Catapults, are they worth it?

[MSTK]

Sometimes I find it hard to distinguish wether people are talking about the artillery unit or artillery in general.

I find it understandable to never build the artillery unit (albiet a bit crazy), but to never build any type of artillery unit just doesn't make any sense.

 

[carl corey]

Well, about the artillery unit. I guess it depends if you're in a war period or a peace one when they come around. Since I mostly leave my catapults unupgraded to cannons I'll use them mostly for city bombardment. Some cannons will get collateral promotions and will help with taking cities, but they usually don't survive. By the time I get close to artillery I'd much rather have bombers instead. Long range, can scout ahead, fewer casualties.

Catapults on the other hand are a must for my second/third war. I've just started a game with the Romans just for fun - haven't played them in a looong time -, to see what a Praetorian Warlord can do before catapults. Well, it had Combat II and CR III and almost died against a Drill I CG I Archer in a 40% defense city. 0.6 health at the end. So yeah, you definitely need catapults if you don't want to waste your CR units.

 

[large_cerebrum1]

I never build bombers. They keep getting shot down. I think the AI hates me. I was playing a OCC deity level game, and the AI's stealth bombers kept getting through. Mine... Were all shot down.

 

[drkodos]

I don't go the bomber route either and the reason why is because the tech that gives bombers does not lead to space flight. If the game is still going on at these late stages chances are a Domination or Conquest victory is not happening, so a space race is usually in the cards, and there is no reason to waste a tech on something that is not helping me win.

The only games I have built bombers is when playing on levels Prince and lower when I purposely avoid winning and instead decide to keep warmongereing just for the sake of warmongering.

 

[Mama Lazarou]

Ok, I used catapults a little and they are pretty good, but nowhere near as useful or fun as stacks of artillery roaming Germany!

 

[pigswill]

Seige weapons in my limited experience are the best city raiding units in the game; the only downside is they need a few protective/healing units in the stack.
Edit: I usually have some CR axes while waiting for cats, which get upgraded to CR maces to cover the gap between cats and cannon.

 

[Mama Lazarou]

Yeah, healing SAM guys were helpful to me.

 

[shivute]

No love for Artillery?

Nothing like pimping out the Artillery with CR promotions and having them attack directly into the city after bombarding its defenses to zero. One of the unheralded late game units, IMO.

I agree about artillery. Very useful unit that doesn't get the credit that it should.

 

[Otsoga]

In almost all previous versions of Civ I've pretty much entirely neglected the use of all artillery (except Radar in Civ III because of it's range, and artillery to weaken ships when my navy was too weak) due to them needing an escort, alongside a high chance of failure in attack. Are catapults now worth building and taking on campaign?

How important are catapults in this game? B.C. stands for "Before Catapults"

 

[wioneo]

How important are catapults in this game? B.C. stands for "Before Catapults"

That was horrible! You should be beaten with a stick for that Back on-topic, the original question has been answered, several times. So, I have nothing to add.

 

[Mama Lazarou]

Yes, I have discovered they are very useful indeed. Fin.

 

[OceansEleven]

Ohhh yeah they are. You need them if you wish to go to war. Getting just attackers is a waste of (good) units. Catapults are basically suiciders. I put about 3-4 in a group, with like 5 maceman, in that age. Culture bonuses are down in 1 turn, usually, since I go for collateral damage & bombardment level ups. Once the defense is down to 0%, I sacrifice all my catapults *I have about 2 with just coll. damage levels, other 2 with bombardment*. I try not to sacrifice my bombardments. If my 2 cataputls with the coll. damage weaken them enough, in which the victory for my macemen is above 80%, I'll attack. If not, I'll use the other catapults.

They are the definintion of essential. They work lovely if you get declared war on. Having about 3+ in each city is very useful. If they send a big load of units towards you, just kill them off with the cats and vroooom you've already won the war.

I haven't played Civ 4 in like 1 week now. Odd. No time, whatever. Anyways, I went to war with Ghandi, since I had like 5 or 6 cities. I used catapults in every city to take him down. I went to war with him 3 times, and had cats in every single group.

I was like you in the beginning, thought cats suck. But they work wonders.

 

[Rast]

I'll have to try the artillery route (as in the specific unit) sometime.. usually I get Flight while I'm building the Apollo Project and just build bombers instead.

Bombers are mobile, can be used to defend or attack a very large area, and have much better survival rates than real artillery - usually they don't get shot down, they just get shot up. Rest a turn or two and keep the bombs falling.

BUT.. artillery seems to do more damage despite the fact that it usually dies and it always works (whereas a bomber does no damage at all if it is intercepted)

 

[cabert]

i tried both the artillery route (not for space racing, for the unit!) and the flight route.

I found artilleries to be very strong, but coming a little too late.

The good thing is they upgrade catapults and cannons, and need no ressource (cannons require iron ).
The bad things are
- the tech is expensive (4000 beakers, needing physics, rifling, steel)
- the movement is slow,
- the unit is not really cheap (150 hammers).

So, if you're not in a dominant position or gunning for spaceship, artillery won't save you. + the AIs beeline to it, so the tech often has no trade value.

OTH flight isn't giving you the edge easier.
- You need oil to build fighters.
- flight tech is 5000 beakers requiring combustion (which requires railroad, which requires steel and steam power which requires replaceable parts) and physics. So it's even more expensive.
But in some way, it's more straightforward: you need combustion if you want transports don't you? Rifling isn't as highly needed, thoug useful.

The good part about the flight route :
- you can build airports = more commerce + fast reinforcements
- fighters are cheap (100 hammers), they don't die often, they don't need promotions = you can stedily build up a huge force, even low hammers cities can build a fighter
- fighters can rebase in 1 turn, whereever they are
- they can hurt naval units
- they can do recon
- they can bomb cultural defenses.
- you can go on researching to bombers while building those airports and fighters

The bad part :
- fighters/bombers can't kill any unit = you need assault troops. The best assault troops to send after a bomber are... artilleries
- fighters/bombers don't defend themselves on the ground = you need to defend the city they are in.
- you need oil
- more troops = more upkeep
- it's tedious to send fighter after fighter attacking.

 

[Paeanblack]

- it's tedious to send fighter after fighter attacking.

Game Options -> Stack Attack

Send all those fighters at once.

 

[cabert]

Game Options -> Stack Attack

Send all those fighters at once.

true enough, but if you do this you often miss the soft spot between defense, bombing down defense, hitting the best defenders...

I tend to group my fighters into groups of 3+ a few isolated for recon.
For bombers, it's even worse. I want to attack with bombers until there is no colateral damage left to do. bombing down defense with a group is OK, even without the option.

I think I'll try it out though (it's really too tedious at some point), thanks.

 

[DjPiLL]

Artillery rule! My new favorite unit (next to Stalin's Cossack).

 

[jimbob27]

true enough, but if you do this you often miss the soft spot between defense, bombing down defense, hitting the best defenders...

I tend to group my fighters into groups of 3+ a few isolated for recon.
For bombers, it's even worse. I want to attack with bombers until there is no colateral damage left to do. bombing down defense with a group is OK, even without the option.

I think I'll try it out though (it's really too tedious at some point), thanks.

You don't need to enable stack attack. Even when it's off, you can select multiple planes and they'll all attack at the same time. (well, not the exactly the same time, but you know what I mean).

 

[Meatbuster]

How important are catapults in this game? B.C. stands for "Before Catapults"

This wasn't exactly politically correct

But you're right, before the Classical Era they best you had was City Raider 3 Axes. Eventually even they would be overwhelmed by cultural defenses and barracks-powered City Garrion archers. That's where catapults come in.

Ever tried going straight to Construction? That usually leads to easy and painless wars using your Elephants + Catapults, which destroy everything in their path (in Emperor and lower usually you can get to Construction before they have Longbows)...