Catapults, are they worth it?

Mama Lazarou · Sep 8, 2006

In almost all previous versions of Civ I've pretty much entirely neglected the use of all artillery (except Radar in Civ III because of it's range, and artillery to weaken ships when my navy was too weak) due to them needing an escort, alongside a high chance of failure in attack. Are catapults now worth building and taking on campaign?

MrCynical · Sep 8, 2006

Catapults and the other artillery units are near essential for taking well defended cities. They are very definitely worth it.

Shillen · Sep 8, 2006

More like necessary in 90% of cases. The culture bonuses and city garrison bonuses that units get make them extremely powerful defending in a city.

Mama Lazarou · Sep 8, 2006

I've only played about 4 games so far with Civ IV by the way and haven't gotten around to using them.

drkodos · Sep 8, 2006

I often do not use any siege weapons, but that is mainly because I forget to build them.

Middle Age rushes and attacks definitely benefit from the use of siege engines. It allows one to use less units and possibly save a lot of them from prematurely going to the great beyond.

Shillen · Sep 8, 2006

drkodos said:
I often do not use any siege weapons, but that is mainly because I forget to build them.

Middle Age rushes and attacks definitely benefit from the use of siege engines. It allows one to use less units and possibly save a lot of them from prematurely going to the great beyond.

The 10% of the time when catapults are not necessary is 1) when your opponent's culture bonus is only 20% or less in all of its cities (i.e. ancient age), 2) if you have an overpowered UU (cossack, praetorian or possibly even redcoat) or 3) you have an extreme tech lead over your opponent (in which case you're probably playing below your level).

large_cerebrum1 · Sep 8, 2006

Catapults are really useful, not only when attacking cities, but defending them too. I tend to send one or two large stacks in when attacking, and trust me, seige weapons really hurt when you've got a large stack of units and the other guy has a whole whack of seige weapons since units can't heal when moving (well, unless you've got that march promotion, but unless I've got mech infantry, none of my units ever have that promotion), and units heal really slowly in enemy territory. When your attacking with catapults, they die really easily, but the collatoral damage they do on units inside cities really help when you actually start the attack with your regular units.

HectorSpector · Sep 8, 2006

If you don't need siege weapons, then you're probably playing at too easy a level.

It's an asbolute waste of units to attack a 60% culture city (worse on a hill) without siege units, unless your units are more advanced than the AI.

automator · Sep 8, 2006

near essential for taking well defended cities.

Indeed. Think about a city with a 60% defence bonus. An archer sitting in that city, even without a city garrison bonus is suddenly a 4.8 strength. Add in city garrison and/or fortify bonus and you're talking about an archer with effective strength of 7+.

You got a few catupults to bombard away the defense, and now your going up an archer with 1.8 fewer strength points.

What odds do you perfer, a 5.0 axe vs. a 7.0 archer or a 5.0 axe vs. a 3.0 archer?

Use three of those cats as suicides and the collateral damage will knock another point off the extra archers in the city.

Moonsinger · Sep 8, 2006

HectorSpector said:
If you don't need siege weapons, then you're probably playing at too easy a level.

It's an asbolute waste of units to attack a 60% culture city (worse on a hill) without siege units, unless your units are more advanced than the AI.

I'm with you on this one. Moreover, if your units are more advanced than the AI, "then you're probably playing at too easy a level".

Stolen Rutters · Sep 8, 2006

What!!??

Oh, a legitimate question. Welcome to the forum.

Yes they are basically essential until you get artillery or bombers.

(I'm finally playing Emperor. Woohoo!)

edit - italics inspired from very next post...

drkodos · Sep 8, 2006

Stolen Rutters said:
What!!??

Oh, a legitimate question. Welcome to the forum.

Yes they are basically essential until you get bombers.

(I'm finally playing Emperor. Woohoo!)

No love for Artillery?

Nothing like pimping out the Artillery with CR promotions and having them attack directly into the city after bombarding its defenses to zero. One of the unheralded late game units, IMO.

Mama Lazarou · Sep 8, 2006

Cheers everyone, I'll fire the game up now and see if I can make good use of them!

automator · Sep 8, 2006

Yes they are basically essential until you get bombers.

But then you're forgetting how fun it is to take a city using ONLY artillery! Bombard to zero, then use bombers/stealth bombers en masse to reduce all units in city to half their normal strength. Then use triple city raider upgraded artillery to destroy everything with their 18 + 75% (+10% if gunpowder units are guarding!)! It's fun, and having a level 6 or 7 artillery is pretty fun.

drkodos · Sep 8, 2006

automator said:
But then you're forgetting how fun it is to take a city using ONLY artillery! Bombard to zero, then use bombers/stealth bombers en masse to reduce all units in city to half their normal strength. Then use triple city raider upgraded artillery to destroy everything with their 18 + 75% (+10% if gunpowder units are guarding!)! It's fun, and having a level 6 or 7 artillery is pretty fun.

If you play in Warlords you can attach a Great General to an artillery and really push the promotions to make a city killing machine that is beyond the pale.

Antilogic · Sep 8, 2006

You know, at first I thought an artillery general was kind of cheesy, but with Tactics (for +30% withdrawal), CR III, and if possible Barrage, you have an incredible attacker. I'm a convert.

MSTK · Sep 8, 2006

...Are you kidding? In Civ3 Catapults and artillery were one of the most essential units in the game! Especially since they were practically invincible in SoD's. A good catapult stack can essentially reduce a city full of 5+ veterens to 1-hp less-than-conscripts. Catapults and artillery are ESSENTIAL to wage a war in Civ 3, unless you plan on losing almost all of your units to every city attack.

In Civ4 there's a setback, because catapults can no longer attack units directly without the risk of being destroyed. But they deal collateral damage, which is almost invaluable. Catapults often attack more than four units at a time in an enemy city or stack, making them, obviously, a great tool. At this point the devestating city defender reduction occurs even faster than in Civ 3. However, you lose some catapults along the way. But they are worth rebuilding.

I can't imagine how you could fight a war without them. Even trying would mean wasting so many of your real units to well-defended cities whereas you could simply take it without loosing anything but a couple of catapults.

bassist2119 · Sep 8, 2006

Second in value only to the worker, artillery is...

(Must be tired when I'm speaking Yoda-ese)

TrailblazingScot · Sep 8, 2006

Worth it?

They are it!

NKVD · Sep 8, 2006

automator said:
But then you're forgetting how fun it is to take a city using ONLY artillery! Bombard to zero, then use bombers/stealth bombers en masse to reduce all units in city to half their normal strength. Then use triple city raider upgraded artillery to destroy everything with their 18 + 75% (+10% if gunpowder units are guarding!)! It's fun, and having a level 6 or 7 artillery is pretty fun.

I have to try that! never build artillery...I was getting bombers instead.

Catapults, are they worth it?

Chieftain

Deity

Deity

Chieftain

Emperor

Deity

Chieftain

Chieftain

King

Settler

Deity

Emperor

Chieftain

King

Emperor

--

Deity

Warlord

I was kittenOFchaos

Cossack

Similar threads