Are Siege weapons properly balanced?

[kaspergm]

I would like to hear people's oppinions on Siege weapons. I'm myself not terribly pleased with the way they play out in game. Here are some pointers:

Catapults are very weak, they can be used effectively against an un-walled city, but a city with Walls and a Composite Bowman (which is contemporary with Catapult) inside will more or less one-shot kill them. Trebuchets suffer pretty much the same issue against a city with Castle and a Crosbowman.

My suggestion would be that all Siege Engines start with the Cover I promotion (similar to Hun's Battering Ram). This will lessen the chance of them being killed as soon as they move in and set up and before they even get to fire one shot, but will still leave them vulnerable to melee attacks (as they should be), which will encourage you to not just defend your city with a single ranged unit stationed inside the city.


Conversely, in late game, once you get Artillery you get range 3 AND Indirect Fire promotion at the same time. This pretty much allows you to take down any city, until airplanes come into game at least, because you can have your Artillery shielded behind a wall of Rifflemen which with the proper promotions (and a Citadel if you're facing a really strong city) will make an almost impennetrable wall.

Artillery do lose relative power once Infantry come into play, and curiously there is no upgrade for them until levels higher - but then, once you hit Rocket Artillery, things get really silly - you not only get more than double the ranged strength, you also lose the requirement to set up before firing.

Personally, I think that once you discover Artillery, cities should get their ranged attack distance increased to 3 - after all, one must assume that the ranged attack of cities is supposed to represent contemporary military equipment stationed in the city, so it doesn't make sense for cities to keep having shorter range than the units. I also think that Artillery should not get the Indirect Fire promotion for free (they could earn it through upgrade), and that there should be a siege weapon between Artillery and Rocket Artillery which comes available with Balistics and which would be slightly more powerful than Artillery but comes with Indirect Fire for free. Finally, Rocket Artillery should be adjusted down in strength (perhaps 50 instead of 60). It could look something like this:

- Artillery (ranged strength 28): Range 3, no Indirect Fire.
- New unit (ranged strength 35): Range 3, starts with Indirect Fire, available with Balistics.
- Rocket Artillery (ranged strength 50): Range 3, starts with Indirect Fire, Does not require to set up before firing.

 

[smallfish]

Trebuchets are pretty strong stuff, tbh. Get them parked in rough terrain (5-6 of them), a lot of sword/pike meatshields... and you can take out anything up to an early Industrial city. Main thing is to make the defenders focus fire on anything but your Trebs.

e: I would call your "Artillery" the Armstrong Gun, only 2 range, but a higher str than Cannons and 50% defensive bonus against city attacks (does not carry over from upgrade)

 

[adsin15]

What if cities had a range of 3 when you research Dynamite but only a sight range of 2?

 

[apocalypse105]

Agree with the one shot kill with catapults even cities withouth walls can do more then 50 Hp damage I am like WTH just happened?

Getting the cover promotion will fix that

 

[woodshadows]

reduce the range of cities to 1 hex, only areas directly surrounding the city. force people to actually build an army to defend their city rather than relying on the giant death city to win their battles for them. simultaneously free up more room in the land for tactical warfare that doesn't include being sandwiched between multiple cities that can fire two hexes away over mountains with the most powerful attacks of any unit for their respective era.

 

[Mesix]

I personally think that siege weapons cause too much damage to units. They should be specialized in attacking cities. If you use a catapult to attack a swordsman, it should do only 1 hp of damage. Siege weapons should not be a means of defending a city, only for taking a city.

 

[Louis XXIV]

I agree to a point with your ideas. Allow me to suggest a compromise and see what you think.

1. Instead of having Catapults start with cover, allow them to pick the promotion. That way it's still a strategic choice. I think denying them the opportunity at all is certainly a huge negative for them.

2. Instead of automatically expanding city range, create a building improvement that expands it. Making Artillery range three is supposed to be an advantage. It wouldn't make sense to immediately nullify the advantage - especially since the AI can (and likely will) have artillery in the city too.

Another artillery unit could make sense. I agree with the above that the current Artillery would best be replaced with a Civil War era (using American frame of reference, the Armstrong Gun is a good specific choice) gun that has blind fire but only a range of two. Civil War artillery was devastating (just look at Picket's Charge), but it didn't quite have the prominence that developed for World War I, so a distinction makes sense. Then you would use the current Artillery for WWI artillery (let's just not call it "Great War Artillery" ).

 

[kamex]

I personally think that siege weapons cause too much damage to units. They should be specialized in attacking cities. If you use a catapult to attack a swordsman, it should do only 1 hp of damage. Siege weapons should not be a means of defending a city, only for taking a city.

What about weapons which have historically been used effectively on the battlefield against soldiers such a s field artillery?

 

[Dogmouth]

My only problem with siege weapons is that they get the critical turning points in history wrong. Cannons changed the course of warfare in a truly revolutionary way. In CiV, they're good, but they're practially a pit stop between trebs and artillery. If I could change anything, I would give cannons 3 range against cities (but only two if attacking a unit) or some sort of an extra bonus against walled cities.

 

[kaspergm]

1. Instead of having Catapults start with cover, allow them to pick the promotion. That way it's still a strategic choice. I think denying them the opportunity at all is certainly a huge negative for them.

You already CAN chose Cover for Catapults?

2. Instead of automatically expanding city range, create a building improvement that expands it. Making Artillery range three is supposed to be an advantage. It wouldn't make sense to immediately nullify the advantage - especially since the AI can (and likely will) have artillery in the city too.

Well you wouldn't immediately nullify it - because as long as you have researched Dynamite and enemy hasn't, you'll still have the range advantage. Only when he researches Dynamite will he match your range.

On a sidenote, how about having city range depent on fortification level? Cities with no fortification or only Walls has a range of 1, cities with Castle and Arsenal has a range of 2, cities with Military Base has a range of 3? Just a thought, but it's interesting I think.

Another artillery unit could make sense. I agree with the above that the current Artillery would best be replaced with a Civil War era (using American frame of reference, the Armstrong Gun is a good specific choice) gun that has blind fire but only a range of two. Civil War artillery was devastating (just look at Picket's Charge), but it didn't quite have the prominence that developed for World War I, so a distinction makes sense. Then you would use the current Artillery for WWI artillery (let's just not call it "Great War Artillery" ).

I guess that could work. I'm not a weapon's specialist, but then the Armstrong Gun would replace current Artillery (have Indirect Fire but range 2) and then Artillery is pushed back (and retains its current properties)? However, I do think that the range 3 unit should come before air units, but I guess that's open for debate.

 

[Denounced]

I like the idea someone said about giving cities just one hex range. That would really shake up how people maintain their defences.

 

[smallfish]

Hmm, a new era between Industrial and Modern would work wonderfully. Call it... the Imperial Era

 

[Dentalfury]

Imperial Era might be a little too Euro-Centric. But who knows...

I also wouldn't mind seeing some changes to the current mechanics of city bombardment. For instance, I wouldn't mind seeing a range of 1 on cities until Composite Bowmen come into play and a range of 3 when Artillery is discovered.

I would also make the damage scaling based on range. For instance, a city will do 100% damage at 1 tile, 75% at 2 Tiles, and 50% at 3 Tiles. This would make sense considering that as range increases for any sort of bombardment accuracy is likely to go down. This would give your Siege units a fighting chance, and further penalize those poor bastards who actually have to storm the castle point blank.

This could be modified by City Improvements, you could even tack it onto the existing effect of Barracks/Walls, etc.

 

[ArnoldI]

If you want a WWI Artillery Unit, you may call it "Mortar", as they were an important part of the war as they fired more vertically than previous Artillery (to strike the enemies' fortifications. In this point, Indirect Fire would be completely logical.

 

[kaspergm]

I also wouldn't mind seeing some changes to the current mechanics of city bombardment. For instance, I wouldn't mind seeing a range of 1 on cities until Composite Bowmen come into play and a range of 3 when Artillery is discovered.

I would also make the damage scaling based on range. For instance, a city will do 100% damage at 1 tile, 75% at 2 Tiles, and 50% at 3 Tiles. This would make sense considering that as range increases for any sort of bombardment accuracy is likely to go down. This would give your Siege units a fighting chance, and further penalize those poor bastards who actually have to storm the castle point blank.

This could be modified by City Improvements, you could even tack it onto the existing effect of Barracks/Walls, etc.

I like the idea of scaling damage with distance. However, shouldn't the same then apply to ranged unit damage to make it fair?

I still think it would be nice to have the range thing tie up with fortification level - i.e. Castle triggers range 2, Military Base triggers range 3.

If you want a WWI Artillery Unit, you may call it "Mortar", as they were an important part of the war as they fired more vertically than previous Artillery (to strike the enemies' fortifications. In this point, Indirect Fire would be completely logical.

I like that.

 

[Morningcalm]

Agreed on catapults. They need MUCH more ranged resistance, esp. to city walls. In the current game, having 3 catapults and a legion of swordsmen will only get you a city because you happen to have swordsmen. In other words, WTH? -_-

 

[Dentalfury]

An interesting and somewhat historically accurate way to create a new siege unit would be to differentiate between smooth bore and rifled cannon.

It took several centuries of trial and error before European craftsman learned that adding internal groves increased both range and accuracy as well as using better alloys. So, instead of jumping from Trebuchet to Cannon to Artillery it would be...

Trebuchet ---> Bombard / Smoothbore ---> Cannon / Field Gun (Rifled) ---> Artillery/Howitzer


@Kaspergm - I agree that the diminished damage at distance mechanic may have to be applied to all ranged units. However, defenders are at a disadvantage sometimes because they can't move! A unit rushing forward is at a constantly changing range so a defender would have to constantly adjust. I suppose that some additional modifiers could be applied if the unit was fortified or not or how mobile (mounted vs infantry). And to possibly add extra turns to more fully fortify to gain additional benefit as a trade-off for keeping a unit fully committed to a position.

 

[Louis XXIV]

You already CAN chose Cover for Catapults?

I thought they removed this for siege units? I'll have to look next time I play, but I don't remember being able to select cover.

Well you wouldn't immediately nullify it - because as long as you have researched Dynamite and enemy hasn't, you'll still have the range advantage. Only when he researches Dynamite will he match your range.

It's still a short time for what is supposed to be a legitimate advantage.

On a sidenote, how about having city range depent on fortification level? Cities with no fortification or only Walls has a range of 1, cities with Castle and Arsenal has a range of 2, cities with Military Base has a range of 3? Just a thought, but it's interesting I think.

That could work. I think it makes new cities a little too hard to defend, though. The default really should be two. I'd just have the Military Base boost the range to three. First, it's later than Artillery. Second, it's separate (it's possible to get there first). Third, it's on the peaceful tech line so it makes more sense defensively. Finally, requiring a building still means it's only the best cities that get the advantage.

I guess that could work. I'm not a weapon's specialist, but then the Armstrong Gun would replace current Artillery (have Indirect Fire but range 2) and then Artillery is pushed back (and retains its current properties)? However, I do think that the range 3 unit should come before air units, but I guess that's open for debate.

To be honest, the only real good place to put a new unit is Railroad, imo. That would parallel flight and be clearly WWI without putting it too late.

 

[Ventus]

I found that between Artillery and Rocket Artillery there is a big gap. They are separated by 2 whole eras and as someone mentioned above Rocket Artillery is just silly vs cities.
For me there is missing artillery piece between those 2. I think that upgrading from 28 ranged str to 60 immediately is just broken.
I think there should be another stuff with 40 ranged str.

One can state that there are Gatling Guns ans Machine Guns as ranged units. But they're designed for battlefield against soldiers not cities.

 

[kaspergm]

To be honest, the only real good place to put a new unit is Railroad, imo. That would parallel flight and be clearly WWI without putting it too late.

Railroad would be too early, that's only one level after Dynamite and in the same line, which means you can skip directly over Artillery into the new unit*. Balistics technology sits immediately between Rocketry and Dynamite and will, after the patch, be on the line from Dynamite (Dynamite > Railroad > Balistics > Radar > Rocketry) which would secure the natural upgrade line of the siege weapons.

* Although admittedly, you can go directly for Dynamite and completely skip Industrialism/Rifling branches, in which case you would have some more catching up to do before you could go into Railroad.