The trouble with siege weapons

[couerdelion]

My second small “gripe” of the day is with the whole concept of aggressive siege weaponry. The idea just sounds bizarre to me that a collection of catapults could destroy even the weakest formation of land-based troops. Collateral damage is certainly understandable but we are talking about catapults (or cannon) being moved up, set in position and used to fire at a group of soldier until the later die. In reality, the troops would see unprotected weapons and simply charge through them with a reasonable chance of capturing them.

What makes the whole thing worse is that those same siege weapons have a chance to retreat. It is more reasonable for the foot soldiers to be able to retreat than heavy siege weaponry and I would rather than the “retreat” probability were to be changed to “captured”.

Of course, the major problem is also that combat in CIV is a spectator sport in which each side places its combatants in order and they then fight in turn until either the defender runs out of combatants or that all the attackers have fought once. During each combat, the other units on each side watch on and a presiding committee of judges then rules who won the contest.

At the other end of the spectrum of the tactical element of combat, we have Art of War and where everyone fights together and you can move units around during the battle so that your knights are charging the artillery, your macemen are breaking through their infantry and your artillery and archers are just softening up the defenders.

Somewhere in-between we have Civ-CTP2 which tried to resolve the conflict as one battle. This seems to be far more realistic than the way its done in CIV. Here there were ranged and flanking units that could support the grunts. It would therefore be possible for strong units to destroy more than one defensive unit or for larger groups to simply overwhelm smaller units despite a positional or technological advantage.

[spammurabi]

This is just a case of realism vs. playability. Although it isn't the most realistic way to run combat (few things in Civ are realistic, when you think about it), it does add to the overall balance and playability to the game. I think it's acceptable, just as I think that the idea of building units with production rather than population is acceptable, and many other civ-only things.

[axisworks]

Indeed, there would be a great many things fundamentally changed in the game if it were actually fashioned to work like reality, instead of making trade-offs for the sake of gameplay. If you look at artillery, for instance, you should be able to hit units a square or two away at more advanced tech levels, but instead artillery is basically rendered obsolete by bombers.

[CerberusIV]

CTP was great for the human player as the AI never (in vanilla) understood how to create a balanced stack for teh combat system.

What does annoy me about Civ IV is the "best unit defends" concept. I know it is that way for playability but in reality the attacker decides who gets attacked, not the defender. This could be changed with a system that gives an initiative rating to each unit but that would complicate the combat system.

[rjmatsleepers]

Re: The trouble with siege weapons

Originally posted by couerdelion

Of course, the major problem is also that combat in CIV is a spectator sport in which each side places its combatants in order and they then fight in turn until either the defender runs out of combatants or that all the attackers have fought once. During each combat, the other units on each side watch on and a presiding committee of judges then rules who won the contest.

I may be misunderstanding something, but that is not how Civ IV combat works in my set up. In particular, I get choose which units to attack with and might vary the order depending on results. For example I would normally attack first with the unit that has the greatest chance of success, but if an enemy unit is very weak, I might choose to attack with a unit that has a lower chance of success, but which I would like to see gain experience. Similarly, if I want to (ie things are going badly), I can call off the attack at any time and certainly before all my units have fought once.

Have I misunderstood what the OP was saying, or do we have dfferent settings?

RJM at Sleeper's

[Edit] I've noticed that the options include something called "stack attack". I'm guessing that if I had this checked, combat would be as described by the OP. At the moment I can't see any benefit in this though. [/Edit]

[couerdelion]

Re: Re: The trouble with siege weapons

Originally posted by rjmatsleepers


I may be misunderstanding something, but that is not how Civ IV combat works in my set up. In particular, I get choose which units to attack with and might vary the order depending on results. For example I would normally attack first with the unit that has the greatest chance of success, but if an enemy unit is very weak, I might choose to attack with a unit that has a lower chance of success, but which I would like to see gain experience. Similarly, if I want to (ie things are going badly), I can call off the attack at any time and certainly before all my units have fought once.

I was speaking a little too metaphorically but you are right that the attacker has the option to select units progressively rather than at the beginning while the defender chooses the unit each time the attacker puts someone forward. Also the attacker has the option to stop at any time.

But APART from that, it’s basically a jousting tournament.

[rjmatsleepers]

Re: Re: Re: The trouble with siege weapons

Originally posted by couerdelion



But APART from that, it’s basically a jousting tournament.

RJM at Sleeper's

[Ijuin]

I think that players should be able to designate a tile defender like in SMAC. You could select a unit so that it will be "on top" of the stack and defend first even if it is not necessarily the strongest defender.

[fed1943]

T he only thing I would like (perhaps) changed in siege weapons:

A siege weapon could not bombard ( or take any action?) with a defensive siege weapon present; but,could do an artillery duel,between the two units without intervention by another unity.

Best regards,

[Jaybe]

Originally posted by fed1943
A siege weapon could not bombard (or take any action?) with a defensive siege weapon present; but, could do an artillery duel, between the two units without intervention by another unity.

A most reasonable suggestion, and one that might even be simple enough to be workable within the game.

Now: do they barrage or do they attack each other -- or can/must they do BOTH (barrage until opponent down to X%, then attack). I say this because at least WWII artillery duels were often mainly an attempt to suppress each other; not being feasible to destroy each other when without direct observation.

Also, give fighter aircraft an ability to go after siege units directly when in a stack.

[dsteve3]

under ideal circumstances,....

... in the very ancient world, a military commander has virtually no control over individual units, moving an undifferentiated mob against the enemy. The commander would virtually lose control over the whole army after the attack order.

In the somewhat-less-than-ancient world, there are some very basic unit differientiation (spear or polearm, short sword & shield, archers or horse archer), but the commander still has no control over the army once it engages. All military manuever at this point is collumn to march and line to engage, and that's it.

Though the Romans developed manipules, there is still little control over the whole army - once the line is formed, its all or nothing. In the ancient world, there's no such thing as an organized retreat.

It isn't until Napolean that we see any real tactics used by individual units after the battle begins.

In Civ, there should be an evolution of control over the army, but over-all the basic formula should be as follows:

1) Form the army - determine the make-up of the WHOLE army with different types of unit, like assault, missile, and fast support or skirmisher.

2) Move the army in columns - determine whether the army will fly at top speed, or move cautiously and defensively.

3) Engage the enemy - moving from column or camp into formation. For the vast majority of the game, that's all the control that the commander has. Once the line is formed, the enemy is engaged, and attempting to pull even a single group from the line once engaged equals rout for your whole line. Roman manipuls could pull back or move forward, but I don't think they could disengage all together.

4) If a unit on the end of the enemy line does not face an enemy directly, then the line is flanked - which means virtual doom for the line. This happens automatically, not by command. If a line is stretched to match the enemy, then its weakened. If there is a bottle-neck protecting the flanks, then the army with the numerical advantage either wears the enemy down, or attempts a flanking manuever around whatever obstacle is there. This is also automatic if ordered.

I don't know if early artillery can 'terror-bomb' a population or actually attack specific units with catapult, ballista and trebuchet, but that does seem somewhat fantastic. Seige is indirect, and it is unlikely to cause serious specific damage until the advent of gunpowder-based explosives.

I fell in love with the CTP2 idea of deploying formations in line (*sigh) - maybe someday...