Artillery

[frekk]

Maybe... but is there any major battle in which they were reported to have been used in a significant manner? I mean, in a field battle.
Although not being a specialist in ancient times battles I don't remember ANY such reporting.

Yes. It's written about, as well as depicted in relief carvings, from Roman times. Organic artillery support was a very regular feature of Roman armies. Vegetius Renatus describes each legion being assigned field artillery, each century in a legion being typically equipped with 1 carroballista. Carroballista are, of course, suitable for no other purpose than in the field - but this would be nothing like what was seen in Gladiator, of course, but judging from other writings, from about the 3rd century BC onwards they were standard fare in field battles for the Romans.

There may have been onagers used to fire showers of small debris or flammable substances in the field, but as far as I know it's not really clear if this would occur or not. However, each legion was always equipped with a substantial number of onagers - one for every cohort. Roman writers divide tormenta (artillery) into three general types, whose role more or less corresponds to siege artillery, field artillery, and heavy weapons (such as the heavy machineguns of WW1). Onagers seem to have formed part of the first class, carroballista the second, and scorpio the third.

They were used in ancient and medieval times against fortifications, though. So, making them a field improvement to be built on enemy soil would be more historically correct that having some kind of highly manouverable light field artillery, as it was the case in Civ3.

True. IMO, to be really accurate though, artillery simply shouldn't be represented at all in the game - it should just be assumed as part of the standard equipment for various units.

 

[Jorgen_CAB]

Of course, the Romans did use field artillery, but not the way that cannons were used. They manly used ballista and scorpions (sort of large repeating crossbows), these were an integral part of the Legion and used in support of the infantry to wear down on an advancing enemy. They should as you mention Frekk, not be depicted as a unit, only siege units should be represented in the game at this time.

With the unit editor it will probably be quite easy to fix so that siege unit is only good at defending or attacking cities.

 

[sir_schwick]

So essentially if units did have organic field artillery, it could work like this:

PS: The Techs are Civ 3 techs, so it just gives you an idea what I mean.

Early Pre-cannon Field Arty(requires Mathematics to be integrated): Offers bombardment oppurtunity defensively and offensively in battle for foot troops.

Late Pre-Cannon Field Arty(requires Invention to be integrated): Offers bombardment oppurtunity offensively and defensively in battle for all ground troops, with foot having better version.

Cannon Field Arty(requires Metallurgy): Offers in battle bombardment to all ground troops, with foot being stronger than horse arty.

Improved Cannon Field Arty(requires Industrialization): Offer in battle bombardment to all conventional ground troops.

Field Artillery(requires Replaceable Parts): Offers in battle bombardment to all foot troops.

Self Propelled Field Artillery(requires Electronics): Offers in battle bombardment to all Armour and Mechanized/Motorized units.

Advanced Field Artillery(requires Computers): Offers one square range and in battle bombardment to all ground units.

Rocket Artillery(requires Rocketry): Greatly increases strength and efficiency of field artillery.

Advanced Self Propelled Artillery(requires Robotics): Increases strength and efficiency of field artillery for all units, but especially modern armour.

Just some ideas, especially since this is organic and the changes do not require your memory.

 

[KrikkitTwo]

Also siege artillery are definitely possible with the Civ IV model just have a really lousy artillery (say attack 2 using a catapult example) but with several levels of 'city raider' upgrade so that it does double damage v. cities.

 

[sir_schwick]

Siege equipment would be built seperately and be its own unit.

Catapults, Trebuchets, Siege Cannons, Siege Artillery, Heavy Artillery, V1s, etc.

 

[apatheist]

Half-baked idea... the unit you move around is a combat engineer unit. When on or next to a forest or jungle tile, that unit can construct a catapult or trebuchet improvement. This improvement is commanded like catapults and trebuchets in C3C, but cannot be moved. If an enemy unit moves onto that tile, it is destroyed. The engineers have either no defense or weak defense.

I don't care about this issue, nor do I think the above is the best idea, but maybe others who care more will like it.

 

[sir_schwick]

That may not be so crazy for ancient era siege weapons. However you should be able to use wood from forests within a couple squares since many cities are not necessarily near woods after they are cleared by players. Also, instead of losing the engineers, you can capture them and use them for your own forces.

 

[mastertyguy]

Even if there is no forest, you CAN build catapult and siege weapons where no there is not a lot of wood, just less, IMHO.

EDIT 1,100 post

 

[sir_schwick]

So pretty much anywhere but tundra and desert it sounds like. For later siege weapons an actual city production is required, but the large siege works of the ancient era use this unit.

 

[apatheist]

Later siege weapons, starting with cannons, were more mobile and used in battles in the field, not just sieges.

 

[sir_schwick]

And I am suggesting the field artillery be an integral part of units while the siege artillery, which is designed and utilized differently, be seperate and brought out. Ancient armies did have field artillery, although it did not match the effectiveness of organ guns and 8lbers with cannister shot.

 

[Jorgen_CAB]

The same goes for almost any other missile units, such as slingers, archers and crossbowmen. All these troop types were only supportive troops and should only provide bonuses in the form of different upgrades to a unit, such as artillery in a unit will give that unit collateral damage, archers will give them first strike abilities etc.

Some will find this boring, but I think it better reflect Civs strategic nature, and to only field the larger used type of troops. Troop types should more be light infantry, regular infantry and heavy infantry etc..
Each period and civilisation might have its own different type of units, such as the Greek phalanx (though many civilizations used this unit) or the Roman legion, Middle Eastern Horse Archer etc...

 

[joethreeblah]

The same goes for almost any other missile units, such as slingers, archers and crossbowmen. All these troop types were only supportive troops and should only provide bonuses in the form of different upgrades to a unit, such as artillery in a unit will give that unit collateral damage, archers will give them first strike abilities etc.

Some will find this boring, but I think it better reflect Civs strategic nature, and to only field the larger used type of troops. Troop types should more be light infantry, regular infantry and heavy infantry etc..
Each period and civilisation might have its own different type of units, such as the Greek phalanx (though many civilizations used this unit) or the Roman legion, Middle Eastern Horse Archer etc...

By the time you get to the modern era, helecopteres and bombers are just support units for the rest so why not just eliminate the whole game and make it a dice rolling competition

 

[sir_schwick]

The same goes for almost any other missile units, such as slingers, archers and crossbowmen. All these troop types were only supportive troops and should only provide bonuses in the form of different upgrades to a unit, such as artillery in a unit will give that unit collateral damage, archers will give them first strike abilities etc.

Some will find this boring, but I think it better reflect Civs strategic nature, and to only field the larger used type of troops. Troop types should more be light infantry, regular infantry and heavy infantry etc..
Each period and civilisation might have its own different type of units, such as the Greek phalanx (though many civilizations used this unit) or the Roman legion, Middle Eastern Horse Archer etc...

Actually this is very reminiscent of how things work in Hearts of Iron. There the most basic unit you control/build is on the divisional level. When building new divisions, you can make them into Brigades which have Artillery, AT, AA or Engineer elements attached. An attached system for Civ may not be such a bad idea, but more general than even the HOI system. I think I'll start a topic on this idea.

By the time you get to the modern era, helecopteres and bombers are just support units for the rest so why not just eliminate the whole game and make it a dice rolling competition

While the modern airwar often involves CAS, aircraft are much more than support units. Firstly, they are not usually attached organizationally to ground units. CAS is often coordinated through inter-divisional rather than intra-divisional lines. Field artillery on the other hand is usually attached to a division or even lower organizational segment. So air divisions would still be able to be easily detached from ground and sea units and thus be seperate units. Also, if there are just broad unit types with various attached battalions, etc., then it still matters how you design your forces and the strategies that compliment those forces.

 

[frekk]

By the time you get to the modern era, helecopteres and bombers are just support units for the rest so why not just eliminate the whole game and make it a dice rolling competition

IMO, that's exactly it (though bombers are a bad example, catapults and archers would be a better example). It would be more realistic in some ways to do away with all the support elements and just have generic "armies" of different quality levels and general technology rather than feature units separately, but, it would make the game very ho-hum. Civ isn't a wargame, so I don't mind this abstraction of having support units as units in the game.