Artillery is too powerful

[ThERat]

Illini, if arty is taken away from you, then you do something wrong. Maybe, have a looks at SG's, those AW games, read the stories and maybe it can help you with your strategy

as it is, arty and bombers (lethal in the AI's hands) are most devastating if used correctly. Hope, the game is better balanced in Civ4.

 

[troytheface]

Several ideas that are going to be utilized (apparently) are welcome indeed.
I HATED SOD's and thought to myself that they should just have armies- as armies are what fight battles- and this multi figure concoction seems to go this route- it is the perfect solution for those that wanted less units-
Artillary was one of those things that yes- u can build them and yes they can make victory assured and zzzzzzz- boring waste of time individually shooting off all those artillary-
The direction the battle stuff is taking looks to me to be an improvement-
Huge maps with a gazillion cities and units gone? Good! Thank God-
(and i am a huge map player- but mostly an mp player)

 

[whereagles]

As a whole, artillery seems to me far more powerful in Civ than in real life.

While it is true that in modern warfare bombers and strike aircraft do miracles against tanks, they hardly even scratch infantry divisions. Conventional artilleries also fail to be very effective against infantries.

In civ I would change artillery effectiveness depending on what the target is. And no redlining either.. dvisions can be damage to at most 50%, not more.

But then again, maybe the developers have this already solved.. eheh.

 

[Texan General]

As a whole, artillery seems to me far more powerful in Civ than in real life.

While it is true that in modern warfare bombers and strike aircraft do miracles against tanks, they hardly even scratch infantry divisions. Conventional artilleries also fail to be very effective against infantries.

In civ I would change artillery effectiveness depending on what the target is. And no redlining either.. dvisions can be damage to at most 50%, not more.

But then again, maybe the developers have this already solved.. eheh.

I think you have a few things mixxed up.

1. Artillery has far more effectiveness against infantry because infantry is not armored. Shrapnell is the actual killer when Artillery is in question and it has a tremendous amount of difficulty against armored vehicles. Furthermore you must take into the intangibles in this subject as well. It isn't exactly enjoyable to be bombarded! In fact, Modern Infantry divisions are still susceptible when artillery is used correctly. There isn't a professional soldier on earth who will tell you different.
2. Interestingly aerial bombing seems to be tremendously effective against all troops assuming they dont have bunkers to retreat into. I encourage you to read a little bit about the bombing that went on in the 1st gulf war as an example. This is simply a matter of using the correct munition against the correct troops.

 

[whereagles]

I was talking about classical artillery (as in improved cannons), not modern cutting-edge stuff

 

[Ironheart]

ARTILLERY! BOOM BOOM

It isn't called the King of Battle for nothing. Just watch a battery of MLRS's light up a few square miles ...

 

[Texan General]

I was talking about classical artillery (as in improved cannons), not modern cutting-edge stuff

Then where did your armor comment come from? The kind of artillery you are referring to here had already been phased out by the time armor was invented. Even so, Improved Cannons would do little against armor (mostly bounce off) and plenty against infantry. Even Anti-Tank guns had limited effectiveness against tanks because the range was so limited and they were immobile once deployed. (although anti-tank guns did work well in choke points) I'm not sure all that addresses what you're getting at and I'm still trying to comprehend what you are talking about. Could you please clarify.

 

[Jaybe]

It isn't called the King of Battle for nothing. Just watch a battery of MLRS's light up a few square miles ...

Even in Iraq, MLRS was not that common. Conventional artillery and mortars were used more often, with MLRS relegated to counter-battery fire (locate the Iraqi artillery, then smash it quite effectively).

Whether MLRS was so specialized because of resupply issues or something else I don't know.

 

[frekk]

The problem I see with artillery is that in the real world, artillery doesn't wipe out whole units very often. What it does is called "suppression" ... meaning that units bombarded heavily can't move and can't fight. Infantry units are notoriously difficult to affect because they're difficult to spot properly and can spread out or take cover - the exception being those manning a strongpoint ... armour on the other hand may not suffer the same casualties but it is very easy to target for suppression.

I think artillery should cause minimal damage to ground units, instead it should temporarily lower their Defense score and rob them of Move points.

 

[Dark Russell]

The problem I see with artillery is that in the real world, artillery doesn't wipe out whole units very often. What it does is called "suppression" ... meaning that units bombarded heavily can't move and can't fight. Infantry units are notoriously difficult to affect because they're difficult to spot properly and can spread out or take cover - the exception being those manning a strongpoint ... armour on the other hand may not suffer the same casualties but it is very easy to target for suppression.

This is the reason why I took away lethal bombard from all my arty.