I didn't care about promoting siege too much because of its suicidical nature. And I don't build them very often due to slow movement. But in a recent game as Cyrus, I settled so many GGs in my West Point/HE city that I could produce 30xp right out of gate. If siege can take combat promotions I would be able to produce commando sieges:eek:.
So why 3.17 decides siege no longer receive combat? Just to ruin the fun of commado siege?:confused:

because siege equipment can no longer win battles, it would be kind of pointless for them to have strength boosting promos. so presumably, the programmers just made it impossible for siege weapons to get them.

Actually, as siege -can- withdraw from battles, strength promos are still useful to them for the purpose of surviving and thus gaining further XP.

Though, to claim they did it 'just to ruin the fun of Commando siege' is kind of hot-headed and accusatory. I personally don't know the reason it was done, but there must have been a perfectly good one. Besides, siege are meant to be used for attacking cities. If you have five promos to burn, get CR3+Accuracy+Barrage, or Drill4+Barrage if you have the tech edge.

Personally, I fine two promos are enough for most of my siege engine crews, and three is plenty. With three promos, I can hit Barrage2+Accuracy or CR3, which means I can put half my siege to work hitting collateral and the other half reducing defenses, with the defense-blasters being able to hit with some heavy collateral once they're done (assuming I haven't annihilated the city by that point).

It isn't good to assume the reason was a good one. That said, I can kind of guess that they did it to make siege less of a "trumps everything" unit, similar to removing its ability to kill. It nerfs siege in the field, which is realistic for a change (siege was mostly good against non-mobile targets, and field battles don't really qualify there). A combat/shock cat could completely cover the stack against axes! What's more, axes couldn't get the anti-siege promo as easily haha. So sword/pult would beat anything but horse archers and elephants in classical times. Cannon were a similar problem...probably too strong vs early renaissance units...although now a cannon really has no answer to combat II or higher knights and cuirassers....or even grenadiers if the cannon defends.

Basically, my guess was that this change improved balance.

It isn't good to assume the reason was a good one. That said, I can kind of guess that they did it to make siege less of a "trumps everything" unit, similar to removing its ability to kill. It nerfs siege in the field, which is realistic for a change (siege was mostly good against non-mobile targets, and field battles don't really qualify there). A combat/shock cat could completely cover the stack against axes! What's more, axes couldn't get the anti-siege promo as easily haha. So sword/pult would beat anything but horse archers and elephants in classical times. Cannon were a similar problem...probably too strong vs early renaissance units...although now a cannon really has no answer to combat II or higher knights and cuirassers....or even grenadiers if the cannon defends.

Basically, my guess was that this change improved balance.

About the historical notes: That's true about catapults and trebuchets but cannons for example were widely used and very effective in field engagements during the very late middle ages/renaissance era as for example the swedes found out at the battle of Poltava where Peter the great largery obliterated the swedish army - that scorned artillery in favour of shock troops that specialized in sword and bayonet -charges - with a hail storm of artillery fire.

But I think you're right about the change being related to balancing issues.

About the historical notes: That's true about catapults and trebuchets but cannons for example were widely used and very effective in field engagements during the very late middle ages/renaissance era as for example the swedes found out at the battle of Poltava where Peter the great largery obliterated the swedish army - that scorned artillery in favour of shock troops that specialized in sword and bayonet -charges - with a hail storm of artillery fire.

But I think you're right about the change being related to balancing issues.

That's true I was thinking mostly early game. Really, cats are the units where IMO the issue was greatest. Rifles and cavalry had enough base STR over cannon that cannon had trouble anyway.

Cannons using anti-infantry shrapnel were pretty vicious in their day. Still, the role of siege in civ has been border line to actually overpowering since civ III began. Vanilla siege was incredible, especially given the reduced AI tendency to build units.

It isn't good to assume the reason was a good one. That said, I can kind of guess that they did it to make siege less of a "trumps everything" unit, similar to removing its ability to kill. It nerfs siege in the field, which is realistic for a change (siege was mostly good against non-mobile targets, and field battles don't really qualify there). A combat/shock cat could completely cover the stack against axes! What's more, axes couldn't get the anti-siege promo as easily haha. So sword/pult would beat anything but horse archers and elephants in classical times. Cannon were a similar problem...probably too strong vs early renaissance units...although now a cannon really has no answer to combat II or higher knights and cuirassers....or even grenadiers if the cannon defends.

Basically, my guess was that this change improved balance.

The antisiege promotion was moved to combat one with Warlords 2.13. Admittedly this meant that axes and swords would be at a loss to axes in the defenders stack, but catapults take care of that.

Wasn't there a thread that showed barrage to almost always be worse than combat though? That would explain whay it was removed...

The antisiege promotion was moved to combat one with Warlords 2.13. Admittedly this meant that axes and swords would be at a loss to axes in the defenders stack, but catapults take care of that.

Wasn't there a thread that showed barrage to almost always be worse than combat though? That would explain whay it was removed...

Oh yeah...the removal of combat was pretty recent. I remember now. Not only did the patch pull combat from siege, it also made barrage a lot more competitive.

All that considered, don't forget that siege can still take drill....

It isn't good to assume the reason was a good one. That said, I can kind of guess that they did it to make siege less of a "trumps everything" unit, similar to removing its ability to kill. It nerfs siege in the field, which is realistic for a change (siege was mostly good against non-mobile targets, and field battles don't really qualify there). A combat/shock cat could completely cover the stack against axes!

Can't seige still get the shock promo through the drill line?

Can't seige still get the shock promo through the drill line?

Yeah, that's true...maybe this was done just as a general nerf to siege then? The most damaging nerf for me is that you can't use siege amphibiously anymore :(. That makes it impossible to inflict collateral pre-flight without unloading. I'd like to at least see some kind of siege ship.

AGG leaders with a tech edge can go combat II amphibious though.

Hi

The units that really kind of got messed up in that dealio tho were MG's. They are technically "siege" units but since they can ONLY defend all the CR, barrage stuff are unavailable to them so pretty much ALL they get now is drill.

And more than combat promo line is I miss being able to use siege off the boats. It kinda nerfed amphib a lil since even with city defenses dropped a fortfied promoted cg unit still can be tuff for an amphibious attacker unless that attacker just waaaaaay past the defender era wise. Which means you need to land the stack so your siege can soften up the defenders which kinda defeats the purpose of amhib units :/.

Kaytie

Amphibious is ridiculously strong on water maps though. The AI, when it sees an incoming land stack, will whip and reposition some garrisons to buff up the city. This doesn't happen for most coastal cities - they just have some skeleton defenders. This means you can capture coastal cities at relatively minimal loss. Throwing in some advanced CG/Drill type stuff (such as rifles or infantry vs backward troops) will allow you to hold that city at ridiculous losses to the AI to recapture it. Keep taking coastal cities, and they run out of troops...

The other very important thing about amphibious, and the thing I try to always do on maps like LHC, is to scout their coastal cities ahead of time, searching for their navy. The AI tends to camp its navy in a city. If the city is threatened it will use this navy to attack yours, or move it away if the city looks like it will be lost. BUT, not on turn 1 of the war or when your ships just come into range to hit that city. In that situation, for the price of their tough defenders being likely to kill your attackers you can completely obliterate the entire AI navy. Ouch.

With the old siege off ship hits, you could hit at parity though. Favorably, due to the AI's lacking ability to garrison properly. Adding the movement speed that ships have being far greater than what you can have over land until very deep into the game, amphibious attacks have a lot of potential. For this reason, I don't mind AGG too much in isolation, just because it's so fun/novel to spam amphibious rifles :p.

Edit:

CHA mounted can do it too.

That's true I was thinking mostly early game. Really, cats are the units where IMO the issue was greatest. Rifles and cavalry had enough base STR over cannon that cannon had trouble anyway.

Cats and cannons were the seige troops I used to promote with combat most often. Cannons with combat 3 and march were very effective support for the CR3 cannons and they healed on the march. I used to promote half my seige along the combat line and the other half the CR and then when they got CR3 it would usually be combat 1 etc. That was very effective against cities and large stacks in the field.

IMO they were unbalanced and the combat promotion on cannons is as bad as the earlier one on catapults. So the change was good for game balance, and I know that is what you're arguing ;)


Cannons using anti-infantry shrapnel were pretty vicious in their day.
Normally the type of cannons (muzzle loaded) in Civ did not use shrapnel, which is a particular type of shell invented by Major-General Henry Shrapnel (1761–1842), an English artillery officer. Although an early form of shrapnel was used at Waterloo it was rare. Usually that sort of cannon in the Renaissance used cannister and grapeshot against infantry and other massed targets which had a deadly effect at close range, like a giant shotgun.

Shrapnel became much more common leading up to the First World War when most of the field guns including the famous French 75 were using it and able to fire 15 rounds per minute to about 8500 metres was devastating to troops in the open. They were what would be artillery in Civ and it was probably them more than anything else that led to trench warfare on the western front in WW1.

Cats and cannons were the seige troops I used to promote with combat most often. Cannons with combat 3 and march were very effective support for the CR3 cannons and they healed on the march. I used to promote half my seige along the combat line and the other half the CR and then when they got CR3 it would usually be combat 1 etc. That was very effective against cities and large stacks in the field.

IMO they were unbalanced and the combat promotion on cannons is as bad as the earlier one on catapults. So the change was good for game balance, and I know that is what you're arguing ;)


Normally the type of cannons (muzzle loaded) in Civ did not use shrapnel, which is a particular type of shell invented by Major-General Henry Shrapnel (1761–1842), an English artillery officer. Although an early form of shrapnel was used at Waterloo it was rare. Usually that sort of cannon in the Renaissance used cannister and grapeshot against infantry and other massed targets which had a deadly effect at close range, like a giant shotgun.

Shrapnel became much more common leading up to the First World War when most of the field guns including the famous French 75 were using it and able to fire 15 rounds per minute to about 8500 metres was devastating to troops in the open. They were what would be artillery in Civ and it was probably them more than anything else that led to trench warfare on the western front in WW1.

Civ is always muddy with the military units due to how there's a finite # of units to represent an enormous period in history. The time between Shrapnel's death you list and WWI is considerable! That's a lot of techs in civ terms by that era...but we get nothing but standard cannons and then arty. IMO sometimes we just have to be creative on the realism dept :).

Civ is always muddy with the military units due to how there's a finite # of units to represent an enormous period in history. The time between Shrapnel's death you list and WWI is considerable! That's a lot of techs in civ terms by that era...but we get nothing but standard cannons and then arty. IMO sometimes we just have to be creative on the realism dept :).

I know :). You just used the term shrapnel when it wasn't really appropriate, cannister or grapeshot would have been better. The game is a much simplified version of the history of military technology, but still fun and follows the developments in a broad sense. I'm not arguing for greater complexity or historical detail, just informing you about shrapnel :smoke: Hopefully you are now a better person :lol: