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

Artillery too powerful?

Discussion in 'Civ4 - Road to War' started by Frodo_05, Aug 21, 2007.

  1. Frodo_05

    Frodo_05 Chieftain

    Joined:
    Jun 28, 2004
    Messages:
    19
    Hello,

    I believe Artillery is too powerful, as you can bombard enemy troops until destruction. In regular CIV4 there is a cap on how much damage you can apply by bombardement, but in RTW you can destroy everything if you have enough big guns. A dozen of artillery units will even utterly destroy the Maginot line, making it utterly pointless. While of course if you attack it you will be creamed by it.

    While I like the possibility to "field bombard" in this scenario, having no damage cap is way too powerful IMO. Can we PLEASE apply the bombardement cap here as well?

    Regards, Frodo_05
     
  2. vidimce

    vidimce Chieftain

    Joined:
    Aug 22, 2006
    Messages:
    101
    I agree. 75 % cap sounds good.
     
  3. Chip56

    Chip56 Chieftain

    Joined:
    Jan 19, 2006
    Messages:
    684
    Location:
    Austria
    I would say shoot them down to 60% in cities/forts, 50% in woods/hills and 30% on open field.
    If thats possible.
     
  4. Dale

    Dale Chieftain

    Joined:
    Mar 14, 2002
    Messages:
    6,986
    I've tweaked artillery bombardment. They can still kill, but much weaker.
     
  5. nemt

    nemt Chieftain

    Joined:
    Aug 3, 2006
    Messages:
    88
    Artillery was one of the most effective and deadly types of weaponry in both World Wars, and pretty much every war since then.
     
  6. Bombardment

    Bombardment Chieftain

    Joined:
    Aug 24, 2007
    Messages:
    12
    The ai don't know how to handle the bombardment except reducing the defense. But since BtS it knows how to raid cities with artillery spam :sniper: and to use it as tank killer.
     
  7. PinkPallin

    PinkPallin Chieftain Supporter

    Joined:
    Apr 23, 2004
    Messages:
    216
    Location:
    Northern Italy
    Hey! Your first post, your name is Bombardment, and you talk about artilllery....

    (I know, it's a useless post, but it was beyond my control)
     
  8. N35t0r

    N35t0r Chieftain

    Joined:
    Nov 28, 2003
    Messages:
    16
    Location:
    ( o Y o )
    Except for the russians (due mainly to their lack of skilled NCO's), artillery amounted for over 50% of casualties inflicted, and even in the case of russia it was still over 40%, so limiting arty damage to no less than 25% would be a Good Thing. Also, if possible, terrain modifying this cap would be very woo indeed. Something like open field -5%, hills +5%, forests +10% and cities a non-cumulative +25% (effectively capping bombard damage in cities to 50%).

    Also, bombing damage is currently capped at 50%, if it could be changed to 40% + defending unit's fortify bonus (so 40%-65%), it'd be a bit more realistic, but I fear it's not that easy to implement...

    Also, I'm feeling that infantry should get a small (say, 25%) native city combat bonus, and tanks either a penalty or no access to the city raider line of promos (or both)
     
  9. Bombardment

    Bombardment Chieftain

    Joined:
    Aug 24, 2007
    Messages:
    12
    This would make tanks useless, you could only use them if the ai is stupid enough to send a single tank or infantry outside of a city. Quit expensive pillage interceptor unit :crazyeye:.
     
  10. kuldiin

    kuldiin Chieftain

    Joined:
    Jul 14, 2003
    Messages:
    133
    Artillery has really been annoying me lately since BTS.

    I stack 20-30 units defending in a city, the AI comes along with a crazy amount of artillery and its boom boom boom boom until they as good as walk into my city.

    Ive tried filling cities with Machine guns, tanks, Infantry, and these units are at level 6 straight out of my capital! lol
     
  11. Tboy

    Tboy Future world ruler

    Joined:
    Aug 5, 2004
    Messages:
    1,111
    Location:
    At my Computer, somewhere in the UK
    While some of those ideas do make sense, it over-complicates the game, and confuses newcomers. Remember, this scenario is meant to be a fun game that simulates WWII, not a perfect historical simulation.

    I reckon artillery is pretty good as it is - quite powerful in bombardment, but requires support.
     
  12. vidimce

    vidimce Chieftain

    Joined:
    Aug 22, 2006
    Messages:
    101
    I suggest for the artilery to be more expensive to build. That way it will somewhat reduce the number of artilery for both yourself and the AI.
     
  13. Ghandi Khan

    Ghandi Khan Chieftain

    Joined:
    Mar 24, 2007
    Messages:
    106
    I didn't know that. I've been playing the scenario and up to this point artillery seemed pretty pointless since tanks are stronger and faster and air and naval power is a much better way of reducing enemy fortifications. If I had known, getting through the Maginot line would have been easier, but I still did it just used bombers to reduce them to 50% then threw a bunch of tanks at them until I got through.
     
  14. Tboy

    Tboy Future world ruler

    Joined:
    Aug 5, 2004
    Messages:
    1,111
    Location:
    At my Computer, somewhere in the UK
    Yes, but bombers can be intercepted on their runs, whereas artillery cannot. Still, a good airforce is usually superior to artillery.
     
  15. krille

    krille CivDOS Fanatic

    Joined:
    Sep 5, 2005
    Messages:
    337
    Personally, I think bombardment damage should decrease with decreased target HP. Damage should be relative to the target's current HP. Let's say, for the sake of example, we want the bombardment to cause (a maximum) of 10% damage. Then if the target has 100HP (full health) it will lose up to 10HP (maybe less, but never more). But, if the target has 30HP it will lose a maximum of 3HP (maybe less, but never more).

    This is somewhat realistic, as a high density of enemy forces in a target area will suffer more casualties (in absolute numbers) than a smaller force would.
     
  16. obliterate

    obliterate Warrior Monk

    Joined:
    Apr 7, 2007
    Messages:
    1,305
    Location:
    Melbourne, #fiftychat
    What about reducing the strength of artillery from 15 :strength: to 5 :strength:. I think that'd be a better way rather than reducing bombardment.


    Dale, when are you going to give Australia unique units? :)
     
  17. Dale

    Dale Chieftain

    Joined:
    Mar 14, 2002
    Messages:
    6,986
    You know how many times I've considered that? Heaps! Though there ain't too many models for our stuff. :(
     
  18. obliterate

    obliterate Warrior Monk

    Joined:
    Apr 7, 2007
    Messages:
    1,305
    Location:
    Melbourne, #fiftychat
    I think I remember seeing some somewhere. Could've been you mod. :p Anyway all you need to do is change the name and add 20 :strength: to them. :p

    Have you ever thought of having ships named? For instance Australia's first ship could be HMAS Sydney (or something), and the next one HMAS Victoria. And if HMAS Sydney gets sunk the next one you build will be HMAS Sydney to replace it. Just a thought.
     
  19. westamastaflash

    westamastaflash Lord Commander

    Joined:
    Nov 1, 2007
    Messages:
    930
    Nothing compares to a boatload of fighters though... I'm in 1939 with the Turks, and I've conquered the Middle East, the Balkans, Italy, and most all of Italian Africa. 30 fighters kill anything defending a city. Granted, I'm playing on Noble (nice I was turkey..), but fighters kill much more effectively than artillery (but my army basically consists of artillery and fighters, since artillery nets you a Str 15, Move 2 unit for less hammers than Str 5 infantry!) Stacks of AI units go boom....
     

Share This Page