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

Battering Rams suck

Discussion in 'Civ5 - General Discussions' started by Hammer Rabbi, Aug 5, 2012.

  1. thadian

    thadian Kami of Awakened Dreamers

    Joined:
    Sep 27, 2006
    Messages:
    2,288
    Location:
    Indiana, USA
    Syntax - with that, you can just stay "tall and sprawl" or go wide later.

    i don't think enough has been said about the options and diversity of choice one has when you have done what you have done.
     
  2. OmniPotent42

    OmniPotent42 King

    Joined:
    Jun 25, 2012
    Messages:
    921
    I understand that, but that's like saying England forces you to have a navy simply because their ua and uu benefit navies. Again, no civ's abilities should FORCE you to play a certain way. I don't HAVE to be friends with Warsaw as Siam, although it is certainly more beneficial to do so than another civ. I shouldn't have to give up early defence in exchange for a city-killing unit - that doesn't make any sense. If you replace the catapult with the battering ram, that still gives the Huns a city-killing unit while maintaining equal defensive capabilities. The AI doesn't know how to do a lot of things besides using battering rams. Humans should be in consideration, too.
     
  3. thadian

    thadian Kami of Awakened Dreamers

    Joined:
    Sep 27, 2006
    Messages:
    2,288
    Location:
    Indiana, USA
    you arent giving up early defense, you have horse archers to flank the rear units, skirt past the enemy carpet to pillage, and paired up with scouts, a 3-man team of 2 horse archers + scout and a 3 man team of 2 scout + horse archer can do a lot even against swordsman and longswordsman.
     
  4. black213

    black213 Emperor

    Joined:
    Mar 12, 2010
    Messages:
    1,544
    Did you do that with just one ram? :eek:
    I thought it would be harder since the ram is awful at defending itself
     
  5. GoodSarmatian

    GoodSarmatian Jokerfied Western Male

    Joined:
    Apr 25, 2006
    Messages:
    9,408
    Gender:
    Male
    The last time this happened to me I ended up with two mercantile CS puppets and Siam's capital...
     
  6. Syntax Error

    Syntax Error Prince

    Joined:
    Oct 14, 2010
    Messages:
    544
    Peace through conquest: the only way to TRUE peace. Horrifying Real-world implications aside, I can probably catch up my tech rate after I'm done with China. The only real problem with regards to this strategy is if a barb camp spawns between you and your target. Because if that's the case, you will need to wait for horse archers before anything else.
     
  7. Lakissov

    Lakissov Chieftain

    Joined:
    Jul 19, 2012
    Messages:
    50
    It does seems very ironic that Attila the Hun, a barbarian himself, finds himself most impeded when there are barbarians nearby.
     
  8. Babri

    Babri Emperor

    Joined:
    Apr 16, 2010
    Messages:
    2,449
    Location:
    Pakistan
    Yeah and keshliks suck too, knights are great for taking cities but I can't do that with Mongols. :sad:

    Seriously though learn how to use ur UUs for maximum benefit. Rams are perhaps the most powerful UU after Keshlik, one ram from ruins mean that the nearest civ is dead unless they were well prepared for ur attack or had enough gold to rushbuy which is unlikely especially for an AI player.
     
  9. Babri

    Babri Emperor

    Joined:
    Apr 16, 2010
    Messages:
    2,449
    Location:
    Pakistan
    Well that is a point of perspective. For example according to Japanese in medieval times Europeans were nanban which means 'barbarian'. ;)
     
  10. PhilBowles

    PhilBowles Deity

    Joined:
    Nov 20, 2011
    Messages:
    5,320
    Surely that's closer to your argument than mine? I'm pointing out that the Huns, by design, have to put more effort into defence than other civs - but that's not forcing you to play them aggressively, precisely because you can defend. While you appear to be arguing that not having a spearman forces the Huns to play aggressively.

    Allow me to introduce you to Gandhi... As above, you aren't forced to, you just have different challenges when not doing so - just as if you're not exploiting the Siamese UA, or if you spawn around nothing but mercantile CSes, you have the challenge inherent in essentially not having a UA. This is entirely the point of having multiple civ options, so I'm not sure why you feel it's an issue. Forgoing spearmen in favour of more warriors can be a viable long-term strategy anyway, particularly if you don't plan on playing an aggressive early game where you wouldn't get a lot of use out of pikes and would rather have more units that upgrade into infantry later in the game, but also if you choose to rush Steel.

    None of that is really defensive. The trouble is, Civ battles are rarely won or lost in the open field - most take place around cities, where avenues of attack are constrained and rough terrain (with well-placed cities) makes it difficult to focus fire from multiple units. Pillaging certainly isn't defensive. If you can head off an attacking force before it gets close to your city you might be able to damage it enough that it's no longer a threat, but otherwise HAs won't be a great help, and they die very readily to spears the AI likes to use (and especially to horsemen, but the AI uses them much less). As ranged rather than cavalry units they don't even have any particular advantage against enemy siege.

    The AI is awful at defending itself too. Pit Attila against a player and this doesn't happen. In my game as Attila (actually multiplayer, but everyone on my continent was an AI) there was an American spearman in position to attack my Ram that just stood there while I demolished the capital.

    Though even so it will usually take two rams to do this job, simply because that's one less turn per city and that means more time to move onto the next before defenders start popping out in unmanageable numbers.
     
  11. hobbsyoyo

    hobbsyoyo Deity

    Joined:
    Jul 13, 2012
    Messages:
    26,336
    I don't think coding the AI to better utilize it's UU would force it to play one way. In fact, I think the opposite - an AI that better knows it's own strengths and weaknesses could be more flexible in it's approach to the game.
     
  12. Putmalk

    Putmalk Deity

    Joined:
    Sep 26, 2010
    Messages:
    2,623
    Location:
    New York
    Attila's Battering Rams from what I remember are set like Catapults are - only problem is they don't exactly send any units to defend them so they get slaughtered.

    Also you're nuts if you think Horse Archers aren't both defensive and offensive - they're ridiculous and the AI cannot fight against them. Sure the Huns might be "balanced" for multiplayer but they're incredibly ridiculous against the AI who cannot fight back against them.

    Really in my opinion Rams should replace catapults (sacrifice range for incredible damage and mobility) while Horse Archers should replace Horseman (making the Huns a feared Classical threat).
     
  13. Hammer Rabbi

    Hammer Rabbi Deity GOTM Staff

    Joined:
    Jan 3, 2012
    Messages:
    4,460
    Location:
    USA
    on turn 4 or 5 when they pop to rams is a challenge. my opening 20 turns are pretty much set in stone (for city prod) most games and switching builds to warriors that early is hard for me cuz im thinking long term. plus playin on emperor the cities usually have more units than me for that early rush. i'll give it a try buying one when i get 200g. i usually save for a worker after stealing one from a CS now that im not going liberty every game like i used to.
     
  14. Xger

    Xger Prince

    Joined:
    Mar 22, 2010
    Messages:
    510
    Location:
    Denver
    I don't imagine they would be anywhere near as effective as catapult replacements. It would seem they are designed to take undefended cities early, so I imagine that being a spearman replacement was delibrately chosen so that an upgrade like that works. If they came as a catapult replacement defenders would be more plentiful, cities would be stronger, and rams would be near useless.
     
  15. Putmalk

    Putmalk Deity

    Joined:
    Sep 26, 2010
    Messages:
    2,623
    Location:
    New York
    Undefended cities early =/ undefended capitals. It's not fair to be able to wipe out 4 civs off the map before Medieval. And how would stronger cities make rams useless if they have a 300% bonus vs. cities?
     
  16. OmniPotent42

    OmniPotent42 King

    Joined:
    Jun 25, 2012
    Messages:
    921
    Ok, I guess I said a couple of things wrong. The main issue imo is that you as the huns are given a COMPLETELY different unit as your uu. If you happen to get a ram from a ruins you have automatically given up early defense, and if you want to make use of the unit you are forced to take over a nearby city. The fact that it replaces the spearman also makes you vulnerable to horsemen and other mounted units. So you are stuck with a unit that can never be upgraded, and is a waste of production unless you are planning on conquest. This may not matter as much on lower difficulty levels, but it's extremely important on immortal or diety, where each unit is critical. Making the battering ram a replacement for the catapult doesn't affect this, because if you make a catapult you are most likely planning to attack a city, and can upgrade it into a trebuchet later on. If you can have an archer unit replace a horse melee unit, you can surely have a melee unit replace a siege unit.
     
  17. Hammer Rabbi

    Hammer Rabbi Deity GOTM Staff

    Joined:
    Jan 3, 2012
    Messages:
    4,460
    Location:
    USA
    yeah, i prefer the catapult replacement now that i think about it. regardless of any historical accuracy on how actual battering rams worked i like the idea that it could be a pendulum swinging ram manned by humans instead of a catapult. they get the bonus to cities at the cost of range and the ability to attack units and can still be upgraded to trebs.

    actually, i don't know. maybe id just prefer that they defend themselves but with a penalty, even a 50% penalty vs land units. you could make up for some of it with terrain and upgrades and GGs. i mean, set the ram down, defend with swords but no armor or shields, rest, heal, pick it up and carry on.
     
  18. Putmalk

    Putmalk Deity

    Joined:
    Sep 26, 2010
    Messages:
    2,623
    Location:
    New York
    It's more historically accurate for the Huns unique units to be Classical, not Ancient.
     
  19. Hammer Rabbi

    Hammer Rabbi Deity GOTM Staff

    Joined:
    Jan 3, 2012
    Messages:
    4,460
    Location:
    USA
    well, i was thinking more in terms of the logistics of a battering ram. i would think its a simple large ram with men on both sides of it rushing forward. but if it could replace a catapult. i like the idea of that pendulum structure similar to a catapult but with men on both sides hoisting it back to let it slam forward.

    but yeah, after looking up some dates and times of their era, classical sounds better. but it's Civ. lots of cultures didnt exist at 4000bc but do for game purposes so its no biggie either way.
     
  20. TyBoy

    TyBoy Prince

    Joined:
    May 24, 2006
    Messages:
    335
    I can see why the AI would struggle with them, there's no other unit using the battering ram mechanism so there's probably no scripting to tell the AI how to use a melee city killer. As a player you shouldn't be noticeably hindered by lacking spearmen if all you're worried about is defending yourself though. Archers or composite bowmen give more bang for the buck in most defensive situations. I don't really see the AI coming at you with a really horseman heavy army and even if they did horsemen are pretty bad at taking cities.
     

Share This Page