A petition to fix bombardment

[Kilroy]

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.

I'll sign that. I also agree that seige units (and naval units, for that matter), should be able to reduce the defences of units not stationed in a city. As for "suicidal catapults," don't send them in for collateral damage if you don't want to. It'll be harder to take the city but that's the breaks.

 

[Artanis]

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.

Siege weapons aren't always ranged. As has been said, Catapults aren't the only way to get into a city. Battering Rams and Siege Towers are two of the alternatives - and both get VERY up close and personal when they fight. At Ypres during WWI, the Allied "siege" barrage involved digging tunnels under the German lines and putting a whole bunch of explosives down there ...hardly "long-range" siege tactics

Even if you restrict it to ranged siege weaons, as has ALSO been said, it was not until VERY recently that artillery could fire farther than a couple hundred yards. The Ballista, one of ancient Rome's most effective siege weapons, was little more than a giant crossbow with not a whole lot more range than an archer. Catapults in those days had a range so short that ships had to resort to ramming each other despite being covered in catapults. Even as recently as the Battle of Gettysburg, anti-personell cannons (you know, the type that would be used to hurt enemy troops ) were used at ranges of under a mile...and, if you'll recall, a human can cover a mile in four minutes.

It wasn't until roughly the start of the twentieth century that the type of artillery you're thinking of - that which sits FAR behind the line, protected from the enemy by miles upon miles of troops, fortifications, and plain empty space - started to come into use.

So basically, no, artillery-style weapons have NOT been used as you describe throughout history. They have been, in effect, giant archers, and if a general wanted to hurt things with them, they'd be in harm's way. The same horse charge that would take out a line of archers would take the ballistae or catapults with them .

 

[King Flevance]

Siege weapons aren't always ranged. As has been said, Catapults aren't the only way to get into a city. Battering Rams and Siege Towers are two of the alternatives - and both get VERY up close and personal when they fight. At Ypres during WWI, the Allied "siege" barrage involved digging tunnels under the German lines and putting a whole bunch of explosives down there ...hardly "long-range" siege tactics

Then make other seige weapons instead of calling all seige weapons catapults. Change 'Catapult' to Seige unit. This is rediculous argueing. Make a battering ram unit, a ballista unit. No one is argueing to NOT make MORE seige units.

Even if you restrict it to ranged siege weapons, as has ALSO been said, it was not until VERY recently that artillery could fire farther than a couple hundred yards. The Ballista, one of ancient Rome's most effective siege weapons, was little more than a giant crossbow with not a whole lot more range than an archer. Catapults in those days had a range so short that ships had to resort to ramming each other despite being covered in catapults.

1. Yes but rarely would they need to have to 'blitz' the front lines with the catapults when they had armies of swordsmen. It was smarter, to not risk the seige weapons to rush the enemy. sit them up in the backlines and fire foward. (Usually hitting their own side as well)
2. I am not asking for a catapult to bombard from 5 tiles away. I want bombard to apply as the OP said, in the tile RIGHT next to the city. Adjacent to the tile of the city, on the same tile as the army of swordsmen/axemen/spearmen. This is the same distance as any archers you have but the archers would be considered 'charging' in with the swordsmen and such if they attack. Whereas, the catapults dont rush anything. they sit back and fire.
3. I was talking about battleships bombarding not galleys and such.

Even as recently as the Battle of Gettysburg, anti-personell cannons (you know, the type that would be used to hurt enemy troops ) were used at ranges of under a mile...and, if you'll recall, a human can cover a mile in four minutes.

What kind of super soldiers are you using? I dont know any soldiers that can carry their supplies/weapons and run a mile in under 4 mins. The AVERAGE man hits between 6-7 mins. The fastest human being dont mean nothing. Unless your roiding your troops.

It wasn't until roughly the start of the twentieth century that the type of artillery you're thinking of - that which sits FAR behind the line, protected from the enemy by miles upon miles of troops, fortifications, and plain empty space - started to come into use.

Which is when I went into modern artillery (2 tile range) as in there is 1 tile between it and the city.

So basically, no, artillery-style weapons have NOT been used as you describe throughout history. They have been, in effect, giant archers, and if a general wanted to hurt things with them, they'd be in harm's way. The same horse charge that would take out a line of archers would take the ballistae or catapults with them .

Which means the AI would have to bring horses out of the city to attack your artillery. So where was the hole in my statements? All the AI does is sit in the city on fortify. We have to 'blitz' to make up for their stupidity. In real life if someone has catapults outside, and you dont make an attack against their catapults, but decide to fortify inside the safety of your walls... your dead.

 

[Artanis]

Then make other seige weapons instead of calling all seige weapons catapults. Change 'Catapult' to Seige unit. This is rediculous argueing. Make a battering ram unit, a ballista unit. No one is argueing to NOT make MORE seige units.

Hence the next section...

1. Yes but rarely would they need to have to 'blitz' the front lines with the catapults when they had armies of swordsmen. It was smarter, to not risk the seige weapons to rush the enemy. sit them up in the backlines and fire foward. (Usually hitting their own side as well)
2. I am not asking for a catapult to bombard from 5 tiles away. I want bombard to apply as the OP said, in the tile RIGHT next to the city. Adjacent to the tile of the city, on the same tile as the army of swordsmen/axemen/spearmen. This is the same distance as any archers you have but the archers would be considered 'charging' in with the swordsmen and such if they attack. Whereas, the catapults dont rush anything. they sit back and fire.
3. I was talking about battleships bombarding not galleys and such.

1-If my ballistae can hit your city, then your ballistae can hit mine
2-If catapults can bombard from an adjacent tile, then Archers, Longbowmen, and Crossbowmen have to be able to do so as well. They'd have similar range, simlar antipersonell usage, and similar effects on enemy troops. And I don't think you're advocating giving those units bombardment.
3-Not the point. The point was to show how short-ranged catapults were.

What kind of super soldiers are you using? I dont know any soldiers that can carry their supplies/weapons and run a mile in under 4 mins. The AVERAGE man hits between 6-7 mins. The fastest human being dont mean nothing. Unless your roiding your troops.

I know that. That sentence was an attempt to add some levity. Hence the smiley.

Which is when I went into modern artillery (2 tile range) as in there is 1 tile between it and the city.

I didn't address your ideas on modern artillery. Yes, modern artillery would be completely justified in some sort of ranged bombardment. What I was addressing was you saying that artillery was used from where the enemy could not get at it, which simply was NOT true until a hundredish years ago.

Which means the AI would have to bring horses out of the city to attack your artillery. So where was the hole in my statements? All the AI does is sit in the city on fortify. We have to 'blitz' to make up for their stupidity. In real life if someone has catapults outside, and you dont make an attack against their catapults, but decide to fortify inside the safety of your walls... your dead.

This goes back to the "same range as archers" thing. Unless you want Archers to have the same bombard ability that you propose for Catapults, then Catapults have to be just as vulnerable since they're standing in the same firing line. When the complaint is about realism, it'd be absurd to insist that one guy be killable while the guy standing five feet behind him is inviolate



For the record, my beef has nothing to do with Civ3 style vs. Civ4 style. It has to do with somebody making a claim that is patently false, regardless of whether or not I agree with him. If you can come up with valid reasoning for why it should be made the way you propose - and "I like it better" counts as valid reasoning - then that's fine by me, and I'll go back to minding my own business . But I can't resist taking a shot at somebody using faulty logic to support his point, no matter what side he's on

 

[MeteorPunch]

Face the facts people: Siege weapons work unrealistically in Civ 4. There is no excuse for it other than lazy programming. There have been dozens of better solutions posted on this forum, yet all of them ignored thus far. :shakehead

 

[King Flevance]

1-If my ballistae can hit your city, then your ballistae can hit mine
2-If catapults can bombard from an adjacent tile, then Archers, Longbowmen, and Crossbowmen have to be able to do so as well. They'd have similar range, simlar antipersonell usage, and similar effects on enemy troops. And I don't think you're advocating giving those units bombardment.
3-Not the point. The point was to show how short-ranged catapults were.

Hehe, another quote debate. Kinda saw it coming though when I started it.

OK:
1-Yep.
2-The difference is inaccuracy of both weapons. When the tiny arrow of an archer misses, inaccurate at catapult range as it is at the peak of both trajectory capabilities if the General is smart. When the archer misses, no one really notices any damage. When a catapult misses, it still inflicts alot of damage in the general area it landed, unless of course they somehow manage to miss a whole city. (Or fall short but that is where random damage comes in.)
3-I though you were talking about boats with catapults on them. Still do... Not sure where this part went.

This goes back to the "same range as archers" thing. Unless you want Archers to have the same bombard ability that you propose for Catapults, then Catapults have to be just as vulnerable since they're standing in the same firing line. When the complaint is about realism, it'd be absurd to insist that one guy be killable while the guy standing five feet behind him is inviolate

I see what your saying but in my scenario (hopefully the average attack method of most Civ'ers) there is more than catapults attacking. Probably 2 catapults to an army of at least 4-6 other units. So around 6-8 units WITH the catapults included.
The archers should really be focusing on city guarding (attacking incoming waves of melee units) over trying to snipe shot catapult mechanics that are probably armored enough considering they dont have to move that much, they can wear the heavier armor. (I know the heavier armor could still be pierced but it still held good protection)
When a catapult attacks a city for its collateral damage, it goes against the city at full defense (except no +X%) He has to attack full health units as if no other part of the army is attacking. Doing otherwise is rediculous with the current system. The advantage catapults have in real life is there they are not the biggest threat of the army. The army itself is. They are support. I believe for balance collateral damage should be calmed due to the catapult's inaccuracy as well.

If you wanted to throw more balance than that, I would say we pull in the hot oil dumping from city walls. You wouldnt be able to capture the artillery until the stack died off mostly though. But this would do damage to incoming units actually stepping in to raid. Not that city defense doesnt have enough things adding to it already.
My main point is, without coming out of your city to attack seige units, you have little chance to do too much damage to them regardless of how close they are. There is way more important things you have to be worried about than just the catapults. If a horseman is running at you about to hit you in the head with a mace, do you really wanna shoot the catapult guy? However, this game has switched that and made taking out the catapults priority 1 as a result of attack.
You have to remember say every unit is 100 units. So 1 archer = 100 archers. so I just brought 4-600 units to the doorstep of the city and am rushing it with my catapults way in the back. This scenario is based off the defender having 3 archers and walls up though. Lvl 3 city defense promotions on all. That is still 300 vs 4-600 units, even with only 400 that plenty to worry about knocking numbers down before worrying about the catapults. And I would hope you dont just sit there as the catapult takes your +X% down to zero as you watch him. Hopefully your hitting him with something. This takes about anywhere between 3-6 turns with 2 catapults. Your walls will still aid some then throw in your promotions. Defense is way up there so the computer CAN hide in his cities.

Before going any further I am going to run to the store and see what has come up in that time.

 

[Exel]

Unless you want Archers to have the same bombard ability that you propose for Catapults, then Catapults have to be just as vulnerable since they're standing in the same firing line. When the complaint is about realism, it'd be absurd to insist that one guy be killable while the guy standing five feet behind him is inviolate

Actually...

Archery units aren't realistic either. They should be moved to a support role as well - they are not assault units. See here for more about the matter (let's not bring that discussion here).

Anyways, ranged attack doesn't make catapults, let alone other artillery, unrealistically over-powered. In reality, artillery will decimate you if they can just pound on you without interruption. What you need to do is to attack the artillery if you want to survive. But if you just sit behind your city walls waiting, you will only get what's coming for you - and that would be lots and lots of hurling stones or hissing shells.

For example, Leningrad in WWII was barraged for 900 days straight because the defenders didn't come out to fight. Static defences wont work against artillery in reality, and nor should they in Civ4.

 

[Smidlee]

Face the facts people: Siege weapons work unrealistically in Civ 4. There is no excuse for it other than lazy programming. There have been dozens of better solutions posted on this forum, yet all of them ignored thus far. :shakehead

Face the facts, Civ 4 isn't a war game as units are represented on a strategic level. In Chess, Rooks (castles) are also unrealistic since they can fly across the board. Also a Queen is more powerful than a knight,etc. If you want more realistic tactical battles then Combat Mission II is a good game to play.

 

[kuldiin]

Bombardment works fine exactly how it is.

1 Catapult can damage 6 or so units in a way which greatly benefits my attacking troops, why wouldnt I sacrifice one?

 

[Exel]

1 Catapult can damage 6 or so units in a way which greatly benefits my attacking troops, why wouldnt I sacrifice one?

It is not a question of whether or not attacking with catapults is smart or not in Civ4. No one is arguing that the Civ4 artillery system would be unbalanced. The debate (which this apparently has turned into) is about the concept in which artillery should be modelled.

 

[DrPep]

Ok, my 2 cents.

I think that catapults, cannons and artillery SHOULD have more "supporting unit" -kind of a role. But civ3-style artillery, imo, isn't very good to reflect this role. My suggestion is ,that, instead of attacking "alone", these units should have some support-function in addition to city defenses bombardment-function.

Ok, player has, let's say, three cats and six swordmen next to a city. Player has bombarded city defenses to 0% and is ready to assault. This is when he turns the support on. Now, when player attacks with swordman, the cats are used to boost the attack (maybe some percentage added to attacking units strenght etc.) as they are joining the assault as supporting units. The sworman may win or lose, as usual, but the cats only lose some strenght, because they were not on the frontline, and return to main stack. This could be repeated as many times as cats have enough strenght left. The amount of boost to the attacking units strenght should be depended on supporting units strenght, of course.

For modern artillery, damge taken while supporting should be minimal, because they are far, far away...

 

[symon]

Signed, very strongly.

Artillery are perhaps the most broken unit class in the game. Now it doesn't have to be super realistic, but if we call a game piece artillery, it should act at least slightly like it.

Why no chance of capture, always a major concern with Artillery? The phrase 'spike the guns' comes from the meathod used to render artillery useless if it was about to be captured.

Withdrawal chance for Artillery? Nonsense. Up until the Napoleonic period the idea that Artillery could 'withdraw' or 'escape' from anything when attacked was ridiculous. If Catapults can withdraw sometimes then any unit, or even a train of settlers should be able to flee with alacrity.

No meaningful Naval bombardment also leaves a sour taste. Gunboat diplomacy isn't an option.

If I didn't know better, I'd suspect that no one involved in the development process actually had a wargaming background. There are so many things that are a bit nuts.

The concept that Armoured units might be good in urban conditions (City Raider) would have shocked Rommel!

 

[MRM]

More realistic cats ? Hm - how about this one.

no suicide attacks only bombardment but ...

a cat can only remove the defensbonus of a citywall ( AFAIK this was their main purpose ) . It does only minor damage on units, but may destroy randomly a city improvment.

cannons do some more damage on troops but still cannot remove city defensebonus completly but civilans may be killed + city improvments are maybe damaged. When used outside a city it may destroy tile improvments.

Artellery used against cities causes heavy losses under the civilian population and city improvemnt, however it still cannot remove city defense bonus completly ( defenders always know their city better and can use hit and run tactics ) and still do less damage on units than in Civ 4 ( defending troops can hide themself better than the civilan population )

used on tiles it does some damage on bombarded troops and it damage tile improvments more often than cannons. Tile imporvment destructions is sideeffect of troop bombardment.

btw realism - building units should cost you population in the city ( or are soldiers generated out of nothing ? ) - and "healing" units should cost you more population ( killed soldiers have to been replaced )

 

[vingrjoe]

If I didn't know better, I'd suspect that no one involved in the development process actually had a wargaming background. There are so many things that are a bit nuts.

I believe that is the case with any non-wargame. It seems any games I've played, RTS or TBS, that aren't true wargames, but have military units, have been off the mark on weaponry use and doctrine. I feel that the people who work on such games (non-wargames), don't know their butt from their elbow about weapons, the military or weapon capabilities/uses. They seem to just throw military units in a hodgepodge manner. Yes, I do realize CivIV is not a wargame. You're preaching to the choir on that one. Although, I hope in a few years after people get familiar with the SDK, some people can mod it into such.

My main beef is with the fubar naval bombardment. What gives with that ? Only being able to bombard city defenses is silly. From WWII up to Desert Storm (the first Gulf War), naval warships have been assigned gunstrike/fire missions against enemy emplacements and units.

I would like to really see the warships in CivIV have an option to bombard units on land and sea.

 

[Underseer]

If you don't like it, fix it yourself with mods.

 

[symon]

If you don't like it, fix it yourself with mods.

If what I'd like to do can be done, I just might. (I am, amongst other things, a Python programmer).

 

[rabottens]

To me the ranged units do precisely what they were designed to do. That is to soften up enemy targets before committing troop strength to the fray. Though this technique was more widely used during the Napoleonic wars it could have been utilizied earlier in history. Perhaps the introduction of the ballista or trebuchet to the medival era would bring this into perspective. Either way I vote in favor of the Civ 4 system. I am somewhat disgruntled with the battleships inability to soften shore targets other than city defenses. D-Day invasion is a perfect example of the use of Battleship shore bombardment to take a little bit of the sting out of invading the Normandy beaches. With out the battleship bombardment the invasion could have easily failed. I agree that the field units (cannons/arty) should be allowed to disengage rather than suicide because a barrage attack was usually defended by the surrounding foot soldiers and horse units. A solo attack of cats/cannons/arty should be captured as they are undefended field pieces. But anyone using combined arms wouldn't send only one type of military to get the job done anyway.

 

[TerraHero]

The Romans didnt use a Balista, it was a combination between a ballista to add extra power to the Onager, and they had a range much much further then an archer.

Second, teh size of these beasts to fire the desired ammo at the desired distance meant that they couldhnt be mounted on walls, the only ones mounted on walls where much smaller, shorter ranged or less fire power. The big ones where sorted behind the walls, but where not as accurate as a catapult juz wanting that big rock into the city. But perhaps its not so silly to let curtain artillery of lesser or equal tech lvl to fire back a bit ad the attacking artillery. But dont gimme infantry attacking the artillery without having to go trough the whole attacking army.

Most of the times, it wasnt even needed to attack anyone. The siegers didnt have to do anything but prevent anything from enhtering and leaving the city and juz wait till the city starved. In a largely populated city this wasnt that hard at all. All of these are beter options then the suicidal artillery wich makes, no matter how you twist it, no sense.

 

[karadoc]

Siege weapons aren't always ranged. As has been said, Catapults aren't the only way to get into a city. Battering Rams and Siege Towers are two of the alternatives - and both get VERY up close and personal when they fight. At Ypres during WWI, the Allied "siege" barrage involved digging tunnels under the German lines and putting a whole bunch of explosives down there ...hardly "long-range" siege tactics

Even if you restrict it to ranged siege weaons, as has ALSO been said, it was not until VERY recently that artillery could fire farther than a couple hundred yards. The Ballista, one of ancient Rome's most effective siege weapons, was little more than a giant crossbow with not a whole lot more range than an archer. Catapults in those days had a range so short that ships had to resort to ramming each other despite being covered in catapults. Even as recently as the Battle of Gettysburg, anti-personell cannons (you know, the type that would be used to hurt enemy troops ) were used at ranges of under a mile...and, if you'll recall, a human can cover a mile in four minutes.

It wasn't until roughly the start of the twentieth century that the type of artillery you're thinking of - that which sits FAR behind the line, protected from the enemy by miles upon miles of troops, fortifications, and plain empty space - started to come into use.

So basically, no, artillery-style weapons have NOT been used as you describe throughout history. They have been, in effect, giant archers, and if a general wanted to hurt things with them, they'd be in harm's way. The same horse charge that would take out a line of archers would take the ballistae or catapults with them .

well said.

Face the facts people: Siege weapons work unrealistically in Civ 4. There is no excuse for it other than lazy programming. There have been dozens of better solutions posted on this forum, yet all of them ignored thus far.

Not all that unrealistic, and certainly not a result of 'lazy programming'. Siege weapons in Civ4 are a much better system than in Civ3. It's about balance; civ4 siege weapons are the counter-balance to large stacks of combined arms.

 

[lifeaquatic]

often times siege weapons were not carried away from a battlefield. Or they were easily destroyed by fiery arrows and the sort, or they just plain busted. Its realistic.