Artillery is a God send

[The_Clash]

I was in a war with Persia and I beat back an army that had the same units as I and was twice as big. And I did it using large amounts of artillery. Does anyone else you these God sends alot too?

 

[Shabbaman]

Sure. I don't like their lame movement speed though.

 

[Lawrence]

Artillery is your only powerful weapon in pre-tank industrial warfare. 15+ Artis can get a city's defenders all in one health.

It remains very useful after tanks emerged. It should be a major strike power in your army before Modern Armor and Radar Artillery.

 

[Zachriel]

Bombardment, when properly used, can be a very powerful addition to your arsenal. Here is a typical example of the use of cannon, where the cannon is used on defense, and also opens a line of attack.

http://www.crowncity.net/civ3/Defense.htm

 

[Graeme the mad]

Artillery is fantastic - I palyed against the chinese in a recent game, capture one city and if you are lukcy you need just go one square deep into their territory to bombard a city. 35 artilelry meant that I didnt suffer a real loss, and practically never needed to attack a unit (lethal bombard turned on)

 

[Zachriel]

Originally posted by Graeme the mad
Artillery is fantastic - I palyed against the chinese in a recent game, capture one city and if you are lukcy you need just go one square deep into their territory to bombard a city. 35 artilelry meant that I didnt suffer a real loss, and practically never needed to attack a unit (lethal bombard turned on)

Lethal bombard is almost too powerful. Here is another example of standard shore bombardment backed up by infantry and armor. Combined-arms is more fun, IMVHO.

http://www.crowncity.net/civ3/gotm5/1862ad.htm

 

[Sanaz]

I've just started using artillery more now. I found myself breaking my cavalry repeatedly against fortified musketmen, so in my last game I built up 20 artillery. All of a sudden, I'd take a town and have no casualties. It takes some planning, but if you steal plans, and use artillery with cavalry, you can take the last 6-8 cities in a neighboring civ with no losses. I like using non-lethal bombardment for fun, but i am glad that they added the option to make it lethal for those who like to play that way. I just think it would make it too easy. My strategy is to build a fortress on a hill, or to build a city on the border of a neighbor, and to load up the artillery in my territory. With a pile of workers sitting nearby, I'll take a city, build out railroads, and move the artillery within two squares of the next city. Since the plans show exactly what is in each city, I'm able to plan the entire sequence before declaring war. So now, instead of having wounded cavalry laying around, and losing a bunch, so that I can only take one or two cities and then be in a weak defensive position, I can take those last 4-5 cities also and still defend the ones I don't disband.

 

[Graeme the mad]

My lethatl bombardment isa offset by the fact that in my mod modern and industrial units have 9 hitpoints when regular

 

[Sullla]

Artillery IS a godsend. I mean, who can deny the effectiveness of a weapon that allows you to attack without being attacked back in turn? I believe that catapults and cannons though are a bit too weak and slow to be used offensively. Defensively though, they can stop an invading army many times your size. My favorite example of this was in the RBD9 succession game. This was a 5CC game on Emperor in which the players were stuck on a continent with Persia. Xerxes gobbled up 3/4 of the continent and then declared war on their 5 cities. Despite being outnumbered by some 4:1 odds, the RBD players were able to use catapults and strategic positioning of troops to survive and lose no citites. It's still a good read if someone takes the time to dig it up from the back pages of the succession games forum.

 

[ainwood]

IMHO, I think artillary was made non-lethal after the howizter in civ II proved just way too powerful.

But yes, it is a great weapon. BUT... who uses cannons and catapults (aside from the AI )

 

[The Last Conformist]

Speaking of lethal bombardment, is it possible to make Bombers capable of sinking ships without being capable of killing of ground units?

 

[Graeme the mad]

Yes and it works well in game - the Ai can use it

 

[Myartar]

I only use lethal sea bombardment(LSB) b/c I see ground units and being of regimental strength(about 1000 men). Since it's nearly impossible for artillery to kill everyman in a unit, I don't see the practiclity behind lethal land bombardment. On the sea however, i see every sea unit as being that individual ship which it is possible to sink with cannons, artillery, or radar artillery based on the shore.
I don't enable LSB on my naval vessals b/c then it's possible to harry enemy vessels to death which would eliminate naval combat. It's good to harry naval vessals to weaken them, but not to destroy them.

 

[Black Waltz]

But in reality that is what happens in war.

I thnk leathal bombardment will also increase the need for a Navy. Before one wasn't really needed, but now you need a large Navy to defend your sea from attack. This will definitly become evident in the Muliplay games.

 

[Zouave]

Originally posted by The Last Conformist
Speaking of lethal bombardment, is it possible to make Bombers capable of sinking ships without being capable of killing of ground units?

Sure. Doesn't the editor refer to "lethal sea" and "lethal land" bombardments?

About artillery. . . the AI would not have to cheat so much if Firaxis simply did a little programming that taught the AI to USE BOMBARDMENT UNITS in land offensives instead of leaving them in cities. Never thought of that, Soren??

 

[erez87]

how do you use "lethal bomberment" instead of the regular boberment???

 

[ufftyuwe]

i have 2 artillery in every city .... so much for that

 

[The_Clash]

I like to have a amount of art. that I move from fort to fort, depending on where the computer is attacking from

 

[Zouave]

I use cannons. I build catapults to upgrade to cannon.

They are, admittedly, a luxury all too often, and not all that necessary for offense, but good for defense.

Historically, cannon were the prime offensive movers in the Napoleonic Wars (musketmen), and even more so before tanks (without being all that effective - see WW I).

I also created a new unit: horse cannon at slightly higher cost and needing all the resources of cannon plus horses. MP of '2'.
Frederick the Great and Napoleon used them alot

 

[sabo]

I just learned how to use arty too, I was in a war with Persia, I transported about 10 arty over with about 10 cav and 5 infantry, he had tanks and bombers, I was able to capture 2 cities cuz I snuck up on him before he could reinforce, persia was busy in a war with China on the other side of his country so I was able to move about 4 or 5 artillery right up next to his capitol supported by Grunts, he never attacked me, I assume partly because of the grunts and partly because he was busy elsewhere, within 5 turns I was able to knock out all the improvements RR, Roads, mines, irrigation all around his city so if he tried to reinforce his capitol city I'd knock him off with arty as he had no RR and was constantly caught out in the open, the I was able to reduce his capitol city to rubble and take it with very few casualities, and I got some nice wonders in the process