Artillery

[SirWozzel]

All you need is to use terrain moderately well along with a couple of units to exert zone of control and it is impossible to dislodge artillery without using more artillery. Even infantry doesn't stand a chance. In the vast majority of cases artillery can hit infantry twice before it reaches melee combat. By that time the infantry will be too weak to do anything but die.

This basically describes WW1. The level of power for each tech drastically increases as you move up the tech tree. That accurately represents what happens in real life. If the difference of something as small as rifling a barrel changes the course of war, think about how much artillery would change it. If your having trouble with artillery adjust your strategy to better combat them, don't yell NERF NOW!

 

[The Pilgrim]

Human brain is OP'ed. Let's nerf that. Unlike buffing AI it's very easy.

 

[bhavv]

Not true. They are very good in Multiplayer too. But I wouldn't say gamebreaking because human intelligence can counter them still.

Nukes are the only thing truly broken when it comes to units. In multiplayer the first person to get a nuke wins the game.

Very good but not overpowered. Every human player has access to building and correctly using artillery, in fact it simply seems that playing from a defensive position can win a war for you as opposed to attacking cities.

All players should be allowed access to sufficient defence to protect their cities from attack, it shouldn't be easy to take out a well guarded human player, otherwise artilery would then be seen as being underpowered, and whatever units are successfully rushing everything would be overpowered.

 

[Haig]

Siege units in the expansion:
"Siege weapons effectiveness against units has been decreased, while they will be absolutely necessary if you want to capture a city that has built a wall improvement. No more simply trying to overwhelm a city with massive amounts of warriors. Without siege, you are out of luck."

http://www.escapistmagazine.com/news...anges-the-Game

 

[Pisskop]

Siege units in the expansion:
"Siege weapons effectiveness against units has been decreased, while they will be absolutely necessary if you want to capture a city that has built a wall improvement. No more simply trying to overwhelm a city with massive amounts of warriors. Without siege, you are out of luck."

http://www.escapistmagazine.com/news...anges-the-Game

"Sappers? What are those?"

 

[Callonia]

Dude, even an landsknecht will half line an artillery unit if you can manage to melee one. I've found myself on business end of artillery while still fielding landsknechts one time too many. It just all depends on terrain, if its smooth enough, Charge with many units and swarm the artillery, if its really rough. Then it depends on how big of a enemy force is and whether you can afford to expend your troops kicking the offending artillery out of your territory.

 

[historix69]

If you compare Civ5 with the famous hex-based strategy games as Panzer General (PG), you will notice that Civ5 simplified combat rules. This caused the artillery unit to become unrealistic strong.

Some of the main differences between Civ5 and PG are the lack of
- ammunition,
- fuel,
- opportunity fire,
- entrenchment,
- supression fire
in Civ5.

As far as I remember in PG artillery units usually have a fire range of 3-4 tiles and have 3-5 rounds of ammo to fire. When they run out-of-ammo they need a break of 1-2 turns to resupply. Around half of the artillery damage is usually done in form of "suppression", not in destruction. Additionaly artillery reduced entrenchment level by 1. Artillery bombardment in PG is used to "soften" entrenched units so infantry / tanks can attack entrenched units without having heavy casualties. Artillery in PG is a support unit, not a main unit. Usually artillery cannot completely kill units. Also in PG most units including infantry have a minimum movement rate of 4 tiles per turn on road / open area, so unguarded artillery units are easy to kill.

The PG combat system (especially PG 1 + 2) was very well developed.


A way to simulate use of ammo in Civ5 would be to reduce the artillery's hitpoints by 1-3 points per attack. So artillery units may fire 2-4 rounds and will then need a couple of turns to repair (= resupply and stockpile ammo).

Effectiveness of artillery in Civ5 should be limited, e.g. by a maximum of 50% damage (rounded down) based on the target's actual hitpoints. (Hitpoints then would go down like 10-5-3-2-1-1-1-1-...)

Also you might remember that in Civ3 it was possible to capture artillery units like workers ...

 

[smallfish]

You know, that's not a bad idea at all.

I like this concept of having land-based siege units to reload after every 2 turns of firing or so. But it seems to be kinda... awkward modeling it with CiV's fast paced system. Or as you've suggested, their hitpoints could decrease a little whenever they engage a target, like Bombers, so players will actually have to be extra manageful in handling them.

 

[Scars n Stripes]

Artillery on the other hand is just way to strong as is, its a simple fact of getting range 3 and indirect fire all in one go. Its by far the strongest and most significant upgrade in the whole game, its just too strong.

Artillery should have a range of 2 with indirect fire and a later version range 3. There is no reason at all to make it that strong. Not in in game terms and not when compared to real life performance either.

And then combine a range upgrade with logistics once you beat the living daylights out of the AI with long standing highly promoted units that you protect the hell out of and it becomes just off the charts unfair. Yea, I'd have to agree that promoted artillery might be a bit unfair.

But in the end, artillery isn't overpowered imho - I agree with some of the others that it is just the crappy AI that doesn't handle it properly.

Not so sure about your comparison of real life artillery to the one in the game and saying the game one is overpowered (correct me if I misunderstood your comment). I seriously doubt those men in Bastogne during WWII on either side that took countless shellings from indirect artillery fire miles and miles away would either. The 155mm howitzers for instance are capable of ranges upwards of 11,000m and the German 88's could send shells at least 8000m. So saying artillery without indirect fire capability is realistic is just inaccurate - heck this was part of the true purpose of artillery in general... To shell the enemy FAR behind the lines.


And as far as nukes go - the distance that modern ICBMs can travel is halfway around the globe even! So if we want to complain about accuracy to real life, the true "nukes" don't even go as far in game as they are capable of in real life!

 

[GAGA Extrem]

My biggest gripe with artillery is that it more or less obsoletes the city self defence mechanic. I am a peaceful player, so I usually end up on the sharp side of the sword. And artillery is really annoying when being attacked and NOT having numerical superiority. In fact, I can't even think of a cost effective counter against a somewhat well protected ART emplacement in a good spot.

Before ART, a decent sized and upgraded city can defend itself quite well. If you focus on specific SPs, you become really great as a defensive tool. But once ART is around, you can just outrange them, sit there and shoot them into oblivion. Terrain becomes a huge luck factor - a sets of hills in the wrong spot will be the difference between victory and defeat.

Now, as said above, the AI is clueless and doesn't use it's units wisely. But if it would... Oh god, I would lose 7/10 games I currently win...

But I guess G&K will fix that. If siege weapons become really less powerful against units, that should solve the problem...

 

[historix69]

1. The effectiveness of artillery in Civ5 is unrealistic. Its like firing on targets forced to stand still and upright.

The following is from Wikipedia :

"Surprise may be essential or irrelevant. It depends on what effects are required and whether or not the target is likely to move or quickly improve its protective posture. During World War II UK researchers concluded that for impact fuzed munitions the relative risk were as follows:

* men standing – 1
* men lying – 1/3
* men firing from trenches – 1/15–1/50
* men crouching in trenches – 1/25–1/100"

Since US-Civil War and WW1 soldiers dig trenches or bunkers to minimize losses by artillery bombardment. In WW1 the germans build bunkers up to 10 meters below surface to make shelling almost useless.

2. The true cost of artillery is not only the gun itself but the ammunition it fires.

The following is from Wikipedia :

Battle of the Somme 1916

"1,437 British guns, only 467 were heavies, and just 34 of those were of 9.2" (234 mm) or greater calibre. In the end, only 30 tons of explosive would fall per mile of British front.[28] Of the 12,000 tons fired, two thirds of it was shrapnel and only 900 tons of it was capable of penetrating bunkers.[29] To make matters worse, British gunners lacked the accuracy to bring fire in on close German trenches, keeping a safe separation of 300 yards (275 m), compared to the French gunners' 60 yards (55 m)—and British troops were often less than 300 yd (270 m) away, meaning German fortifications were untouched by the barrage.[29] The infantry then crawled out into no man's land early so they could rush the front German trench as soon as the barrage lifted. Despite the heavy bombardment, many of the German defenders had survived, protected in deep dugouts and they were able to inflict a terrible toll on the infantry."

In total the british stockpilled around 3 million shells prior to battle. It took months. They had to build depots and roads and field railroad system to manage the logistics.

3. Finally you have to consider that durability of a gun barrel usually lasts only a few thousand shots (?). This is not a problem in a short war with few days of true battle but it is a maior problem in a long war with permanent shelling of enemy trenches. If the barrel is worn out, it has to be repaired or replaced to maintain accuracy and savety of the gun.

 

[historix69]

Artillery is a support unit. In real life you cannot win a war just with artillery. If you can do so in Civ5 then it is a result of the game design neglecting certain attributes of real life artillery.

(More information about artillery from Wikipedia)

[There are] several different types of fire support for tactical purposes:

* Counterbattery fire: delivered for the purpose of destroying or neutralizing the enemy's fire support system.
* Counterpreparation fire: intensive prearranged fire delivered when the imminence of the enemy attack is discovered.
* Covering fire: used to protect troops when they are within range of enemy small arms.
* Defensive fire: delivered by supporting units to assist and protect a unit engaged in a defensive action.
* Final Protective Fire: an immediately available prearranged barrier of fire designed to impede enemy movement across defensive lines or areas.
* Harassing fire: a random number of shells are fired at random intervals, without any pattern to it that the enemy can predict. This process is designed to hinder enemy forces' movement, and, by the constantly imposed stress, threat of losses and inability of enemy forces to relax or sleep, lowers their morale.
* Interdiction fire: placed on an area or point to prevent the enemy from using the area or point.
* Preparation fire: delivered before an attack to weaken the enemy position.


A typical modern day brigade (3.200 - 5.500 soldiers) (X) consists of :
- 3 Inf Battalion (II) (= 3 x (HQ + 3 Companies (I)))
- 1 Cavalry / Recon Squadron (HQ + 3-4 troops)
- 1 Field Artillery Battalion (II) (HQ + 3 batteries (I))
- 1 Support Battalion (Medic, Logistics, ...)
(and additional supporting companies, e.g. engineers, ...)

In modern artillery battery (I) organization, the military unit typically has 6 to 8 howitzers or 6 to 9 rocket launchers and 100 to 200 personnel.

 

[headcase]

Artillery is a support unit. In real life you cannot win a war just with artillery. If you can do so in Civ5 then it is a result of the game design neglecting certain attributes of real life artillery.

In Civ 5 it is impossible to take a city without a "melee" unit (infantry, etc); however, you can weaken the city down to the point that a very weak melee unit (e.g. spearman) can take it. Then again, in the modern era a city could probably kill the spearman unit with their own ranged defenses before being invaded.

Also, the units are abstracted for gameplay anyway.

As for the type of fire, there's basically just one, that will either lower the health of a city of the health of a unit. Again it's abstracted so one could pretend that the artillery is using the appropriate type of fire depending on the terrain, nearby friendly units, type of enemy being attacked, etc. There are also different promotions that can make an artillery more effective when attacking rough terrain, or open terrain, or against cities, or against specific types of units.

 

[smallfish]

Artillery is a support unit. In real life you cannot win a war just with artillery. If you can do so in Civ5 then it is a result of the game design neglecting certain attributes of real life artillery.

You can't win a war in Civ5 with just artillery either.

You still need boots on the ground to take and hold cities, or stuff to protect your artillery from whatever thy enemies throw at ya.


But let's talk about artillery in real wars, shall we?


Artillery certainly ended their single arm (light infantry) dominance in WW1. Let's look at history: the cult of the offensive, take the initiative, elan can overcome firepower, fancy maneuver school of thought loses one million Frenchmen in a month.

Right alongside them, everyone else chases the chimera of one big breakthrough ending it all. And breakthroughs happen, fairly regularly, but none lead anywhere because the defenders are still sitting on stockpiles of shells and can move reserves by rail at least ten times as fast as the attackers can march over ground. All sides breakthrough as far as their artillery can carry them, then stop.

WW2, Battle of the Bulge, a relative handful of American paratroopers hold Bastogne while surrounded and under attack from all sides. It wasn't only their can-do spirit and months spent training to jump out of airplanes, it was in large part the fact that every platoon could call on at least one of the battalions of howitzers supporting Bastogne and have the fire airburst artillery in response to every German attack. Even against armor this worked, by stripping infantry protection from the tanks. The Germans had no effective method to counter this beyond coordinating their attacks, which they failed to do. Eventually relief arrives, the Germans retreat and Stephen Ambrose gets material to make crap up with.

Vietnam, an entire regiment of NVA, with a few VC auxiliaries is unable to overrun a understrenth light infantry battlion, compressed into an area the size of one in a half football fields. The NVA loses 1500-2000 men doing this, largely to artillery.

 

[Drawmeus]

Artillery are the defining combat force of that era, in our history. It's perfectly reasonable for them to utterly dominate warfare in Civ for a while after you get them.

It's not like they don't go obsolete. Bombers can wipe them off the map if they're not properly defended. Tanks can reach and destroy them unless the terrain is VERY tank-unfriendly. Modern Armor, Helicopter Gunships and so on can all clear them out pretty easily unless they're very well protected.

 

[Rex_Mundi]

If you should set up an army of 10 units in the game, what would it be.

Scenario A) You can pick from Riflemen, Cavalry, Lancer and Artillery.

Scenario B) You can pick from Infantry, Tank, Anti-tank gun and Artillery.

In scenario A I would pick something like:
6 Artillery, 3 Riflemen and a Cavalry.

In Scenario B I would pick something like:
4 Artillery, 2 Infantry, 3 Tanks and an Anti-tank

None of my setups look remotely like the real world example above. In this game artilley are overpowered, just listen to the multiplayer gamers above.
Good news is that it soulds like the expansion will improve on this.

 

[dfer]

Artillery changed real warfare forever. It does the same in Civ5. I have no issues with it.

 

[Pisskop]

Cannon and artillery are the way I tech, every time. I liked knights in cIV, but I require seige in 5... I think the seige mechanic in general is somewhat broken. A mechanical unit that heals over time and with a worker under it can see normally? Better yet, one with the regen promotion? Artillery is strong irl, but in Civ they (esp againt ai) are about all you need... Horse and Treb rush? I have yet to see the ai counter.

 

[historix69]

If you should set up an army of 10 units in the game, what would it be.

The problem usually is set a little bit different. Imagine WW1. Assume you have 1 mio soldiers and you should equip and field them to protect your country.

One of the objectives of Infantry is to block enemy movement so enemy forces cannot invade your country or destroy your artillery. You need replacement troops for your infantry. Infantry can capture cities and control area.

Cavalry was used to scout / recon and charge at supply, artillery.

Artillery was supporting infantry in attack and defence and was weakening enemy troops from distance.


- An infantry soldier was equipped with a rifle, 100 shots (ca. 5 kg) and some hand grenades.
(Every 10th or 100th infantry man may had a MG and maybe 1000 shots.)
- A cavalry soldier had a horse, a rifle, a sabre, 100 shots. (As far as I know Cavalry needed about 4 times as much supply compared to plain infantry due to supply for the horses.)
- An howitzer took about 12-25 soldiers for operation, Field artillery team, logistics. A couple of horses for moving the howitzer. Depending on kaliber a grenade may weight between 5 - 20 kg. (Siege artillery shells were heavier and could have a weight between 100 - 1000 kg).

A rifle weighs about 5 kg and costs maybe 100 $. 100 shots are estimated with 5 kg.
A howitzer weighs 1.000 (light) - 8.000 (heavy, siege) kg. 100 shells are about 800 - 1.500 kg. So a howitzer has estimated industrial costs equivalent to 200 - 300 infantry soldiers.
A siege weapon like "Dicke Berta" had a cost of 1 mio Mark, a life expectancy of 2.000 shots and each shot (ca. 1.000 kg) cost 1.000 Mark.

According to literature, artillery bombardment caused about 62% of military casualties in WW1. Average ammunition costs to wound or kill a soldier were about 35.000 Mark!
Every front soldier in the trenches had to be supported by 6 - 8 civilian workers at the homefront (war industry and supplying industry etc.).

In scenario A I would pick something like:
6 Artillery, 3 Riflemen and a Cavalry.

Transferred to the 1 mio soldiers scenario this are
- 300.000 infantry men (= 20-30 divisions)
- 100.000 cavalry men (= 10 divisions)
- 600.000 artillerists = 18.000 - 30.000 howitzer (3-6.000 batteries)

On a 300 km front-line this would be an infantry division per 10 km backed up with a howitzer every 10 m.

One limiting factor is the supply with artillery ammunition. Since a howitzer can fire multiple rounds per min, usually a few howitzers are enough to spend the daily ration of shells. Huge military operations in WW1/2 required months of stockpiling ammo for a heavy artillery bombardement. German production of Gun Powder per month in 1917 was 14.000 t. If you assume a production of 30.000 t ammunition per month (?), the 30.000 howitzers could fire the complete monthly production in just 1 hour.

The 1:3:6-ratio sure is possible but it is probably a very expensive ratio regarding costs for equipment, operation and supply.


Problem with Civ5 is : unlimited ammo, unrealistic military costs, no supply system.

 

[dfer]

A quick fix would simply be to charge more gold for units perhaps during war or based on amount of engagements? That would be a way to account for ammo and supply system.