Bombardment in 1.17f

[Grey Knight]

Back in the 1.16 days, I was definitly pro-catapult. When I would go conquering I'd always bring 2-4 along to soften things up nicely.

Now that I'm playing 1.17, it seems pointless. I had a stack of 5 catapults land 1 hit over three turns...

Is there any point to using the standard catapult? I understand I can mod the game, but I'm wondering if there is any point with standard rules... Has anyone been successful in integrating 1.17 catapults into their battle plans?

Cheers,
Shawn

 

[simwiz2]

they increased the bombard defense of towns/cities, making catapults and even cannons useless for attacks. Artillery, once one of my favorite units, is now only useful for defense with railroads.

 

[jimmytrick]

Good to see these posts. I have been telling everyone that the catapult and cannon are broken but no one listens.

 

[Sparrowhawk]

I'm not impressed with these adjustments either. I used to love parking a stack of ~12 artillery with appropriate infantry in enemy territory and flattening their big cities. Now I can go a whole turn without doing any damage. Anyone know whether this can be modified in the editor?

 

[royfurr]

Like many, I have downloaded the 1.17 patch but not yet installled it due to having a big game in progress in 1.16 and not wanting to risk a problem.


Now I am starting to really worry about what I have heard. Bombardment in the ancient era was very useful, but did NOT dominate the game ... as it should be. I often had literally a dozen "Artillery Bombardment Failed" reports in a row, where I had 14 or so cats stacked. I could usually expect 1-3 or 4 hits per turn from the stack, although usually it was more liikely killing off the popularion or smashing improvements rather then killing the enemy troops. I could take that, war is messy, most often things do not go as planned, BUT NOW -- this improved defense rating allowing only a hit every few turns ... this is Not Good. And the new Non-Race for tech, forget actually researching stuff on your own ... for me this WAS a nice point in the game, discovering stuff, now its all trade for it, trade for it ...

Doesn't seem like they have balanced things, one extreme to another on the trade stuff ... DO THEY ACTUALLY TEST TTHIS STUFF OUT? HAS ANYONE OUT THERE ACTUALLY BEEN A TESTER FOR FIRAXIS ON 1.17 ... OR ARE YOU NOT ALLOWED TO SAY SO BY A CONTRACT THEY HAD YOU SIGN IN ORDER TO BE A TESTER???

I am seriously wondering if I am going to be able to use 1.17 ... ah, good bye stacked movement ....

 

[BillChin]

Originally posted by jimmytrick
Good to see these posts. I have been telling everyone that the catapult and cannon are broken but no one listens.

Grey Knight has a good point, but Jimmytrick is still wrong

In version 1.17f, catapults rarely hit pop or buildings, which I like. Catapults seem ok vs. troops, but I do not have a big data sample with 1.17f.

I am not sure of the game mechanics, if one is related to the other (troops in a city being hit, vs. buildings or population). Wish a programmer would clear this point up: Does increasing the bombard defense for the buildings increase the bombard defense for the troops in the city? In other words is there any change to catapult effectiveness against troops in cities?

I guess someone could do an empirical test, but setting up and firing 100+ catapult volleys with each version is not my idea of fun. Any lab rats willing to do the experiment?

 

[jimmytrick]

Eight cannon times eight rounds =64 shots versus size 10 city
9 units of population killed
one building destroyed
five defender hit points destroyed over eight turns with no more than one per turn
Their were two conscript riflemen in the city
49 misses...77%

the hit points regenerate so thats like a miss really, unless immediately followed up with an assault.

 

[Hurricane]

I use artillery (including catapults) extensively, so I immediately noticed the lower chance of hitting a city. I´m still in the early-industirous era of my 1.17f game, so I can´t tell about artillery, but now it´s more or less useless to bombard cities with catapults (cannon aren´t that better, either).

However, catapults are still very useful for softening up units outside cities. With a stack of 10 catapults, you can easily bombard any incoming enemy counterattack force, so that you can take them out with a few swordsmen. Also, by only attacking 1 hp units, you easily create leaders.

Still, this is not realistic in any way. Bombardment should be at its best against cities, not against scattered troops moving in a mountain. My best bet is that they felt artillery was too good (especialy since the AI doesn´t use them), but when making them less useful, they forgot they made catapults and cannon worthless against cities. But as I said, they still rock against units outside cities.

 

[Ironikinit]

I don't know if it's possible, but it would be cool if bombard units took out certain improvements first, like had a greater probability of hitting walls, barracks, etc. Might boost their usefullness against cities while not overpowering.

 

[Grey Knight]

I'm going back to 1.16!

Shawn

 

[Lt. 'Killer' M.]

classically, catapults, cannons, mortars and all that are for sieges. Only when you could bring huge numbers to bear were they used against troops in the open, simply because it took awfully long to bring them somewhere, set them up, load them. And then you`d get to fire them once or twice - after that the enemy was either upon you - inside minimal range and keeping you from firing or he was out of max range.

So why were they used at all? reason 1: range. they made it possible to fire stuff over walls or from outside the enemy`s range - like the Romans using giant crossbows to shoot individaul city defenders

reason 2: power - being able to shoot heavy stuff that has lots of inertia on impact and thus does damage to things like walls or iron covered doors.

both together lead to the idea of counterbattery fire pretty soon...

So, was this represented in CivIII???

I`d say: YES!

but with 1.17 it simply doesn`t work like it should anymore. bringing a few catapults to make a siege easier gets you nothing, so the entire concept is out the window!

 

[eyrei]

I still use artillery extensively. Sieges are intended to take a long time, so I am not really discouraged by the increased defense of cities. With a stack of 10 artillery guarded by an army of infantry, I can reduce a city to below 7 pop, and damage most units defending it without having to worry about time. The AI will not attack that army.

 

[BillChin]

I started a couple more 1.17f games. My catapults are effective against troops in a city. I agree that the number of misses is way up as buildings and population are rarely hit. I see little or no change in effectiveness vs. troops in a city. I see a big reduction in the number of building and population hits. Anyone else having similar results or is everyone focusing on the number of overall misses?

If there is no change vs. troops and a big change vs. buildings, players going back to 1.16 because of the overall number of misses may be throwing the baby out with the bathwater. I can not confirm this, but it is what my games point to. Seems to me that it is a good thing that the buildings survive better. With 1.16 it is rare to bombard and then conquer and have any buildings left. With 1.17 this seems common because buildings are still standing when the garrison troops get hit.

As for eight cannons vs. two conscript riflemen, the best a player can hope for is two hits in one turn getting each conscript down to one hp. If there are only two units and a lot of buildings and population, the odds favor targeting the buildings or population. Targeting a city with regular strength units instead of conscripts will yield a higher percentage of hits on troops.

Getting a unit to one hit point helps a lot. Even a swordsman has a shot at taking out a one hp rifleman. What are the ground troops waiting for? The defense bonus from pop 7+ is gone, the troops are down to one hp and two hp. I guess they can wait for one and one, but that risks reinforcements coming in or being built (rushed). If the ground troops are so weak how can they garrison the city and protect the cannons?

 

[Lt. 'Killer' M.]

As I said in another thread: I would like to be asked what I want to bombard. It shouldn`t mean that I`ll hit that, be should give me better odds at hitting what I want to hit.

As an example why the current system s****:

Imagine a city that is surrounded by 7 water tiles and 1 land. Size 12, sits on Rubber which I want to cut off.

In real life, sail a ship there and bombard the harbor. Maybe you`ll miss on the first try, but you have a pretty good chance of closing it down pretty soon.

In civ as played two days ago;

Spend 17 turns bombarding with 5 BBs - town ended up size 1, all defenders 1 HP, all buildings gone except - you guessed it - the Harbor!!!!!! :aargh3:

 

[maddskillz]

Where in the editor can we fix this? What were the original settings? My mod file has been corrupted (by the 1.17f patch


Thanks!

NOt complaining, I luv the game, just disagree with this change. Improve the AI rather then weaken a proven historic military offensive such as catapults and cannons.

 

[Hurricane]

Originally posted by eyrei
I still use artillery extensively. Sieges are intended to take a long time, so I am not really discouraged by the increased defense of cities. With a stack of 10 artillery guarded by an army of infantry, I can reduce a city to below 7 pop, and damage most units defending it without having to worry about time. The AI will not attack that army.

I also think artillery still is good enough. The problem is catapults and cannon, which are now of limited use against cities. They are effective against units outside cities, but this i sboth counter-intuitive and unrealistic.

 

[BillChin]

Originally posted by Hurricane


I also think artillery still is good enough. The problem is catapults and cannon, which are now of limited use against cities. They are effective against units outside cities, but this i sboth counter-intuitive and unrealistic.

My catapults are still effective in 1.17f vs. troops in cities as well as troops outside of cities. I believe the change is against population and buildings. The overall number of misses is way up because of that, and people seem focused on that. I believe there is no change in 1.17f catapult effectiveness vs. troops, troops in a city or out of a city. Anyone getting similar results?

 

[eyrei]

Billchin: I think what was changed were the bombard defenses of city improvements. The bombard values of the artillery were not changed, so they have the same effect on units as they did before. Personally, I have no problem with this. I usually use my bombard units to damage units, and actually like the fact that I don't destroy every improvement before I take a city. Taking a size 12 city that still has its marketplace is a good thing.

 

[Randae]

Originally posted by maddskillz
Where in the editor can we fix this? What were the original settings? My mod file has been corrupted (by the 1.17f patch

"Rules"/"Edit rules" ->
"General Settings" -tab ->

Edit defensive bonuses for _citizens_ and _buildings_ for something suitable for you. If the help is correct, the values were originally at 4 giving even the catapults a 50% chance of knocking off a building / pop. point . I think the 1.16 defensive values were 8 and now 16...

I personally changed the values to 12 after having 9 catapults bombard a small city for 3 rounds and getting 1 hp off a spearman and 26 "artillery bombardment failed" messages ...

...which made me think... The city was on a hill... do you think the population and improvements get terrain bonuses to their defensive values, too?

 

[Zachriel]

Originally posted by BillChin
I started a couple more 1.17f games. My catapults are effective against troops in a city. I agree that the number of misses is way up as buildings and population are rarely hit. . . .

Good analysis, BillChin. That matches my experience. I think they did that because players were reducing cities to rubble before attacking.