1. We have added a Gift Upgrades feature that allows you to gift an account upgrade to another member, just in time for the holiday season. You can see the gift option when going to the Account Upgrades screen, or on any user profile screen.
    Dismiss Notice

Artillary Frustration

Discussion in 'Civ4 - General Discussions' started by Grit, Mar 28, 2006.

  1. senwiz

    senwiz Prince

    Joined:
    Feb 27, 2006
    Messages:
    304
    Location:
    Appleton, WI
    In terms of balance and gameplay, I can see why they have done it the way they have. If they were going to make them better, what about tanks? How many times have you ever heard of tanks going blow to blow with a group of infantry? Won't happen in real life. The infantry would run like hell, if they were smart. LOL
     
  2. Grit

    Grit Warlord

    Joined:
    Feb 1, 2006
    Messages:
    113
    I guess this is a realy sencitive subject but in all faireness I see the fix to this problem as the follwoing.
    1. Ancient arty (catapults, etc.) should have the same ability as they do in the game as pointed out earlier that they had to get realy close to do anything.
    2a. Cannos should be able to bombard units one space away, and artillary two spaces so as to acutally soften the position with out being in harms way.
    2b. The amount of damage done by such an attack would either be smaller or less acurate depending on the distance (1-4 chance at 2 spaces, 1-2 chance at one or whatever) or less damage done to represent inacuracy.
    3. Rumor has it that the Soviet Army would bring their artillary within range of enemy troops and begin bombardment. I believe that such a senerio is allready present and should be kept for the sake of defence, attack, and all fairness in the game.
    4. When an attack or defence of an artillary fails the unit should be captured if in enemy territory or destroyed if in friendly territory or something to this effect.
    --------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Don't hate dictate :king:
     
  3. Roland Johansen

    Roland Johansen Deity

    Joined:
    Apr 29, 2003
    Messages:
    4,292
    Location:
    the Netherlands
    The civ 4 way is not realistic, but don't argue that the civ 3 way was realistic. In civ 3, you could attack the enemy stack with 30 pieces of artillery while the enemy did nothing (because it was your turn). The enemy had no chance at all to attack or damage the artillery that you were using to kill it. It just had to wait till you decided that the bombardment should stop. That's also not a representation of real life. In real life, enemy forces react to the artillery bombardment. They counterattack or retreat, but don't just sit there to be slaughtered.

    A good representation (for civ) in my opinion would be a system where the units would fight together as a group. Artillery, cavalry, infantry, all would fight in one group. The Civilization Call to Power way would be ok if it was supported by good AI. The two groups of units would line up. The artillery gets a shot, the infantry start fighting, the cavalry flanks the infantry. The artillery gets another shot, one of the groups of infantry starts to win and the cavalry break through to the other side's artillery and slaughters it. One army is defeated, the other probably has severe losses if the armies were comparable in strength.

    Groups of units would need a maximum size because otherwise the biggest stack could just walk over any opposing stack. Of course, more stacks could enter one tile. This kind of fighting would lead to true combined arms.
     
  4. gunkulator

    gunkulator Emperor

    Joined:
    May 30, 2003
    Messages:
    1,265
    Location:
    NH, USA
    I wouldn't say that Civ3 model itself was unbalanced. The problem was the AI. What made Civ3 combat unbalanced was that you could hide those 30 artillery pieces under an army and the AI would never attack the stack. I had no problem with having a massive SOD take a city, artillery or not. Afterall, no general wants to try an offensive against equal or superior force. But I didn't like that after you take the city, the AI might have, say, 100 cavalry but would refuse to attack your stack because the odds of defeating 1 army with 1 cavalry was too low. 100 cavalry was certain to defeat the army but the AI never figured the odds this way. And how come the AI didn't rush its artillery to the city and pound the crap out of your stack while it crawled 1 space per turn toward the city? If just those two things were fixed, I think the Civ3 model would have been just fine.
     
  5. Grit

    Grit Warlord

    Joined:
    Feb 1, 2006
    Messages:
    113
    Well I guess its safe to say that civ arty may never be perfect but the idea of retreat sounds good. What I would do to implement that would like maybe give the player an option. Like say the arty attack dos next to nothing to your main force and you get the option to retreat you could choose to stay and vice versa.
    --------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Don't hate dictate :king:
     
  6. Crimso

    Crimso ...aaaaaagh!

    Joined:
    Sep 25, 2004
    Messages:
    630
    Location:
    Toronto, Canada
    Artillery is broken. Those who say otherwise don't offer any arguments as to why it isn't.

    The problem arises when bombardment is complete. The defensive units are still significantly stronger than the offensive units, to a point where they have a 95% or greater chance of being victorious. This is where strategy ends. Combined arms, promotions and geography are what make up strategy in Civ IV. It doesn't matter how many different types of units you have, because the defender will always be your unit's counter. Promotions generally cancel each other out in the same way. Geography is not a factor unless you're unlucky enough to up against a city on a hill, or surrounded by a bending river. All you can do is throw your catapults at the enemy cities and watch them be destroyed, over and over again.

    The conclusion is that artillery is just as repetitive, and pea-brained, as it was in Civ III, only now it is much more of a pain of in the ass. The only counter to a fortified, City Defender II Longbowman are three catapults you'll never see again. The concept is broken because there is no alternative other than destroying your own units.

    The last two posters touched on the most likely reason why the developers settled on this concept: the limitations of the AI. If capturing cities were to have any strategy, they would have to develop new routines for the AI to handle their units. Instead of writing this code they expect us to out-produce the AI hammer for hammer, using them to produce lemming units.

    And for Christ's sake, stop bringing up realism. This is a game where you can only attack a single unit with a single unit at a single time, where supply lines are magical portals, where macemen carry flails etc.
     
  7. Grit

    Grit Warlord

    Joined:
    Feb 1, 2006
    Messages:
    113
    Ok but I still thought the point of arty was to attack without takeing any dammage yu know!
     
  8. Harrier

    Harrier Deity

    Joined:
    Feb 19, 2002
    Messages:
    2,409
    Location:
    UK
    To me that seems to be very realistic, WW1, WW2, Serbia - etc. Well placed defenders do not suffer to much damage from artillery - no matter how good the explosions look.

    Sorry - I thought you just did that. :D :D
     
  9. Harrier

    Harrier Deity

    Joined:
    Feb 19, 2002
    Messages:
    2,409
    Location:
    UK
    That is when they bombard city defences - not attack units in the city.
     
  10. Watiggi

    Watiggi Deity

    Joined:
    Feb 27, 2006
    Messages:
    2,107
    With respect to the current system:

    *prevent seige units from actually attacking the defenders units. The seige unit would not be able to destroy a defending unit nor will it be able to take over the city. Collateral damage would be the only thing that could be done (plus reducing the city defenses).

    *limiting a seige unit to one hit of collateral damage per city or something. I don't know how to limit it but only allow it to attack once. If you think about it, that is what the current system seems to achieve. The problem is that the unit, unless looked after, quite often dies.

    *Give the defenders a way of killing/targeting the seige weapons. If there is a way, then range could be implemented. If not, then it shouldn't be implemented (to keep the balance). Maybe defensive seige can be effective at defeating offensive seige. Hang on a tick. Don't the mounted units have a bonus against seige? I guess there is a unit that allows you to counter them after all!

    I like the idea of seige reducing the defending stacks chance of success (softening them), but I don't think they should be able to defeat them and behave like a normal unit. Having said that after the maceman, besides seige, there are no more city-raider able units until modern armour. Maybe seige is meant to be the main offensive unit because I can sure take down more advanced cities only using seige without loosing more than I would using say macemen or cavelry. If you learn to look after the seige units and use them properly, you wont loose them.

    Watiggi
     
  11. vinstafresh

    vinstafresh Prince

    Joined:
    Oct 31, 2005
    Messages:
    385
    I made this comment earlier, but there was no response to it:

    Should siege units be captured when they are not properly defended like in Civ3? If a civ doesn't have steel (cannon) or artillery researched and it captures a siege weapon, it might give the attacking civ a scientific breakthrough like in Civ2. This might reduce the use of big stacks of siege units.
     
  12. N3pomuk

    N3pomuk Warlord

    Joined:
    May 19, 2005
    Messages:
    162
    Location:
    "Old Europe"
    how about this: counter battery fire! your enemy has the ability to counter fire at your artillery honeing in and such, so that these two artillery units may square off against each other like normal units do, also the option of bombarding from 2 or later 3 squares away at say 1/2 or 2/3 strength would be welcomed, as this would help break the enormous strangle hold airpower has on the late game, cause lets be honest the US Army/marines/navy any army would be alot less threataning without their precious arty and their special munitions. and may I be the one to ask, where is the mobile arty? was someone sleeping when WW2 was brought in class, after all it was this that made WW2 what it was, a MOBILE war, no 1 movement point for infantry.

    cheers
     
  13. Grit

    Grit Warlord

    Joined:
    Feb 1, 2006
    Messages:
    113
    I LIKE THIS IDEA ALOT! It seems like the perfect fix to the game :goodjob:
    --------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Don't Hate Dictate:king:
     
  14. Deckk

    Deckk Chieftain

    Joined:
    Mar 31, 2006
    Messages:
    1
    I'm not sure of the accuracy here but just for kicks...

    Modern armor has a movement of 2. A turn is about a year (right?) at the time of modern armor. So lets say a modern tank can move 20 miles a day behind enemy lines and can operate 100 days a year.

    20 miles * 100 days = 2000 miles.

    2000 miles / 2 squares = 1000 miles.

    So if an artillery piece can attack 1 square away then it can fire shells for 1000 miles. 2 squares would be like 2000 miles. That's 2/3 the way across America isn't it? That would still be unrealistic wouldn't it?

    Or how about this...

    How much time passes in the ancient age between turns? Isn't it like 100 years or something? So it takes a warrior something like 800 - 900 years to run around a city in ancient times.
     
  15. Roland Johansen

    Roland Johansen Deity

    Joined:
    Apr 29, 2003
    Messages:
    4,292
    Location:
    the Netherlands
    The time used for the construction part of the game and the time used for the movement/war part of the game can't really be mixed very well. It leads to all kinds of illogical things. Actually, time in years is largely nonsence in this game if you compare it with anything in real life.

    If you would look at the world and compare it's circumference with that of earth (40000 km), then it is clear that every tile would meassure something like a few hundred km's depending on map size. But even that is nonsense because there would only be very few cities on such a map in the game. A real Europe, with all of it's large cities couldn't exist in the game.

    However you look at it, this game will not be realistic. It's just a fun game that plays with some mechanics that resemble real life.
     
  16. Grit

    Grit Warlord

    Joined:
    Feb 1, 2006
    Messages:
    113
    Yeah when you put it this way it dos seem to justifie the direct bombardment. Huh I guess I'd never realy brought that into consideration:blush: But still I mean at least a defencive bonus or somethin' when your attacking or defending to show that your a little distance away. That to me seems more logical. Guess I should do my homework before I go asking for artilary to shoot across america or something like that:lol: .
    --------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Don't hate dictate:king:
     
  17. zeeter

    zeeter Emperor

    Joined:
    Nov 29, 2001
    Messages:
    1,250
    I was thinking of this, too, but I didn't want to sound silly by saying it. Good to know that someone else thinks it's a good idea, too. Either that or we're both silly.
     
  18. zeeter

    zeeter Emperor

    Joined:
    Nov 29, 2001
    Messages:
    1,250
    I've been thinking about this for quite some time. Excuse me if someone else mentioned this, as I didn't read the whole thread.

    How about this. Eliminate siege weapons alltogether. Instead, add as a third promotion to melee/gunpowder/infantry units a catapult/cannon/artillery brigade. This will have the following effects:

    1. The unit gets a bonus when attacking similar to a third star or something. In fact, this could replace the third star.
    2. The unit can do collateral damage.
    3. The infantry unit can do a bombardment attack.
    4. If the unit dies when it attacks, the artillery brigade dies, too, since it's an upgrade and not an actual unit.
    5. This will eliminate the tediousness of war: move infantry, tanks, and artillery next to city. Destroy defenses. Damage the units down to their minimum strength. Attack city with tanks and capture city. Move to next city.
     
  19. Watiggi

    Watiggi Deity

    Joined:
    Feb 27, 2006
    Messages:
    2,107
    Interesting idea. Basically a collateral damage/bombardment promotion. Maybe they could be seperated into a collateral damage promo and a bombardment promo. Why the hell hasn't the machine gunner got collateral damage on the defensive (even when it's considered seige)?

    Don't like that idea. I don't like it when promos are given more and more stuff. Just keep it nice and simple. Simplicity keeps balance and gives more options.

    That is the point! To effectively capture a city with a minimal loss of life, you have to bring in the slow units as well. You could go forward and take them down with quick units like tanks, but then you would be hitting a more powerful defense. I think it was stated somewhere, where in order to effectively capture a city, you needed a combined arms sort of system and couldn't just rely on one unit. It's supposed to make war more strategic or what not. I like it. Allthough tedious, I think the logistic issues it raises are good considering what you get for it (captured city with minimal loss of units). Just my opinion.

    What are peoples thoughts on the trebuchet that appears to be in the EP? What do you think the strength will be? I find that the catapult can still "stick it to 'em" to musketmen level of units. There is a big gap between catapult and cannon, but what would the strength be? Catapult dropped to 4 and the trebuchet given a strength of 7? Leave the catapult at 5 and make the Trib 8 or 9? Where was it given in Civ3 (didn't play it that much)?

    Watiggi
     
  20. Black Waltz

    Black Waltz Prince

    Joined:
    Jan 29, 2002
    Messages:
    569
    The reason people don't think most Siege weapons are worth it is because they are using them wrong. Suiciding against a city... Yes, you do collatoral damage, but not a lot of it. They are primarily used to bombard a cities defences to get rid of that annoying 65% (or whatever) bonus defenders get and to keep your lovely promoted units from dying. People who whine about it being "broken" just don't know how to use them properly.
     

Share This Page