Catapults, Cannon & Artillery

[Yosho]

Originally posted by Rook
I'm still of the opinion that siege weapons are implemented poorly in Civ 4. The suicide collateral damage attack is effective, but it's just not how seige weapons are used. You might as well paint a red circle on them and call them Kamikazis. A more realistic use would be to have them "combine" with other units as a support function. If the unit they are combined with is destroyed, then the siege weapon is destroyed with it.

Do you think it's accurate to be able to fire a catapult at a group of knights with no risk that the knights will charge in and destroy the catapult in the process? Catapults didn't have THAT long of a range....

[McRoos]

Well;

The whole thing with artillery is that they didn't look at the battlefield when creating them.

In CIVIV artillery can only bomb a city, no stack of units and that is odd.

During the time of the Roman empire and during the dark ages, cat's were used as an offensive weapon, mostly next to siege towers.

During WWII artillery was always placed behind the lines as support in battle, not as an offensive weapon.

So it must be in CIVIV.

Decrease the damage factor, but increase the the rate of survival from the artillery unit nad lett the modern units be able to be grouped behind your lines and fire upon will.

[Rook]

Originally posted by Yosho


Do you think it's accurate to be able to fire a catapult at a group of knights with no risk that the knights will charge in and destroy the catapult in the process? Catapults didn't have THAT long of a range....

The knights do have the option to attack. They could attack before the catapults fire. They could attack after the catapults fire. Catapults, Cannon & Artillery are ranged weapons, but since everything has an opportunity to attack back, what is the point of being ranged?

I think siege weapons should be handled more like aircraft are. If it is too powerful, then tone it down some.

[Ijuin]

Maybe they could bring back part of the Civ3 bombardment model where an artillery unit could knock hit points off of enemies in adjacent squares. In Civ4 terms, the artillery unit would get two First Strikes against every single unit in the target square, but would forgo the following normal combat and simply withdraw.

[Yosho]

Originally posted by Rook


The knights do have the option to attack. They could attack before the catapults fire. They could attack after the catapults fire. Catapults, Cannon & Artillery are ranged weapons, but since everything has an opportunity to attack back, what is the point of being ranged?

Well, yeah, but archers are ranged units as well. However, if you bring archers close enough to the enemy to start shooting them, you're also close enough so that the enemy could charge and kill your archers in that battle. The same is true of catapults, at least if you're close enough to fire the catapult at a mobile unit with any chance of doing any damage (as opposed to a fixed structure like a castle).

[bigvic]

they really should have included a "bombard" type unit...something in between catapult and cannon...

i mean, gunpowder cannon appeared in widespread use before widespread use of small arms gunpowder weapons, yet i almost make it to infantrymen before i can upgrade my catapults to cannon...

would be nice if they came up with some kind of auto unit animation upgrade at a certain point. i know its aesthetic nitpicking, but i still hate seeing archaic units running around late game. u know, like when most civs reach a certain point, all unit animations (of archaic units) change to something generic to represent crapulent second or third line units, but units of same era...

[Rook]

:agrees with bigwic:


Yosho, I understand what you are saying. Seige weapons shouldnt have a free attack mode like they did in Civ 3 (some with multiple square ranges).

But the current system leads to the strange tactic of building suicide weapons. Who cares if you lose your cheap catapult when it can damage every unit in a stack? That's a good trade off.

[mike2h]

two of the biggest problems i have with arty in civ4 is the no bombard of ships & not being able to 'bombard' the city & do dmg to buildings/units.these 2 functions are 2 of the biggest uses & developments of arty historically. thet had it right(basically) in civ3 & imo have crippled it in civ4.

[Willem]

Originally posted by bigvic
they really should have included a "bombard" type unit...something in between catapult and cannon...

i mean, gunpowder cannon appeared in widespread use before widespread use of small arms gunpowder weapons, yet i almost make it to infantrymen before i can upgrade my catapults to cannon...

Well we know the Trebuchet will be making it's appearance in the game. I agree, there should be some sort of early gunpowder cannon, but it's kind of pointless having too many upgrade steps.

[Willem]

Originally posted by mike2h
thet had it right(basically) in civ3 & imo have crippled it in civ4.

It was overpowered in Civ 3, that's why they've taken the current approach. You could have a stack of bombard units in Civ 3 and blast away, without them ever taking any sort of damage. This made it very easy for your assault forces to mop up. I prefer the current system over Civ 3's myself.

[mike2h]

that was only true if you did not have artillery yourself. & historically that is exactlly what happend. & still is to this day. if you want to destroy arty you either have to bomb/bombard them yourself or send somebody out there.
i know it is only a game(which i like way to much), but to get what is basically a major military unit that wrong is just not right.

[Rook]

Originally posted by Willem


It was overpowered in Civ 3, that's why they've taken the current approach. You could have a stack of bombard units in Civ 3 and blast away, without them ever taking any sort of damage. This made it very easy for your assault forces to mop up. I prefer the current system over Civ 3's myself.

Why do we have to have everything in extremes? It was too powerful in Civ 3 so they cut it completely out of Civ 4. Why not try for something in the middle?

[mike2h]

what he said!

[Mr. Lucky]

The civ3 way was overpowered only if you exploited it. If you chose not to (like the AI) it worked fine. It was changed because a vocal minority with poor impulse control couldn't resist exploiting it and complained until it was changed/truly broken.

In CIV, it ought to work very similarly to Civ3. I.e. “siege units” cannot attack directly and are auto-captured if attacked when alone. They can bombard at a 1-2 square range against a city/stack. The difference should be that if the opposing city/stack has its own “siege units”, they alone are targeted until their collateral damage maximum is met (or perhaps they are outright destroyed.

This would allow for artillery duels, which is a fairly basic feature of all indirect fire unit tactics through the ages. If your opponent brings a Civ3-style stack of artillery to your city, you pound it down with your own first. If you don’t have you own, then you sit there and get pounded.

This would have the benefit of being realistic (the unit’s are not called “rock” or “munitions”; it’s catapult or artillery) and fun from a gameplay perspective.

Perhaps someone with better kung-fu then I can use the SDK to do this or something similar.

[Willem]

Originally posted by Mr. Lucky
The civ3 way was overpowered only if you exploited it. If you chose not to (like the AI) it worked fine. It was changed because a vocal minority with poor impulse control couldn't resist exploiting it and complained until it was changed/truly broken.

Well of course people are going to use it, you'd be a fool not to. Why handicap yourself just because the AI doesn't know how to use the units to their fullest potential?

The difference should be that if the opposing city/stack has its own “siege units”, they alone are targeted until their collateral damage maximum is met (or perhaps they are outright destroyed.

That would be similar to what was used in SMAC. It did work fairly well there I have to admit. With some minor modifications, I could see using something like that in Civ 4. However the AI would have to be taught how to build and use those types of units more effectively. Even in SMAC, it never really did so. At least in Civ 4 it does use them, which is probably due to it being able to use them as a basic assault unit.