Battering Ram Upgrading to Siege Tower now becomes a problem

[myclan]

In previous game, Battering Ram/Siege Tower combined with cavalry was widely used to attack a city with wall. Siege Tower just ignored the wall so in most case, it is just better than battering Ram. Upgrading is not a problem.

But now, cavalry units can't use neither Battering Ram nor Siege Tower, they can do nothing facing a wall. Battering Ram suddenly becomes more useful because melee units can use them to destroy the wall to help calvary units, while Siege Tower can't.

Remember to build/buy a battering ram before researching Engineering。

 

[Karmah]

I
But now, cavalry units can't use neither Battering Ram nor Siege Tower, they can do nothing facing a wall.

As it should be

 

[Troy Bruckner]

Can we buy battering rams after we research medic yet?

 

[Gorbles]

Yeah, cavalry are already what you'd consider "strong" in a lot of scenarios (not helped by the historic niche / upgrade path of anti-cavalry units, though Firaxis has done good work there). I don't see a problem, to be honest.

 

[criZp]

Is there a particular reason you NEED to use cavalry to take the city, instead of using melee + siege tower?

 

[Lonecat Nekophrodite]

Is this reflexes historical facts that siege towers don't work with Star Forts?

 

[Cerilis]

Is this reflexes historical facts that siege towers don't work with Star Forts?

Wall-mounted cannons + large target = profit.

Also, serious star forts usually had several layers of defenses, including ditches and earthen ramparts, making the usage of siege towers... difficult.

Also also, using your own cannons to breach the wall might be more cost efficient.

Wait! I forgot! Sloped walls! Have fun building a siege tower for that one...
Geez, I could write an essay about this...wait, that's what I did during my masters... haha!

 

[Kwami]

And also also also, there aren't Star Forts, only <Era> Walls. And also also also also, game play must trump realism when the two conflict.

 

[Trav'ling Canuck]

game play must trump realism when the two conflict

If game play conflicts with realism, that's a symptom of bad game design.

 

[Sostratus]

Yeah, cavalry are already what you'd consider "strong" in a lot of scenarios

In Civ5, the mounted line, starting with Horsemen, was both stronger and faster than foot soldiers. It turns out this made them strictly better than melee units, so they added a -33% vs cities penalty to all mounted units, even including the GDR. This was one of the first things they patched in because Horseman rush was so devastating.

Then in Civ6, where they incorporate key learnings about ranged units and melee vs anticav lines, they apparently forgot this and made mounted units stronger and faster than everything else. Imagine the shock when people started preferring them to take cities!

 

[Archon_Wing]

I think it's time to introduce the trebuchet....

 

[Sostratus]

I think it's time to introduce the trebuchet....

"Trebuchet memes can't break Renaissance walls!" But 90kg projectiles from 300m away sure can...

 

[Lonecat Nekophrodite]

I think it's time to introduce the trebuchet....

Rather moves Bombard to the Late Medieval, and Siege Guns to the Renaissance

 

[S1AL]

Military Engineers should have a bonus for sieging... That was a large portion of what they did, historically. See: Alexander, the Chinese engineers that enabled the Mongols to conquer cities, all the way up to the peak of the American Civil War (precursor to trench warfare).

Honestly, there's so much that could be done with ME's. It's a shame they're so pointless right now.

And the Siege Tactics tech should come with offensive bonuses as well...

 

[Kwami]

If game play conflicts with realism, that's a symptom of bad game design.

This is a silly argument. Is it bad game design that America can fight Australia in the Classical Era, even though that's unrealistic? The game requires abstraction to work, as all games do.

 

[Gorbles]

In Civ5, the mounted line, starting with Horsemen, was both stronger and faster than foot soldiers. It turns out this made them strictly better than melee units, so they added a -33% vs cities penalty to all mounted units, even including the GDR. This was one of the first things they patched in because Horseman rush was so devastating.

Then in Civ6, where they incorporate key learnings about ranged units and melee vs anticav lines, they apparently forgot this and made mounted units stronger and faster than everything else. Imagine the shock when people started preferring them to take cities!

I'm not entirely sure what this has to do with the battering ram other than emphasising that this change makes mounted melee less of a one-stop shop. Not exactly registering any shock from me, either

 

[Tech Osen]

Yeah, cavalry are already what you'd consider "strong" in a lot of scenarios (not helped by the historic niche / upgrade path of anti-cavalry units, though Firaxis has done good work there). I don't see a problem, to be honest.

Donno about multiplayer but in my singleplayer games 99% of the battles are around a city. If I can't use cavalry to attack cities they will stand idle most of the time.

 

[King of Prussia]

TBH i like the change. should of been this way from the start. It always felt odd to me that BR didnt go into a siege tower. Cav shouldn't be as good as inf at taking cities.

 

[SharTeel]

Cavalry units for fighting outside the city, foot soldiers to use the siege towers, I see nothing wrong with it.
Besides, one could just use siege weapons to destroy walls and attack with cavalry :V

 

[zxcvbob]

Do knights plus battering ram no longer work? (I haven't tried it in a while*) It used to be devastating against cities even with ancient walls and a decent garrison.

*ETA: it worked a few weeks ago