Cats ftw

[bardolph]

Hmm... sounds like "cats for the win" was even more problematic in civ 3.

 

[Ecofarm]

What I meant by catapults defending against archers first is NOT when the cats attack (not attack archers first). Only when an archer attacks. If somone were to attack with all the archers in their city, to hurt the cats (not kill them.... cats are 5s currently and archers are 3s). well, they would damage all the cats, their archers would be dead or at 1 point, and the archers would not be fortified. A supporting cast of swords/axes would instantly take the city. If cats were 2s, then your right. The plan is not perfect. But again, a city full of unfortified/damaged archers is juicy.

With regard to horses moving 2 and being able to hit the cats first? Well, at home with roads, the cats move 2 also. As far as hitting cats with horses as defense? It's a good strategy for sure, but limited if the cats have spears and stay in woods/on hills.

 

[fed1943]

If attacking cats belong to a stack, counterattack them with cats (before they

bombard,if possible).

Best regards,

 

[pigswill]

Facing a stack of cats and spears send in a couple of cats to weaken the spears (they get all the collateral damage) then go in with HA.

 

[bardolph]

With regard to horses moving 2 and being able to hit the cats first? Well, at home with roads, the cats move 2 also.

If the cats are "at home with roads," then they aren't taking your cities. Situation handled.

As far as hitting cats with horses as defense? It's a good strategy for sure, but limited if the cats have spears and stay in woods/on hills.

If the cats need spears to survive, then it isn't an "all-cat army," and if the attacking stack needs to limit their movement to high-defense tiles, then you've already slowed down their attack. And what happens when that stack has to leave the forest in order to get into range of your city? It suddenly becomes vulnerable.

I've found the best counter to a big stack of offensive catapults is having a mixed-unit stack of your own. Your superior mobility (due to roads) will guarantee the first strike against the cats.

I've found the best counter to a big stack of defensive cats is to "swarm and pillage" with stacks of 2 (Axe+HA is a nice combo). Collateral damage isn't nearly as obnoxious against mini-stacks, and the losses in this scenario tend to even out between attacker and defender, since the defender has to spread out its stack of doom in order to handle your pillagers. Plus, you get the nice bonus of plunder-cash.

 

[Blue_Lines]

I think that they should make the whole combat system different. As it is the only way to take a moderately well defended city without overwhelming numbers (2:1) is with catapults. Take this scenario: you attack with a force of 2 axes 2 spearman 2 swords and 2 Horse Archers. If he is defending in a city with walls with 2 axes, 2 archers and 2 spears your whole army will get crushed (that would be very close to 2:1 in hammers). If it has gotten to the point of crossbows then it is even tougher because the axeman become near-useless. They should somehow make it so that when a stack attacks another stack the whole armies fight against each other (somehow giving the person with the more well balanced army advantages) instead of the attacker vs. best defender, one-on-one mechanic that is currently in place. This would lead to much more realistic battles and a much better war game. As it is now, catapults generally make up the vast majority of an army, especially in MP where the armies are much larger.

 

[Idlenessss]

But I think peopel overbuild cats. Its because they easily handle a margin of error in calculation and statistics. But mathematically speaking the cost of the extra 5 catapults probably outweights the smaller margin of error. Makes perfect sense to me, that taking a city should require a catapult or two. But hurting the enemy does not REQUIRE taking a city...
IMHO, Big Stack of Death belies a rather naive concept of strategy on the 1st place. FAR more powerful to have 1 unit on every square than 500 units on 1 square.

 

[Cheeze]

I agree that they SHOULD take collateral, but they don't need to be nerfed more than that. This IS the first major siege weapon in history, it makes sense that it's pretty powerful.

 

[InvisibleStalke]

I agree that they SHOULD take collateral, but they don't need to be nerfed more than that. This IS the first major siege weapon in history, it makes sense that it's pretty powerful.

You can't use the history argument - cats in history WEREN'T that powerful. Just reducing walls represents their historical impact (and probably exaggerates it) - they weren't awesome battlefield weapons at all. In fact they weren't battlefield weapons period - because they could never keep up with an army. They were only used as seige weapons.

They are in the game simply because the designers couldn't think of a better way to solve the stack of doom problem. Unfortunately they mainly create larger stacks of doom as the best defense vs cats - which in turn forces you to build mainly cats to counter the larger stacks of doom.

I still like removing collateral damage capability altogether from cats. They would still get built to reduce walls and maybe for defensive combat, but I just can't see them as attackers.

Cannon are different - they were battlefield weapons, and by that stage of the game large stacks are the norm and a real problem. I still don't like the collateral damage though - it doesn't make sense to me that cannon excel primarily as an attacking weapon for assaulting a big army in a defensive position and are useless in defending that big army. I'd prefer that they were stronger in defense.

I'd like to see seige weapons used more in a defensive role - something like:
- When you attack a stack that contains a seige weapon, that stack gets a first strike from the best seige weapon before the best defender fights the attacker.
- Each such seige weapon can only get one first strike per turn. So your next attacker gets hit by your next best seige weapon.
- A seige weapon that has not moved can launch a first strike attack against a neighbouring unit (bombardment). This action can be used instead of moving or bombarding. The attack hits a random defender and does not endanger the seige weapon.
- Seige weapons cannot attack. They have a combat value if attacked or to survive bombardment, but they are like explorers and scouts.

With that approach then the seige weapons would be more useful for defense because the defensive stack of seige weapons will get the first attack in as the attacker moves close. Rapid attacks by two move units protect against this. And you would get an effective zone of control where a seige weapon in a fortified position would get to bombard attackers going around it.

It doesn't stop large stacks from being useful - but why should it - the bigger army should have an advantage. But bombarding a large stack may open a weakness in their defense that can be exploited with the right counter unit.

 

[Ecofarm]

But I think peopel overbuild cats. Its because they easily handle a margin of error in calculation and statistics. But mathematically speaking the cost of the extra 5 catapults probably outweights the smaller margin of error. Makes perfect sense to me, that taking a city should require a catapult or two. But hurting the enemy does not REQUIRE taking a city...
IMHO, Big Stack of Death belies a rather naive concept of strategy on the 1st place. FAR more powerful to have 1 unit on every square than 500 units on 1 square.

If you put 1 unit on each tile, my SOD will take every one of your cities - very quickly. Period.

 

[bardolph]

Strategy aside, victory usually goes to the civ with a higher production capacity, larger army, and better technology.

In the ancient era, that means more axemen
In the classical era, swordsmen
In the medieval era, catapults
In the renaissance era, trebuchet
In the industrial era, cannon
In the modern era, tanks and air (with modern armor at the end of the modern era).

Every era has a primary city-busting unit (starting with catapults, these are also stack-busting units). Likewise, every era has a primary city-garrison unit, pillaging unit, transport unit, and counter units. Since city-busting is usually the highest priority in a war, armies are usually built out of the primary city-busting unit.

I don't really think that's broken. Civ 4 is designed as an economy-vs-economy game, where the stronger economy usually wins. If you can't gain a clear superiority with your SoD, then you can launch a spoiling campaign with a good pillaging unit, and try to gain an economic edge that way. Again, every era has a good pillaging unit.

Civ 4 is not really designed as a tactical battlefield game. And really, it shouldn't be. In a game where a single turn can be 40 years in length, how much tactical maneuvering can you really expect?

 

[Ecofarm]

My economy runs like the blood of my victims. A decent size civ pays more than a GM, and I might even keep a couple cities.

I play it as a tactical battlefield game sometimes, and if my target doesn't - then thanks for the economy (I heard I needed one of those somewhere)...

One of the great things about civ4 is that there are so many ways to enjoy it.

 

[johnny_rico]

They are in the game simply because the designers couldn't think of a better way to solve the stack of doom problem. Unfortunately they mainly create larger stacks of doom as the best defense vs cats - which in turn forces you to build mainly cats to counter the larger stacks of doom.

These are interesting points and I hadn't thought much about it. Maybe cost per unit outside of your own cultural borders should increase with larger sized stacks. This is something I thought of reading through the thread but certainly haven't played out any details of it in my head (or if the idea makes any sense at all, just throwing it out there).

 

[Yakk]

Take this scenario: you attack with a force of 2 axes 2 spearman 2 swords and 2 Horse Archers. If he is defending in a city with walls with 2 axes, 2 archers and 2 spears your whole army will get crushed (that would be very close to 2:1 in hammers).

First, defenders cannot concentrate like attackers can. With a bit of pillaging, you can reduce defender's ability to shuffle troops around, then attack their weakest link.

You attack the weakest link not using a mixed strategy, but rather a concentrate-and-overwealm strategy. Don't bring 2 of each unit -- bring enough of each unit to make the enemy attacking your stack expensive, then bring along a hammer. That hammer is a large concentration of one type of unit.

This "overloads" the defensive unit specialized against it, and allows your unit to fight against the other defending units without them having huge bonuses.

 

[axident]

First, defenders cannot concentrate like attackers can. With a bit of pillaging, you can reduce defender's ability to shuffle troops around, then attack their weakest link.

You attack the weakest link not using a mixed strategy, but rather a concentrate-and-overwealm strategy. Don't bring 2 of each unit -- bring enough of each unit to make the enemy attacking your stack expensive, then bring along a hammer. That hammer is a large concentration of one type of unit.

This "overloads" the defensive unit specialized against it, and allows your unit to fight against the other defending units without them having huge bonuses.

I agree, but why not use siege engines as your hammer if you can and get the best bang for your buck? Can't ever have too much collateral damage on your side. I was in a game once where I had no oil, so I couldn't use bombers, tanks, etc. and brought down the hammer with artillery instead. I had so much artillery in one place that I shrugged off the enemy bombers/artillery/fighters/tanks etc. that attempted to kill my SoD.

 

[bardolph]

Swordsmen + MechInf FTW!

 

[Jerrymander]

Nice stack of doom, axi.

I've not yet played online, so I haven't seriously encountered this problem. Looks interesting, though.
Is Construction that early on the tech tree?

Edit: Priesthood, Pottery, or AnimalH lead to Writing, which leads to Mathematics. That and Masonry gives you Construction.
Depends on your starting technologies, but the best bets would be Mining OR Mysticism and Agriculture OR Hunting.

Which (With Mysticism and Agriculture) Is
AH - 100 Base Beakers
Masonry - 80 BB
Writing - 120 BB
Mathematics - 250 BB
Construction - 350 BB
= 900 Base Beakers

(~950 without one, ~1000 without both. Someone getting catapults 5/10 turns early is very viable)

Edit2: Mysticism is probably the best choice, as you can go Meditation -> Priesthood -> Monarchy -> Feudalism as well. (After Writing) After Feudalism is Civil Service. :0