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 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.