Cannons and steel - still not fixed...?

[Merkinball]

I suppose making cannons available at gun powder is sensible. But they would have to be nerfed down to 8 or 9 strength. And I think you would then need a bridge at Steel between cannons and artillery to something that reflects the current cannon.

 

[Elandal]

@Merkinball

Assume toned down cannon (eg. Bombard I described in an earlier post) at Gunpowder, but then Cannon as it currently is at Steel. Artillery is fine, and is followed by mobile artillery (reflects modern artillery). What bridging is really needed apart from the reneissance era?

 

[Merkinball]

@Merkinball

Assume toned down cannon (eg. Bombard I described in an earlier post) at Gunpowder, but then Cannon as it currently is at Steel. Artillery is fine, and is followed by mobile artillery (reflects modern artillery). What bridging is really needed apart from the reneissance era?

Yeah, I suppose that's a good point. Maybe I was thinking this simply because I never go directly from steel to artillery, and concentrate on getting Mining Inc, Sids Sushi, Broadway, and Rock n' Roll in this time period and don't typically go for artillery until someone trades it for me, or I'm in sufficient position to start Space Ship building.

 

[Elandal]

Sure you can delay artillery, but that doesn't mean there's a gap between Cannon and Artillery (unit). Just that you don't see the need to jump to the modern era siege weapons - maybe you don't wage wars during that time period?

 

[jpboia]

Here's another thread about this subject.

 

[Airefuego]

How would you simulate "easier to move"?

I've added Bombard to Gunpowder for my own games: strength 6, +50% city attack, ignores walls/castles like cannon - basically "a bit better than treb against cities, a bit better than cat outside cities, so better than either in both cases, but not as good as cannon". I think the city attack bonus with lower base strength currently simulates "hard to move and use on field - best used against stationary target in sieges".

I think this is the perfect solution nice one Elandal (and a few others who suggested bombards too).

Someone suggested that in an alternative history, "small firearms could have come before big siege ones". This may be true and I am all for alternative-history potential in Civ, but in the game strong-attacking Frigates come before Cannons, which is simply illogical, so a large gunpowder unit needs to appear at Gunpowder for consistency.

 

[DrewBledsoe]

I really see no problem at all with a str 9 "bombard" or something like that now that it couldn't actually kill anything on its own, and even a knight should easily destroy it if its defending.

This is because of those obscenities called Longbows, which with even a couple of city garrison promotions will even now beat a CRI cannon easily, because of all the ridiculous amount of defensive bonuses they get. This is AFTER a city has been bombarded down to 0%. And if they happen to be standing in a city on a slight hump in the ground, then they develop superpowers which wouldn't be out of place in the new season of "Heroes". Newly build riflemen will lose to these guys on a regular basis, nevermind str 9 "bombards". Ridiculous.

Bahhh Archers, Longbows, mutter, grumble....don't get me started.

Oh I did? Ok I'll stop now

 

[Merkinball]

Sure you can delay artillery, but that doesn't mean there's a gap between Cannon and Artillery (unit). Just that you don't see the need to jump to the modern era siege weapons - maybe you don't wage wars during that time period?

Nope. I try to get all my warring done early with axeman or early UU rushes. Playing 18 opponents on a huge terra map, I look for a slight land advantage in the old world, then assert land dominance in the new world for trade advantages, corporate advantages, and use that land to produce spaceship parts. So, I'll typically be satisfied with 8 or so cities in the homeland, and then simply protect that, and keep aggressive civ's off my back. So the only wars I'll probably be fighting in this era are defensive ones.

 

[GrandWazoo]

I'd put Bombard but as siege weapon only. They would have the same value of the Cannon to reduce defensive bonuses of a city except that they would not ignore walls and castle. Plus they would be strength 6 and no collateral damage so they would not obsolete trebuchets as they did not in real life either. Medieval bombards were pretty lame against infantries but pretty good to punch a hole in a wall.

That way it would make sense to build a couple of bombards to go against the walls and castles but they wouldn't serve as your only piece of artillery.

 

[Infantry#14]

I recommend that bombard has a str of 7! That's a unique str no other units can have. Also, because due to the inconvience of carrying them around, they cant enter forest, hill or jungle tiles even if they have roads link to them. So they are pretty limited to open tiles, and i guess carrying them around in galleons also work.

Also, the game should allow workers to chop forest/jungles in enemy territories.

 

[kniteowl]

Bombards should either be 9str or 6str with 50% CR.

I think they should come with Chemistry instead of Gunpowder because Chemistry's pre req is Engineering, It'd look silly to have Bombards before trebs (well I dunno my history someone can correct me)

And Cannons now require both Steel and Replaceable Parts (no reason apart from extending the life of the Bombard)