Catapults

[Arent11]

I wanted to ask for experiences of people that like/don't like to use catapults.

I just used catapults for the first time (honestly, I until now mostly used battering rams & siege towers) & I found them quite good for several reasons:

(1) Are only slightly more expensive than siege towers
(2) You can use them against enemy units, not just against cities
(3) If you are careful, you can quickly get the +1 range promotion, which is huge, since
you can basically attack a city/enemy units outside their range
(4) They have a much better upgrade line than archers

Drawbacks:

(1) Are expensive
(2) Need full turn to attack

So, what do you think?

 

[Wilde]

I'm curious on this too. I have yet to build them. I am finding the AI doesn't always build the Terricotta Army so I've focused on that. This helps get my units to level 3 or 4 early. I build large armies but not a variety. What is the catapult upgrade path? I don't honestly know.

 

[Japper007]

Every time I try to use them they get swarmed in the set-up fase and focused down. The AI has a hatred of them it seems. With the crew weapons promo they become somewhat decent.

The down the line units are great though, bombards and artillery are strong especially with balloon suport.

I've so far never had problems taking down cities with a battering ram+melee unit composition, supported by archer/field cannon line with vs district promotions. The upside of this mix is that the units can kill the enemy units a lot quicker.

 

[Mavynn]

I used to use them a lot. However, they tend to get focused by city defenses, and they die fast--sometimes they can get killed in one hit. Lately I've just been using rams until later in the game when I can use bombards+balloons. If you have a balloon or the +1 range promotion, it's an entirely different story since the AI can't do anything to prevent you from wrecking its walls from out of range.

 

[Arent11]

Every time I try to use them they get swarmed in the set-up fase and focused down. The AI has a hatred of them it seems.

Interesting. I sometimes have problems to lure enemy units away from cities to take them down. Probably I should place a lonely catapult in the open & see what happens

 

[Lily_Lancer]

They're slow, weak and expensive. The cost too much while coming up too late. Unlike privateers, there's no policy to speed up their production. That's why I never use them.
PS If you get Gustave at ~T90, that bombard is powerful and it makes sense.

 

[DrCron]

The AI prioritizes bombarding siege and ranged units. It's much more efficient to attack with a battering ram and a siege tower, with several melee units. You just need to bring a few crossbows to bait the city bombardment away from your melee, and that's it. If you have knights, with battering ram and siege towers you should be able to take a city in 2 turns, so there's no reason to ever build a catapult.

 

[stinkubus]

I'm curious on this too. I have yet to build them. I am finding the AI doesn't always build the Terricotta Army so I've focused on that. This helps get my units to level 3 or 4 early. I build large armies but not a variety. What is the catapult upgrade path? I don't honestly know.

Catapults -> Bombards -> Artillery

 

[EpicWestern]

Being on the tech path to artillery is very significant since that's such an important mid/late domination unit. So you can make a few catapults, mostly just with the intention of upgrading to bombard/artillery when able, but you might as well attempt to put them to use in the meantime and get those level-ups.

 

[Victoria]

Love them but do not always build them.
When I do it's because I have a religious CS close by I can practice my bombard skills on, never take it, just get them levelled up on.
Its not a big thing and if I think about it, Oddly I tend to take them more when I know I am beelining Steel at some stage.

 

[OneMoreTurnPerTile]

I never use them for the first two civs I bring down, but I find 3-4 of them to be essential for civs 3-5.

 

[historix69]

They can take down city walls in 1-2 turns which is much faster than a group of archers / crossbows.
Often there is also a CS-quest to build one.
I usually build 2 of them since they are also usefull for Eurekas ...

 

[zxcvbob]

I like catapults, but don't build them very often; they are too squishy. Mostly I use battering rams to take down cities. And bombards and artillery when theose become available (especially with balloons for extra range)

I'm not impressed with siege towers, although there is a niche use for them -- if you're in a joint war and want to make sure *you* capture the cities under siege and not the other guy.

Don't mix towers and rams in the same siege; they mess each other up. Just one or the other is more effective.

 

[DrCron]

Don't mix towers and rams in the same siege; they mess each other up. Just one or the other is more effective.

This is absolutely wrong. Bringing both a battering ram and a siege tower to the same siege will get you the city in 2 turns (if you have enough melee/mounted units) and save healing time due to the lack of bombardment against your units after your first turn attacking.

 

[Victoria]

This is absolutely wrong.

Are you are talking extreme where you have 6 knights and weaker walls so you can take it all down regardless of whether they were there or not

Or are you saying they do not cancel each other out?

 

[Uberfrog]

I like them, but like others have said in this thread, I find them very vulnerable once the Medieval rolls around, particularly to the city/encampment ranged attacks. I wonder if there's merit in bringing back a Trebuchet as a slightly tougher medieval siege artillery unit between the Catapult and the Bombard to improve survivability.

 

[DrCron]

Or are you saying they do not cancel each other out?

I know for certain they don't cancel each other out, I've tested this multiple times. Bringing both a battering ram AND a siege tower will make your attack more effective.

 

[Arent11]

I know for certain they don't cancel each other out, I've tested this multiple times. Bringing both a battering ram AND a siege tower will make your attack more effective.

The civilization wikia sometimes does state wrong stuff. However, that is relatively rare. I would want to make this absolutely sure, before I write a comment to them that this passage is wrong:

http://civilization.wikia.com/wiki/Siege_Tower_(Civ6)

"The Siege Tower is the opposite of the Battering Ram in the sense that units will do major damage to the city and and minor damage to the wall (while the ram allows major damage to the wall instead). Note that these two support units do not increase damage at all - they merely redirect it. Having one of the two units will FOCUS damage on either city or wall. Having both these support units will SPLIT the damage into both the wall and the city, which would be worse than having only one."

 

[Victoria]

Ok I will test.
If the wikis is correct like I suspect taking either has the same affect, taking both spreads the damage
It's just if you take enough troops and the walls are weak enough it may seem like both help.

 

[Victoria]

And the winner is ... Dr Cron

Here is the test start

After 1 attack

After 2 attacks

Result after 2 attacks with a Ram

Result after 2 attacks with a tower

This test takes 5 minutes in firetuner so if you wanted another test of some type its not too hard
NOTE: Before you read too much into this test... fortification health is 50, garrison health is 200 so the seige tower looks like it is doing less than the ram but is not
EDIT: Better results on next page