A petition to fix bombardment

[Zhahz]

Not signed, I like it the way it is and like it far more than the Civ3 style. Combat in general vastly superior in Civ IV and the siege model is just a part of it.

Incidentally, siege doesn't have to be suicidal. There will be times when it's unavoidable but at many stages city raider promoted siege are reasonably durable.

My only minor issue is that it seems like catapults exist for too long - it'd be nice to see something slightly stronger between catapults and cannon. And then you can get to artillery very quickly from cannons. It doesn't make much sense to me.

 

[jpboia]

Signed!!!!

I really don't like this "kamikaze siege weapons system". They should have ranged attack, but they should also be more expensive to produce. That would keep the game well balanced, I think.

A diferent solution:
- a big number of catapults attack a city units in the same turn
- the 1st. makes 50%-100% damage
- the 2nd. makes 40%-90% damage
- the 3rd. makes 31%-81% damage
- the 4th. makes 23%-73% damage
- the 5th. makes 16%-66% damage
- the 6th. makes 10%-60% damage
- etc.

This way, it wouldn't be compensating to have a huge number of siege weapons attacking a given city, because the eg. 10th. one would do a very limited amount of damage.

(the % values stated above are only hypothetical, of course)

 

[Kolyana]

/Not signed. If they added something between Catapult and Cannon, I'd be okay with the current system

 

[gunnergoz]

I like the Civ 4 system too. I think of artillery in the game as ammunition...it is expended in combat and if it's not, it's a bonus! The unit just represents a Unit of Fire (in artillery terms) that can be expended to a certain effect. The bonuses are there to let you select ammunition effects. Catapults are cheap by mid game and there is no reason not to have lots of "ammo" for your assualts stocked up in advance.
Artillery in the game works too differently to be thought of as a conventional unit.
I agree that there could be a smoothbore cannon transition earlier in the game, but artillery really didn't become that effective until the late 1800's in real life, so I can live with the anachronism of catapults alongside grenadiers since I am only representing the ammunition expended anyway.

 

[Tholomeo]

Once again,
my only complaint is that they are too slow for modern era!

 

[King Flevance]

Sign under these rules:

-Bombardment resumes as Civ 3 by captured in combat and bombarding from 1-2 tiles out and collateral damage is weakened and only applied once the defenses have been broken. Or keep it as is.

-I want coastal bombardment applied. Along with an anti-ship improvement/unit. Like the coastal fortresses. A way for a ship to inflict coastal damage along with a way to inflict damge to a ship via land unit/improvement. (preferably unit)

-I want my Gunships to fly over 'Coast' tiles. This is unrelated but dammit it should be this way. I hate flying around lakes for no reason.

 

[vbraun]

Countersign. This type of bombardment actually requires strategy and thought.

Agreed.

 

[Artanis]

Stellar ?!

Note the "For an AI" part . The AI is leaps and bounds above nearly any game AI out there, especially when you consider the sheer number of factors it has to deal with. It's only compared to a human that the AI is clearly outmatched (admittedly by a big margin)

 

[Thrag]

COUNTERsigned.

At the scale the game takes place at arguments like this about ranged units are silly. We're working at an operational level at least, where moving that unit into simply means that you are moving it into combat. Since there is no game mechanic for the defenders sallying forth to destroy your siege engines or for counter batter fire it makes perfect sense for there to be a chance of your artillery being destroyed when you deploy it into combat. To ask that artillery be immune from damage is simply asking for an exploit. Don't fool yourself into thinking it has anything to do with realism.

 

[Aeson]

I prefer Civ III style bombardment. With the way CIV is balanced though, changing land bombardment to Civ III style would result in horrendous military imbalance now IMO.

 

[Smidlee]

I don't know why people having trouble with artillery in Civ4. I can take well defended city and only lose one or two artillery units and that's all. Taking cities should cost something as it's very unrealistic to attack a city with no losts. Also Civ4 artillery make more sense since all units represented on a stratgetic level. civ 3 artillery was based on a tactical level as in combat mission II. So if it help you better think of artillery unit as an army with artillery support and not a pile of nothing but artillery. Until modern times artillery range was extremely limited and not far behind the front line so losting artillery was very possible when engaging an army.

In RTS artillery isn't very useful in attacking other units(mostly buildings), in fact they can end up killing your on troops so why have super artillery in a civ.

 

[Ryanstein]

dont fix something that isn't broken

~Ryanstein

 

[King Flevance]

I don't know why people having trouble with artillery in Civ4. I can take well defended city and only lose one or two artillery units and that's all.

So can I, but that doesnt mean the system is wonderful. It opposes the whole idea behind artillery. Artillery is not suppose to be in the front lines, and is suppose to be guarded in strategy. We are playing by insane rules because the devs dont know how to make AI use its units right. It isnt about taking cities and not losing a single unit. Its about using artillery the way it was implemented in real life. The idea they based the unit off of in the first place.

Taking cities should cost something as it's very unrealistic to attack a city with no losts. Also Civ4 artillery make more sense since all units represented on a stratgetic level. civ 3 artillery was based on a tactical level as in combat mission II. So if it help you better think of artillery unit as an army with artillery support and not a pile of nothing but artillery. Until modern times artillery range was extremely limited and not far behind the front line so losting artillery was very possible when engaging an army.

Losing units will have to be made on the AI's part to utilize its units. Catapults on Civ3 had to sit right next to the city to bombard as they could on here. Stacks outside a city (units and catapults that are attacking) can take collateral damage from catapults inside their cities. There are as many ways to attack you attacker with the ranged bombard method as there is to attack a city. But this would involve the grabbing strategic points and building forts on its borders rather than dogpiling units in its cities.
The real problem is, although AI has improved, its still a dumbass. A very defensive dumbass, but still a dumbass. They only come out of their cities to exploit the player. I say they fix bombard and then patch the holes in the AI mentality.

 

[Smidlee]

So can I, but that doesnt mean the system is wonderful. It opposes the whole idea behind artillery. Artillery is not suppose to be in the front lines, and is suppose to be guarded in strategy. We are playing by insane rules because the devs dont know how to make AI use its units right. It isnt about taking cities and not losing a single unit. Its about using artillery the way it was implemented in real life. The idea they based the unit off of in the first place.

I haven't played Rome TW yet but I have Medieval TW. These games has both Strategic part (turn-based map) and tactical level (RTS battles). My artillery forces on the strategic map wasn't a pile of 16 pieces of artillery but three-four pieces of artillery with 12 units of infantry and cavalry. These units were group together and used when attacking a castle. If my infantry retreated so did my artillery men leaving the artillery behind.
IN CIV there is no tactical level so a artillery should represent more than a pile of artillery but a unit with artillery support just as in my medieval game. Tanks armies on a strategic level will have some infantry and mechanized infantry mixed in for supporting roles. Tanks in civ4 can even get the barrage promotion as a tank division with artillery support. So Civ4 artillery units makes sense on a strategic level since there would be more in this division than a pile of artillery.

 

[King Flevance]

I really need to check out the Total War series. I have almost bought 'Medieval' - 'Shogun' - 'Viking' - 'Rome' but never could bring myself to do it.

Anyway, I see it as where you say your cavalry had to retreat therefore you had to abandon your artillery. How about this, before using the 'bombard' command you have to 'lock' your siege unit (catapult) to its bombarding tile. This will take 1 movement point to lock. It can only bombard when it is locked, and it must 'unlock' to move again. (Another movement point to unlock.) So to bombard will take 3 turns. 1 to lock, 1 to bombard 1 time, and 1 to unlock. This way if your guarding army has to retreat, you are gonna lose your artillery, especially if it is early artillery.(1 tile range)

I want to point out, I am all for fixing this right or leaving it as it is. I dont have a huge problem as it is, as artillery is still useable. I just think it sucks. I mostly want my navy ships to bombard units on land tiles adjacent to water, and would like some artillery to be able to fire back. Thus 'Lock command' will replace 'Sentry' on artillery. Ships dont have to lock to bombard. They got their own problems to worry about in this scenario.

And I want my Gunships to be able to fly over the coast. (That last part is unrelated but I will keep bringing it up cause it SUCKS!!)

EDIT: After rereading this, there will have to be a movement penalty maybe to ships so they can 'swoop bombard' you figure a battleship has like 7 moves I think. This would mean you can stay 3 tiles out from modern artillery and swoop in to bombard and move back to safety. However, it would also make you have to get a small fleet down there to take out this pain in the butt while artillery holds them at bay.
Although, also as I said before, the defenses of the city (XX%) must be reduced to zero before hitting units inside, so that IS alot of swooping. I would hope you arent that underdefended.

 

[Jinto1980]

whine whine whine

if you can't build lots of units quick don't go to war and always keep your good production citys building catapults.

Whining solves nothing and out of the all the ppl who bought the game what 10 to 12 ppl are gonna scare a company into doing what they want them to do.

 

[King Flevance]

whine whine whine

if you can't build lots of units quick don't go to war and always keep your good production citys building catapults.

Whining solves nothing and out of the all the ppl who bought the game what 10 to 12 ppl are gonna scare a company into doing what they want them to do.

Actually, companies appreciate feedback. That's the whole job of Beta testing. While we discuss how the game can be fixed and you call us whiners you will end up benefitting from any changes the company makes on suggestions such as these. You obviously must be ok with no more patches/expansions.

Also when I beat your 50 infantry with 20 units you will be pretty sour then too I would bet. Probably whine whine whine.

 

[Jinto1980]

Actually, companies appreciate feedback. That's the whole job of Beta testing. While we discuss how the game can be fixed and you call us whiners you will end up benefitting from any changes the company makes on suggestions such as these. You obviously must be ok with no more patches/expansions.

True but really if you can't keep up the supply of seige weapons why are you at war..

 

[King Flevance]

LOL thats what this whole thread is about. There should be a way to protect your seige units.

 

[Jinto1980]

protect lol thats a laugh i shove them into the citys for the collateral damage and if they survive that time they will be lucky enough to heal and be sent head first into the next city.