Did they nerf artillery?

[Sherlock]

Doesn't say so in the patch notes, but it sure seems like it.

Combat in general seems more tough.

I know battleships vs. cities got lowered. But enemy units sure seem to take a beating these days.

 

[JTWuest]

I thought so too but I forgot they were gaining life from pillaging my land. Also, the AI seems to do this much more frequently now.

 

[Browd]

Pillage-heal is useful (though far from OP), but watching barbs pillage-heal is a bit sobering. The one constant in this game had been that individual barbs got weaker with every battle. <sigh>

 

[Sherlock]

I thought so too but I forgot they were gaining life from pillaging my land. Also, the AI seems to do this much more frequently now.

I hit an Incan ww1 infantry with three artillery in Incan land (no pillaging) and he barely went to yellow.

That's one tough infantry.

 

[Civologist]

Artillery and siege in general are not supposed to be effective against melee units. They are effective against cities. Bowman and gunners are effective range units against melee units. I'm no war history buff but I'm pretty sure Artillery was used to demoralize ground units will to fight more so than actually killing soldiers in high quantity.

 

[Gucumatz]

I haven't gone to artillery yet post patch in any of my games so far - but pre patch I found bombers were much stronger than artillery either. Bomber rushes if played well could come into line very soon next to artillery and allow a lot of use.

If artillery really has been nerfed - gives aircraft even more power - Maybe more people will use them now

 

[Deaths Advocate]

I think it's the pillaging.

 

[Zilkin]

Artillery and siege in general are not supposed to be effective against melee units. They are effective against cities. Bowman and gunners are effective range units against melee units. I'm no war history buff but I'm pretty sure Artillery was used to demoralize ground units will to fight more so than actually killing soldiers in high quantity.

First of all I'm just gonna say that I don't think games should be balanced based on reality. However what you say is a bit wrong though, modern (as in WWI and after) artillery was the biggest single cause of battlefield casulties. Before that though it wasn't nearly as significant.

 

[mabalogna]

First of all I'm just gonna say that I don't think games should be balanced based on reality. However what you say is a bit wrong though, modern (as in WWI and after) artillery was the biggest single cause of battlefield casulties. Before that though it wasn't nearly as significant.

Thats also slightly inaccurate. WWI deaths came from disease, freezing, rats and other conditions brought on from being in a trench, and then there was the pointless raids when the men went over the top and were greated by machine guns

As for game balance - Artillery has always been a little to powerful, especially with indirect fire 3 tiles away, so having it become less effective in favour of Air power is welcoming.

 

[Socratatus]

First of all I'm just gonna say that I don't think games should be balanced based on reality. .

Silliest thing I ever heard. That makes a game really unintuitive. If you know something was better then it should be the same ingame, saves reading the manual and having to figure out the wierdness.

Anyway, I ended up swapping back to Longbow men when they were doing more damage than my cannons on troops.

 

[Furycrab]

They fixed the Cover promotion and I think Cover 2 is back in the game. That could easily be what you are seeing.

 

[Gamewizard]

I love Cover 2...fortify a unit in rough terrain with Cover 2 and watch it take single digit damage per attack. Attach a medic unit to him and he is immortal cannon fodder.

 

[whyidie]

I love Cover 2...fortify a unit in rough terrain with Cover 2 and watch it take single digit damage per attack. Attach a medic unit to him and he is immortal cannon fodder.

One of the things I overlooked in the patch notes. Makes a big difference, having cover 2 is evening the melee vs ranged odds nicely.

 

[Boris Gudenuf]

Yep, Cover is bringing the capital M back to Melee: just finished a game as Monty A, and cover-promoted Jaguars updated to Musketmen waltzed through a forest, up to a city and kicked the gates in. Took some damage, but didn't lose a unit, and the city had a crossbowman in residence! Love it.

 

[The Leviathan]

Artillery and siege in general are not supposed to be effective against melee units. They are effective against cities. Bowman and gunners are effective range units against melee units. I'm no war history buff but I'm pretty sure Artillery was used to demoralize ground units will to fight more so than actually killing soldiers in high quantity.

Artillery accounts for the vast majority of casualties in "Modern" warfare.

 

[Duke Maynard]

Right. In the Napoleonic wars roughly half the battlefield casualties were from artillery. In WW1, more than half, from artillery. In WW2, a whopping 70% of battlefield casualties from artillery.

Artillery is king of the battlefield and has been ever since the enlightenment.

 

[Socratatus]

Right. In the Napoleonic wars roughly half the battlefield casualties were from artillery. In WW1, more than half, from artillery. In WW2, a whopping 70% of battlefield casualties from artillery.

Artillery is king of the battlefield and has been ever since the enlightenment.

True. Unless you can get troops close at them. Fail to protect them and they`re weak as water.

 

[blackcatatonic]

Pillage-heal is useful (though far from OP), but watching barbs pillage-heal is a bit sobering. The one constant in this game had been that individual barbs got weaker with every battle. <sigh>

It's not too difficult to stop them from pillaging tiles if you keep units on them, although admittedly this only works early on when you don't have many tiles improved.

I find they can still be tempted by the 'Free' Worker honey trap.

 

[hobbsyoyo]

Artillery and siege in general are not supposed to be effective against melee units. They are effective against cities. Bowman and gunners are effective range units against melee units. I'm no war history buff but I'm pretty sure Artillery was used to demoralize ground units will to fight more so than actually killing soldiers in high quantity.

Yeah that's pretty much true of all pre-Cold War artillery. You used it to disrupt, demoralize and destroy fixed targets. It's hard to hit and kill moving soldiers and tanks and such.

With computerized, guided munitions available these days, this isn't always the case anymore.

But I haven't played since the patch so I don't know if artie was nerfed or not.

 

[Socratatus]

Only very early MEDIEVAL cannon was ineffective against troops generally (not in game) and effective against walls, but once you got to the 17th century onwards (ingame) it`s ability to kill troops escalated. You didn`t want to be a soldier facing artillery in the 17th\18th\19th 0r 20th centuries.

So to sum up, ingame arty should be effective against troops AND cities. They should be incredibly weak and slow if troops actually get into a melee battle with them. This arty weakness would make up for the Arty strength and be realistic. Even barabrians with swords should find it relatively easy to hurt\neutralise artillery if they get in contact.

The Civ devs have artillerry wrong. I don`t know who does their historical research.