AU mod: Balancing Ground Unit Bombardment

[alexman]

The game mechanics for city bombardment by ground units have changed in C3C. After any walls are destroyed, ground bombard units now target city improvements and population only after all defending units in the city have been reduced to one hit point each. In previous versions of Civ3, ground bombard units had a chance to hit either population, or improvements, or units, so defending units were more protected from the siege, even in a city with no improvements and population of 1. On the other hand, city improvements and population were more vulnerable.

Some argue that the C3C change in game mechanics makes ground bombard units more powerful, but the AI does not use such units in sufficient numbers to be effective. They claim that artillery provides an even more unfair advantage to the human player.

Others argue that the change makes bombardment worthwhile, but not overpowered. Units may be targeted more often, but the fact that barracks are harder to destroy, and cities are harder to reduce to towns, makes up for some of the defending units’ added vulnerability.

What do you think? Does ground bombardment need a change? Does the new bombardment add just the right value to slow-movers, so that a Cavalry or Armor blitz is not always the best approach? Does the change make artillery so powerful that the idea of putting fast ground units at risk seems silly when you can just use your artillery stack to slowly-but-surely conquer the AI with minimum losses? If so, what is the solution for the AU mod?

[Dominae]

The new bombardment rules definitely make Catapults and such more powerful. Before C3C, it was generally agreed that bombardment was too good against the AI. So there's even more of a problem now.

The main culprit is Artillery. With Railroads, they're just too good. An increase in Shield cost and a reduction in Bombard value (or both) is in order.

I'm not really sure about the other ground bombardment units. Perhaps we could do a "Power of Bombardment" course (either officail or semi-official or unofficial, whatever)?


Dominae

[Risa]

Please, DO NOT change the artillery!

With scarcer strategic resources in C3C, it's important to have the ability to wage war in lack of resources, which is more common now. Otherwise, if you don't have horse or saltpeter, you are unlikely to win a war from late middle age to the end of industial era; if you don't have oil, you can do nothing once enemies have infantry.

If artillery as it is now were so unbalancing, I suggest move it to deeper tech (Steel or Atomic Theory or Eletronics), rather than nerfing it.

[alexman]

Originally posted by Dominae
The main culprit is Artillery. With Railroads, they're just too good. An increase in Shield cost and a reduction in Bombard value (or both) is in order.

How about a reduction in range? This would effectively reduce their movement, as you would have to spend an extra turn getting them adjacent to the enemy city, even with railroads.

[Dominae]

Artillery is special because it's the first 2-range ground bombard unit (that's it's defining trait), just like Cavalry is the first standard 3-move ground attacker. Still, it does appear to be a good fix. I'll remain on the fence about this for now.

Any thoughts on how to "balance" Catapults, Trebuchets and Cannons?


Dominae

[MrWhereItsAt]

Cat IMO are not overpowered, because they come when there are not so many high-shield cities around. You can have only a few cities build arty and they can whoop any enemy. It takes a far greater time and a more significant investment of resources to build an effective amount of Cats at that time of the game.
Trebs and Cannons (especially Trebs) seem to be in need of a little balancing.

However, only Arty NEEDS any changes to it, again IMO. We must keep it as a n option open to those without resources however, as we don't want the game to be TOO dependent on what you start with...

[alexman]

My opinion: let's leave ground bombardment units alone for the first version of the AU mod. We don't have enough experience with the game yet to make a good decision.

If after one or two AU courses we see that there is a problem, we will revisit this issue.

[Catt]

Originally posted by alexman
My opinion: let's leave ground bombardment units alone for the first version of the AU mod. We don't have enough experience with the game yet to make a good decision.

If after one or two AU courses we see that there is a problem, we will revisit this issue.

That would be my favored approach, too.

Catt

[Theseus]

Agreed.

[MrWhereItsAt]

Fair enough.

Any convincing arguments why to change?

[MoonWolf]

I'd say they should stay as they are. If you want to conquer a city you don't tell your soldiers "Aim for that bank! We must be sure not to hit the emeny units!"

Maybe it's an exploit but the AI cheats anyway...

[Nor Me]

I'll agree with the consensus but doubt that conquests has any surprises in store on the subjuct.

[lockstep]

Re: AU mod: Balancing Ground Unit Bombardment

Originally posted by alexman
What do you think? Does ground bombardment need a change? Does the new bombardment add just the right value to slow-movers, so that a Cavalry or Armor blitz is not always the best approach? Does the change make artillery so powerful that the idea of putting fast ground units at risk seems silly when you can just use your artillery stack to slowly-but-surely conquer the AI with minimum losses? If so, what is the solution for the AU mod?

My opinion: let's leave ground bombardment units alone for the first version of the AU mod. We don't have enough experience with the game yet to make a good decision.

Perusing the AU mod v1.17 (PtW) readme, I rediscovered the following:

Originally posted by alexman

Action:  Increased cost of Cannon and Hwach'a by 20, and their ROF by 1
Reason:  To balance this unit compared to other ground bombard units.
Comment: Under the standard rules, catapults are always more cost-
         effective than cannons. With this change, cannons are more 
         cost-effective when bombarding a defender of strength 8 and 
         above. Increased cost and ROF means that you need less units
         to do the same amount of damage (less micromanagement).

Question: Doesn't the reasoning for this Cannon/Hwach'a modification hold good in C3C (the substantial changes in ground bombardment notwithstanding)? Okay, Trebuchets have been inserted between Catapults and Cannons, and the Hwach'a now has lethal bombardment instead of +50% bombard strength, but it seems to me this v1.17 change is still a good one.

Isn't this something that can/should be carried over to the C3C version of the AU mod?

[Risa]

Yes, it seems a good change.

[alexman]

If we make that change to the Cannon, we should also do something similar about the Trebuchet, which is always less cost-effective (expected damage per shield) than the Catapult.

With a cost of 25, (or cost 50 and ROF=2) Trebuchets would be more cost-effective than Catapults when bombarding a defender of strength 6 and above.

Alternatively, since ground bombardment units are stronger in C3C, we could weaken the Catapult and Trebuchet and leave the Cannon alone.