Are bombers and catapults usefull?

[Martinus Magnificus]

Do you think bombers and catapults are usefull units?
Do you actually use bombers and catapults?
What do you use them for?
Are they worth the cost?
How could these units be improved in a patch/x-pack?

I'd gladly hear your thoughts on this subject.

[Thrawn05]

Re: Are bombers and catapults usefull?

Originally posted by Martinus Magnificus
Do you think bombers and catapults are usefull units?
Do you actually use bombers and catapults?
What do you use them for?
Are they worth the cost?
How could these units be improved in a patch/x-pack?

I'd gladly hear your thoughts on this subject.

I don't think they are useful. I rather spend my shields on units that can kill, not damage. I would hope, (to make everyone happy), have a little checkbox in the editor that lets bombarding units kill units. Just a little checkbox. That's all.

Just a little... small... insignificant... pithy option.

[MonsterMan]

Artillery units are great.

Good use of artilley units means that your main attacking force stays healthier in the war. More specifically, catapults bombing a city can make the difference between your horsemen staying a healthy 4/4 or 3/4 and in the next turn they're ready to take another city, or the death of your whole force.

Artillery is much cheaper to build than attacking units; you can build two cannons in the time it takes to build just one cavalry unit. Backing up a cavalry with two cannons means you don't need as many cavalry units as you otherwise would to achieve the same objectives.

Who hasn't attacked a city only to be halted by a catapult that chops off a hit point, thus tipping the scale in favor of the city? Backing up your defenders with an artillery unit makes them much more powerful, and trust me, paying maintenance for those catapults is well worth it compared to rush-buying because you understaffed your defenses.

It's all a matter of learning how to play. Firaxis weren't silly enough to have units that lacks a purpose...

Artillery can be improved by having a unit inbetween the catapult and cannon. The catapult has the longest life-span of any unit in the game, I bet. Ballista launchers - a swarm of long sharp spears used by romans as city defenses - is one idea.

[The Andy-Man]

i think air units are better then Civ2 just cos there different. but there should be an option to hav them kill, atleast naval, not in the editor but peferences.

i dont build artilerry though. i just like having bombers cos there long distance, so it will take my tank 2 turns to get there, by then my bomber has to have done SUMTHING!!

they do feel pointless alot of the time though, just expensive long range artillery units.

[Harovan]

They are very useful, but you need a lot of them to cause significant damages. I usually send around a few stacks of 8 artilleries each, guarded with infantrymen or an infantry army. Same with bombers and not to forget battleships. You need a lot of them, but they do good work softening the target city. Since 1.17 this is still more important, due to the limited retreat ability of your mounted/armored forces.

[fezick31]

Catapults no, bombers yes

I have found catapults rather pointless simply due to how fast they are obsolete. They also are sitting ducks unless yous stack them, and then you have to slow your invasion army. It may be better strategy to use them (as MonsterMan pointed out), but they are also boring unless you're fighting a close quarters war.

Bombers, on the other hand, are terrifying weapons. I fought one game against the americans, and I used bombers (in conjunction with Battleship bombardment) to reduce their defensive units to one hp each, destroy temples (enducing CD), destroy improvements over SR, and to generally weaken their entire empire. By the time I was done, I needed half to a third of the tanks to finish them then if I had not used bombers at all. This also saved time, as I could rebase the bombers to my carrier fleet sitting off the american coast. This not only saved my from having to double my tank out put, but also saved me from the tedium of transporting a double size invasion force.

The only problem I ran into was that moving bombers around took awhile, but it was better than dealing with a zillion transports.

[woody]

Bombers are useful, simply because you can attack from so far away.

Catapults and cannons are pretty useless. Artillary and radar artillary are useful, because of their high bombard value. The 1.17 patch made bombarding harder, so catapults and cannons aren't so hot anymore.

[The Andy-Man]

problkem with catapults andcannons are the range. thats why i dont bother with em.

thing i like about bombers is the site of all them sqaures for my bombing run.

[Spatzimaus]

Bombers? Yes, absolutely. Catapults? Not the original version.

The main problem has been, thanks to the retreat feature, the best attacking force has been an all-cavalry one. Catapults/Cannons/Artillery are just too SLOW, and because of their range they can only fire when adjacent (or nearly so) to the bad guy, which means at least 1 turn advancing before attacking the city. When I attack, I take several cities per turn, leapfrogging through one to get the next.

So, I made changes. First, rate of fire. Since I upped unit HP to 3/4/5/7, I doubled the rate of fire of all bombardment units. (I then gave a RoF=1, range=0 "defensive" bombard to archer-type units; for example, the longbowman is now 4/1/1 with a power 4 defensive bombard, so when stacked with a Pikeman he gets a free shot against an attacker).

Next, range. Catapults (and the Trebuchet, which I added at Engineering) have range 1. Cannons (and the naval equivalents, up to Ironclad) have range 2. Artillery/Radar Artillery (and the naval equivalents) have range 3.

It makes a huge difference; these units become useful again without being overpowering. Attacking a city with infantry covered by artillery SHOULD hurt.

[planetfall]

bombers & artillery

Partially agree with Spatzimaus. I also increased the range of artillery and radar artillery to 3. It doesn't make sense that cannon and artillery have same range.

Bombers are useful for ranging from sea, but do not work very well from the land bases. Even with expanding range to max {8}, they have limited effectiveness because you need to stepping stone air bases along the moving front. Present game testing theory that best bombardment is bombers from sea and artillery from land. Only in start of indust age so too early to see if will work better or not. So far game is easier with bombardment than not. I am still finished 1.16 so have not seen how the reduced bombardment power in 1.17 effects game play. Suspect reduce in bombardment power is because AI has problem dealing with coordinating bombardment attack.

Would be interesting if anyone has any real bombardment experience with 1.17f.

[Marquis de Sodaq]

Catapults are a key part of my invasion forces. Monsterman sums it up well. They also are good for killing population, reducing the city in question below the defense bonus threshold. Your attackers have an easy time of it then. Also, they are dirt cheap to build, and cost peanuts to upgrade.

[Moonsinger]

Re: Are bombers and catapults usefull?

Originally posted by Martinus Magnificus
Do you think bombers and catapults are usefull units?
Do you actually use bombers and catapults?

They are my #1 choice of units. I normally have at least 40 artileries during the modern age and at least 40 bombers during the space age. I have very few battleships (may be a dozen or so to protect my carriers).

I always bomb the hell out of the enemy before I move in for the kill. This way, I have better chance of destroying the enemy with mininum lost.

[Arrian]

My 2 cents:

Artillery and Bombers are useful. Catapults and Cannon are not.

As othes mentioned, the 1-move per turn and 1-square range of the catapults and cannon makes them less valueable. Bombers are the best, because they can be rebased anywhere you have a city and they have the 8-square range.

The patch increased bombard defense of many things, so these units are a bit less useful now. In the game I just finished, I ended up bombarding AI cities with 20 Bombers and 15 or so artillery prior to attacking, and at least half missed, it seemed like more.

However, if I hadn't built bombard units (I built maybe half of the artillery and all of the bombers... some of the arty was captured from the AI), I would've been in a world of pain. Due to the new AI tech trading, I never jumped out to a large tech lead. I was forced to fight a Cavalry vs. Infantry war, which hurt even with the artillery, and later a Tank vs. Mech Infantry war, which REALLY hurt, even with bombers and artillery. I won both, but I took heavy losses. Without bombard units softening up those AI defenders, I would have lost my attack force without making any significant gains.

-Arrian

[Moonsinger]

Originally posted by Arrian
Due to the new AI tech trading, I never jumped out to a large tech lead. I was forced to fight a Cavalry vs. Infantry war, which hurt even with the artillery, and later a Tank vs. Mech Infantry war, which REALLY hurt, even with bombers and artillery. I won both, but I took heavy losses. Without bombard units softening up those AI defenders, I would have lost my attack force without making any significant gains.

I know what you mean. Most of the time, I have to fight those same battles. Without bombard units, I have no chance of winning any battle.

[Random Passerby]

The early bombard units (catapult, cannon) are very easily built and (as far as I know) have no need for barracks. Because of these two facts, I tend to keep my main production centers building my main attack force, and any outlying, lower-production cities build bombardment units for support. I mean, hey, cannons are slow and not particularly devastating, but if you build a cannon now you can still ship it out to the battle front before you could finish building a cavalry unit and get it there.