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.
Expansion: While were at it, fix Artillery
- Thread starter TheHanzou
- Start date
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
Prince
Why this should be obvious?
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
.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
Prince
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.
Have you considered that the early bomber and tank will actually be artillery counters?
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
Prince
Yes exactly.
Louis XXIV
Le Roi Soleil
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.
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.
----
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Louis XXIV
Le Roi Soleil
Paris was regularly bombarded by the largest of German artillery. Some of the cities closer to the border were reduced to rubble.
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
Le Roi Soleil
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.
Similar threads
