Artillery

[sweeneygov]

I rarely use artillery as when you get mobile infantry and tanks they are limited and can never keep up with the rest of an attacking force after they leave railways.

What do you think about artillery units being carried by helicopter? Ive seen it done, it would be great to chopper in some heavy artillery, light mobile units and infantry into a remote(ish) area, especially considering mountains are now inaccessible to all units.

 

[Jorgen_CAB]

There actually was mobile artillery in Civ III with two movement point; they could keep up pretty good with a range of two also. Perhaps they even should have the same movement as mech and armour; after all they are tracked vehicles just as tanks are. Tough, most supply utilities vehicles is not so a two in movement would do good.

Actually as far as I know, we have not heard anything about bombardment in the game, so we don’t know how artillery is going to work; accept that they will do collateral damage.

 

[mastertyguy]

Isn't mech 2 mov?

 

[sweeneygov]

Oh yeah i do recall that there was mobile artillery, they fired missiles didnt they? Obviously didnt use them much either, haha! Well i still think it would be a good idea to have the non-mobile guns (what looks like the 105mm light gun) airmobile anyway. Expanding the airlift capability of some units would make attacks interesting.

 

[apatheist]

Bombers serve as long-range artillery for when land-based artillery is insufficient.

 

[Granite88]

I think the airlift idea is pretty good, it might actually make helicopters useful!

 

[sir_schwick]

The Artillery unit always bothered me from an organizational standpoint. From the militaries I am familiar with, artillery is almost always attached at the Divisional and sometimes even the Battalion level. You should be able to build Units with attached battlefield artillery(would cost more and not useful for sieges). This means units that can utilize helicopters bring the arty with them while mobile units bring along self propelled artillery.

Siege equipment(probably stuff like most early arty up to but not including cannons) would require a seperate effort and organization, so that is built seperately since it is useless in most field battles.

 

[Commander Bello]

Artillery was vastly overpowered in Civ3, especially since the AI didn't have the least idea how to use it.
At least I hope that catapults won't reappear in Civ4 as moveable units.

 

[Jaybe]

At least I hope that catapults won't reappear in Civ4 as moveable units.

But you have already seen them in screenshots for Civ4. While cats may not have been mobile historically, one can always consider the engineers and craftsman who build them to be mobile.

In a strategic game it still works, though you could perhaps request a turn taken up for the cats to be built/assembled.

 

[Crazy Jerome]

A catapult or trebuchet that can only fire while "fortified" to make it take an extra turn to be "built" would be kind of interesting from a strategic POV. It would certainly limit the early artillery to siege and counter siege. You could give the crew/engineers a better movement to compensate somewhat.

It's completely crazy from a time scale thing, but then that wouldn't be the first such discrepancy for game play.

 

[Commander Bello]

But you have already seen them in screenshots for Civ4. While cats may not have been mobile historically, one can always consider the engineers and craftsman who build them to be mobile.

In a strategic game it still works, though you could perhaps request a turn taken up for the cats to be built/assembled.

The problem is not that I wouldn't like to see catapults in the game.
The problem is that they are some kind of field artillery,which is not only historically uncorrect (that doesn't offend me that much, for gameplay's sake) but it also makes an SOD even more powerful.

I would prefer catapults to be a town/tile improvement to be build only by special military units (with quite some costs, either measured in gold or in hammers). This would be historically correct and would lessen the degree of early ages military expansion, as far as I see it.

 

[joethreeblah]

The problem is not that I wouldn't like to see catapults in the game.
The problem is that they are some kind of field artillery,which is not only historically uncorrect (that doesn't offend me that much, for gameplay's sake) but it also makes an SOD even more powerful.

I would prefer catapults to be a town/tile improvement to be build only by special military units (with quite some costs, either measured in gold or in hammers). This would be historically correct and would lessen the degree of early ages military expansion, as far as I see it.

The latest interview states that artillery are stack killers in this game, consistent with every other statement they've made on the subject to date.

 

[Commander Bello]

The latest interview states that artillery are stack killers in this game, consistent with every other statement they've made on the subject to date.

Did I deny that having been said?

And about what they say right now: let's wait how it turns out in the released game.
Much has been said about Civ3/PTW/C3C before release date, and much didn't work afterwards.

But back to the facts as far as we know about right now:
Artillery shall be able to damage up to 6 units per tile and shot. It seems to be a valid assumption that this will stay true just for the most sophisticated and most promoted artillery type units. In turn this means that an ordinary catapult might be able to harm up to two units per tile and shot.

This I wouldn't call a stack killer, but an easy prey for a stack.

 

[Aussie_Lurker]

Unless technology only effects damage done. For all we know, the number of units hit by a catapult via collateral damage may be based on the total number of units in the opponents square. Just a thought!

Yours,
Aussie_Lurker.

 

[joethreeblah]

Did I deny that having been said?

And about what they say right now: let's wait how it turns out in the released game.
Much has been said about Civ3/PTW/C3C before release date, and much didn't work afterwards.

But back to the facts as far as we know about right now:
Artillery shall be able to damage up to 6 units per tile and shot. It seems to be a valid assumption that this will stay true just for the most sophisticated and most promoted artillery type units. In turn this means that an ordinary catapult might be able to harm up to two units per tile and shot.

This I wouldn't call a stack killer, but an easy prey for a stack.

The other fact we know: "Artillery are stack killers"

Repeated often after 5 years of play testing.

 

[frekk]

Artillery was vastly overpowered in Civ3, especially since the AI didn't have the least idea how to use it.
At least I hope that catapults won't reappear in Civ4 as moveable units.

Well, catapults were capable of being moved about, they just mounted them on a wagon and towed them with horses. It's trebuchets that shouldn't be mobile, really, but the thing is, that would turn them (and/or catapults) into primarily defensive weapons. It was not often that these sorts of devices were used in that way (a few exceptions, eg ballistae and perriers). The reason for having them mobile in the game is to keep them as primarily offensive weapons.

The problem is that they are some kind of field artillery,which is not only historically uncorrect (that doesn't offend me that much, for gameplay's sake) but it also makes an SOD even more powerful.

Not entirely true. They weren't used in field battles in the medieval era, but siege weapons of various types were used in the field in the Roman era - including catapult-like weapons mounted on wagons and smaller weapons mounted on high-speed chariots (carroballistae). We have both written descriptions as well as images of them in Roman engravings, eg the Trajan Column.

I would prefer catapults to be a town/tile improvement to be build only by special military units (with quite some costs, either measured in gold or in hammers).

But they were cheap and easy to build, once you had the engineers to do it. It would make more sense just to assume that the siege weapon unit simply represents a group of engineers. Assembling the weapons was quite quick - a days work or so, with teams of men available.

 

[mastertyguy]

The engineers should be, IMHO, non-military units. When you capture an ennemy engineer with better advances than yours, he can build what he could with his former civ (or even teach your engineers how to build what he could!)

 

[sweeneygov]

Was not too keen on Artillery with no defence, you know like in Civ2 the Howitzer was weak but still have a defensive capability so you didnt have to guard them so much against little things like partisans. Now you have to have a protecting unit with them all the time! Or do people prefer that Artillery should have to be guarded?

 

[Commander Bello]

Well, catapults were capable of being moved about, they just mounted them on a wagon and towed them with horses. It's trebuchets that shouldn't be mobile, really, but the thing is, that would turn them (and/or catapults) into primarily defensive weapons. It was not often that these sorts of devices were used in that way (a few exceptions, eg ballistae and perriers). The reason for having them mobile in the game is to keep them as primarily offensive weapons.

...which they were - but in the vast majority of cases against fortifications.
Remember, that even if they have occasionally been transported by wagons, they for sure haven't been very accurate. Furthermore, you had to transport the "ammunition" as well, being most times just stones and rocks, as - except of greek fire - explosives or similar ordnance was not available.
Don't get irritated by movies like "Gladiator" - this was not the typical kind of using them.

Not entirely true. They weren't used in field battles in the medieval era, but siege weapons of various types were used in the field in the Roman era - including catapult-like weapons mounted on wagons and smaller weapons mounted on high-speed chariots (carroballistae). We have both written descriptions as well as images of them in Roman engravings, eg the Trajan Column.

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.

But they were cheap and easy to build, once you had the engineers to do it. It would make more sense just to assume that the siege weapon unit simply represents a group of engineers. Assembling the weapons was quite quick - a days work or so, with teams of men available.

If you had the right forests available. And then you still had to have the right material for the ammo at hand.

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.

 

[sir_schwick]

I still say that field artillery be an organic part of land units once you hit the cannon age. Siege artillery, the only useful kind against forts, would still be built seperately.