Anybody think Catapults are too cheap?

[salty]

They have the same shield cost as a swordsman.

Anyone else think they also should cost more to supply in the field and shouldn't be able to move when heavily damaged? Or would that make the game not fun.

 

[troytheface]

i cannot recall any thread that talked about the issue of cost. There were a couple however that wrote about how they did not like the new system,
suicide catapults were dumb, they caused to much damage to cities incrementally, ect.
I think that since it is indeed new, there are some areas that may appear suspect in some way - (suspect? faulty maybe or needs improvement)
Personally i think the system works and is better for me than civ3. (in so far as reducing stack attacks and weakening a tough unit)
A catapult or a unit ..could use either really- but more catapults means u need less units (dependant on the circumstance in cases no doubt)
In short i have never found myself with a bunch of unused catapults. If they were to cheap and -knowing their importance- i do not think this would occur. Subjective tho. Maybe dependant on level.

 

[flytyer]

I don't know...seems to me they are priced okay. They are powerful but the 1 move per turn balances out the power.

 

[salty]

I got the feeling that dragging along a bunch of catapults was too much like dragging along a bunch of howitzers in Civ2 (i.e. simple way to win). Then i caught a bit of the trebuchet show (Nova?) on PBS. Seems like not a lot of siege engines compared to other troops, whereas in Civ4 I been dragging along stacks of 6 or more with about the same number of troops. Plus all the other things that go along with dragging along giant wooden structures, not to mention finding ammo.

 

[salty]

I don't know...seems to me they are priced okay. They are powerful but the 1 move per turn balances out the power.

I've been using them mainly for siege and not for attack. I guess if they were just for attack, they'd be priced okay.

 

[synthboy]

Designing catapults as a counter to the Stack of Doom was a great idea but they seem to have become the victim of a huge exploit. Removing their innate offensive capability would definetly help. Instead their strength (or a percentage of it) could be added to an offensive unit, representing how they were used in RL. This would prevent players dragging loads of catapults out on campaign as they need to be matched by an apporopiate number of other units but they would still be effective deterants for the Stack of Doom.

 

[karadoc]

I reckon catapults are fine.
They are hugely powerful for attacking large stacks; and they are important for reducing city defences. But otherwise they are very weak. Building heaps of catapults will not make you win, because they'll get slaughted by horse archers or any other unit. If you are having trouble countering masses of catapults, try spreading your forces out more, attacking from different angles, that kind of thing.

I actually reckon it's pretty funny that just a little while ago heaps of people were complaining that catapults were useless now, and today people are talking about them being overpowered...

 

[salty]

It'd be a little more challenging if the AI would defend cities with some horse archers to protect against catapults, but it doesn't make that much sense since horses don't get any defense bonus from city or terrain.

I wish instead that there be a ballista weapon for collateral damage and another more cumbersome catapult that could also be built by engineers outside of a city (and also captured), and also a trebuchet later on.

 

[salty]

Also in the field, if horse archers could have a 50% chance of bypassing stacked spearmen/pikemen to attack slow moving catapults that would be good too.

 

[karadoc]

Also in the field, if horse archers could have a 50% chance of bypassing stacked spearmen/pikemen to attack slow moving catapults that would be good too.

That's an interesting idea. It could be a promotion or something. Worth looking into. Though I think 50% is a bit much.
The thing is that even with the power of catapult, the defender always has the advantage. If I see a stack with catapults moving towards one my cities, I send a force out to meet it - with catapults. Since they are on my land, I can get to then much more easilly using my roads. Furthermore, I can hit the enemy slowly (ie. not all in one turn), because while they are on my land they heal slowly and if they are still moving towards the city then they won't heal at all.
What I'm trying to say is that the game mechanics encourage a balance between splitting up armies into smaller groups, to avoid being hammered by the catapults, and stacking units together, to get combined arms and shared damage while defending.
I reckon it works really well.

 

[gunkulator]

Also in the field, if horse archers could have a 50% chance of bypassing stacked spearmen/pikemen to attack slow moving catapults that would be good too.

I've complained about this in several threads. Horse Archers would never charge headlong into spears or pikes in RL.

There are a lot of combat bonuses in Civ4 but most of them favor the defender. If a stack contains an axeman, a pike/spear and a horse archer, it is very hard to effectively attack it. Attacking swords and axes will inevitably have to face the defending axeman. Attacking horse archers will end up against the spear/pike. Archers will face the Horse Archer. Every. Single. Time. It's like Rock-Paper-Scissors where one player gets to choose after knowing what the first player picked.

I'd love a promotion along the lines of "50% of the time, attacker can choose its opponent". Civ3 had this as a unit attribute so that relatively weak Submaries could move in and attack the Transport and not one of the stacked Destroyers.

 

[Alpedar]

I like idea of chance of bypassing defence and hit catapults.

Imo it should have conditions:
1) attacker must be fast (only fast units would have that promotion).
2) bypasable should be only slow units
3) intended victim must be slow
4) fast units in stack should have chance (maybe 100%) to make attacker fight them

eg. Horse archers (and any horse units) would be able to do that (with some chance, not 100%)
They would be able to choose any slow unit (infantry/siege, but not setlers/workers) on that tile.
Even if they would suceed, anemy horses would be able to "intercept" them (maybe low by default, but some promotion would help in it (maybe even same)).

This would leed to stacks with some infantry, siege and horses.

 

[Older than Dirt]

Ever notice how the AI uses unsupported catapults to charge swordsmen and such who are coming to destroy one of their cities? Do you think the designers intentionally did this? I'd be interested as to what the play testers thought of this, if this behavior was obsered by them. Since catapults still work into the modern age so well, I'm not going to upgrade them anymore. Besides they make great bait for the AI.

How can catapults (as opposed to the trebuchet) exist into the modern era? The process for making the rubber band like tendons (IIRC) which powered the mechanism was a secret that was lost hundreds of years ago. I don't think it has been rediscovered.

 

[Meffy]

How can catapults (as opposed to the trebuchet) exist into the modern era? The process for making the rubber band like tendons (IIRC) which powered the mechanism was a secret that was lost hundreds of years ago. I don't think it has been rediscovered.

Excerpted from a Boeing Siegecraft promotional film, circa 1961:

"The development of modern high-tensile silicone elastomers has led to newer, more potent weapons in the ever-escalating struggle for technological supremacy on the battlefield. With its low-inertia, ultra-lightweight titanium alloy casting beam and structrural frame, Boeing's Catafract Mk. IV offers superior range along with faster load-fire cycle."

 

[eric_]

The idea of bypassing a unit's "default" defense counter is a good one and would tie nicely into the "Flank" promotion. I think this should only be available for mounted units, though, as, in real life, flanking in the course of an actual battle (as opposed to preparing a flanking attack ahead of time) is quite difficult without the speed of a horse under you.

 

[eric_]

Hrm, maybe instead of it being a "bypass" modifier, it could be a "targeted attack" modifier, where, for example, a unit has a % chance of specifically targeting the unit it has a bonus against. Similar concept, but I think that perception of it is more realistic. Could still be tied into the flank promotion.

 

[TLHeart]

And WHY not accept that you will loose some units when attacking a combined army? Pikeman in a circle formation around a catapult and there is NO way a horse archer is going to get to the cats. All these complaints about the best defender doing the defending, instead of the attackers getting to choose who to attack is pure Bull. The defender has the advantage, cats are a good weapon, that needs defended.

If you don't want to loose a unit, then don't attack with that unit. I always have a few units for cannon fodder when I am attacking a combined force.

 

[salty]

Horse Archers vs. Pikemen protecting catapult
1) Horses approach
2) Pikes dig in
3) Horses fire buring arrows at catapult
4) Pikes charge horses
5) Horsesmen run away, horses fart in pike's general direction
6) catapult burns
7) pikes persue
8) horses circle back, cut down catapult loader

 

[eric_]

TLHeart, good armies use good, creative tactics to overcome traditional obstacles. That's why this would be good as a promotion, imo.

Furthermore, why a horse archer would charge anything is beyond me.

 

[Alpedar]

TLHeart, good armies use good, creative tactics to overcome traditional obstacles. That's why this would be good as a promotion, imo.

Furthermore, why a horse archer would charge anything is beyond me.

Agree.

Btw. is Horse archer considered archery unit? (Does bonus aginst archers help aginst him?) Imo it should.