Are Siege weapons properly balanced?

[GhostSalsa]

I like the free Cover promo idea and the later mentioned one-tile range for cities.

(That said, I have NO problem with the current balance on pre-dynamite sieges. It is challenging and fun and that is what matters.)

The limit to 1 tile for city defense would just make sense because, as said, battle is too restrained by city borders as is and this leads to the limited rolls for meele and mounted units.

Opposite of what has been suggested by some, I think it would be cool if cities started with a range-2 attack but that doesn't get stronger after ancient; range 1 in medieval that is really strong (representing pooring stuff off the walls etc); range 2 again after chem or rifling. In other words, your sophisticated medieval units can move around the field and engage freely.

 

[StrategyMaster4]

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)

Exactly correct. With the trebs and cats, when you have a lot of them (5-6), you know, the problem kinda gets resolved. And when you have a lot of meat-shields and other units around, the city will usually target a weak or damaged unit (I'm not quite sure, but I think so).

As for the later game siege, it sounds a bit unbalanced from your description, but I'm not to to experienced with the later game so I'll stay silent about that.

 

[StrategyMaster4]

Finally, requiring a building still means it's only the best cities that get the advantage.

But don't we want to defend more the best cities? With the larger amount of buildings? Requiring buildings to increase the range would prioritize the defense of the better cities, pushing a player to improve their cities....

 

[Minor Annoyance]

...
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...

I thought that was going to be how it worked. I'm almost sure that before the game was released they said you needed walls for a ranged attack but maybe they reconsidered it. I guess if they didn't have a ranged attack by default then it would be very easy to take down a city with ranged units and not face any counter attack.

 

[Minor Annoyance]

Opposite of what has been suggested by some, I think it would be cool if cities started with a range-2 attack but that doesn't get stronger after ancient; range 1 in medieval that is really strong (representing pooring stuff off the walls etc); range 2 again after chem or rifling. In other words, your sophisticated medieval units can move around the field and engage freely.

Interesting idea about differing strength of ranged city attacks. Here's what I was thinking with defense buildings and city attack ranges:

No buildings: 1 Weak, 2 Weak
Walls: 1 Strong, 2 Weak
Castle: 1 Strong, 2 Strong
Arsenal: 1 Strong, 2 Strong, 3 Weak
Military Base: 1 Strong, 2 Strong, 3 Strong

Each building increases the effective range of the attacks either by just giving you more power at longer ranges or increasing the range.
It could be done by having each building only add their strength to the rings in there range. i.e. walls 1, castles 2, and arsenals and military bases 3.

 

[kaspergm]

Interesting idea about differing strength of ranged city attacks. Here's what I was thinking with defense buildings and city attack ranges:

No buildings: 1 Weak, 2 Weak
Walls: 1 Strong, 2 Weak
Castle: 1 Strong, 2 Strong
Arsenal: 1 Strong, 2 Strong, 3 Weak
Military Base: 1 Strong, 2 Strong, 3 Strong

Each building increases the effective range of the attacks either by just giving you more power at longer ranges or increasing the range.
It could be done by having each building only add their strength to the rings in there range. i.e. walls 1, castles 2, and arsenals and military bases 3.

That's an interesting proposition, but if one includes this, there should probably either be a very early and very cheap defence defensive building (like a Pallisade) before Walls (which could be pushed back to Construction then) or conversely, Walls should be a bit cheaper (or perhaps better: Get a construction bonus with one of the social policies).

Adding a new building would sort of destroy the neat layout of the scheme above (unless we make it: None - 1 weak; Palisade - 1 weak, 2 weak or conversely even Palisade - 1 strong). Currently Walls are not that easy to get up in a new city, and we don't want to leave them too vulnerable either.

 

[Louis XXIV]

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.

It would still require steam power, which a whole other line of techs. If you beeline to Dynamite, it could be seven or more techs later. It looks awkward, but I don't think there's a better place since Combustion is, imo, too late.

This one layer of tech is also not unprecedented. There are fewer techs between WWI Infantry and WWII Infantry.

 

[StrategyMaster4]

Interesting idea about differing strength of ranged city attacks. Here's what I was thinking with defense buildings and city attack ranges:

No buildings: 1 Weak, 2 Weak
Walls: 1 Strong, 2 Weak
Castle: 1 Strong, 2 Strong
Arsenal: 1 Strong, 2 Strong, 3 Weak
Military Base: 1 Strong, 2 Strong, 3 Strong

Each building increases the effective range of the attacks either by just giving you more power at longer ranges or increasing the range.
It could be done by having each building only add their strength to the rings in there range. i.e. walls 1, castles 2, and arsenals and military bases 3.

Sounds interesting.....

 

[kaspergm]

It would still require steam power, which a whole other line of techs. If you beeline to Dynamite, it could be seven or more techs later. It looks awkward, but I don't think there's a better place since Combustion is, imo, too late.

This one layer of tech is also not unprecedented. There are fewer techs between WWI Infantry and WWII Infantry.

*If* you beeline to Dynamite, yes - but how often do you beeline to Dynamite and skip Industrialization and Rifling?

But it's ok to disagree, I would just like to know, when you say Combustion (or Balistics, which was my suggestion) is too late, why do you feel that - and too late for what? Too late to gain Range 3, or too late to get Indirect Fire? Because I do agree on the former, which is why I would give Range 3 before Indirect Fire (someone suggested the opposite later), but I don't think pushing Indirect Fire back to Balistics/Combustion level would be a problem.

 

[Snerk]

+1 for limiting city attack range to one hex. City ranged attacks restraints military movements and tactics too much IMO.

 

[Louis XXIV]

*If* you beeline to Dynamite, yes - but how often do you beeline to Dynamite and skip Industrialization and Rifling?

But it's ok to disagree, I would just like to know, when you say Combustion (or Balistics, which was my suggestion) is too late, why do you feel that - and too late for what? Too late to gain Range 3, or too late to get Indirect Fire? Because I do agree on the former, which is why I would give Range 3 before Indirect Fire (someone suggested the opposite later), but I don't think pushing Indirect Fire back to Balistics/Combustion level would be a problem.

Artillery predates early tanks. In fact, tanks were invented as a counter to Artillery and the gap was a significant part of the first world war. By having them appear at the same time, this weapon-counter dynamic would be ruined.

I dislike Ballistics, although matching machineguns makes sense. However, it ruins the upgrade path so the earlier Artillery in Dynamite would not upgrade to Machineguns.

 

[Drawmeus]

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.

I've run into the same issue and hit on the same solution - I'm in the middle of building out a mod that's totally overhauling and expanding the tech tree, and I've basically reworked siege weapons in 3 ways:
- They start with a Cover promotion.
- Pre-Cannon siege units start with lower ranged strength and a greater bonus vs cities, further specializing them in favor of siege and away from battlefield combat. Cannon and later siege units are still effective on a battlefield.
- Lowered Combat strength. They are more vulnerable to attack from melee/mounted units than they were before.

It works pretty well. Siege units make more sense than before.

 

[slapshot2119]

seems the intended game mechanic is that siege units should, by design, be easy to pick off if any land unit gets to it, should be similar to a pike attacking a mount or a naval unit attacking an embarked unit. The strategy is preventing land units from reaching your siege unit.
Still, I agree that siege units, primarily cats and trebs, get picked off by city bombardments too easily, especially considering they're the "city counter." So one of two obvious solutions
1.) siege units receive 1/4 damage from city bombardments
2.) cities may not bombard a tile with a siege unit until all tiles containing enemy non-siege units have been destroyed/forced to retreat, etc.
Either way, I don't like the automatic cover promotion idea, as it also applies to archery/ranged units, and those units should be able to pick off cats and trebs.

 

[StrategyMaster4]

About the city range and strength...why increase the city attack ability with a specific tech instead of buildings? New military buildings need to be researched, thus still basing it indirectly on techs...

 

[kaspergm]

Artillery predates early tanks. In fact, tanks were invented as a counter to Artillery and the gap was a significant part of the first world war. By having them appear at the same time, this weapon-counter dynamic would be ruined.

I dislike Ballistics, although matching machineguns makes sense. However, it ruins the upgrade path so the earlier Artillery in Dynamite would not upgrade to Machineguns.

That is why I will still have Artillery placed with Dynamites - i.e. predating Tanks - I will just take the Indirect Fire ability away from them. And then I want to add another unit two steps later at Balistics - call it Mortar, for the sake of discussion - which has the Indirect Fire ability.

And placing it with Balistics will not ruin the upgrade path. Notice that after the fall patch, Railroad will be a necessary prerequisite to research Balistics. Therefore, we will have the upgrade path secured: Dynamite (Artillery) > Railroad > Balistics (Mortar) > Radar > Rocketry (Rocket Artillery).

seems the intended game mechanic is that siege units should, by design, be easy to pick off if any land unit gets to it, should be similar to a pike attacking a mount or a naval unit attacking an embarked unit. The strategy is preventing land units from reaching your siege unit.

Well, I could start another topic on that subject, but the embarked defence is another thing that's clearly broken. Just the other day (and it's not the first time) I had an embarked worker being attacked by a trireme - Worker suffered 25 damage, Trireme suffered 34 damage. Yes, we were in Industrial so Triremes sort of should have been upgraded by now (thank you, lousy AI), but still - an embarked civilian should not be able to defend against a naval unit for more damage than it takes!

So just because there is an intention that may be good, that far from means that things are properly implemented or balanced.

Either way, I don't like the automatic cover promotion idea, as it also applies to archery/ranged units, and those units should be able to pick off cats and trebs.

Well I disagree, I don't see how Archers would be effective in destroying a Catapult.

 

[Louis XXIV]

That is why I will still have Artillery placed with Dynamites - i.e. predating Tanks - I will just take the Indirect Fire ability away from them. And then I want to add another unit two steps later at Balistics - call it Mortar, for the sake of discussion - which has the Indirect Fire ability.

I think the problem is that World War I era Artillery really should be three range indirect fire. They shot over trees and everything. The unit we have at Dynamite now should be the unit you're talking about with indirect fire and range three. The only question is where to move it to when you put a weaker unit in its place.

And placing it with Balistics will not ruin the upgrade path. Notice that after the fall patch, Railroad will be a necessary prerequisite to research Balistics. Therefore, we will have the upgrade path secured: Dynamite (Artillery) > Railroad > Balistics (Mortar) > Radar > Rocketry (Rocket Artillery).

OK, I missed the Railroad change in the patch. In that case, Ballistics definitely makes a lot of sense, so I agree to put it there. I have a problem with landships possibly arriving too early, but that's a separate discussion. But WWI Artillery and Machine Guns make sense going together.

ETA: Real quick comment on embarked defense, although it's off-topic. Land units are a fish out of water so to speak in the sea. The defense they have is the defense of the transport they're riding it. Therefore, whether you're a spearman or a tank, the transport has the same defense that upgrades by era. That's why it makes complete sense for a modern transport to defend better than an ancient Trireme even if that modern transport is transporting civilians.

 

[cakes]

how could a city have less range than an archer?

 

[Snerk]

how could a city have less range than an archer?

A city without a ranged unit in it is just people on the walls throwing rocks and stuff. I. e. small range.

 

[Crafty Bison]

Does anyone else find it annoying that most of siege's strength vs cities comes from modifier not cs? It means that other modifiers such as unhapiness penalty, (river penalty with battering ram), GG bonus, persian/chinese/ethiopian/mongolian vs CS's bonuses are far less important. I see this as an effective reduction in the tactical element of warfare. For instance, the unhapiness penalty is designed to slow down war machines until hapiness can be rectified, but the units on which it has least effect are siege, the exact units specialised in taking out cities. Seems off to me.

 

[Peng Qi]

Just let the Siege unit "+200% vs Cities" apply to its too.