least when you have to "attack" with the artillery unit to bombard and cause collateral damage there is risk involved.

[Meatlord]

I have found stacks of artillery with city raid and increased collateral damage are the ultimate war machines. I have won wars with exclusively seige units on the attack, with a few defensive units to help with counterattacks. In general you need less than the 2:1 ratio needed in general to take a city with comparable tech and units. Try it you will like it.

[MVP]

In one game, I had two smallish stacks parked right outside of the capitol city of an opponent. Bombarding with a catapault a couple of times encouraged the AI to actually *attack* my stacks which worked out GREAT. I got the defensive bonus and he actually used a "fortifyable" unit to attack, further reducing the city's defensive bonus.

This just highlights the major advantages associated with mixed stacks. One guy with a medic promotion and one really stellar defender (with extra first strike promotions) meant that my knights were able to stay pretty healthy for my attack round.

For a really well defended city, maybe this means using 4 or 5 short stacks that each include at least a good defensive unit and a seige unit with the attackers.

Depending on the era, you have to believe that 4 catapault/cannon/artillery units will inflict massive damage on even the best defended city. Once you have that kind of troop mass around the city, the AI is even more tempted to give up his defensive bonus to attack you: partly because he sees the devasatation about to be rained down upon him, and party because you are impairing his city by occupying numerous squares.

[khumak]

I use artillery almost exclusively for reducing city defenses except during brief time periods where they have high enough strength to actually survive a direct attack for collateral damage. Artillery becomes totally obsolete once you get bombers. At about that point you'll be facing defenders strong enough to almost always destroy your artillery if you attack with them. On top of that they have a crappy movement rate of 1.

As soon as I get fighters and/or bombers I scrap my artillery and use nothing but air power to reduce city defenses. You can give your tanks collateral damage upgrades but IMO you're better off focusing on city attack, strength upgrades, and extra first strikes. Let your bombers and fighters soften the city up with collateral damage. That way your tanks with beefed up city attack, first strikes, etc can usually take enemy cities with minimal damage.

The beauty of air power when assaulting enemy cities is that they're so much more mobile than your ground forces that you can have every city you plan on attacking prepped by having it's city defenses reduced to zero and all defending units reduced to about 50% strength by the time your tanks are in position to attack.

I usually wind up building a relatively small number of tanks that serve as my rolling wave of death. They wind up doing almost all the fighting for me so they get a ridiculous number of upgrades. The majority of units I build are mechanized infantry which follow along behind and garrison each city.

[tekbj]

Originally posted by Mayfield


If this would happen then the player would just make stacks of arty and bombard the enemy until there was no risk to attack them. At least when you have to "attack" with the artillery unit to bombard and cause collateral damage there is risk involved.

Perhaps you're right. But I still think that the way artillery is used in this game does not reflect the way military leaders deploy artillery. The quote in the game when you developed artillery science, "Artillery adds dignity to what otherwise a vulgar brawl" I think this suggests that in all fighting, infantry or cavalry risks being killed in assault but not artillery. You don't need to be in risk (unless u include malfunction of artillery) of getting killed.

Look at most artillery usage in the world, most of the time they're left as far away from the battlefield as possible and it is often the case where the defenders cannot get them.

But enough about comparing with the real world, let's get back here. You said to build stacks of Arty and it would be without risk, then what about building fleets of bombers? Doesn't that mean the same thing?

[Footie Mad]

No it does not because there is always a risk of bombers being intercepted by SAM infantry or enemy fighters. Either failing in their mission and getting damaged or being shot down.

[Bobby Chicken]

If you become more peaceful you could just forget war altogether... I never build artillery.

[Jaybe]

Regarding Civ4 artillery and reality:
I have come to conclude that seige units represent not only the actual catapults/guns, but also expertise, support, and ordinance. Those extras have a tendency to be consumed in prodigious amounts in battle.

Artillery defensive fire must be done in your own turn, so it is important to have them pre-placed (unless roads can be used), and then might only be useful against stacks of slow-movers.

[khumak]

Originally posted by Footie Mad
No it does not because there is always a risk of bombers being intercepted by SAM infantry or enemy fighters. Either failing in their mission and getting damaged or being shot down.

I've had lots of my bombers intercepted and damaged but never shot down. How often does that happen?