View Full Version : Expansion: While were at it, fix Artillery


TheHanzou
Feb 20, 2012, 11:46 AM
Ok im comming from a Multiplayer Point-of-view here. when you play against good opponents in Multiplayer, the whole game comes down to a tech race. Once Artillery is researched, the game becomes a stalemate and Techrace to Nukes. Artillery is such a big jump in Power and Utility that it halts all attemps at attack.

The Problem with Artillery is that its way to good. Normal Unit Progression is usually +some Power, but not so with Artillery.

Its like this with Catapult-Trebutchet-Cannon. So now we get Artillery. Artillery does not only have the mandatory +Power Upgrade, no it also has +1Range AND indirect Fire. Now the real problem is obviously indirect fire. It is insanely powerfull. Giving Artillery both at the same time is just to big a boost. It doesnt make much sense either.

Historically Artillery wasnt that strong, especially not in defense, where it is at its strongest in Civ 5.

My solution is quite simple: dont give Artillery both +1Range and Indirect Fire. The progression in military power coming from this is to big. Coupled with the defensive Nature of Artillery this leads to a complete stalemate. It would be much more reasonable to give Artillery +1Range and introduce a second progression point in a new or later tech that is Howitzer or something which then has +1Range and indirect Fire.

Getting the tech to Artillery when u already have Cannons is really fast and easy. Its so fast in fact that attacking after researching Rifleman and Cannons is pointless because by the time you will have a meaningfull army at the front lines the opponent will have Artillery.

Artillery is in fact so strong that once u can build it you build nothing else. Nothing can stop Artillery in Defense (not even other Artillery), and if you dont have Artillery when your opponent is attacking you with it you have basically lost.

Now the only Unit to stop artillery would be air Units, and ultimately Nukes. Its also possible to abuse the end of turn moves and attack with Lancers, but Lancers will not be able to kill a defended Artillery (hill,Fort,General boni), so thats not really an option. Its also an option to try and limit their viewing range, but this is really hard to do even with culture Bombs.

The Problem here is, if the other side has Artillery first, he will most likely have fighters and Nukes first too. This leads to a simple truth: If you have Artillery first you have won the game.

In my last 30 one vs one games, at least half of them were won this way, the rest was against weak opponents that left earlier or were even destroyed.

tl:dr Artillery military progression is to much, leading to stalemate combat and tech race. Remove indirect fire and introduce advanced Artillery in the next tech step.

The_J
Feb 20, 2012, 11:52 AM
Moved to the Gods & Kings subforum (...since I guess that the "expanion" in the title refers to it).

fat_tonle
Feb 20, 2012, 12:04 PM
I say go to 2 UPT.... or a system where you can not have two melee and range on the same tile.

But you can overlap melee/range similar to worker/military, etc.

Then you cut Archer range to plus one all tiles. So no +2 over plains. Crossbowman get the same range but deadlier attack.

Trebuchets and cannons get +2 in plains but +1 in rough terrain. As the Archer is now. Longbowman also get this range.

Artillery get +3 over plains, +2 when firing over rogh terrain (forest/hill).

NO firing over mountains unless you get the bonus from XPs.

Babri
Feb 20, 2012, 12:11 PM
I say go to 2 UPT.... or a system where you can not have two melee and range on the same tile.
He is talking about ciV expansion NOT civ VI. :rolleyes:

To OP : I think artillery problem will hopefully be fixed as new air units & an early tank unit is added as well as all old units are tweaked for better game balance.

AriochIV
Feb 20, 2012, 12:12 PM
I have also been thinking that they should allow more than one unit per tile (whether it's 1 melee + 1 ranged, or just unlimited) and reduce all the ranges by one. The way you balance it to prevent stacks is to use the same feature from Civ I: if the tile is attacked, only 1 unit gets to defend, and if it's destroyed, the whole stack is destroyed. Although with the new increased health in G&K, I'm not sure the idea is viable anymore.

But yeah, I consider this an unlikely change for G&K.

KiffeLesBiffles
Feb 20, 2012, 12:37 PM
Ok im comming from a Multiplayer Point-of-view here. when you play against good opponents in Multiplayer, the whole game comes down to a tech race. Once Artillery is researched, the game becomes a stalemate and Techrace to Nukes. Artillery is such a big jump in Power and Utility that it halts all attemps at attack.

In my last 30 one vs one games, at least half of them were won this way, the rest was against weak opponents that left earlier or were even destroyed.



Euh, no. MP duel is everything but a tech race. In the league game (civplayers.com) and public games I have played, you have 2 cases :

1) If the maps has seas, go for frigate rush. Build 3 frigates and you win the game.

2) If the maps does not have seas, duels with top opponents turn into classical and medieval wars. Medieval UU or crossbows are beelined while you build up military and a production oriented empire.

If the game goes to renaissance, yes, it can turns into an arty race. But if your opponent is teching to arty, he is not building army, so many of the arty rushers can be beaten with late medieval units push (Knight + X-bows + Trebuchet).

apocalypse105
Feb 20, 2012, 12:41 PM
You know tanks have 5 moves right?


However I do agree that it comes to early I don't know why it is actually in a indiviudal technology.

It would be really balanced that it would come at the technology " replacable parts" Because when you reach replaceble parts you usally are going to reach combustion,flight early so artillery can be countert quickly

I thinx many units have these problems they are at the wrong spot in the technology tree like the lancer and the cavalry unit or the musketman(to early obsolete)


I hope the expansion really balance these things out and with the new technologies change the tech tree

jdog5000
Feb 20, 2012, 12:53 PM
I also hope the combat changes in the XP clarify the role of siege and ranged units. There was a machine gun in one of the screenshots, right? So maybe there will be ranged units later in the game now, and artillery can focus on cities.

So much we don't know.

TheHanzou
Feb 20, 2012, 02:18 PM
Ok after reading up some more on Artillery i guess the indirect fire is their trademark, which means they should be keeping it. Just put the range down to 2 and introduce a follow up tech with a howitzer Artillery that has range 3 again.

Artillery would not be uber strong anymore. If you commit to howitzer you need to bee-line more tech ressources punishing you more.

Howitzers would be pretty strong again, but youd get them later, leaving more room for potential attacks.

If we get a follow up for Lancers/Cav (like the new tank maybe?) these steps would help balance artillery.

currently Artillery changes (e.g. halts) the combat and strategy completely once deployed. This together with the way to good cost efficiency (for range3+indirect) is to much a progression in a single step.

Tabarnak
Feb 20, 2012, 05:27 PM
Lancers are great against artillery. And they are somewhat cheaper.

MadDjinn
Feb 20, 2012, 05:30 PM
Lancers are great against artillery. And they are somewhat cheaper.

and hopefully the combat changes won't make them suck still :crazyeye:

Waywocket
Feb 20, 2012, 06:06 PM
Ok after reading up some more on Artillery i guess the indirect fire is their trademark, which means they should be keeping it. Just put the range down to 2 and introduce a follow up tech with a howitzer Artillery that has range 3 again.


I agree with this. I think really the only upgrade that's as game-changing as cannons->artillery is cavalry->tanks, and it looks like they may be introducing an intermediate unit to change that. A unit with indirect fire (plus the usual strength upgrade) would still be better enough compared to cannons to be worthwhile, and it would fit with the idea of expanding the industrial era, which I'm hopeful they'll do with the expansion.

Currently it seems like I generally spend ages in the Renaissance, then blitz through Industrial in a few turns, then finish the game in the Modern era, with enormous improvements happening very rapidly - if I'm playing Songhai or Spain I tend not to bother with cavalry, going straight from an army of knight UUs to an army of tanks, or even modern armour; something's wrong there. I barely even see the Industrial era so it could certainly stand to be expanded.

In a sense that could be deemed unrealistic (since accelerating change is the norm in reality), but then they keep pointing out that gameplay trumps realism.

Snerk
Feb 20, 2012, 10:46 PM
I agree that artillery could do with a 3 to 2 range nerf. It's too easy to defend cities with artillery.

KiffeLesBiffles
Feb 21, 2012, 02:05 AM
and hopefully the combat changes won't make them suck still :crazyeye:

"Hopefully" ? Are not you beta tester MadDjinn ? :):):)

Camikaze
Feb 21, 2012, 05:49 AM
I don't know about multiplayer, but I never really got the impression that artillery was all that overpowered in single player at all. Bombers are the way to go, and they kinda make artillery look a little weak. I guess if you've got an opponent who is more willing to build air defence units, then it'd be a different story.
"Hopefully" ? Are not you beta tester MadDjinn ? :):):)

I'm sure that if he is, he won't be able to answer you. :p

CYZ
Feb 21, 2012, 06:35 AM
I think artillery might have been a bit too important but not much. With the coming of new WW1 area-denial units (I hope that's what the machine gun and anti-tank gun will be) artillery will become somewhat more important though.

But since we're guessing here anyway. It looks like a WW-1 bomber unit is also coming, seems like a artillery counter unit to me.

Revoran
Feb 21, 2012, 01:21 PM
If artillery are really that imbalanced, just take away all sight range from them except for one tile in either direction. This way they MUST HAVE a spotter ... just like real artillery.

apocalypse105
Feb 21, 2012, 01:30 PM
If artillery lose there 3 range then the players with the kremlin and the great wall are even more difficult to break

aziantuntija
Feb 21, 2012, 01:59 PM
Ok im comming from a Multiplayer Point-of-view here.

No offence to anyone but I stopped reading here. I think that this just shows me how much do I care about civ games multiplayer, well actually that same goes to every games multiplayer mode, except for online racing games obviously.

Tabarnak
Feb 21, 2012, 05:22 PM
except for online racing games obviously.

Why this should be obvious? :confused:

Today, almost every big game has his multiplayer platform. Well Skyrim doesn't, but many modders are trying really hard to make this happen :)

Babri
Feb 22, 2012, 02:42 AM
If artillery lose there 3 range then the players with the kremlin and the great wall are even more difficult to break

But we are getting early bombers & tanks, so that would compensate for that. And to balance Great Wall, it should not work 'against players who have researched dynamite' instead of depending on the builder's teching.

aziantuntija
Feb 22, 2012, 03:21 AM
Why this should be obvious? :confused:

So you are wondering why do I think that online racing game (like iRacing and LFS) should obviously be played in online? Really? Isnt that obvious that if you buy a online game that was designed to be played online, then you are going to play it online?

Today, almost every big game has his multiplayer platform. Well Skyrim doesn't, but many modders are trying really hard to make this happen :)

Well I dont know if DE:HR was/is a "big game" by your standards (it was AAA launch though) but it certanily did -not- have multiplayer in it, neither has the upcoming XCOM:EU.

If we do not count online racing games, then my latest game purchases have been civ5, DE:HR and M&B WB. From those games only DE:HR does not have multiplayer at all, M&B WB does actually have multiplayer but it only icludes the fighting aspect of the game (wich is very dominating aspect at the game but certainly not the whole game). My 110% sure future purchase is going to be Firaxis's XCOM:EU, and it is -not- going to have multiplayer at all. So in conclusion we can say that if you count out the online racing games, then 66.6% of my latest purchased games even has a multiplayer option. When XCOM:EU gets released, then it drops to 50%. And in M&B the multiplayer mode doesnt even cover all the systems in the SP game so I would consider it only as a partially multiplayer. I have never played ANY civ game in multiplayer, well at least if you count out the quick hotseat test with my friend on civ4, but anyway I have never played civ1, civ2, civ3 or civ5 in multiplayer mode. But yes I have tried out the M&B's 'multiplayer', played it for about half an hour. So I have tried out (I highlight the fact that I have tried it but I havent been actually playing it) multiplayer from 33.3% of my latest game purchases, next fall that same percent of games tried in multiplayer is most likely going to go down to just 25%.

I really dont care if most of todays games has multiplayer option in them, because I just wont play that multiplayer game anyway. Infact I am actually very delighted when I hear that the game that im waiting for, doesnt even include multiplayer mode :).

steave435
Feb 22, 2012, 03:29 AM
So you are wondering why do I think that online racing game (like iRacing and LFS) should obviously be played in online? Really? Isnt that obvious that if you buy a online game that was designed to be played online, then you are going to play it online?
Your distinction of online racing games implies there's more to it then that though, otherwise most people would have said "online games" without specifying racing. For example, it doesn't include FPS or MMO, both genres being much more common.

aziantuntija
Feb 22, 2012, 03:32 AM
Your distinction of online racing games implies there's more to it then that though, otherwise most people would have said "online games" without specifying racing. For example, it doesn't include FPS or MMO, both genres being much more common.

Im not sure what are you trying to say with that, because I just wanted to point out that the only online games that I play, are online racing games.

CYZ
Feb 22, 2012, 03:41 AM
But we are getting early bombers & tanks, so that would compensate for that. And to balance Great Wall, it should not work 'against players who have researched dynamite' instead of depending on the builder's teching.

Have you considered that the early bomber and tank will actually be artillery counters?

Tabarnak
Feb 22, 2012, 04:46 AM
So you are wondering why do I think that online racing game (like iRacing and LFS) should obviously be played in online? Really? Isnt that obvious that if you buy a online game that was designed to be played online, then you are going to play it online?

Ok you talk about 100% dedicated multiplayer games. I tought you were talking only about racing games. That you like multiplayer only for racing games.

On topic : I think they should nerf artillery a bit with not letting them shooting beyond mountains(white ones). They should stay natural defenses until modern era.

aziantuntija
Feb 22, 2012, 05:34 AM
Ok you talk about 100% dedicated multiplayer games. I tought you were talking only about racing games. That you like multiplayer only for racing games.

Yes exactly.

Louis XXIV
Feb 22, 2012, 07:42 AM
But we are getting early bombers & tanks, so that would compensate for that. And to balance Great Wall, it should not work 'against players who have researched dynamite' instead of depending on the builder's teching.

Well, having a wonder obsolete due to the techs of the person who has the wonder has been typical since the beginning (I don't know if Civ1 had obsoleting wonders, but it's certainly been around since Civ2). Furthermore, allowing civs with Dynamite to ignore the Great Wall against a civ without Dynamite would just allow the technologically advanced to gain while others fail. Or what about the opposite? A Civ has dynamite and picks on a lot of people without it. Not only would that civ have Artillery (already a huge advantage), but it could leave them completely exposed with no consequence while in their territory because of the Great Wall.

Depravo
Feb 22, 2012, 10:25 AM
In the last game my artillery park of doom - 5 units with multi attack and city bombardment promotions as well as +1 range and indirect fire, plus a few screens - could take out any city with ease, to the point I lost patience with the game.

Jaybe
Feb 22, 2012, 11:18 AM
----
Area Effect weapons (e.g., archers, siege, & bombers) should have a % affect on the CURRENT strength of the defender:
a 30% affect against a 100hp -> 30hp loss;
a 30% affect against a 10hp -> 3hp loss.

Also applies to CITIES! You ARE going to have to ASSAULT that city, not just waltz in.

Kill a unit by advancing into its hex. Prohibit a SEVERELY weakened unit from pillaging or capturing non-combatants.

mabalogna
Feb 22, 2012, 11:35 AM
I dont see a problem with artillery being 3 tiles ranged. I already have enough of a problem of having my artillery keep up with my ever changing mobile front once tanks enter the game.

I think moving artillery further into the industrial age would be the best way to "balance" them; Replaceable parts being the most ideal.


---
However, the actual damage and range of artillery is fairly accurate for the era. Considering WWI was an actual stalemate of one side shelling the other continuously, and then sending wave after wave of infantry into 'no-mans-land' to be slaughtered. It makes sense that both sides would be stuck holding defensive positions in a war of infantry/artillery - waiting for either a break in their line, or for the invention of a tougher shock unit.

This was also true in 1930's Spain, during the Spanish Civil War, where primarily WWI tactics were used in the technologically backwards country.

AriochIV
Feb 22, 2012, 11:52 AM
I do agree that ranged fire should have diminishing returns against infantry (especially if they're fortified), but I'm not sure we need to go back to the <Civ4 model where ranged fire can't kill anything.

The x10 increased health in G&K will really change the equation.

BobDole
Feb 22, 2012, 11:59 AM
I do agree that ranged fire should have diminishing returns against infantry (especially if they're fortified), but I'm not sure we need to go back to the <Civ4 model where ranged fire can't kill anything.

The x10 increased health in G&K will really change the equation.

Yeah, I think the model Civ V has for siege/artillery useage is good, unlike Civ IV's where you simply used it to strip a city of its defenses and for suicide attacks on SoDs to cause lots of collateral damage. Artillery/Rocket Artillery is a little on the strong side though, which might be changed by the 100 health, or by the new units, or whatever. Once I get artillery in the current game, wiping out opposing attack forces becomes easy (even if they send a good attack force in a proper formation), and sieging anyone else who doesn't have artillery becomes easier too (if they have it, then it can become a huge pain, especially if it's some damn city across a river or has some other natural defense). It's cool that the increased range changes things up, but it could probably use a little tweaking. With some cover promotions for your artillery and some AA to shoot down aircraft, taking down a city becomes an inevitability right now.

Depravo
Feb 22, 2012, 12:43 PM
However, the actual damage and range of artillery is fairly accurate for the era. Considering WWI was an actual stalemate of one side shelling the other continuously, and then sending wave after wave of infantry into 'no-mans-land' to be slaughtered. It makes sense that both sides would be stuck holding defensive positions in a war of infantry/artillery - waiting for either a break in their line, or for the invention of a tougher shock unit.

This was also true in 1930's Spain, during the Spanish Civil War, where primarily WWI tactics were used in the technologically backwards country.

If WW1 was played by Civ 5 rules, the Germans could have annihilated the entire French army and reduced Paris to the brink of surrender using guns positioned behind the Rhine.

mabalogna
Feb 22, 2012, 02:43 PM
If WW1 was played by Civ 5 rules, the Germans could have annihilated the entire French army and reduced Paris to the brink of surrender using guns positioned behind the Rhine.

My point was that the way Infantry/Artillery war works in Civ5 is not all together different then how it actually was; a defensive stalemate until the development of durable, and mobile technologies.

Gucumatz
Feb 22, 2012, 02:47 PM
The only thing I would suggest for Artillery is for them to be moved a little later back in tech. Currently it is way too easy to get from cannons to Artillery and may be a waste to build cannons.

Louis XXIV
Feb 22, 2012, 03:52 PM
If WW1 was played by Civ 5 rules, the Germans could have annihilated the entire French army and reduced Paris to the brink of surrender using guns positioned behind the Rhine.

Paris was regularly bombarded by the largest of German artillery. Some of the cities closer to the border were reduced to rubble.

Depravo
Feb 23, 2012, 01:50 AM
My point was that the way Infantry/Artillery war works in Civ5 is not all together different then how it actually was; a defensive stalemate until the development of durable, and mobile technologies.

To me, the weapons that really tipped the balance in favour of the defender in this period were the machine gun and breech-loading rifles, not the big guns. The Eastern Front in WWI was far more mobile because the unit density was lower, but again the controlling factor there was infantry and cavalry, not artillery, which has never been the mainstay of any army. They call it 'supporting fire' for a reason.

Guns capable of reaching Dover from Antwerp etc were basically gimmicks and not worth representing at the unit scale.

A game where I can basically ignore all forms of infantry except as a picket line for my super-promoted artillery park of doom and to deliver the coup de grace to a shattered city isn't balanced.

Louis XXIV
Feb 23, 2012, 07:22 AM
Actually, if you look at battles like Verdun, Artillery was crucial. That was the biggest innovation Petain had for the French army. He made Artillery a priority. You couldn't win with Artillery alone, but you couldn't win without it either.

Depravo
Feb 23, 2012, 07:50 AM
Actually, if you look at battles like Verdun, Artillery was crucial. That was the biggest innovation Petain had for the French army. He made Artillery a priority. You couldn't win with Artillery alone, but you couldn't win without it either.

Sure, but the infantry was still the tip of the spear. The way things are, anything that steps into the open within range of my guns is dead meat. That ain't balance nor is it realistic.