A petition to fix bombardment

[Ranos]

Signed. The simplest way to have "real" artillery (they way it is is just plain WRONG, dangit!) balanced is to maked it much more expensive. After all, siege and artillery always HAVE been the most expensive military units in history (in modern times aircraft). Make a catapult cost 3-4 times as much as it does now and the problem of "siege stacks of doom" is gone.

Then you have the problem of either having to wait 100 turns to get a good number of siege units or having only one or two to take into combat with you. The former results in wars being infrequent or late in the game and destroying the conquest victory. The latter results in not being able to take cities because the defenders heal faster than you can damage them.

Not quite true. It all depends on WHAT promotions siege units can get. You could easily balance that.[/QUOTE]
Currently siege units can have Accuracy, Ambush, Amphibious, Barrage, City Raider, Combat, Drill, March, Medic and Shock.

Accuracy would be okay as long as it only increased the chance of doing damage, not the actual ammount of damage.

Ambush, Amphibious, City Raider, Drill, March and Shock would not work at all.

Barrage or any collateral damage over doing maybe 5% to at most three units, would make them vastly overpowered.

Combat could maybe increase the percent damage they can do to units.

Medic could work since it would only help your own units.

The problem still remains that if you built 20 siege units, you could take them all to a city and you after that, you would need only one attacker per defender. Less if your units have Blitz. This would result in siege units being overpowered.

 

[Napo981]

I agree and disagree..

Kamikazing ranged units is ridiculous .

But the civ3 system allow you take a city without real casualties, which is bad too.

I would bring back a civ3 system but with some modifications.

1) allow some units to pick their target, such as the civ3 sub. Could be a promotion.
2) Make civs pay for their replacement. Would add some casualties to war. But this could already be counted in the "pay for war unit support" system already in civ4.
3) bring the airpower bombardement system to ranged units, in which you have a chance to hit your target or take casualties (but not automatic dead!) by the defenders.

This would represent big changes.

Maybe for civ5!!

 

[ainwood]

I'm more than happy with the Civ4 style, and found the Civ3 version too over-powering. Consider me counter-signing.

BTW - its not a kamikaze against a city anyway - if you use them strategically, you can get them being quite powerful / effective - I once had a Level 5 catapult.

 

[NorthNovas]

I have no problem with the artillery improvement. I just have to get used to AI lone artillery peices can't be steam rolled or captured. There is strategy with the artillary units being combined with other units.
However, the Naval Bombardment is disappointing. I don't know what resources are being used for the AI to rebuilt city defenses if you are harassing a coastline and unable to have units there to attack a city. Though it would be nice to take out some tile improvement that are on a coastline when you have a naval strike force prowling enemy waters.
I would really like to see the naval bombardment improved.

 

[Suspiria]

Yes i agree, the kamikaze attack is so stupid and unrealistic. I know its a game but the kamikaze attack is so godawful. Since when in real life do armies charge in with Artillery to cause collateral damage. What so they can just wheel artillery into the streets of Fallujah and hope to cause some collateral damage at great risk to themself? The Siege weapons should have different effects with bombardment more to reflect real life in some way.

Catapult - Minor damage to units, moderate damage to defenses.
Canon - Minor damage to units, medium damage to defenses.
Artillery - Moderate damage to units, high damage to defenses.

 

[Dairuka]

Countersign.

Catapults require strategic thinking now.

 

[daengle]

Personally I'm happy with the Artillery/Naval Bombardment system.

However, I think all these complaints can be easily addressed with simple changes to the unit XML files 'Assests\XML\Units\CIV4UnitInfos.xml'

1) Give all artillery units a 100% base withdraw chance so they can't be destroyed when attacking.
2) Give naval units the ability to make airstrike missions with a 1 or 2 space range.

These changes should create the effects the 'ranged bombardment' crowd wants.

The real problem, however, with this kinds of customizations is that the AI won't use the 'fixed' units correctly (just like CIV 3).

 

[Joh]

Countersign.

Catapults were never all that good at killing people hiding inside cities. Their main role was to destroy walls and defensive towers.

The game Rome: Total war illustrates this point. Against cities, catapults there are really only used for knocking down walls. If you try to use them against the troops inside, you have to move them closer, which frequently opens them up to a counter-attack. Then they'll run out of ammunition before doing significant damage more often than not. The effect is that you only bother with taking a few catapults to knock down walls, and leave it at that.

If you want realism, make razing a city the only option after using only artillery to capture it. After all, if all that is being done is randomly flinging ordnance towards it, there shouldn't be anything of value left.

On the other hand, cannons and artillery are strong enough in this game to take cities by their own right. They do get hurt in the process, but it's quite reasonable to assume that the city has some static cannon defensives firing back at them.

 

[Rhandom]

Signed, and signed. The whole nature of warfare is idiotic in Civ 4, but suicide artillery is possibly the dumbest aspect of any wargame I've ever played. Civ 3, or better yet, the counter battery of alpha Centauri would be so much better.

The idea that this preserves game balance is also stupid. There is no thought involved, just make that artillery and watch it die. Rinse. Repeat. If you are lucky, it will retreat before dying everyone once in a while and get an incremental boost to its power, and then it will die next time. Completely unnecessary, if it was even something like the air raid system it would be a lot better.

 

[Joh]

But you don't have to suicide your artillery.

Just use them to reduce defence bonues and leave it at that.

You can conquer whole civilisaitons with just a few artillery units.

It just seems that those complaining about the suicide artillery just are ignoring other city attack options, like infantry for example.

 

[oldStatesman]

But you don't have to suicide your artillery.

Just use them to reduce defence bonues and leave it at that.

You can conquer whole civilisaitons with just a few artillery units.

It just seems that those complaining about the suicide artillery just are ignoring other city attack options, like infantry for example.

Try playing against someone who is good at it...that is the downfall of suicide artillary. There is no real defense agaisnt it if it is used against you...ala the artillary system in Civ3.

I too am signing for Naval improvement.

Perhaps giving Naval units the power to Interdict a square for one or two turns through bombardment...not destroy it as in pillage or Civ3 style, but prevent the enemy from working that improved square for the next turn, or gaining road or rail bonuses from it (Like a blockade works on sea squares, or your unit occupying a worked squre without pillaging). This would simulate real naval bombardment in a lot of ways...it was not always the damage the guns did, but the fact that they kept the enemies head down and prevented them from re-supplying using roads, workers going to work because they were huddled in their shelters, etc.

 

[DemonDeLuxe]

Catapults were never all that good at killing people hiding inside cities. Their main role was to destroy walls and defensive towers.

Catapults not - but why, do you think, took Napoleon hundreds of cannons to Waterloo (he WAS an artillery officer, initially)? Quite obviously those weapons were quite effective vs. soldiers, no? Also, those siege weapons represent a whole CLASS of weapons, so a "catapult" symbolizes rams, trebuchets, siege towers, giant crossbows etc., SOME of which were efficient vs. buildings and SOME vs. "soft targets".

And I wonder: In EVERY SINGLE STRATEGY GAME I have ever played, the designers managed to handle ranged attacks. And it should be impossible to balance them in CIV? Sorry, that's ridiculous.

 

[Joh]

I was talking about catapults. I agree with cannons - napoleon's cannons with strength of 12, combat 1 and city raider 2 are fearsome city takers.

But catapults only have strength of 5 and often used by leaders without the free combat 1, so it's no surprise they're rather crappy.

 

[Harry Haller]

I like it just fine the way it is in Civ 4.

 

[HounddogLGS]

SIGNED! Civ4 artillery can't even attack ships, but it can capture a city- ridiculous!

I'd also like to see forts fixed- can't even place them in neutral territory, and they wipe out tile improvements, even forests.

 

[Exel]

Countersign to first point. Catapults can reduce city defense to 0 and function as super cruise missles afterwards. That's not powerful enough?

They would obviously need to be nerfed in strenght if the change back to Civ3 style artillery was made.

The Civ4 system may be balanced, but at least for me it doesn't give the slightest feel of real artillery. It doesn't necessarily have to be realistic (well, it can't be hardcore realistic in a game like Civ) but it should give the feeling of real artillery in action. And the way Civ4 portrays artillery is not how artillery works. They fire barrages from a good distance, and will eventually decimate the enemy if not countered - they are not assault weapons. The only way to defend against artillery is to attack it; this is how it is in reality, and this is how it was in Civ3.

 

[Tholomeo]

SIGNED! Civ4 artillery can't even attack ships, but it can capture a city- ridiculous!

I'd also like to see forts fixed- can't even place them in neutral territory, and they wipe out tile improvements, even forests.

Yep! Completely agree!
Moreover, I demand howitzers back! It is not realistic that on the top of technology progress I have these clumsy artillery units with one movement point.
The only reason I never use artilleries is their sluggishness! All my forces have 2 or more movement points (modern armors and mech.infantry, sometimes helicopters), and stupid war weariness pushes me to conquer faster and faster!
Am I crazy? Will I wait for these slugs to come and destroy some worthless city's defences? For sure, not! That's why I have only one option - to sacrifice packs of stealth bombers (arghh, because for some miraculous reason, AI's figters and SAMs work MUCH MUCH better than mine!).

This IS VERY unrealistic!

 

[haard]

-- countersigned --

 

[Wodan]

Re: Artillery
I didn't like the C3 system, it's broken gameplay. I like the C4 system, but it's a tad unrealistic.

I also liked the SMAC system. For those unfamiliar with it, basically artillery are combat units (like Civ4). If an artillery bombarded a tile with an enemy artillery, they entered a "bombardment duel" where they shelled each other, and ending (usually) with the destruction of one or the other. In effect, it was a direct combat between the two artillery units (probably used the same algorithm to resolve as any other combat).

Perhaps a combination of the SMAC and Civ4 systems is the answer.

Wodan

 

[Exel]

Perhaps a combination of the SMAC and Civ4 systems is the answer.

I'd rather see the combination of SMAC and Civ3 systems, essentially Civ3 with counter-artillery fire.

Civ3 artillery system was definitely not without problems. But this about the concept, not the exact implementation. Certainly the Civ3 system can be improved and balanced so it isn't overpowered or exploitable. The point here is that the Civ3 artillery is much, much better as a concept.

And people please, this is not a poll for or against, this is a petition, so if you disagree, don't sign. Comments are certainly welcome, but please leave those useless "countersigned" posts out.