2-range siege units not good enough on the field

[Babri]

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.

Ever tried to attack 50+ Tenochititlan with garrisoned trebuchet & surrounded by forests & jungles ?
I brought 4 cannons, 2 conquistadors & 2 Terico & still it was so hard to attack that city. There were very few hills so my cannons had to stand adjacent to the city.

 

[tdqtiger]

I think one problem might be that the OP is going for a city right off the bat. I have found that the best tactic is to take up a defensive position and lure the AI's army out and destroy it, then go for cities. Even at that, siege units are great. You hide them behind your frontline units, range the enemy to death, then let your wings clean up what's left. I'm guessing that the OP is probably moving in on cities when the AI has too many units left, and they are coming in behind him. I could be wrong, but that's what it sounds like.

 

[BobDole]

Siege units are fine. Even with 2 range for most of the game, they're quite strong on offense. Occasionally you attack some annoying city with a lot of forests or something else limiting range, but otherwise they work perfectly.

 

[Emstinson]

All I will say is make sure you have one unit with medic. Because if the AI latches on to bombarding your siege with its city defenses it gets annoying trying to siege. And yes, whoever mentioned pre plan your siege is spot on, you better have the hills planned out you want your units on and people to defend or set up a ZoC next to any plains or grassland next to them. I rarely go on the offensive without siege units unless my troops STR are above the defenses of the city I am after. And I stick by my belief that cannons are the game ender in most games for me. AI just can't fight back if you have two or three ready to rock. I love my siege in this game....

 

[_hero_]

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?

According to the patch notes:

Increased combat strength of siege weapons to 50% of their ranged strength,

This should help with that particular problem somewhat.

As for your overall statement, siege units can be a bit frustrating, but if used properly they can be game changing. You can significantly speed up your invasions if you use siege properly.

 

[Bibor]

is it me or catapults, trebuchets and cannons are better in cities?

It's you

I plan siege weapon numbers, paths and positioning at least 10 turns before the war even starts. Never had any problems with them.

 

[Uniform Sierra]

It's very difficult to wage a proper conquest without losing units. You will need cannon fodder to protect your siege units, and even with the best strategy, chances are at least one is going to die. You have to think of melee units as an accessory to siege units. They're only there to shield and eventually capture a 1HP city.

The only time I don't use siege units is when I have Keshiks. I usually get within range, fire and get out of dodge before taking fire, rinse and repeat. So much fun.

 

[Jim Bro]

It's you

I plan siege weapon numbers, paths and positioning at least 10 turns before the war even starts. Never had any problems with them.

yeah i guess they require more planning.