catapults need some love

[NobbynobLittlun]

The question of "why would I build cannons?" is a good one.

Personally, I think the solution is to add some options to give your cities protection against magic. A counter to mages, which you then counter by employing stuff like cannons. i.e.

Grounded Walls
Building, requires Alteration
Replaces Walls
+30% Magic Resistance for garrisoned units

Interdiction Field
Building, requires Sorcery
+20% Magic Resistance for garrisoned units

And heck, why not a counter for said cannons/catapults?

Foundations of Living Stone
Building, requires Elementalism
City Defenses regenerate +20% per turn

At this point cavalry starts looking pretty attractive...

 

[Jarrema]

NobbynobLittlun
I LOVE Your ideas! Especially "Interdiction Field", Grounded walls are a bit OP I think.
Such buildings would add new layer of planning to FF warfare, but I believe that they should be quite expensive (so You do not build them thoughtlessly in every city)

 

[Ekolite]

That's a very interesting idea actually. It would also help reduce the slightly overpoweredness of ritualists and cultists.

 

[Morkonan]

That's a very interesting idea actually. It would also help reduce the slightly overpoweredness of ritualists and cultists.

A benefit like that would have to be offset by a penalty as well. For instance, you may want it to counter/reduce all magic effects in the city - no buffs for your own troops, for instance. Or, reduce the effectiveness of fortifications against conventional artillery - Those sparkly anti-magic walls shatter easily when hit with cannonballs.

Interesting ideas but, I think it's a bit much to introduce just to "give some love" to conventional artillery.

 

[Tasunke]

well, current cannons have 25% withdrawal, while Catapults have 75% withdrawal. Do you see the lack in carry-over?

Im not sure if thats intended, and if it is then maybe it was assumed High-Withdrawal cannons would either be too much of an advantage, or like you said, unrealistic.

 

[Morkonan]

well, current cannons have 25% withdrawal, while Catapults have 75% withdrawal. Do you see the lack in carry-over?

Im not sure if thats intended, and if it is then maybe it was assumed High-Withdrawal cannons would either be too much of an advantage, or like you said, unrealistic.

I think it's intended to offset the cannon's power. They're pretty powerful as they are considering they're a buildable unit. A lower withdrawal chance keeps them from being spammed, I would think.

"Realism" has its own subtleties. One could claim it's because cannon need a lot of preparation and support to function effectively but, then again, so do catapults. Cannon are a bit better designed for transportation since they truly come into their own during the beginnings of maneuver warfare while catapults aren't exactly designed to bounce around following an army and pulled by a train of horse. In the end, it's probably designed in to keep cannon from being too powerful.

 

[Kenjister]

I support the idea of Cannons getting thier withdrawal chance boosted at least up to 75% or 80%. I was playing a nice roleplaying Bannor game earlier, and hadn't exactly invested in the magic line at all. So I was relying upong a large number of Catapults for my city sacking needs. They worked fine, though slowed down my attack significantly.

When I started upgrading to Cannons however, I realized my mistake. Since in FfH, promotions are a major source of strength, the collateral damage caused by Catapults was thier main strength, not the city bombardment. Cannons however, could not be effectively used for this purpose, unless you were willing to rebuild your seige train each time you attacked. Typically that would be impossible even if you had the production to rebuild the Cannons due to their slow movement and vulnerablitiy on the march.

Realism is an important part of fantasy I'd say... while the concept may not "realistic" the justifications must. In this case, I'd say that Cannons should have the withdrawal not to represent moving in and then running away when losing, but to simulate the fact that they actually never engage in combat. The damage could be justified by saying they have limited ammo at any given time. I actually think that siege weapons should have a spell that does heavy direct damage, but also immobolizes them for a turn.

Either way, my overall point is that Cannons are not a viable replacement for anything. The Seige line should always be a viable method to attack cities, and currently in the late game, it isn't.