A petition to fix bombardment
- Thread starter Exel
- Start date
I stopped reading after post #91. This is where DrPep posted a suggestion on a different way for artillery to work. I don't think this is something that could be implemented in Civ4 because of the large ammount of reprogramming that would be required to accomplish it, but it is a great idea for Civ5.
Taking DrPep's suggestion and putting it in my own words, here is my idea:
Artillery units can be used to reduce city defenses, just like in Civ4. When the cities defenses are zero, the artillery unit can't be used on its own. They can move alone, but can't attack alone. To be used in an attack, the unit must be attached to an offensive unit. When that unit attacks the artillery unit fires a support shot. This shot can cause damage to the primary defending unit and can cause collateral damage to other unit in the city.
When defending artillery units work as they did in Civ3. They fire a counterstrike against the attacking unit. The can also counterfire on artillery that is bombarding defenses.
To put all of this into game terms:
If a Swordsman attacks a Catapult, the Catapult is captured or destroyed.
A Catapult bombards city defenses the same a Civ4. To attack, the Catapult is attached to a Swordsman. The Swordsman attacks the opposing unit (whether inside or outside of a city) and the Catapult fires a support short that can damage the defending unit and cause collateral damage to other units in the tile.
A Catapult can be set for defense inside a city. If an enemy Catapult bombards the city defenses, the defending Catapult will counterfire on the attacking Catapult. If successful, the attacking Catapult will be destroyed. If a Swordsman attacks the city, the defending catapult will fire against the Swordsman. This can only damage the Swordsman, it can't kill it.
Using this system would make artillery units more realistic for those that want realism and would keep it balanced for those who feel gameplay is more important. The realism would be artillery bombarding from a distance and not being at risk the way Civ4 artillery is at risk. Forcing them to be attached to units means you can't just bomb a cities defenders down to almost 0 and then sweep in with your offenseive units nad wipe them out with no effort.
More aspects can be added to this but the above would be the basis of the new design.
Taking DrPep's suggestion and putting it in my own words, here is my idea:
Artillery units can be used to reduce city defenses, just like in Civ4. When the cities defenses are zero, the artillery unit can't be used on its own. They can move alone, but can't attack alone. To be used in an attack, the unit must be attached to an offensive unit. When that unit attacks the artillery unit fires a support shot. This shot can cause damage to the primary defending unit and can cause collateral damage to other unit in the city.
When defending artillery units work as they did in Civ3. They fire a counterstrike against the attacking unit. The can also counterfire on artillery that is bombarding defenses.
To put all of this into game terms:
If a Swordsman attacks a Catapult, the Catapult is captured or destroyed.
A Catapult bombards city defenses the same a Civ4. To attack, the Catapult is attached to a Swordsman. The Swordsman attacks the opposing unit (whether inside or outside of a city) and the Catapult fires a support short that can damage the defending unit and cause collateral damage to other units in the tile.
A Catapult can be set for defense inside a city. If an enemy Catapult bombards the city defenses, the defending Catapult will counterfire on the attacking Catapult. If successful, the attacking Catapult will be destroyed. If a Swordsman attacks the city, the defending catapult will fire against the Swordsman. This can only damage the Swordsman, it can't kill it.
Using this system would make artillery units more realistic for those that want realism and would keep it balanced for those who feel gameplay is more important. The realism would be artillery bombarding from a distance and not being at risk the way Civ4 artillery is at risk. Forcing them to be attached to units means you can't just bomb a cities defenders down to almost 0 and then sweep in with your offenseive units nad wipe them out with no effort.
More aspects can be added to this but the above would be the basis of the new design.
I like that idea. You could tweak it so catapults don't have to be attached to any unit what so ever. Just say if a unit attacks a city and there is a catapult with movement left in the same square as the attacker then the catapult fires a support shot.
The defensive catapult idea (both for cities and stacks) is also a good idea.
The defensive catapult idea (both for cities and stacks) is also a good idea.
TheBlackHand
Chieftain
Count me in with the OP. Kamikaze artillery is ridiculous. I know this game isn't ALL about realism, but come on.
I also would like to be able to use my battleships as support weapons. As they were used in real life.
I like Ranos ideas.
The current arty configuration just feels gamey. Yeah, it requires more strategery, but I wouldn't neccesarily call it "progress". Feels more like a lateral move. I want a game based on the history of the world to reflect reality as much as possible, all things considered.
I also would like to be able to use my battleships as support weapons. As they were used in real life.
I like Ranos ideas.
The current arty configuration just feels gamey. Yeah, it requires more strategery, but I wouldn't neccesarily call it "progress". Feels more like a lateral move. I want a game based on the history of the world to reflect reality as much as possible, all things considered.
Sid the Lucid
Chieftain
- Joined
- Jan 23, 2006
- Messages
- 63
Suicide artillery is stupid. Signed.
I wrote my own mod for myself that does siege my way. First, if a unit is surrounded by enemy units and impassible terrain on its 8 border tiles, it'll lose health over several turns. This is a "starvation" siege. It encourages unstacking units, and is a counter to those times where someone puts a rediculious amount of archers in one city. Secondly, I increased the chances of withdrawel for siege units to 50%, and decreased their attack strength (seriously, catapults defeating anything that isn't stationary is amazing enough). Catapults have a -1 stength penalty, cannons -2, artillery -3.
I like my mod cuz basically you siege out the defenses using bombard, then send in artillery to soften units up. The artillery seems to live more than half the time, and it does equal splash damage as it did before. Artillery is by no means overpowered though.
I like my mod cuz basically you siege out the defenses using bombard, then send in artillery to soften units up. The artillery seems to live more than half the time, and it does equal splash damage as it did before. Artillery is by no means overpowered though.
SIGNED!
bombardment system was quite good in civ3 and I think it made the game unbalanced for only one reason: AI wasn't able to use it in the right way!!
so it wasn't a problem for multiplayers games.
the new system is not that bad but I recognise that I'm a bit frustrated when I see artillery charging a city like a kamikaze... I know it's just a game but come one... this is so unreallistic that it makes me laught (or cry it depends on battle issue) each time I see my commando-artillery in action.
in addition to this naval units can't bombard anymore and that is a shame!
two solutions for soren's team:
1- work on AI's bombardment skills to make AI able to bombard like a human did in civ3.
2- create a new and very simple way to avoid the "stack of doom" strategy: 5-6 units max per tile!! no more 100000 catapults bombarding a city and killing all its defender in one single turn
bombardment system was quite good in civ3 and I think it made the game unbalanced for only one reason: AI wasn't able to use it in the right way!!
so it wasn't a problem for multiplayers games.
the new system is not that bad but I recognise that I'm a bit frustrated when I see artillery charging a city like a kamikaze... I know it's just a game but come one... this is so unreallistic that it makes me laught (or cry it depends on battle issue) each time I see my commando-artillery in action.
in addition to this naval units can't bombard anymore and that is a shame!
two solutions for soren's team:
1- work on AI's bombardment skills to make AI able to bombard like a human did in civ3.
2- create a new and very simple way to avoid the "stack of doom" strategy: 5-6 units max per tile!! no more 100000 catapults bombarding a city and killing all its defender in one single turn
Ah cool. Whoever posted this should become a beta tester then maybe you can say this stuff to the horses mouth. I agree totally though
But I suspect it's a way of nerfing what is an extremely powerfull unit. If I attack with 6 cats turn after turn then by the end the catapults would have reduced the city to rubble and no one would be left alive. In game terms I pound the crap out of your 20 stack with 5 crossbowmen/2 axe defending my cats and a few spear turn after relentless turn then walk in with my few axemen left alive. I think, although obviously I'm not sure, that was the thinking behind it.
I do think though that catapults should be revamped and the ideas on here sound promising.
But I suspect it's a way of nerfing what is an extremely powerfull unit. If I attack with 6 cats turn after turn then by the end the catapults would have reduced the city to rubble and no one would be left alive. In game terms I pound the crap out of your 20 stack with 5 crossbowmen/2 axe defending my cats and a few spear turn after relentless turn then walk in with my few axemen left alive. I think, although obviously I'm not sure, that was the thinking behind it. I do think though that catapults should be revamped and the ideas on here sound promising.
or whispering this stuff to the deaf horse's hear!
IMO an artillery unit can bombard but can't attack/defend
it has to be protected if not it may be captured (civ3 artillery style)
if increasing AI is too hard they have to think about different solutions but the "kamikaze artillery" is really one of the worst
IMO an artillery unit can bombard but can't attack/defend
it has to be protected if not it may be captured (civ3 artillery style)
if increasing AI is too hard they have to think about different solutions but the "kamikaze artillery" is really one of the worst
kommie
Chieftain
I believe its good the way it works now, as you actually have to risk your siege units in order to use them against enemy units. They ARE overpowered though, i believe, as 2 suicide siege units are almost always enough to weaken a large city defense stack that you take the city without any casualties, which doesnt seem fair. Plus the AI doesnt use them nearly as effectively (at least on Monarch, which is what I play). Lower collateral damage, or reduce the number of units it effects, or both.
Similar threads
[Extension]
Naval Capital Units for VP
