Trebuchets overpowered?

[dregor]

The problem, as has already been said, is that most human players probably won't leave trebuchets running around undefended, so attacking them in the field is a problem.

I just finished a game, standard size map + 1 extra civ, pangea, noble (my warmongering skills are terrible so I drop down from prince when I want to try a fighting game). So granted the difficulty is low, but I still walked all over the computer with trebuchets against longbowmen for the most part, tho they were also going through musketmen, knights, cavalry, macemen very well. I was getting level 6+ trebs, and I've never gotten any other siege past level 3 I don't think. Normally when I attack with siege units I do so under the assumption that I'll likely lose the unit unless the withdrawl blessedly works, and just sacrifice it for the collateral damage to soften up a stack. I was treating Trebuchets like normal units, and they just get more and more effective as the fight goes because of the collateral damage. So even if you happen to lose the first one of the attack (rare case for me) your subsequent ones just have a higher chance of succeeding anyways.

Now I'm not the most skilled or intelligent player, but if, in the hands of someone like me, they can be a brutal unit that makes taking cities with fairly large stacks of defenders a breeze, I'm afraid of what the really skilled players can do with them.

[Saurus]

Re: Trebuchets overpowered?

Originally posted by Mergle
Saw this thread at Civfanatics:

http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=179459

I'm not one to comment on a balance issue without playing, but thought I'd ask those who have Warlords: does the OP have a point?

The key question seems to be SP. There seems to be consensus that Trebuchets can be taken down in the open, but does that AI do this? Or does it just sit in its cities to be wiped out?

Well, I think this is a problem but in fact the core of the problem is nothing new.
This has been a problem ever since the release of Civ4.
The problem lies in the game mechanics: Make a large enough attacking stack, mix it with different kind of units, have at least one or two units with the "healing" capability and always move through forests and hills and your stack will never die. The Trebuchets only makes the problem more severe as it futhers strenghtens the attackers position.

There is no counters against large stacks during late middle age (catapults are innefective against those) and to make the Trebuchets to pop up just during this period gives an astounishing advantage to the attacker. Then again, maybe the game simply has deliberately been designed in the way that the attacker should have a chrusing advantage during that specific period of time. Personally, I hate it. (but overall I still love Civ4 very much )

[OzWiz]

A little off-topic but ...

... the combat percentages for the trebuchet have me a little confused, so in the world builder I created a new enemy (Russian) city with an archer in it being threatened by a trebuchet (both unpromoted).

As you can see in the image the ALT-mousover gives a 4.00 (trebuchet) vs 2.00 (archer) despite the bonuses being listed correctly.

Can anyone explain what's going on please ?



*** Edit: Apologies folks. I now know the net modifiers reduce the defenders' strength (except promotions).

[Thedrin]

Not quite. Percenage bonuses cancel each other out and then the unit with a remaining bonus gets the bonus applied to it. In the above case the trebuchets +100% and the archers +50% are reduced to +50% for the trebuchet and 0% for the archer. This puts their strengths at 6 and 3 respectively which is the same as 4 and 2.

If all promotions were applied to the defender then axemen would beat praetorians in the open field. The axemans +50% bonus becoming a -50% penalty to the praetorian changing their strengths from 5 vs. 8 to 5 vs. 4. This does not happen. Their actual quoted strengths when the axeman attacks are 5 and 5.33. This produces the same result as 7.5 and 8. The attackers gets its bonus applied to itself.

[OzWiz]

Thedrin, in your example an axeman @ strength 5 (+50%) vs pretorian @ 8 : gives a net 50% so it;s a 5 vs 8/1.5 = 5 vs 5.33.

I think that's how it goes but I'm not sure about how promtions modify strengths yet. I'll keep going through the forums.


*** Edit: I found the 'Combat explained' thread over at civfanatics to be helpful. Seems generic modifiers (basically Combat promotions etc) are applied to the attacker while all other modifiers are applied to the defender (as in Thedrin's example where the axeman bonus is specifically against melee units).

[Thedrin]

an axeman @ strength 5 (+50%) vs pretorian @ 8 : gives a net 50% so it;s a 5 vs 8/1.5 = 5 vs 5.33.

Thanks, though dividing 8 by 1.5 gives the same result as multiplying 5 by 1.5.

[Diadem]

I don't think Trebs are that overpowered. By the time you have trebs you have longbows, crossbows, macemen and knights as well.

A fortified longbowman defeats a trebuchet. When both gain levels the longbowman actually increases in strength compared to the treb. Of course, trebs do collateral damage. So with a few you can take out a city. Obviously. That's the idea of siege units.

The problem is not that trebs are overpowered. The problem is that longbowman were overpowered. Trebs were introduced to fix this. Now attack is a viable option. That's good.

[Rancidlunchmeat]

Yeah... I'm again going to have to say WTF?

Who is it that is complaining? People who are defending their cities with archers and are upset that Trebs can wipe them out?

That's supposed to happen.

Or are you upset that your Trebs can wipe out the AI cities that are defended by archers? Play on a higher difficulty level!

I think alot of the complaints like this are due to the fact that people aren't playing on a difficultly level that is in accordance to their skill.

If your Trebs are making the game too easy, then you need to move up in difficulty level. If your getting killed by the AI trebs, then you either need to move down a difficulty level or learn how to play better.

By the time Trebs are readily and widely available, you should have a number of options to counter them. Playing turtle inside a city should always be a last resort. You want to take out attackers before they get inside your borders, or immediately after they do.

If you don't have enough force to take out an enemy stack while they run through your city radius, then you haven't spent enough time building up your army.

My cities always have 1) defenders and 2) attackers.

I mean... really... Where the hell is the rest of your army if you have to wait for the trebs to attack your city?

[trev]

I use trebs a bit, but not all that much, I often still build cats when trebs become available as cats are much more useful in the open than trebs, and it is in the open where I prefer to try to take the AI on, at least till their main forces are desroyed. My main use of trebs is to more quickly bombard city defences, but yes I will use them to take out defenders as well, but I will usually have macemen for that role, or maybe grenadiers upgraded from maces with CR attack. Certainly I do not believe the trebuchets are overpowered because they are relatively expensive to build and very vulnerable on the defence.

[Dis]

I don't defend my cities with archers. I defend them with modern units. Trebs can take out cities defended with rifleman.

They aren't overpowerd. It's just the AI will built 10 or 15 of them and launch them at your city. There is no hope of defending against that.

Taking them out in the open field is the way. the problem I face is when their cultural boundaries go right up to my city and they attack in 1 turn. It's a hopeless situation.

in summary. It's impossible to defend a city against trebuchets. I had better luck abandoning the city, then retaking it.

[Diadem]

Cities that border hostile land are almost impossible to defend anyway. It's just too easy to attack 'em.

But even such a city can be defended. Get a good mix of defenders. Get your culture up to at least 40% def bonus, 60% is better. Get walls, castles, etc. This will force attackers to spend at least 1 turn bombarding defences. Gives you one turn

Use that turn to whipe the attacking trebs

[Dis]

the mix of defenders is good too. Too often I rely soley on one type of defender. But It's nice to have macemen and pikemen to back up those longbowmen. Or in later years have grenadiers back up the riflemen. This works well since the ai likes to use rifelmen to attack cities after the 15 trebs do their stuff.

I just think it's annoying being attacked with 15 trebuchets. I'm banging on the keyboard when this happens and wonder when will it all end.

[foudres]

Did you even noticed than all siege unit do similar things ???

When you go against any city with 15 trebuchet (and a bunch of other unit to protect them you'll be able to take the city)

But did you thinked that a catapult stack would do lot of damage too, will resist a little better and will be produced for less hammer ?

Trebuchet are more effective... Hey that's what intended.

When you wanted to capture a city before you had to first go near the city, then destroy cultural/wall defence do some collateral damage... And now you had good chance of taking the city...

The thing it that a good defencive player will not let you go up to that. When you stack approach, it will send you first a bunch of siege unit to weaken your forces and then finish them with odds > 90%.

Now the fact is that siege unit do not take collateral damage so a defender can't anymore use it's siege unit to counter other siege unit.

If you think about it a trebuchet will not be a problem to defend against even he is immune to collateral damage. You weaken the others unit and just destroy the trebuchet with some knights.... Hey even an axeman have great chance of winning again a trebuchet !!!!

Now just see canons or artillery. Their base strength is good and with no hope to weaken then, you destroy a stack of them will be far more difficult and will cost you far more unit. But if it's the canons or artillery that attack first, whatever you send except a stack of siege unit will be destroyed in no time in the open fied... or in a city... it doesn't matter.

A trebuchet is like an earlier cannon or artillery... but that is effective ONLY again city and can't defend itself.

[foudres]

Also for the sake of reality...

Siege weapons should do colateral damage... should weaken defending unit... But should not take any damage from defending unit. If a unit want to destroy a trebuchet (or whaever long ranged unit) they have to first go out from their city, literaly kill all other defending unit and then detroy the siege weapon... That is for sure something more accurate.

The main way to destroy siege unit is in fact to use siege unit again it and/or wait for the night and put fire on them when everybody is sleeping.

How a defender maceman for exemple should be able to deal any damage to a trebuchet that is far away ???

On the same sort of thing, any city with wall should suffer no damage at all from any attacking standard unit. Beeing it cavalery agains simple archer. The wall protecting them the cavalery will not be able to enter and will just either wait or be killed by a some arrow. Siege weapon are just needed to attack a city but where so effective in the end that no city now have working wall because it is so useless ans can be destroyed in no time by any basic siege weapon.

But all of that would make the game much more unbalanced.