That stack of doom ...

[Shaka II]

Thats's a great idea. Maybe for the expansion, this can be changed.

[couerdelion]

I think the biggest problem is that cannon come along too late and too close to artillery. Trebuchets, are not really much more than big catapults and I can see know technological reason why they would not appear at the same time as the former. If anything, a treb might be a UU but not a unit in its own right.

Bear in mind also that once you get to grenadiers, your mixed stacks become somewhat obsolete since there isn’t anything to counter a grenadier apart from another grenadier. Your pikes might have uses because of cavalry but once grenadiers come along, macemen, crossbows, war elephants and knights are all weak units.

Cannon, like guns were one of those weapons that evolved over quite a long period and those used up until the time of artillery were far superior to the earliest forms. I think the other problem with all siege engines is that the earlier forms were simply that and were designed primarily for breaking defences of cities. What changed with cannon was the practical use of the weapon on the battlefield to break up and destroy closely formed units.

[Quillan]

I agree with the need for an intermediate artillery unit between catapults and cannons. Trebuchets sound about right. It's been suggested here before that it should be about a strength of 8. Since cats become available with Construction, I think Trebs should become available with Engineering.

[couerdelion]

Originally posted by Quillan
I agree with the need for an intermediate artillery unit between catapults and cannons. Trebuchets sound about right. It's been suggested here before that it should be about a strength of 8. Since cats become available with Construction, I think Trebs should become available with Engineering.

If you have a siege weapon of strength 8 available with engineering, I rather think this would completely unbalance the medieaval/renaissance game.

Even the half-wit AI would be able to build enough trebs to simply wipe-out your armies once they stepped over the borders. The defender would be undisputed king, not because of cultural bonuses to city defence but because their road network would make stacks to vulnerable and your own trebuchets would never get within a mile of their cities to break down their defences.

[Blake]

Yeah... although realistically there should be an in between siege unit, I do rather like the current balance. The grenadier and cavalry are the first truly dominating units that simply outmatch all earlier units, and the cannon comes slightly after them.

The problem with an 8 str siege unit is it would outmatch everything, especially on city siege, it'd just destroy everything that tries to defend a city. City Raider 2 treb would have better than even odds against nearly everything except musketmen, and including mustetmen after the first volley and collateral damage takes effect.

The flow of the game goes like this:
Ultra Early: Non-siege rules: axes and horsemen.
Early: Catapults reign supreme.
Early-Middle: Non-siege again rules supreme, macemen and knights do the actual attacking.
Middle: Cannons reign supreme, albeit strong escorts are needed.
Middle-late: Artillery reigns supreme, no escorts needed. (if you get it early enough)
Late: War by machines, it's all about airpower (more bombarding) and tanks.


I'm kind of fond of that period when siege is primarly support. I don't think the game would be enhanced by the entire era from axemen to airpower being one long siege-fest.

That said, for the sake of realism, maybe the treb could come with some restrictions. Like perhaps str 6 with a 25% bonus when attacking cities, no retreat chance. That would be fairly balanced, rather like the Cho-Ko-Nu really, which isn't really a dominating unit.

[couerdelion]

Originally posted by Blake
The flow of the game goes like this:
Ultra Early: Non-siege rules: axes and horsemen.
Early: Catapults reign supreme.
Early-Middle: Non-siege again rules supreme, macemen and knights do the actual attacking.
Middle: Cannons reign supreme, albeit strong escorts are needed.
Middle-late: Artillery reigns supreme, no escorts needed. (if you get it early enough)
Late: War by machines, it's all about airpower (more bombarding) and tanks.

I would also suggest that another important aspect of medieaval units are for mixed forces which make stacks more awkward to deal with. A few small stacks with CB, Pike, Mace, WE + Cats turning up at the wrong time and place can make life very interesting for the defender. Perhaps also a Knight

I think you also missed out on the Grenadiers/Cats. With Macemen and Knights a balance force defender should have the advantage so the cats are still needed for collateral damage

[Shaka II]

Originally posted by Quillan
I agree with the need for an intermediate artillery unit between catapults and cannons. Trebuchets sound about right. It's been suggested here before that it should be about a strength of 8. Since cats become available with Construction, I think Trebs should become available with Engineering.

I agree with you Quillan. Here's why:

Ancient Era (Bronze Working):
Attack units Axemen (5), Chariots (4)
Defense units: Archers (3 + 50% for city defense = 4.5), Spearmen (4 + 100% vs. mounted = 8)
- Good balance (stronger defense)

Early Classical Era (Iron Working):
Attack units Swordsmen (6), Horse Archers (6)
Defense units: Archers (3 + 50% for city defense = 4.5), Spearmen (4 + 100% vs. mounted = 8)
- Good balance

Late Classical Era (Construction):
Attack units: Swordsmen (6), Horse archers (6 + 50% vs. Cats = 9), Catapults (5)
Defense units: Archers (3 + 50% for city defense = 4.5), spearmen (4 + 100% vs. mounted = 8), Catapults (5)
- Good balance (cats strong)

Early Medieval Age (Feudalism):
Attack units: Macemen (8), Horse Archers (6 + 50% vs. Cats = 9), Catapults (5)
Defense units: Crossbows (6 + 50% vs. melee = 9), Longbows (6 + 25% for city defense = 7.5), Spearmen (4 + 100% vs. mounted = 8), catapults (5)
- Good balance (good balance)

Middle Medieval Age (Engineering/Guilds):
Attack units: Knights (10), Macemen (6), Catapults (5)
Defense units: Crossbows (6 + 50% vs. melee = 9), Longbows (6 + 25% for city defense = 7.5), Pikemen (6 + 100% vs. mounted = 12), Catapults (5)
- Cats weak

Mid Renaissance Era (Chemistry):
Attack units: Knights (10), Grenadiers (12), Catapults (6)
Defense units: Muskets (9), Grenadiers (12) Longbows (6 + 25% for city defense = 7.5), Pikemen (6 + 100% vs. mounted = 12), Catapults (5)
- Cats very weak

Industrial Era (Steel):
Attack units: Knights (10), Grenadiers (12), Cannon (12)
Defense units: Grenadiers (12), Pikemen (6 + 100% vs. mounted = 12), Cannon (12)
- Cannons very strong (no defense bonus)

That's part of it. The other part is the time span between constructiom and steel is tremendous. Splitting the time span in two puts you at engineering. Splitting the strength in two (arithmetic mean) gives a strength of 8.5, while geometric mean gives a strength of 7.75.

I think trebuchet strength = 8 is the right number. It balances the macemen (8), longbow (7.5 with city defense) in the same way that catapults (5) balance swordsmen (6), archers (4.5 with city defense), while having a counter horse archers (6 + 50% = 9).

Engineering is the right technology to allow trebuchets. They were mechanically more complicated. One may argue that engineering existed back to and preceding the Romans, but a more advanced level of engineering was required to make medieval siege weaponry, so it seems appropriate to have engineering be the enabling advance.

Fine tuning is easily achieved by adjusting trebuchet cost, strength, collateral damage, counter strength, withdrawal percentage, and engineering research time. I.e., there are many ways to tweak the unit for balance.

Another way to look at is the catapult and cannon strength to cost ratio. The catapult strength to cost ratio is 6/40 hammers, while the cannon strengh to cost ratio is 12/100 hammers. I think the trebuchet strength to cost ratio should be about 8/70.

Edited to correct cat strength (5 not 6).

[snafuc4]

I find it odd that during this (& other) discussion(s) of early seige weapons the trebuchet has had high priority, whilst the mortar and/or bombard have had none - neither have sappers.

Look at it this way: a trebuchet is basically a glorified catapult with an extended range & high trajectory. Once set up they're effectively immobile - the operators may run away but the machine stays where it is - no retreat chance

A bombard is an early gunpowder-era weapon with a short barrel. Its use is mainly for decimating attacking charges, as its range & accuracy falls rapidly. Not very mobile, as they're /very/ big & heavy. Retreat chance - slightly better than trebuchet

A mortar is a high-trajectory early-to-mid gunpowder-era weapon, mainly used for bombarding defenses from afar (as its accuracy cannot be relied upon). Due to the range involved they can be considered mobile - standard retreat chance (no bonuses)

For the purposes of comparison a cannon would be a low-trajectory weapon with a longer barrel, aiding in accuracy & gaining points in (say) pounding city gates or other weak spots.. up until the introduction of explosive ammunition, which would be better used in the above cases. Highly mobile (+25% retreat chance) & very valued (think US civil war, Mexican civil war films). Yes they /were/ used against armies, but mostly because they were there (maneuverability) & there wasn't anything better to use (bombards were too heavy to keep up with modern warfare, & lacked the range)

AFAICT most people here are thinking of 'cannon' as the typical ship gun - not very mobile (where would it go?), very heavy & not really maneuverable. These (ship guns) are more like bombards in my above thoughts

Anyway, most European castles in the Dark to Middle Ages fell to seige (starvation) or to sappers - effectively, miners/engineers who tunnelled beneath strategic foundations to bring walls down or (latterly) blow them up

Top-of-head thinking here - I'm a bit muzzed ATM..

[uberfish]

Trebuchets are cool and making them a str 8 unit linked with engineering makes a lot of sense, but I really wouldn't want to see them attacking units in the field. I'd rather see a bombard available at Gunpowder making that tech a bit more attractive to research in its own right rather than being a mere stepping stone to chemistry.

Either way I think any intermediate siege unit should be strong at bombarding defences and relatively weak against units, not just for realism, but to distinguish its role from the cannon.

(I also think city raider promotions shouldn't have been allowed on siege units in the first place though. They're arguably a bit too powerful combined with their innate collateral and retreat chances and the lack of a specific counter unit.)

[Shaka II]

One reason why we need a siege unit to attack units in the field is the stack of doom problem that the thread topic addresses. Catapults have less effect on late Medieval stacks. It's a game play balance issue, rock, paper, scissors. The stack and city defense needs a counter, hence siege weapons.

As the eras change, so should the siege weaponry to maintain balance. A ratiometric system of strengths and counter strengths. The only big hole I see is the great span in time and strength between cats and cannons.

[Yosho]

Well, the good thing about the huge gap between cats and cannons is that it makes the development of cannons have a huge difference in war in the game, which it should; both because it did in real life, and because getting cannons first in the game costs you quite a bit in terms of the other techs you could be getting instead.

[fed1943]

ShakaII:axemen and macemen(like grenadiers)are attack and defense unities.So,defense is always stronger,which seems right.
Best regards,

[Saurus]

Originally posted by Shaka II
I'm not bringing my stack to your city.

To be honest, a stack of over 20 in the renaissance era is a big stack. it would give me a scare. Was that a standard or large map?

Also, it sounds like you were attacked by multiple AI's Sauron. .

In fact, the more I play, I realize this is not so.
For instance in my last game Cyrus attacked me with his imortals in a stack of 12 and on the square next to it he had another stack of 6 and a third stack of 4 units.
And this was only early classical age. On higher dificulties A.I tend to be able to build insane number of troops by the time I have barely found my third city.

[Shaka II]

Originally posted by Yosho
Well, the good thing about the huge gap between cats and cannons is that it makes the development of cannons have a huge difference in war in the game, which it should; both because it did in real life, and because getting cannons first in the game costs you quite a bit in terms of the other techs you could be getting instead.

This is a very good point. It makes an exciting gambit, for the domination player to go through the chemistry/steel path. Luckily, the AI puts a lower priority on this path, going for Nationalism and Economics. Lately, I've been taking one of Blake's suggestions, which is to take Gunpowder before Liberalism, taking Chemistry as the free tech. When you meet up with a civ who has acquired cavalry, it nullifies that advantage, until riflemen anyway.

Regarding catapults, there really isn't a problem with having them over such a long time period, it just means that you build more of them. So it takes three cats to do the job that two trebuchets might do, if the cost is the same, it's a wash. My only point is that there were advancements in siege weaponry between the classical era and the medieval era. Construction and Engineering are the two Civ techs that are tech wise and time wise appropriate to make an improvement in strength.

[Shaka II]

Originally posted by fed1943
ShakaII:axemen and macemen(like grenadiers)are attack and defense unities.So,defense is always stronger,which seems right.
Best regards,

Yes, CivIV changed the way attack and defense concepts work. Most units can be either attack or defense now. I just tend to frame things from the perspective of me on the attack. You're right, with combined arms, defense is stronger. That's why we need siege weapons, to remove the defense bonus of combined arms, by causing collateral damage.