2-range siege units not good enough on the field

[Jim Bro]

is it me or catapults, trebuchets and cannons are better in cities? i don't like to bring them with invading armies. they are always stuck somewhere, move slow and have poor defence. they should be able to move on a tile already occupied by a unit or something. this is rather stupid. in history they we're obviously needed on the attack and weren't used from cities that much (as far as i know)...

maybe you have a different opinion on this?

 

[Jon the Bastard]

is it me or catapults, trebuchets and cannons are better in cities? i don't like to bring them with invading armies. they are always stuck somewhere, move slow and have poor defence. they should be able to move on a tile already occupied by a unit or something. this is rather stupid. in history they we're obviously needed on the attack and weren't used from cities that much (as far as i know)...

maybe you have a different opinion on this?

So, you have beef with siege units?

I do not entirely agree with you. I think that siege units are highly effective when used from cities, if they are promoted that is. I wouldn't say that siege units are BETTER in cities. In fact, one could argue as to whether or not they are actually siege units if you do nothing but leave them in cities to attack incoming assaults... this sort of use turns them, more or less, into ranged units like a crossbowman or archer.

Siege units are difficult to bring with invading armies, but they can contribute a lot to a siege if you know how to use them. Without siege units, your invading force must be large (more infantry, ranged units, etc...) to make up for the lost firepower of, say, a cannon or catapult. It sounds like you are frustrated with including siege units in an invasion force because you haven't quite got a handle on how best to use them on the battlefield and while laying siege to a city. I would recommend you play a couple games and work on using siege units... they really are a standard part of any invading, offense oriented force.

 

[GenjiKhan]

Well, Siege Units exists to help city's conquest and they are slow and vulnerable to counter attack to balance the game(you wouldn't want to see unstoppable cannons going to your yard). beside, Civilization 5 has abandoned the idea of SOD and adopted the idea of 1UPT,that's why you can't put 2 or more units in the same tile. To prevent counter attack,just put them behind a melee unit,like a swordsman/longswordman,musket,etc and if it's possible,use terrain around the city you are invading to your advantage,like putting your siege units to attack on a hill or on the other side of the river where city is located,etc.

 

[roguepro92]

one suggestion i can make is that
ONE siege unit be allowed to enter a tile with ONE other unit.
if the tile is attacked/bombarded the stronger unit gets hit/damaged
but neither unit can attack/heal/promote and the "protector" unit of the siege cannot gain xp from being attacked/bombarded while stacked like that.
one must move so either can attack/heal/promote/ gain xp.

otherwise i do agree with how siege units are.
slow, weak in defense. that's how they were in history and if you can't utilize them, its probably your lack of controlling the area in which your soldiers are in.

 

[DaveMcW]

Declare war on a city state, bombard it for 25 turns, promote to 3 range.

 

[thadian]

Declare war on a city state, bombard it for 25 turns, promote to 3 range.

i will have to begin to employ this method, is there a penalty for prolonged war against civs or city states? i remember i previous installments something about the aggressor getting unhappiness.

 

[Helmling]

one suggestion i can make is that
ONE siege unit be allowed to enter a tile with ONE other unit.
if the tile is attacked/bombarded the stronger unit gets hit/damaged
but neither unit can attack/heal/promote and the "protector" unit of the siege cannot gain xp from being attacked/bombarded while stacked like that.
one must move so either can attack/heal/promote/ gain xp.

otherwise i do agree with how siege units are.
slow, weak in defense. that's how they were in history and if you can't utilize them, its probably your lack of controlling the area in which your soldiers are in.

I've said as much. I think it should be 1 unit per type per tile, with infantry, siege, civilian, naval and special units. That system could have created the same rich tactics the Civ 5 team was going for while preventing the log jams that make the game frustrating and avoiding the insane situation of an archer being able to shoot over a distance that's equivalent to hundreds of miles.

 

[Johan de Witt]

If you think siege units are in a sorry state, I suggest actually trying to use them on the offense.

Most deity domination victories I had (I say most because Keshik aren't siege units but they completely remove the need for siege) I got because of siege.

When properly employed, a group of two or three spearmen with two catapults can completely wreck an enemy army of swordsmen in the field and once you get them to logistics, a small group of siege will reduce a city to rubble in a few turns. It's an investment, but in the end it pays off.

 

[gozpel]

Declare war on a city state, bombard it for 25 turns, promote to 3 range.

What he said!

I only build 2-3 cats in the whole game, but to get them sufficient you have to exploit the game a little bit. The game tries to fool me all the time, so by using a "little" exploit as Dave mentioned, it can make you strong on Immortal and Deity.

Do the same with your swords and you can have a really strong army of 5 swords and 3 cats, almost unbeatable. Upgraded, they will continue wreaking their havoc.

 

[Babri]

I think siege units should be buffed a bit & changed slightly. They should get bonus when attacking cities & penalty when attacking units. They should also get indirect fire so that they are not completely useless in cities with lots of forested areas.

 

[gozpel]

I think siege units should be buffed a bit & changed slightly. They should get bonus when attacking cities & penalty when attacking units. They should also get indirect fire so that they are not completely useless in cities with lots of forested areas.

Please, explain indirect fire?

 

[Rex_Mundi]

i will have to begin to employ this method, is there a penalty for prolonged war against civs or city states? i remember i previous installments something about the aggressor getting unhappiness.

You get a diplomatic penalty if you declare multiple wars, wars against city states count towards that.
There is no war weariness in this game.

 

[TyBoy]

Don't forget that those archers are 50 miles tall, making a few hundred mile shot not such a big deal. Seriously though, worrying about misalignments of scale between real life and any of the civ games is kind of a ridiculous undertaking. Bring the game clock into it and things can get really out of hand.

A stacking change like that would defeat a lot of the purpose of 1upt, which is to allow for tactical placement of units. If you can park a defensive unit on top of your artillery then that artillery unit no longer really has a vulnerability to melee attack, which is the weakness that justifies such a powerful ranged attacker. If you were going to allow some stacking like that the penalty would have to be quite a bit rougher I think. Something like, the melee unit defends, but at the strength of the artillery, or greatly reduced strength so that the melee unit is mostly just cannon fodder to prevent a unit from sneaking into your formation and sniping your artillery. Also, if the artillery fired that would have to prevent stacking for that turn or you could just move a defender off, fire, then move that defender back on.

@ the OP: Artillery units are definitely incredibly powerful defenders in a city, they're my choice every time it matters. They also take down enemy cities with surprising ease though. The key to using them is to analyze the terrain and zones of control of your defending units as well as knowing where the enemy units are coming from so that they are not vulnerable to counter attack. It's not trivial, but the payoff is big since you can take a high strength city without putting your own units in much danger at all, allowing them to get the promotions that make for really powerful units down the line (if you hit dynamite with 3-4 range/double attack cannons ready to go, that's the game).

 

[civnoob13]

I think siege units should be buffed a bit & changed slightly. They should get bonus when attacking cities & penalty when attacking units. They should also get indirect fire so that they are not completely useless in cities with lots of forested areas.

I don't think they should get a penalty for attacking units, IMHO it would make them very boring and annoyingly ineffective in combat.

Please, explain indirect fire?

He just did. So they can go through forests and hills, making them more useful. In my opinion the most annoying aspect of early siege units is that they are almost completely useless against cities that are surrounded by forests or hills. They are next to the city, so susceptible to attack and they are blocking other units from attacking.

 

[shihuacao]

Cities should have 3 range after Dynamite.

 

[Babri]

I don't think they should get a penalty for attacking units, IMHO it would make them very boring and annoyingly ineffective in combat.

I suggested that because right now they can become too powerful when garrisoned in cities. If you want to hurt units, then use archers instead. Cannons & artillery are fine though as there is no other ranged unit in that era

He just did. So they can go through forests and hills, making them more useful. In my opinion the most annoying aspect of early siege units is that they are almost completely useless against cities that are surrounded by forests or hills. They are next to the city, so susceptible to attack and they are blocking other units from attacking.

I agree. Thats why suggested indirect fire for them. But for balancing purpose penalty against units would be must if this promo is given to siege units.

 

[chazzycat]

I think siege weapons are fine. Bring along enough strong front-line soldiers to stand in front of them, and cavalry to protect the flanks. Properly protected, siege weapons are quite effective in taking down cities from range. It just requires effort & planning to bring them to bear properly. Make sure you plan out your siege ahead of time, accounting for terrain to get your siege weapons to the proper tile where they are within range of cities but protected by a front-line solder in front of them. If such tiles don't exist on the side of the city you are approaching from, you can choose another city as your first target and then maybe you can circle back and take advantage of the better geography on the other side of the city.

 

[SammyKhalifa]

War's never been my strong suit in any of these games, but catapult and the like seem plenty good to me as it is. A few seem to be able to take just about any city as long as you use common sense.

 

[Furycrab]

A while back I found them quite terrible, but since then they buffed them to actually smack other units much harder than archers, and as long as you baby sit them, they make great upgraded arties later.

Cities now use the Ranged strength of the siege unit when determining damage... So even if the city can fight back, bring 2 or 3 catapults with a frontline of spears or swords and they won't last very long.

 

[TPQ]

Siege units seem fine as they are to me. As stated, protect them behind the front line melee troops and watch out for fast units trying to flank your front line to get to your siege. Ideally, you want some of your melee units flanking your siege to box them in and protect them from flank attacks, but depending on terrain, this is not always needed.

They are relatively slow and weak when directly attacked, but they are powerful in the role they perform and do speed up capturing cities and reduce casualties among your melee troops, which translates to an overall faster offensive.

Unless you are way ahead in tech (like, Mech Infs VS muskets/rifles) siege is usually a very valuable unit to have in your offensive force.

You're quite right about their city defense though. They are great in that role.