How To Use Artillery Defensively.

[Von Wichstein]

I've been able to learn about the effectiveness of artillery first hand. I was able to invade a continent with artillery. Using 3 samurai (outdated, i know), 5 Infantry, 2 marines, and 4 artillery. I used artillery to destroy their (in this game England) railroad system with artillery and the Samurai, cutting off the city from any help. Then, after bombarding the city, I attacked with marines, followed by the infantry and took over a major city.

I used Artillery a whole lot in that game because I was on a map of Japan, at the Southern tip of the island where there were many narrow straits with which i was able to hit enemy nations with artillery and not worry about the artillery being captured. My navy and artillery ruled the day. Goes to show that artillery is a really effective offensive unit.

 

[XOVER]

I agree that artillery has its uses. But I almost never build them. I like to take them in conquest, but I just think it's a big waste to build them. I'd rather be building a Cav or a tank if I'm not building an improvement. But not artillery.

I always use artillery defensively; that is, to weaken opponent's units in the field before attacking and destoying those units. I eschew using them offensively because my conquered cities tend to be so far from my capital, they're one shield cities, and so I need those marketplaces, barracks, etc, that are already there, and I darn sure don't want to destroy them with artillery.

Since artillery can't move after they shoot, I like to weaken the enemy by firing the artillery from within a city. That way they're better protected after they shoot.

JMO.

 

[CIVPhilzilla]

Another idea, to keep ships from even entering your territory load up 8 artillery in a transport and shell the ships from there.

 

[Moonsinger]

Originally posted by CIVPhilzilla
Another idea, to keep ships from even entering your territory load up 8 artillery in a transport and shell the ships from there.

That must be a bug in your version because I have tried that a year ago and it didn't work. Basically, artillery can't be fired from a transport. Otherwise, imagining a fleet of a couple battleships and a couple transports full of artilleries - no AI fleet would be able to withstand that. Moreover, why build battleship or destroyer when you can simply just build a cheap transport with 8 big gun which can fire 8 times per turn. Exactly the reason why that isn't allowed in the game.

 

[The Last Conformist]

Nice to see all support for the Arty, but why are all so dismissive of Catapults and Cannon? I can sort of understand about Cannon, not because it's bad, but because it happens to belong to the period when Cav simply outclasses everything else in the field, but I actually find Catapults highly useful, both on attack and defense.

 

[zagnut]

I think there are several reasons:

1. They come early in the game when enemy cities are generally small and don't need to be bombarded down in size;

2. There are other offensive units that are more valuable in their ability to conquer territory. I think most people would rather use shields to build Swordsmen and Horsemen than Catapaults;

3. They only have one movement point and have to get next to an enemy unit to be able to bombard it. This requires more unit coordination than many people want to deal with;

4. They only have 1/2 the bombardment power of Cannon and don't seem to be able to do much damage.

 

[Civlord]

(Sorry for bumping an old thread, but I found this interesting and I thought I should reply it)

Well, but all artilery may be efficient sometimes. If you have to attack an important city on a hill in the ancient times or in most of the middle ages you will have to use catapults (and trebuchets in C3C) unless you want to suffer a LOT of damage. For example, if you want to attack a city with musketmen on a hill with knights, then you surely will have to use more primitive forms of bombardment to weaken the defenders.

 

[Pentium]

I agree with you, Civlord.

4. They only have 1/2 the bombardment power of Cannon and don't seem to be able to do much damage.

They have twice as much power as the best defender of its age, as much as trebuchet and cannon. However, in AA, most cities and below size 6, while in MA there are several 6+ cities. So they're actually the most powerful.

Also, regarding movement, they move exactly as fast as Swords or Archers. And they can attack the same turn the ground units can.

 

[VladTepes]

Another way to use Arty offensively is when you have an MPP. I like to build fortresses in allied territory and put infantry (for defense) and arty. You place these far enough back from the border to save them from an initial enemy cav rush, but close enough together for mutual fire support. Voila - a system of firebases! What stinks, however, is that you can't build airbases even in allied territory. Why can't they allow you to put units in allied cities like in SMAC??

Another good method, especially to foil the "cav rush," is a defense in depth. Place barricades along the border and fortresses in a network behind so as to create kill zones. This obviuosly requires a number of workers and is best for industrious civs.

 

[Himalia]

Im not a fan of the SOD artillery combo i find that artilery is best in defence. When someone atatcks your cities even just a few pieces of artillery can realy make the difference to the battle. Yes i realise that this could work for the attacker as well. But keep in mind if there in your land they will be unable to benefit from your roads/railroads and you can get the first volley in with home advantage. Not much fun fleeing enemy teritory under those cicumstances.

 

[Civlord]

What stinks, however, is that you can't build airbases even in allied territory. Why can't they allow you to put units in allied cities like in SMAC??

Considering the agressive reputation of Mr. AI X (you can place any leader name, but mostly "Bismarck", "Shaka" and "Montezuma"), if they could place units in your cities then they would place a lot of then, break the treaty and it wouldn't be nice to have more enemy units garissoning your capital than you have. That's why this feature was totally disabled in Civ3, but it could work well between humans on multiplayer.

 

[VladTepes]

Considering the agressive reputation of Mr. AI X (you can place any leader name, but mostly "Bismarck", "Shaka" and "Montezuma"), if they could place units in your cities then they would place a lot of then, break the treaty and it wouldn't be nice to have more enemy units garissoning your capital than you have. That's why this feature was totally disabled in Civ3, but it could work well between humans on multiplayer.

SO just code it to automatically expel units once the treaty is over....

 

[Civlord]

Anyway, considering that the AI doesn't get his units expelled during a ROP rape, then if you get their units into your cities than won't have to be expelled or otherwise everything that he has inside your border must be expelled. This may seem good but in Domination and Conquest games many people simply wouldn't be able to use the ROP rape strategy against the AI, and on higher levels, the AI is so strong that you WILL have to ROP rape it to avoid attrition. It's not so simple like that.