A new look at Bombard units?

[Willem]

In the last game I was playing, I captured several enemy cities with just my Artillery units. My regular troops just sat back and watched as my bombard units did all the actual work. But that's not realy what bombard units are supposed to do. They're supposed to soften up the enemy while the regular troops take them out and do the actual capturing.

Now while I was looking through the unit XML file, I came across an entry called NoCapture. When I checked it, I discovered that I can prevent my bombard units from actually capturing a city. I'll still need a regular unit to go in and take it. Now that's a great start to making bombard units more realistic, but I'm thinking it's not quite enough. An Artillery can still empty a city of all defenders so that there's nothing left for my Infantry to do but waltz in afterwards.

One idea I have is to cut the actual combat damage of all bombard units in half, or less, but at the same time doubling their chance of retreating. That way the focus will be entirely on their ability to soften units up, not on their actual combat strength. On the other hand, I won't be guarenteed to lose my Catapult etc. every time it attacks. It will have a high enough chance for retreating that it will still live to fight another day. Of course it's going to win alot less battles so it's going to have a harder time getting promotions, but I can live with that.

[Jaybe]

Your basic fallacy is assuming that an artillery-type unit is composed of just artillery. For the unit to work as it does in the game, you must assume that it also has assault infantry-type components.

As a corresponding concept: In a city, tanks without abundant infantry support are vulnerable due to limited field of vision (or field of fire in narrow streets that don't allow turret traverse), getting molotov cocktails dropped on them from upper floor windows and from rooftops. Therefore, tank units in the game must include lots of infantry, transported by trucks/half-tracks/armored-personnel-carriers.

Realism-wise, when the game first came out I was considering denying the city-raider promotion to tanks and giving it to gunpowder infantry instead. Realism-wise, artillery is used much more in defense and much more effectively.

Your making artillery unable to capture cities is something I did for awhile. But unless you change AI strategies, they will still try to take cities solely with siege units.

[Willem]

Originally posted by Jaybe
Your making artillery unable to capture cities is something I did for awhile. But unless you change AI strategies, they will still try to take cities solely with siege units.

There's nothing wrong with the AI still attacking the cities with it's bombard units, that's the only way to get the collateral damage occurring afterall. Just as long as it uses some other unit to actually march in and take it. And I've never seen the AI attack with only Siege weapons, there's always been some other unit type with it.

I haven't actually tried this in game yet, it's just something I've been thinking about since I came across that No Capture line. I just figured it might make for a good discussion. It seems to me that Bombard units right now a bit too overpowered. As I mentioned, I was able to capture several cities with nothing but Artillery, which doesn't seem right to me. They're supposed to be support units, not primary assault. That's the role of Infantry or Cavalry.

Even though the current usage of bombard units is better than it was in Civ 3, that doesn't mean that they can't be improved upon.

[Dale]

In reality, artillery is an auxillery of infantry. So technically there does not exist an artillery unit in the real world.

But since when was Civ when to be the real world?

[DrSpike]

All reality based arguments are null and void.

I think the first suggestion in the OP is a good one. The second might be, but would need careful testing. I think the treatment of collateral damage is about right as it stands.

[Willem]

Originally posted by DrSpike
All reality based arguments are null and void.

I think the first suggestion in the OP is a good one. The second might be, but would need careful testing. I think the treatment of collateral damage is about right as it stands.

There's nothing wrong with the collateral damage as it is, I'd just like to see the bombard units used less as assault units and more as support, as they should be. It just doesn't seem right that I can capture a city after hitting it with a few Artillery, while my assault troops just stand by and watch.

[DrSpike]

As I said I have a great deal of sympathy with the first point from a gameplay point of view.

[Garth Vader]

Originally posted by Willem


There's nothing wrong with the collateral damage as it is, I'd just like to see the bombard units used less as assault units and more as support, as they should be. It just doesn't seem right that I can capture a city after hitting it with a few Artillery, while my assault troops just stand by and watch.

Just as tank units shouldn't be used in assaulting cities. Infantry units should be able to get CR promotions and be the assault troops, tanks should not.

But in the end combat works, so I don't worry too much about founding in reality!

[Willem]

Originally posted by Garth Vader
But in the end combat works, so I don't worry too much about founding in reality!

But it doesn't really work. Why bother building Macemen or Grenadiers when all you really need is Trebuchet/Cannon? Infantry type units are now reduced to being merely ecorts for the bombrd units while they're going across the map to their targets. But it's the bombard units who do the actual work in capturing the city, even though they're only supposed to be softening up the defenders for the regular ground forces.

[foudres]

Because except for a short period of time, siege unit are weak and suffer a lot from attacks.

I think that what would be great indeed is preventing them from taking cities and also allow them to be captured by the enemy when no other friendly unit is here to protect them

One thing that could be great is that to make a siege unit work you also need a normal unit to be there to take command of it.

Imagine you have 8 siege unit and 2 normal unit... so you can only :

your 2 normal unit
1 siege unit and one normal unit
2 normal unit.


On the other hand no unit excepted siege weapon should be allowed to make any damage to a city till wall are entirelly destroyed. Effectively all the defender as to do is just wait behind the wall because nobody can enter, nobody can really attack.

[Willem]

Originally posted by foudres
Because except for a short period of time, siege unit are weak and suffer a lot from attacks.

That's what I meant by the escort comment. They are weaker when they're attacked so you need another type of unit to defend them, but that's it as it is now. Aside from defence, infantry type units aren't really needed in the game, just build lots of bombard units.

On the other hand no unit excepted siege weapon should be allowed to make any damage to a city till wall are entirelly destroyed. Effectively all the defender as to do is just wait behind the wall because nobody can enter, nobody can really attack.

I don't know about that. Historicaly, soldiers used all sorts of methods to scale walls, they didn't necessarily need Catapults to break them down. They could use ladders, siege platforms, battering rams, even dig tunnels underneath. And from a game standpoint, it would be very limiting if you had to wait until you got Construction in order to attack walled cities.

[DrSpike]

Now now, don't let a topic worthy of discussion descend into a realism thread. Take it to the history forum.

[foudres]

Originally posted by DrSpike
Now now, don't let a topic worthy of discussion descend into a realism thread. Take it to the history forum.

I agree.

But we have seen the reality argument several times and not allways used nicely.

That's what I meant by the escort comment. They are weaker when they're attacked so you need another type of unit to defend them, but that's it as it is now. Aside from defence, infantry type units aren't really needed in the game, just build lots of bombard units.

In reality infantery is here for support or finish the job. It's not infantery that does real damage.

don't know about that. Historicaly, soldiers used all sorts of methods to scale walls, they didn't necessarily need Catapults to break them down. They could use ladders, siege platforms, battering rams, even dig tunnels underneath. And from a game standpoint, it would be very limiting if you had to wait until you got Construction in order to attack walled cities.

I think that siege platforms and batering rams are just another sort of siege weapon. So a catapult modelise them quite nicely. Ladders is so useless that the boost to protecting unit should be 400% to be accurate !!! With that sort of thing you need at least 10x more attacking unit that defending unit and even you could fail.


Also if i remember right the were cities that were literally untakable in some era simply because no siege weapon could break the wall and all attack would be defeated without the defender taking any damage.

[Dauphin]

All reality based arguments are null and void.

Unless it's so unreal that you are in fact playing a fantasy game with Orcs and Elves and the living undead.... then it really isn't civ anymore due to lack of realism.

[DrSpike]

Yeah, you need a broad structure in place. Though giving some people an inch does encourage them to take a mile.