Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Question on Seige Weapons

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Question on Seige Weapons

    In Civ 3, you can bombard a tile from a way off without endangering your own unit. In Civ 4 you can do this only to city defenses. Since the weapons are usually weaker in combat strength than their defenders, they seem to be used more for a kamikazi type tactic now. You send the weapon in, hoping for some good collateral damage, but you know you will lose it.

    Am I missing something? I don't see the value in a unit you can use just once.
    The Rook

  • #2
    You're missing that:

    i) siege units are cheap. Sacrificing a few so your real units can mop up the defenses is a good trade.
    ii) all siege units start with a decent retreat chance, meaning they don't necessarily die.
    Why can't you be a non-conformist just like everybody else?

    It's no good (from an evolutionary point of view) to have the physique of Tarzan if you have the sex drive of a philosopher. -- Michael Ruse
    The Nedaverse I can accept, but not the Berzaverse. There can only be so many alternate realities. -- Elok

    Comment


    • #3
      Yes, had a catapult withdraw from combat (after the other 6 died) and wondered what was going on.

      Got a promo out of it so when it was destroyed on its next attack I took comfort in knowing it had at least experienced the joy of battle promotion.
      If pigs could fly we'd all have to wear helmets.
      ******************************
      Please don't be envious of my little girlie brain.

      Comment


      • #4
        If you attack the city of an enemy that is fairly even with you tech-wise, you simply have no choice. You are going to lose units softening up the defenders, might as well be the cheap catapults that can soften up several at once.

        Comment


        • #5
          OK, I thought there was something I was missing. I think it was better in Civ 3, but I guess the developers see things differently.
          The Rook

          Comment


          • #6
            Once you get to the gunpowder era you can build cannons who have an attack score that is competitive against the infantry of that era.

            Personally I only use catapults against city defences but cannons and artillery are a different story.

            Comment


            • #7
              In civ3 I'd just make 6 - 10 artilery and never need another unit again beyond what i already had.
              --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
              The phaonmneal pweor of the hmuan mnid, aoccdrnig to a rscheearch at Cmabrigde Uinervtisy, it deosn't mttaer in waht oredr the ltteers in a wrod are, the olny iprmoatnt tihng is taht the frist and lsat ltteer be in the rghit pclae. The rset can be a taotl mses and you can sitll raed it wouthit a porbelm. Tihs is bcuseae the huamn mnid deos not raed ervey lteter by istlef, but the wrod as a wlohe. Amzanig huh?...So with that said: if you can not read my post because of spelling, then who is really the stupid one?...

              Comment


              • #8
                Originally posted by Rook
                OK, I thought there was something I was missing. I think it was better in Civ 3, but I guess the developers see things differently.
                They were overpowered in Civ 3. Just send in a stack, never worry about them taking damage, and reduce the opposition to nothing so your other units can just walk in to a city, or destroy a stack of doom. Then rinse and repeat with the same units you've been upgrading since Catapults. Civ 4 may not have the perfect system, yet, but it's certainly better than Civ 3.

                Comment


                • #9
                  You make a point.
                  The Rook

                  Comment

                  Working...
                  X