Did they nerf artillery?

Socratatus · Nov 6, 2012

Only very early MEDIEVAL cannon was ineffective against troops generally (not in game) and effective against walls, but once you got to the 17th century onwards (ingame) it`s ability to kill troops escalated. You didn`t want to be a soldier facing artillery in the 17th\18th\19th 0r 20th centuries.

So to sum up, ingame arty should be effective against troops AND cities. They should be incredibly weak and slow if troops actually get into a melee battle with them. This arty weakness would make up for the Arty strength and be realistic. Even barabrians with swords should find it relatively easy to hurt\neutralise artillery if they get in contact.

The Civ devs have artillerry wrong. I don`t know who does their historical research.

Bibor · Nov 6, 2012

Socratatus said:
The Civ devs have artillerry wrong. I don`t know who does their historical research.

Each artillery piece is served by at least a dozen personnel. The Artillery's substantially weaker melee defence (when compared to contemporary infantry units) reflects this. Who does your research?

Gamewizard · Nov 6, 2012

Artillery are fine as they are now. They are the first siege unit with 3 range, they have indirect fire, they decimate cities, and they do decent damage to melee units (without cover promotions). If they were any stronger vs units everyone would be calling for the nerf bat.

Socratatus · Nov 6, 2012

Bibor said:
Each artillery piece is served by at least a dozen personnel. The Artillery's substantially weaker melee defence (when compared to contemporary infantry units) reflects this. Who does your research?

That has proved nothing against what I`ve said the point is that Arty is too strong. In fact Arty could still be a tad weaker while made stronger. Perhaps you should work more on your research by reading what I wrote.

Bibor · Nov 6, 2012

Socratatus said:
That has proved nothing against what I`ve said the point is that Arty is too strong. In fact Arty could still be a tad weaker while made stronger. Perhaps you should work more on your research by reading what I wrote.

I don't understand. Artillery is already very strong against both units and cities. As other people already said, its a great leap from the cannon, especially thanks to 3-hex indirect fire. And its already pretty weak against melee units; even a rifleman can do significant damage to it. Artillery shouldn't be super-vunerable. There's always a sizeable contingent of *soldiers* protecting it (within the unit).

aluelkdf · Nov 6, 2012

Artillery should be weak against melee attack. True, there is a large contingent of soldiers protecting artillery, but these are your infantry and riflemen. If the artilerymen where left to their own devises, they would never be able to defend against a close range infantry attack, or even a cavalry charge.

I think artillery is fine the way it is. I agree that in real life artillery does more damage to units than what is represented in the game. But we want a fun game, no one unit should dominate the battlefield. The units need to be balanced against eachother, each with strengths and weaknesses. This forces you to use a variety of units, and to use them together in a coordinated way.

Stalker0 · Nov 6, 2012

Artillery is plenty strong already, a few of them can decimate units before they even get close.

And melee units aren't really the counter to artillery, horses are.

jjkrause84 · Nov 12, 2012

mabalogna said:
Thats also slightly inaccurate. WWI deaths came from disease, freezing, rats and other conditions brought on from being in a trench, and then there was the pointless raids when the men went over the top and were greated by machine guns.

No, the poster you reference was exactly correct in stating that the majority of battlefield casualties in the First World War came from artillery (up to 66%, depending on who you read).

Rats and feeezing did not account for a measurable number of deaths (I've yet to find a single instance of either happening, although I'm sure that someone, somewhere, must have died from being bitten or from the cold). If you're interested in the war I'd be happy to recommend some good books.

jjkrause84 · Nov 12, 2012

Bibor said:
Each artillery piece is served by at least a dozen personnel. The Artillery's substantially weaker melee defence (when compared to contemporary infantry units) reflects this. Who does your research?

The French 75 was manned by five-man crews.....other field and heavy guns of the period had similar contingents.

Hammer Rabbi · Nov 12, 2012

i do know gatling guns got nerfed, from 36 ranged strength to 30 i think but i dont know about artillery. i always noticed they didnt do much against units better than rifles. but they were always decent against cities.

Crow T Robot · Nov 13, 2012

mabalogna said:
Thats also slightly inaccurate. WWI deaths came from disease, freezing, rats and other conditions brought on from being in a trench, and then there was the pointless raids when the men went over the top and were greated by machine guns

As for game balance - Artillery has always been a little to powerful, especially with indirect fire 3 tiles away, so having it become less effective in favour of Air power is welcoming.

You're both right. Artillery was the single largest cause of battlefield casualties, while disease and such especially with the 1918/1919 flu pandemic, was the largest overall cause of death (as was usually the case with large wars). The machine gun though, got a lot of notoriety from the war, in part because of the way men were ordered into it.

Bibor · Nov 13, 2012

jjkrause84 said:
The French 75 was manned by five-man crews.....other field and heavy guns of the period had similar contingents.

Were there no soldiers except five per cannon in the unit? That seams rather odd, don't you think? These men did all the logistics by themselves?

EDIT: found it!

Each Mle 1897 75 mm field gun battery (4 guns) was manned by highly trained crews of 170 men led by 4 officers recruited among graduates of engineering schools.

That's 43.5 personnel per gun.

jjkrause84 · Nov 13, 2012

Bibor said:
Were there no soldiers except five per cannon in the unit? That seams rather odd, don't you think? These men did all the logistics by themselves?

EDIT: found it!

Each Mle 1897 75 mm field gun battery (4 guns) was manned by highly trained crews of 170 men led by 4 officers recruited among graduates of engineering schools.

That's 43.5 personnel per gun.

I didn't realize you were casting it that broadly.

jjkrause84 · Nov 13, 2012

Crow T Robot said:
You're both right. Artillery was the single largest cause of battlefield casualties, while disease and such especially with the 1918/1919 flu pandemic, was the largest overall cause of death (as was usually the case with large wars). The machine gun though, got a lot of notoriety from the war, in part because of the way men were ordered into it.

Me generally were not 'ordered into machineguns' in the popular sense.

Peng Qi · Nov 13, 2012

Socratatus said:
Silliest thing I ever heard. That makes a game really unintuitive. If you know something was better then it should be the same ingame, saves reading the manual and having to figure out the wierdness.

Oh damn. Well, guess we need to up every unit's movement to like 100 now! I mean only moving such a small distance in 50 whole years?!? Wait, I guess they'd be dead of old age then anyway. Nevermind! All units now get deleted the turn after they're made! Gotta base these things on reality you see.

Also, I think you've figured out why everyone thinks Chess is such a crappy game that nobody plays. Knights leaping OVER their infantry line? Sending the QUEEN out into battle, and further having her be the most effective combatant? Towers that MOVE? Preposterous!

Did they nerf artillery?

Socratatus

Emperor

Bibor

Doomsday Machine

Gamewizard

Emperor

Socratatus

Emperor

Bibor

Doomsday Machine

aluelkdf

Prince

Stalker0

Baller Magnus

jjkrause84

King

jjkrause84

King

Hammer Rabbi

Deity

Crow T Robot

Minister of Hedonism

Bibor

Doomsday Machine

jjkrause84

King

jjkrause84

King

Peng Qi

Emperor

Similar threads