A petition to fix bombardment

[morss_4]

Currently in the game aircraft work more or less as artillery did in Civ 3.

The only difference is that aircraft can be intercepted, this prevents them from being unbalanced.

So here's a question, why can't artillery function like aircraft do now, with the qualifier that other artillery can "intercept" them? You'd get a message that said "Counter-Bombardment, -52% damage!" or something like that.

This seems a bit more realistic to me.

 

[dvandyke]

I like the new system

 

[Artanis]

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

Sorry for the slow replies, I had to have the internet at home cut off because the ISP was gouging me (phone service + DSL was costing $150/month )

If you ever think about signing up for BellSouth...don't. Just don't.

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.

2-Point granted, with the caveat that ancient artillery, while short-ranged, was more accurate than you'd think (I recall seeing somewhere that Ballistae would sometimes be used to archers off of city walls )

3-It's to illustrate the tiny range of catapults of the time, and the boats are just a setting. Basically, if the catapults' range didn't SUCK, then boats wouldn't have been ramming each other. Since they DID ram each other, that means that their catapults' range was utterly pathetic. And those catapults would be identical (or at least very similar to) the ones used by besieging armies, meaning that THOSE catapults had sorry range as well

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.

I'm just saying that if Catapults get an adjacent-square unit-hurting ability for reasons of "realism", then so do Archery units. Their ranges were similar (especially when you consider the scale of the game, and how big of an area "1 tile" represents) and, while catapults are bound to smash something when their big rocks miss, archery units are bound to hit just about everything in a given area by sending enough arrows that way .

 

[King Flevance]

That's good enough for me on the debate.
I gotta go sign the archery unit post as well. I am all for them both having added ability to take their range into effect. The archery thread has a good way to implement them better too.

I think the problem is combat is too dependant on these new promotions. They are fun for sure but I dont think they should be 'the' crucial factor in strategy more than the units themselves.

Again I am signing this thread.

 

[upstart]

signed. really, they should take promotions out for siege weapons as there is a 1/10000 chance that you get to keep the unit after a battle. even with the promotion, still a throwaway unit.

 

[Smidlee]

Currently in the game aircraft work more or less as artillery did in Civ 3.

The only difference is that aircraft can be intercepted, this prevents them from being unbalanced.

So here's a question, why can't artillery function like aircraft do now, with the qualifier that other artillery can "intercept" them? You'd get a message that said "Counter-Bombardment, -52% damage!" or something like that.

This seems a bit more realistic to me.

I remember during the first war in Iraq a question was asked "could you win a battle/war by airforce alone?" This was proven to possible in Iraq that wasn't possible in Vietnam. While the airforce didn't ripe out an huge army directly it did cut off it's supplies which causes them to surrender.(same difference). So it seems aircraft are more effective againest armies than artillery.

 

[upstart]

I remember during the first war in Iraq a question was asked "could you win a battle/war by airforce alone?" This was proven to possible in Iraq that wasn't possible in Vietnam. While the airforce didn't ripe out an huge army directly it did cut off it's supplies which causes them to surrender.(same difference). So it seems aircraft are more effective againest armies than artillery.

sorry to question your logic there, but the two wars were completely different, at least from a tactical aspect. iraqi targets were, for the most part, out in the open and aboveground and immobile. vietnam was a war we were forced to fight on the ground because the enemy went almost completely underground, and thus hidden to airborne recon, as well as they were completely mobile. aircraft and arty are equally useful to any army, one being more useful in some situations, the other in other situations. depends on the tasks at hand.

 

[El Santo]

Signed for Naval.

bring back cruise missiles, but make them actually work like cruise missiles!

 

[Danielos]

I haven´t played Civ 4 that much, so I can´t comment much on the modern units, but catapults really suck now! They are ridiculous suicide-units and that is not very historical!

Please, at least give people an option to choose between the old Civ3-system and this new one!

 

[Pratputajao]

Have to agree. Maybe not my Biggestt gripe, it is one of them. artillery.
should mirror real world effects at least to a larger extent

Signed

 

[Pratputajao]

I agree and disagree..

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

Though not entirely unknown in history. As recently as the 2nd chechen war the Russians basically eliminated all resistance with heavy use of artillery ( something they didnt do in the first war along with bad tactics... and paid dearly for it) both in the field and on Grozny. Also used by the US with the taking of Fallujah. Negligable casualties by both Russians and Americans useing such. Though NOT without any casualties to be sure; but it sure did help greatly, much more than is reflected in the current modal of CIVs Bombardment.

But I agree- Artillery shouldnt eliminate deffenders, maybe limit them to reducing HPs ( or whatevers used, cant remember ..hehe) to 1/2-2/3 total

 

[monitor173]

Signed.

There are so many ways to implement a more appropriate stack-killer effect with bombardment without unbalancing the combat mechanics a la Civ3. I guess it's just one of the design aspects they were relatively neglectful of, and it's a shame.

One possibility would be simply to cap the maximum damage that is possible by bombardment (eg. a unit cannot be damaged by bombardment if more than 15% under-strength) modelling the dispersal of targets in a weakened unit. You can even lower that cap as unit density on the tile increases, imposing a modified stack penalty which models the effects of overcrowding, such as the unavailability of shelters, impaired mobility/communications etc.

 

[jpinard]

counter-signed... Opposed

 

[cinattra]

I think the Civ4 catapult is pretty realistic. Those things were not easily moveable by any means that includes aiming once they were set up; definitely no withdrawal. To be in range to hit the enemy probably meant the catapult itself was within range of being struck back by the enemy. Thus, you get the catapult kamikaze.

Let's not forget also that the catapult was an area effect weapon which meant it attacked an area and not a specific target, hence, it causes damage to all the enemy in the stack/tile. Answer don't attack from one tile, attack from multiple tiles i.e. surround the enemy.

Battleships if nothing else should be able to bombard things other than cities. Their guns had range and power to strike inland and leave lasting tell-tell signs.

 

[Eigenvector]

Remember the effects of artillery in WWI? People complain about how artillery would unbalance the combat system - well duh! Artillery did unbalance it - why do you think they invented it in the first place? One thing I see in this forum is that people are afraid of the unbalance boogeyman, like if the game is unbalanced in some aspect they're gonna go running to Sid crying. I can live with artillery being unbalanced, because, as some people suggested, you can always counter it with counter batteries. That was a viable strategy in WWI and WWII.

Slow down the rate of fire of catapults, make cannons close range only weapons - with a % chance of self-inflicted damage every turn they fire (gunpowder was NOT a safe propellant), allow artillery to be able to fire from 1 square away. Last but not least, no artillery units (cats, cannons, artillery) should have a defence or offensive bonus - they are for collateral or bombard damage only. Which is exactly how they were used in real life.

 

[potatokiosk]

I don't know if this has been said in the last 5 pages, but I think you should be able to do both kinds of bombardment. Bombard from afar to protect your artillary, or move them up close for better results.

 

[Helmling]

I sign. Suiciding catapaults is a step backwards...though it does take me back to the heady days of Civ 1 and 2 when you could capture a city and hold it with catapaults or howitzers.

Good times...good times...

Oh, and I miss the variety of siege weapons from Civ3:C. I want my trebuchets, dammit!

 

[Xavier Von Erck]

Signed, with a caveat: Make Artillery a limited unit, like the Missionary. Only five Artillery pieces allowed at any one time. That way the more realistic, enjoyable bombardment can come back... WITHOUT idiots using massive stacks of artillery creating unbalance.

 

[Yosh]

The only thing I'd like to see is an inclusion of naval bombardment similar to air strikes. There's nothing more annoying than having a flotilla of battleships parked outside your enemy's cities and nothing to do with them but smack around the city defenses as their navy sits 'safely' in the city mocking you with their ineptitude.

There's a lot of resources tied up in those battleships and once you've sunk their navy and reduced city defenses to 0% there's nothing to do with them.

Way I see it is have battleships work like bombers.
1. Give subs the ability to do the same thing fighters do versus bombers. If a sub is in a city and on patrol they have a chance of intercepting and causing damage to battleships as they move in close enough to bombard the city's defenses, improvements, or defenders.
2. Battleships can destroy coastal improvements, reduce coastal city defenses to 0%, and shell units down to 50%.
3. Bomb shelters protect units from taking massive damage.
4. One bombardment per turn (same as now).

 

[Wodan]

Half of the ideas here won't even work. You can't just remove the artillery... there would be no way to take cities. And, hamstringing them does the same thing. It would totally screw the game balance.

What I'd like to see is a system akin to SMAC. For those not familiar with it, basically artillery can bombard (like Civ3). Free and unlimited. Except that if there is a defending artillery in the target hex, then the two artillery enter into a long-range bombardment duel instead.

In game terms, the two artillery enter into a 1-on-1 combat, just as if they were normal units fighting.

Wodan