My least favorite aspect of the game, and so far the only major "flaw" in basic design that I can identify (as a newbie) is the artillery system.

The game does it's best to immerse you in realism, but then the only way to take a city is by launching wave upon wave of suicide seige units to their untimely death.

Given the nature of seige and artillery, I want to change this. Is there a way to mod the game to give them 100% withdrawl chance on attack, and 0% withdrawal chance on defense?

To me, this would "fix" the problem of artillery.
It would represent them attacking from safe batteries or from across the field of battle, while at the same time highlighting their vulnerability once range is closed.

Is this something I could change? Can someone point me to the right thread with instructions how to start?

Thanks!
~neckface

It's possible, and someone will explain you how.

However, it would make them very overpowered, you basicly make a collateral damage unit that can't be killed. (as you always have a defender on your Siege stack.)

To me, that's what the "bombardment" ability signified, the ability to reduce entrenchment defenses. I agree with Furrie, that enhancing the withdraw chance makes catapults too powerful, and I think it would be ahistoric to make artillery, especially early artillery, in influencing open battles. Trebuchets and catapult firing rate was measured in shots (usually one or two) per hour.

Moving onto the age of cannon, and if you study the battles of say the American Civil war or the War of Spanish Succession, and you'd find that the batteries fired from some 400 yards or closer away, and were often damaged and overrun in the chaos.

Almost any medieval battle would be over before the artillery fired more than a handful of times, and in a modern battle, it is very rare for the artillery to be completely safe, even firing some 10-20 miles behind the "lines" Mobile units could make limited counterattacks extremely easily, and run through to wipe out artillery.


IMHO, the problem with taking cities, and attacking in general, is not so much that artillery is underpowered, but the "Rocks paper scissors" aspect of the game always favors the defender. Suppose two armies, each of equal experience and composition, of two horse archers, two axemen, and two spearmen, bump into each other on an open grassland. In "Real life" two perfectly equal armies should each have about a 50% chance of winning, and while they might win decisively, the "attacker" would probably have little, if any, disadvantage. Certainly he would not run into the civ phenomenon, which is that each unit runs into the one that is specifically designed to kill it, not unless one commander completely outmaneuvers the other.

Ur_Vile_Wedge is right, Civ favors the defender, Civ tries to "solve" this problem somewhat with the introduction of Promotions to give you the edge.

Hmm... points taken.

IMHO, the problem with taking cities, and attacking in general, is not so much that artillery is underpowered, but the "Rocks paper scissors" aspect of the game always favors the defender. Suppose two armies, each of equal experience and composition, of two horse archers, two axemen, and two spearmen, bump into each other on an open grassland. In "Real life" two perfectly equal armies should each have about a 50% chance of winning, and while they might win decisively, the "attacker" would probably have little, if any, disadvantage. Certainly he would not run into the civ phenomenon, which is that each unit runs into the one that is specifically designed to kill it, not unless one commander completely outmaneuvers the other.


Actualy, the defender would have some advantage in real life, even in open battles. He will be the one that picks the site of the battle. That means he will have the slightly higer ground, maybe some light forest in which in hide his cavalry. Also by not having to march to battle, the defending army would be less tired. As well as that they would be closer to their camp, so if the battle tourns sour they can retreat (read flee) to a fortified sanctuary.

All that being said, the attackers probably still has the advantage, specialy in pre-gunpowder battles. The extra morale boost from marching instead of just waiting is considerable, but even more than that by attacking you seize the initiative and make the enemy respond to you which is a massive advantage. Thats why when two equal armies fought, they geenraly both marched towards each other and both attacked instead of just waiting for the other to come to them.

Ranged attack by modern artillery (2 squares away) could be brought back.

Here is a mod that greatly improves artillery. I think it does just what you want.

http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=257210