[POLL] Ranged Vs. Siege: Your Preference?

[DoodlesTheDragon]

At this point I've reached the conclusion that Ranged units are generally superior to Siege units-they're quicker, less vulnerable to attack than Siege units, enemy units are far more numerous and dangerous than enemy cities, and cities usually take awhile to capture anyways, rendering the slightly faster conquest of Siege units mostly moot to me unless I'm trespassing on most of a weak city state's land to try and take it out in 2-3 turns or using a Siege based civ like Korea or the Ottomans anyways. I've also read that Siege units are better when Artillery comes along and that Ranged is better earlier on, in the more decisive period of the game. But maybe there are some key factors I'm missing here-what do you all think?

 

[Tekamthi]

I often run armies without siege, but those armies often get stuck on certain cities until I add at least one or two siege units to their mix. I never run armies without ranged units though

 

[ma_kuh]

Siege has access to splash damage, and doesn't have a penalty to naval (or was that changed with the recent domain changes...). I don't think the execution is perfect, but those are the niches that Siege is theoretically better in (and against cities, obviously, but the whole 1 move/turn in enemy terrain is way too penalizing, in my opinion).

On the subject of siege, I'm curious why VP went the way of removing setup for siege, but adding the slow-down in enemy territory. Having heavy-hitting placements that can't shoot and scoot like archers feels like a great way to differentiate the two classes.

 

[Tekamthi]

Siege has access to splash damage, and doesn't have a penalty to naval (or was that changed with the recent domain changes...). I don't think the execution is perfect, but those are the niches that Siege is theoretically better in (and against cities, obviously, but the whole 1 move/turn in enemy terrain is way too penalizing, in my opinion).

On the subject of siege, I'm curious why VP went the way of removing setup for siege, but adding the slow-down in enemy territory. Having heavy-hitting placements that can't shoot and scoot like archers feels like a great way to differentiate the two classes.

AI can't manage the setup procedure effectively, whereas it can manage the normal movement rules

 

[phantomaxl1207]

Ranged Units are better until Field Guns. Catapults are mediocre, it maybe worth bringing 2 to help vs Walls. Trebs and Cannons are good. You'll want Trebs when fighting Castles. Artillery are amazing.

And then Gatling Guns have their debuffing aura.

 

[Stalker0]

I guess I don’t understand what “favor” means here. If you’re asking if I build more ranges than siege…I mean sure. I build siege when I need to take key cities, that’s what it’s for. When i take cities I do think siege is better, so it’s fulfilling its niche

 

[azum4roll]

Siege is definitely better against ships.

There are two phases: pre-Field Gun where Siege has higher base CS than Ranged, and post-Gatling Gun where Ranged has higher base CS, but Siege has utilities like extra range and Indirect Fire. That's when you want to field both even in a land war not sieging cities.

 

[KlHannibal2]

Early game I find them balanced and each has its niche. Late game I prefer siege as long as I have the iron. They eventually get indirect fire, +1 range and +1 move for free. While ranged units were nerfed by preventing them from getting indirect fire even from promotions. People never heard of mortars I suppose.

 

[stii]

I find siege units pretty useless for half the game. You are simply better off sweeping the city area of units with ranged units then focusing the city down. Having 1/2 siege units after you've won very slightly speeds things up.

Later on field gun and artillery are useful, although field guns are still a bit awkward.

 

[azum4roll]

People never heard of mortars I suppose.

That's not a thing in VP. We only have Bazookas.

 

[KlHannibal2]

That's not a thing in VP. We only have Bazookas.

Yeah, I mean the indirect fire promotion on ranged units could mean they got mortars instead of machine guns or bazookas. People were arguing to remove that promotion for reasons of realism.

 

[Stalker0]

People were arguing to remove that promotion for reasons of realism.

I think that was a minority of the argument, most people wanting it removed was a power reason.

 

[statusquo]

Siege units are very vulnerable, and slow. Maybe instead -1 movement in enemy territory, they should simply have "spend all movement points when entering movement territory"?
Or, maybe instead movement penalty they should have 1 movement point for deployment, but get additional ranged defences when deployed?
Also siege have immediately Cover 1, so you can take Cover 2, this help a lot, since often siege units are usually priority targets by cities.
With ranged units im usually going for medics, at least until late game.
But honestly, if you attack 1 city, opponent can throw at you the whole army, so killing opponents units is much bigger problem, then attacking cities.
When you manage opponent army, usually the city isn't that big problem.
But still, i like to have about 5 siege units when attacking the cities, usually to switch damaged units to healthy.
But im glad, when 2 units are able to attack each turn, 3 is rarely possible..
And i'm always planning "the angle" so that my siege units can attack city from the distance, and at the same time, be protected from cavalry..
Maybe, instead be much more vulnerable to melee attack, siege units could be stronger, but lose action points, for melee attack taken on the same turn..
This would simulate, not that the canon was destroyed it self, but "the crew" was fighting/defending..
Thou, when you manage to kill the garrison of the city, then suddenly any attacks takes much more city HP..
Not sure about math and calculations, but maybe siege units should do more damage to garrison unit? As for now, i have feeling its barely noticeable..

 

[KlHannibal2]

I like the movement penalty in enemy territory. It makes tile control very meaningful. If you have a large territory around your city, it will help defend due to slowing down siege units. Likewise, taking over enemy territory with citadels or american UA helps a lot in attacking. As does bonus movement on siege units.

 

[N.Core]

People were arguing to remove that promotion for reasons of realism.

Not realism, but the promotion itself is kinda a problem. If you pick Indirect Fire on Siege Units prior to Field Gun, they will not get XP refund when that unit upgrades into Field Gun. So most of the time you avoid picking Indirect Fire because you'll eventually get it anyway. Also, the reason it was removed from Archer Line was because that promotion is too powerful on them.

 

[N.Core]

Siege units are very vulnerable, and slow. Maybe instead -1 movement in enemy territory, they should simply have "spend all movement points when entering movement territory"?

That's just returning setup action to attack the next turn.

Or, maybe instead movement penalty they should have 1 movement point for deployment, but get additional ranged defences when deployed?

The reason it was changed from requiring a setup to -1 movement in enemy territory is that the AI can't use setting up siege very well. If you want this ability to return then someone's gotta train the AI to do this.

 

[KlHannibal2]

Not realism, but the promotion itself is kinda a problem. If you pick Indirect Fire on Siege Units prior to Field Gun, they will not get XP refund when that unit upgrades into Field Gun. So most of the time you avoid picking Indirect Fire because you'll eventually get it anyway. Also, the reason it was removed from Archer Line was because that promotion is too powerful on them.

The option to take indirect fire on early siege units was very meaningful. Usually you would avoid it as you would get it for free later. But if you want to take a city in rough terrain, you may want to pay the price of wasted xp (on the long run) to get indirect fire early.

 

[KlHannibal2]

I like the movement penalty in enemy territory. It makes tile control very meaningful. If you have a large territory around your city, it will help defend due to slowing down siege units. Likewise, taking over enemy territory with citadels or american UA helps a lot in attacking. As does bonus movement on siege units.

Oh, and another factor why I like the movement penalty: if your attack fails and you retreat, you may have to leave siege units behind. This is quite realistic.

 

[ma_kuh]

I just want Trebuchets with indirect fire. Even if they lose it when going to cannons. Might be an interesting spike/lag on city captures to give it to them. But I'll admit it would be for 90% thematic reasons; I don't really know that there's a strategic reason for it.

 

[andersw]

If I have to choose one Id take siege, they do a lot more vs cities, however until I have +1 range they are mostly trying to stay alive and exp.
When field guns come online they dominate.
Crossbows are nice but if I want safe "ranged" attacks I use skirmishers.