Please discuss your ideas about Siege Units.

What follows is a number of posts that I copied from the previous TR thread relating to siege weapons. I am only posting the topic that I personally was involved in. Instead of creating one LONG post of quotes, I'm going to quote each contributor in a seperate post each. I think that will help keep individual ideas organized/seperate.

So without further ado:
:sheep:

Gameplay feedback on the catapult unit.

In this mod, catapult can bombard both city defense and units at the same time,without any adverse effect on the catapult. In its current form, this is extremely powerful.

With 4-5 catapults, you can reduce city defense in 1-2 turns, and all defending units will be reduced to 50% strength at that point. Taking the city is not an issue then. In my last game, once I had 5 catapults, I wiped my neighbours one after the other (and they had the technology to build the catapult). From a gameplay perspective, this is unbalanced.

Things should be rebalanced a little.

1) Perhaps reduce the effectiveness of catapult a little: -33% or -50% of current efficiency.

2) They shouldn't be able to completely reduce the city defense to 0%. Perhaps reduce it to 50%/33%/25% of the max value. So a city with 50% defense bonus could be reduce to 25%/17%/13% by catapults.

3) Make it more appealing for the AI to build such units. I don't see the AI build enough of these. Catapults are now extremely valuable for defense against stack of invading units, especially the infamous SOD most of us still use in Civ4. This is something that vanilla Civ4 does well but in most mods, AI somewhat loose interest in catapult/canon units.
..........

I agree that siege weapons themselves seem to be overpowered. I had a sizable army of about 10-12 units, 4 of which were catapults, later upgraded to Trebuchets. I walked up to the capital of the greeks, which had about 10 units or so, one of which was a catapult. I started off the siege which took 2 turns with heavy bombardment of the city. First turn, their defenses were reduced from 100% to 32% and most of the army was reduced to half hp. Second turn, of course, their defences were reduced to 0, the rest of the army was at half power, and I walked right over them.

I agree that the AI should be tweaked to effectively use siege weapons in defense. The Greeks should have been bombarding me for the two turns they were under siege.

As for solutions... I think the power to reduce city defenses should be reduced significantly! If you think about it, a catapult strike against a city wall might make a hole in it, or knock some battlements down, but it won't bring the wall down. It takes demolitions to knock walls down, in other words, gunpowder.
With that in mind, I think that pre-gunpowder units should do a MAXIMUM of 5-10% damage to a city's defenses. That will create nice long sieges, where the attacker has to pay for the siege (in terms of units staying longer in enemy territory). I personally think 5% is better than 10%.

Once cannons are being used, then the power can be upped a little... say 10% damage to city defenses. I think that will make for a much more interesting game with siege weapons.

Finally, I think that siege weapons either need to hit fewer units in a stack, OR do less damage a turn to units, OR make the maximum damage less than 50%. Or a combination of these ideas. :)
..........

Baaad ideas. Civ IV is too defense oriented already. It takes literally hundreds of years to lay seige to a decently sized city. Making it take even longer is just silly.

The attacker already pays dearly for assaulting cities. Archers get a standard city defense bonus, plus the cultural defense bonus for the culture level of the city, plus the bonus for walls which the AI is likely to build, plus city garrison promotions which AI also has a habit of bestowing upon archers, plus the stack aid bonuses that come from AI's tendancy to put 3-6 units in a city.

Maximum of 5-10%? That is just ludicrous. You already need to out do your enemy about 4 to 1 to take a city, plus the enemy heals faster because they're in a city.

A catapult striking a city walls may not do much. But we're talking about a battery of catapults being fired repeatedly over many years. Around the time of catapults, 1 turn = about 10-20 years. If you had a few catapults and enough ammo, the average city would fall in a week or two, and you think it should take longer.

Make the maximum damage less than 50%. Definately not. If you bombard someone repeatedly, a magic shield does not appear around them once they get injured. Throw rocks at someone repeatedly and, make no mistake, they will die.

The max damage should be all the way at 100%. Now that's realism. Maybe doing less damage to units per turn though. In my curent game, I seem to be killing units with one bombardment.

There should be a downside to mega bombardment though, like destruction of buildings (barracks, library etc.) and severe population drops. Meaning that if you pound a city into dust, you won't benefit from claiming it afterwards.

WarKirby
..........

Military theory calls for at least a 3 to 1 advantage and up to a 5 to 1 advantage to assault a fortified line and assure victory. As for laying seige to a city, or actually assaulting a fortified city, the ratios must skyrocket so that you can rotate troops, surround the city completely, cut off their supplies, as well as supply your own troops.

Of course, this isn't exact troop vs. troop, but also can take into account other factors, such as experience, supply, weapons, and weariness. Assaulting positions/cities is actually well accounted for and could be made more difficult if that's all you need.

Of course, that's my opinion, and I'll have to spend time finding battle specifics if you want. But then again, that's all classified and I'd have to hunt you down and assault your position for simply having the knowledge....or not. :)

Rick
..........

WarKirky,

I agree with you. In France we had many castles (as in scotland, no ?;) ) and most of the time they fall after a siege of an average of 6 monthes. The longest one i know is four years. It's long but this English Castle was too close to Paris ( around 60 kilometers) ;) .
Destruction of buildings and a loss of one or two pop seems a good idea. I also don't want to lower the strenght of siege units because there are costly and weak if not well protected.

The Frog.
..........

Nearing 100th page:goodjob:

"I think macemen should get 10-15%against melee; the macemen are equipped with the armor and have superior weapons compared to classical age.

I figured they(macemen) should have a greater strength against melee
(more thinking against swordsman) swordsman str 6 +25% melee vs. 8 that comes out to 7.5 vs. 8, at least having a 10-15% melee(or have bonuses against swordsman and axemen not pikemen and other melee units) would be a good choice.

I still think catapults are have too much strength, they should have to be protected by other units. presently is is difficult to kill them with an axemen, I think the catapult defense is better represented by having other units on same tile. Vanilla catapults have a str of 5 originally because if it was weaker it would be even more of a sacrifiical unit, but since this new ability from dales combat mod they are stronger and should no longer be a stand alone units and they are no longer meant for physicallly attacking which was there reason for their 5 strength in the first place.

a question of mine.. what is the difference between having 15% str-15% str defense and having 15% city raider? except the first one the 15% added for attack ability is for anywhere where as the city raider is only added for cities. and of course on defense they are the same..

i htink the specilized bonuses are not quite as effective. adding 10% strength is better then ahving 15% specialized strentgh, there should be more reason to specialize, the 5% is not a big enough difference in my opinion when it could only be used against a certain type of unit where as the 10% is universal

a suggestion, i think you guys should reintroduce 25% city defense or 20% from the start. with all these new additions, it should be more necessary to bring seige weapons. i think."

- me a while ago:lol:
..........

I agree with WarKirby and Froggie. The game is really too defense oriented, however accurate the ratio's of attackers to defenders. It takes too long to conquer even some of the weaker cities. At heart Civ is too simplistic to accurately reflect the give and take of the battle field IMHO.:)
..........

great images that can be used, just liked to throw that in there somewhere....:lol: i mentioned it before but no response or any type of reply.:) It doesnt alter game play, just makes the game more presentable.:mischief:

http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=139865

macemen should get bonus vs. melee

Siege units(not including machine gunner) strength should be weaker.

I think the city raider should be made stronger.

I think specific bonuses also should be increased.

City defenses should be higher, more closer to original.

My reasons are in the previous post. Currently in the promotion system. city defense is quite ineffective(compared to 15% field defense), city raider (compared to 15%attack strength), specialized bonuses(compared to 10% strength)
..........

I do agree with some of your points, and you do mention a solution that I didn't think of at all... an incentive NOT to use bombardment unless you have to! Thats right... make bombardment to a city have negative consequences such as killing pop units and destroying buildings. I totally agree with your last suggestion.

About max damage: theoretically, it should be possible of course to kill a unit with bombardment alone, especially during the modern ages. However, you also need to take into account that early missile systems like catapults were extremely inaccurate, not to mention the silly mistakes that modern militarys make sometimes. So that chances of doing great damage to units was pretty slim I imagine. So perhaps we need less chance to do damage, but a higher maximum damage available. In the name of "realism".

I really wish I could have the lengthy sieges you are talking about. Mine was a serious disappointment. And it's not just one siege I'm talking about... in the game I'm in, I have something like 30 cities, to everyone else's 5-7. I only just researched Liberalism. I used bombardment to take over at least half of those cities, and when I do use bombardment, I haven't lost a single unit in the siege. That seems grossly overpowered to me. But I do like your negative consequences solution very much to help balance it out. Siege weapons are strong, so they should be used with caution if you want to keep the city.
..........

I like the damage to units with bombardment idea- although once a seige unit is attacked by melee- it really shouldn't have a chance at all to survive.
especially trebs and catapults- the men who ran the machine would have run away- brings up a point- the unit should be able to be taken (captured)like in civ/conquests.
..........

As for siege victory, I usually pack spare units to grind against city defenses to weaken them. If they have 4 fortified units, I bring 4 throw-away units and 5 useful units (hey, someone has to be at max health to defend next turn :P)

Oh, and for the AI not shelling you back: From personal experience, you can't ranged-bombard your own squares. Much sadness.
..........

i seen that ranged bombardment may be a problem for ctd, i for vote that ranged bombardment is kept and the ctd gets isolated and fixed. i think ranged bombardment adds more flavor and realism to the game. traditionally catapults, artillery, etc, do not directly attack cities. they bombard from afar. ive played some with dales combat mod and havent had a issue with ctd

Agreed. Bombardment is far too good to lose.

WarKirby

at begining, some theory, how ranged bombardment is working:

orginal dale's mod uses for ranged bombardment value <iBombardRate>, which in vailla is used for city defence bombardment. based on this value was used random generator, which generate damage to target. with this method you make damage mostly 1-5 HP, health unit has 100 HP. it was not realistic (imagine artillery against warrior in open area - and you don't make any damage in 5 turns !)

so i made some modifications (heh - some - completely rewrited :)):
damage is calculated similar way as normal combat damage:

- combat strength is calculated based on <iCombat> + all relevant bonuses (class bonus, combat type bonus, city attack etc...)
- attacker get bonus when he is positioned on hill
- attacker get penalty, when target is on hill (negated with Ignore_hill promotion)
- attacker get bonus when target is in open area (no city, no improvement)
- attacker get penalty for range > 1 (negated with Ignore_range promotion)

- defender get bonus from terrain feature (forest, jungle make som bombardment defense bonus) (negated if attacker has Ignore_area promotion)
- defender get bonus from base city defense
- defender (in city) get bonus from city buildings (for now castle/bunker if ia good remeber) (negated if attacker has ignore_area promotion)
- defender (in open) get bonus from improvements (village/town/fort etc) (negated if attacker has ignore_area promotion)
- defender get bonus from unit fortify (negated when attacker has ignore_fortify promotion)

from this values are calculted actual firepower of unit (based on unit HP) - if unit is damaged, his firepower is lowered

from this actual firepowers (attacker,defender) is calculated actual damage to defender, also collateral damage to other units

<iBombardRate> is used to lower city defense as before

also there is a chance, that if you bombard unit in open area, you can destroy improvement in this plot (dosn't matter if it is enemy or owned plot !!!)

also when unit is fortified, each successful bombardment reduce fortify by 1 level (unit can fortify 5 turns, each level is 5% fort. bonus)


but in this way, as most of was noted, siege unit is overpowered
so how i want to change this:

when unit is city, it can't be damaged, until city defense is down (this was in dale's original code)

calculated damage to unit will be reduced, based on <iBombardRate>:
new_damage = old_damage * iBombardRate / 100

at begining, you will be not able with catapult kill some units, only damage it
but with bombard rate promotions, you can make your attack more devastating.
with modern unit against older (when damage is almost caulated with value much higher than 100), you can be able to kill this old, obsolete unit

what you think about this?

mexico

I have an idea. How about instead of weakening catapults, just give them a chance to miss the target. The chance of missing would depend on how densely populated the target square is.

A tile with 3 or more fully healed units would be impossible to miss.

And at the opposite end, a tile with a single, critically injured unit would have a 1% chance to hit as it would be essentially 1 man with a few acres of space to avoid shots in.

The accuracy would be checked against all units in the target space, and the more units in a tile, the higher the chance to hit each one as it has less space to move and avoid projectiles.

This would also be best if all catapults would attack simultaneously, and using several catapults would significantly increase chances of hitting.

You could add in all the other modifiers to the accuracy as well, like buildings etc. The catapult's accuracy promotion could also be altered to increase chance to hit, rather than damage.

I think thjis method would give the most realistic portrayal of artillery weapons.

Warkirby

I have an idea. How about instead of weakening catapults, just give them a chance to miss the target. The chance of missing would depend on how densely populated the target square is.

A tile with 3 or more fully healed units would be impossible to miss.

And at the opposite end, a tile with a single, critically injured unit would have a 1% chance to hit as it would be essentially 1 man with a few acres of space to avoid shots in.

The accuracy would be checked against all units in the target space, and the more units in a tile, the higher the chance to hit each one as it has less space to move and avoid projectiles.

This would also be best if all catapults would attack simultaneously, and using several catapults would significantly increase chances of hitting.

You could add in all the other modifiers to the accuracy as well, like buildings etc. The catapult's accuracy promotion could also be altered to increase chance to hit, rather than damage.

I think thjis method would give the most realistic portrayal of artillery weapons.

Warkirby

hmm...chance to miss is already implemented (i forget to note this) with different alghoritm
and chance to hit is represented in <iBombardRate> - small chance lead to small damage (even if you miss whole arme(unit), you are able to injure/kill some soldiers)
but your ideas with density is very interesting for me
simultaneous attack is limited in engine..but we have stack aid promotions, which can do similar things
i will try to design new alghoritm based on this

hmm...chance to miss is already implemented (i forget to note this) with different alghoritm
and chance to hit is represented in <iBombardRate> - small chance lead to small damage (even if you miss whole arme(unit), you are able to injure/kill some soldiers)
but your ideas with density is very interesting for me
simultaneous attack is limited in engine..but we have stack aid promotions, which can do similar things
i will try to design new alghoritm based on this

I kinda like the idea, I mean about population density however, there is just one flaw I think using 3 units as a placeholder is too small a number especially when scaling it on relation to the TR world map. I mean those three units of whatever you can elaborate them to be placeholders for, would be far to small a number of warriors or whatever, covering land according to a TR scaled world map, it would be impossible to hit them.

maybe its just me but against the pc or, computer AI its seems at least its much too easy for me anyway...
I always get bored even on monarch level and find myself restarting because I have an overwhelming score (at least double to three times the runne-up ai by turn 150-200) tech, etc...
probably should try some american civs or east asian civs for a different challenge and maybe a some random maps...
has anyone tried the random maps, are they generally layed out okay?
I still think defensive effects and bonus' aren't too much of a factor in the game at least against the AI.

To elaborate on my idea, I think some units which are fast (cavalry, vehicles, but not settlers) should get an avoidance bonus against siege weapons, reflecting that they are hard to hit. Like wise, small units such as scouts/explorers should also be hard to hit.

When bombarding other artillery, the units should enter into a fight, where the attacker might be destroyed. To simulate that siege weapons would not just sit there and take it.

Also, I think the 'Crowded' promotion, that you get from too many units on a tile, should have the effect of doubling artillery damage taken by units.

WarKirby

counter-fire from other siege? wow, good idea :)
also fast unit..what about all scout/mounted/tank unit (with movement > 1) get this bonus? (easier to implement compared to add new tag to xml)

Sounds great, But I'm thinking settlers should not be included. I'll post why in the other units thread

am i the only one finding siege weapons a bit overpowered?

am i the only one finding siege weapons a bit overpowered?

No, they are too powerfull. Mexico and Houman had already said that they will have a look at it when they will find time to do it...

The Frog.

Mexico is working on it now apparently

if tanks are not able to take a city, then howitzers shouldnt be able as well..

if tanks are not able to take a city, then howitzers shouldnt be able as well..
and all siege units too, i think

Ah, but see the tank thread.

Hian (who is an ex soldier, and has experience of this) says that tanks are all but useless in cities, and reckons they should have a big penalty when fighting in cities whether attacking or defending.

Also, we reckon tanks should get a significant attack bonus against other tanks, to reflect that tank battles are often won and lost with the first shot.

WarKirby

Mexico, Im able to capture cities with howitzers (warlords beta 1)

Mexico, Im able to capture cities with howitzers (warlords beta 1)
oh yes, it is possible yet - my note was about modifications for next release

Are there a way of making siege units get xp, whithout killing other units? I find it's kind of strange, that if the siege units are unable to destroy other unit completely, they are unable to promote. I mean, if you have a unit, that have been a part of several sieges, what are the odds, that they haven't learned anything!?
These could be specific siege unit-promos, e.g. the ability to kill a unit entirely, extra kollateral (cluster bombing), more damage to city fortification, get the idea?

This of course are only if the ability to destroy other units are removed.
The siege unit-promos should be considered anywhay, what do you think?

How about a zone of control for the siege units?
I can't really imagine a general seeing enemy units trying to walk past his troops, and just thinking: "It ain't my turn to move yet, so I'll have to wait".
Especially when we're talking about faster units (Horsemen, etc.), which will be gone in the next turn.
Could be, that these "zone of control"-attacks should be made with only 50% strenght, because of the lack of preperations, the moving target etc.

Also, I think the 'Crowded' promotion, that you get from too many units on a tile, should have the effect of doubling artillery damage taken by units.

WarKirby

Unless the AI is fixed to the point where it doesn't always load so many units on cities (and thus always getting the crowded promotion), then this is just cheating against the AI.

And remember, the AI doesn't just load useful units on cities either... you sometimes find cities with 5+ workboats just sitting there.

In some ways Im confused by the messages here. I feel like Im playing a different mod...

I have Total Realism installed and playing on Prince.

The AI has been using TONS of cannons against me, either defending their cities with them, or attacking my units with them... I was actually going to ask for advice on what to do when faced with this?

The odd thing is, it seems lke if I use my cannons to attack enemy stacks, my cannon usually just dies. Whereas the AI can chew threw my stacks with ease.

-m

@ miserable09

Its % of withdraw and/or dale's ranged bombardment mod, witch is in TR 2.0.
Ai also is using stacked promotions, making their cannons stronger and whith ith higher retreat chance.

And as for ranged bombardment... can naval units bombard/attack units docked in cities ? Like galleys, workboats that just "camp" there ?

I personally like to balance siege units by reducing their iCollateralDamage, Give them the ability to attack and give their a sepecial Indirect fire promotion giving them a 100% retreat change to survice when attacking.

There is a promotion witch reduces colatleral damage by 20% to a max of 60%. But you must have 1st strike promotion 1st (forgot the name).

But look at this this way. In real world sieging castles was most effective way to capture it. Turns in this game are from 40 years at begining to 1 in the modern world. Every turn in middle ages is about 5 years. I belive its long enought to siege (use siege collateral).

Tip: Dont camp in cities, break sieges, or try signing peace every turn ;)


PS: You said Give them the ability to attack
I belive you are refering to Total Realism 2.1.3 witch has dale's mod.
Right now TR team has left Total Realism project for the good of Warlords Total Realism. All work is now put to Warlords version. Warlords version does not have dale's mod (yet, or not even trying).

Might I suggest to replace howitzer graphics (that doesn't actually look too howitzer) with this? http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=184275

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Canon_155mm_TRF1_fh000024.jpg

thats how a howitzer looks like.

Whoy you did post is some tank and mobile Anti-Aircraft or mobile SAM.

I give these a stong NO.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Canon_155mm_TRF1_fh000024.jpg

thats how a howitzer looks like.

Whoy you did post is some tank and mobile Anti-Aircraft or mobile SAM.

I give these a stong NO.

A tank is what we're having in place of howitzer in TR now.

Judging by when they come in the game (computers and uranium), what is meant is modern self-propelled howitzer, that looks like this:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:PzH2000_houwitser.png
and this:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Primus_1.jpg
and this:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:M190_houwitser.png
compare to this:
http://img205.imageshack.us/my.php?image=civ4screenshot0004zs1.jpg
Is it still a no? :)

Hian the Frog was in army, mayby he still has some howitzers in his garage ? ;)

His opinion in modern units is most worthy to me.
I didnt want to change existing into a tank or AA truck.

Still that depends what you want to make. A WW II howitzer (the one i pointed) or the moders one witch should be named modern artillery (yours).

What say you to that ?

If I were to have my way, I'd have both :D. Still, as it is now, howitzer is the last artillery upgrade and as such, IMO, it should look modern. Maybe there is space for something WWII-like in upgrade chain too. All I know is that current graphics is something that can't be a howitzer however one sees the unit. :)

If I were to have my way, I'd have both :D. Still, as it is now, howitzer is the last artillery upgrade and as such, IMO, it should look modern. Maybe there is space for something WWII-like in upgrade chain too. All I know is that current graphics is something that can't be a howitzer however one sees the unit. :)

Walter,

Your opinion is interesting. If one day we find a good unit graphic of an Howitzer (self propeled or not), then we will add it in the mod.

Howitzer is not the last artillery upgrade. Really not. Most of the richest countries are working on project of small to medium size intelligent missile, laser or satellite guided. LRM artillery with GPS system is also still under development.
As you can read there are still many projects. Howitzers and self propeled howitzer are only the most basic (but very very useful) campaign artillery gun.

Maybe you don't like the graphic we use. It's your opinion and i really respect it. Nevertheless, have a look at the Russian SU-122 ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SU-122 ). It's an example of the self propeled howitzer we use.

Hian the Frog.

Walter,

Your opinion is interesting. If one day we find a good unit graphic of an Howitzer (self propeled or not), then we will add it in the mod.

Howitzer is not the last artillery upgrade. Really not. Most of the richest countries are working on project of small to medium size intelligent missile, laser or satellite guided. LRM artillery with GPS system is also still under development.
As you can read there are still many projects. Howitzers and self propeled howitzer are only the most basic (but very very useful) campaign artillery gun.

Maybe you don't like the graphic we use. It's your opinion and i really respect it. Nevertheless, have a look at the Russian SU-122 ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SU-122 ). It's an example of the self propeled howitzer we use.

Hian the Frog.

OK, I was slightly misunderstood too. What I meant by claiming that howitzer is the last artillery upgrade is that it currently is such in TR, not that it should be (back in times of Civ 3 I used to have a private mod where self-propelled artillery upgraded to missile artillery later too).
Now that we are clear on the fact that howitzer should be self-propelled, but WWII-style, I'd like to offer yet another graphic replacement for it, more distinctive from a tank (and, while still a Soviet gun, this one was mass-produced in tens of thousands, while only 25 SU-122 were made).

http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=189327

I could retexture it to be more generic (to remove a red star), should you like it. Or else a good example of a self-propelled WWII gun would be a German Wespe:

http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=163104

This one can also be made more generic (without the cross). Just say the word.

P.S. T-34 could use a facelift too - there is a great T-34 available:

http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=179748

Will howitzer be upgradable to RT-2UTTH Topol M for Russia ;) ?

Will howitzer be upgradable to RT-2UTTH Topol M for Russia ;) ?

No, that would be too radical. :D

To RSZO 9A52-2 Smerch. One of those babies can level a small town in 5 minutes. Russians are not keen on precision, they are more into total destruction. ;)

http://worldweaponry.by.ru/rszo/smerch.html

Walter Hawkwood,

We will have a look on the SP Guns you gave us. Maybe added, maybe not.:crazyeye: Who knows ? ;)

Thx. :)

Hian the Frog.

I think Siege weapons should work in a similar fashion to bombers.

They should not be able to attack or defend, only bombard. When attacked they should either be destroyed or perhaps captured like workers

You should have the option of attacking city defences/tile improvements or attacking defending units. If there are any siege units in the defending square they will "intercept" the attacking unit and engage in an artillery duel where one or other will be destroyed.

The damage done to a unit being bombarded should be highly dependent on its fortifications. A higly fortified unit (either throughcity bonuses of through ordering the unit to fortify) will sutain little damage where as a unit caught in the open will sustain much more

@ rafterman

1st TR needs to implent Dale's Mod. Changing siege units to be capturable is easy i belive.

I belive TR team is allready "on its way" of doing this, as many times simmilar idea was posted.

Hi all. I'm not sure if I'm mentioning this in the appropriate place, but I'd like to call the TR team's attention to the Korean Hwacha unit. Now, in vanilla civ4, this is a pretty tasty UU, what with the +50% vs. melee units. However, in TR, as you are well aware, the standard catapult now gets +25% vs. melee units. This really robs the Hwacha of its "specialness", IMHO. Perhaps a slight buff might be in order? Maybe a little cheaper, or more collateral damage, or higher city defense bombard rate, or make it even deadlier vs. melee units (or archery or mounted)? I'm just sayin'....

Hwacha should get city DEFANCE as Koreas has Protective trait.
Or free urban combat promotion ? As i rarelly see it in use.