[GS] Are Early Siege (Catapults) any better post September Patch?

Denkt

Left Forever
Joined
Jul 3, 2012
Messages
3,989
Easy solution to the range problem would be to give ranged units -10 strength when attacking siege which would make melee types units more important than defending against attackers.

AI's inability to defend and attack also make military strategies really strong, the game would be alot more balanced if the ai understod how to attack and defend while also perform other strategies such as science and Culture.
 

Jkchart

Emperor
Joined
Jul 13, 2016
Messages
1,269
Location
Texas
I find myself agreeing that there needs to be a Trebuchet since catapults are too flimsy in the medieval era. I like most of the unit gap designs personally, but Siege needs the Trebuchet. I also feel that Bombards are *slightly* underpowered to truly deal with Medieval and Renaissance walls the way they need to. But I could be wrong.

Artillery/rockets + balloon/drone are king though
 

TheMeInTeam

If A implies B...
Joined
Jan 26, 2008
Messages
27,660
I find myself agreeing that there needs to be a Trebuchet since catapults are too flimsy in the medieval era. I like most of the unit gap designs personally, but Siege needs the Trebuchet. I also feel that Bombards are *slightly* underpowered to truly deal with Medieval and Renaissance walls the way they need to. But I could be wrong.

Artillery/rockets + balloon/drone are king though

Artillery/rockets are good because you actually need something other than a ranged unit in a city with walls to threaten them. Unlike earlier versions of the unit type, artillery and rocket artillery actually counter the thing they're supposed to counter consistently. An unprotected city is easily handled by them, even with walls.

In comparison even 2 catapults can't reliably deal with a city using ancient walls + archer inside.
 

kb27787

Deity
Joined
Aug 16, 2013
Messages
2,102
Makes me wonder if the posters on here are even playing the same game as I do.
Catapults work just fine (if anything I feel they should be squishier to range and melee ) no, you shouldn't be able to 1-shot a wall with just two of them. Cities should be considered strong units! You should have to put a city under siege and whittle it down in several turns before the melee units can get in (as in real life) It's not like the AI is smart enough to focus down siege units with their ranged units...

Defender's advantage should really be a thing as it was in Civ V. It's bad enough a handful of starting non unique unit warriors can take a capital early game. It's really poor balance.
 

Stacked_Deck

Chieftain
Joined
Nov 3, 2013
Messages
92
Due to the way the combat formula works I'd take a swordsman at 45 CS (oligarchy + GG) over a catapult any day of the week. They'll take negligible damage and have a much easier time pillaging farms. Additionally any rough terrain surrounding the city is a boon for 3 movement point melee, while a complete headache for catapults.

If I don't have any iron and the enemy cities are surrounded by flatland, then I'll consider using some catapults. But realistically I'll just use pikemen (buffed to 50 CS), as upgrading spearmen is a better timing push than hardbuilding catapults.

The best reason for using 2 or 3 catapults is to get some promotions for later eras.
 

Victoria

Regina
Supporter
Joined
Apr 11, 2011
Messages
11,883
The best reason for using 2 or 3 catapults is to get some promotions for later eras.
For eurekas and inspirations is my view. 2 bombards and a bombard corps
Cheaper to get as catapults but classical production is more valuable than renaissance so never a simple choice, depends on game.
 
Top Bottom