Fast Units vs Artillery

[Licentia]

Which do you prefer, Fast Units or Artillery?

Would you rather have 15 Cavalry attacking a city or 10 Trebuchets, 3 Longbowman and 2 Musketmen?

I personally love the option of selecting a group of Cavalry to attack as a group, and then just relax while the battle rages, one after one my Cavalry attacking. I find it too much a pain to select each Artillery one by one to attack, though your attack would probably cause less casualties on your side.

Opinions?

 

[Spoonwood]

This somewhat depends on the units involved and what I want to do. For tanks where I don't need/want an MGL, I don't see a need for much artillery. If I want an MGL, I'll take the artillery any day. In general, I'd say artillery before motorized transportation, and then fast units from then on out... but it all depends.

 

[The Professor]

I didn't vote in the poll because my answer is C) BOTH. Especially when you get to Cavalry and Artillery...the combination can be fast and deadly, because the Artillery can bombard from a two-tile radius, so you can frequently use your own rail network to get the Artillery in range, and then have the Cavalry swoop in for the kill.

Earlier in the game, I frequently feel that Catapults/trebuchets don't hit sufficiently often to make it worthwhile to have the horses/knights wait up for them. But if I'm missing a resource, and have to go attack for it, artillery can make up for not having the best units available.

 

[Othniel]

Low - Moderate Difficulty Level: I want fast units because the AI will offer little resistance and artillery will just slow the advance

Exception: If its a very jungly map or a high-water % archipelago. In those two specific cases, stacks of artillery and slow foot-sloggers like swords can be equal or better than fast movers. Still, fast movers can retreat and thus live longer, making it still a tough call.

High Difficultly Level: More emphasis on artillery, depending on where I am at tech-wise in comparison to the enemy, and depending on the resource distribution. If I'm the only one who has Iron and I'm reasonably close to tech parity, I'll use fast movers (provided I have horses) because I won't be facing Pikes. On the other hand, if I'm rapidly falling behind in techs, I'll build a giant SoD of artillery (even catapults work well) and slow-moving attack units, covered by a few Spears/Pikes. I've conquered whole maps of Deity opponents with artillery and MDI armies even when the AI has Rifles or worse.

Oh, and I'd want a higher percentage of attack units than 10 trebs to just 3 longbows.

 

[Taras Bulba]

I like fast units... but sadly, like Othniel said, because I play on low difficulty levels

 

[Othniel]

I like fast units... but sadly, like Othniel said, because I play on low difficulty levels

Not necessarily sad. It just means fast units are more efficient on those levels.

 

[Taras Bulba]

Not necessarily sad. It just means fast units are more efficient on those levels.

well... I was just referring to the fact that it just shows that I'm still on those levels

as much as I'd like to be able to beat a Sid game, I'm lucky if I can beat a Monarch game (so far highest I've won is regent)

 

[NickyH]

Artillery becomes more important if you are in a government that has to deal with war weariness. Then you don't want to risk loosing your cavalry. It also depends on the strength of defenders in relation to your attackers, of course.

But as long as it doesn't hurt me too much to use cavalry or tanks only, I'll choose that. I love the speed and the fact that it requires slightly less planning.

 

[Ivan the Kulak]

It really depends on the era/situation.

In the middle ages, there is nothing like going out and conquering with a stack of Knights, with Pikemen following leisurely along to defend captured towns.

In industrial times, before tanks/bombers, you just can't top a big stack of Infantry/Artillery. These guys are slow but unbeatable. Cavalry can be used to provide quick counterstrikes against enemies in the open and make for a good reserve force that can deal with AI incursions into your own lands. Cavalry against full health riflemen/infantry in enemy cities is just too expensive a way to wage war.

 

[capnvonbaron]

I have to agree with Othniel.

I seldom use "artillery" in the form of cats and cannons. Too slow and ineffective when my death-stacks of knights and longbow/pikes do great to tear up spears, swords, and pikes.

Now, once the enemy puts up 7 pop cities and starts spawning rifles, and I have proper rep.parts artillery, I can usually get a couple of death-stacks of arty/inf to the front lines on every turn, along with some cavs, with the help of combat workers and rails over former enemy territory. Once tanks become available, I'll still use arty where I can so I can keep healthy tanks for the push on the next turn. I've been known to make it three cities deep into a strong enemy territory using that method, depending on how much arty and tanks I have available. (In many cases, three cities deep is all the civ is worth!)

 

[ThePrussian]

Depends.

If the enemy is well-built I go with an attrition style of warfare. unfortunately attacking means my artillery is vulnerable after they have cleared their tubes as they can't move into the city.

Also on the terrain, slow terrain, might as well bring the big guns.

Later stages, I bring a handful of RAs and the rest is air-support.

Prepatory fire can mean the differene between taking a town without loss or not taking a town with your entire stack destroyed...

But once I get modern armor armies I forego artillery as merely a defensive fire instrument and go with aerial bombardment prior to the assault. But I always bring some RAs along, just in case, defended by Mech.Inf.

 

[Licentia]

Low - Moderate Difficulty Level: I want fast units because the AI will offer little resistance and artillery will just slow the advance

Exception: If its a very jungly map or a high-water % archipelago. In those two specific cases, stacks of artillery and slow foot-sloggers like swords can be equal or better than fast movers. Still, fast movers can retreat and thus live longer, making it still a tough call.

High Difficultly Level: More emphasis on artillery, depending on where I am at tech-wise in comparison to the enemy, and depending on the resource distribution. If I'm the only one who has Iron and I'm reasonably close to tech parity, I'll use fast movers (provided I have horses) because I won't be facing Pikes. On the other hand, if I'm rapidly falling behind in techs, I'll build a giant SoD of artillery (even catapults work well) and slow-moving attack units, covered by a few Spears/Pikes. I've conquered whole maps of Deity opponents with artillery and MDI armies even when the AI has Rifles or worse.

Oh, and I'd want a higher percentage of attack units than 10 trebs to just 3 longbows.

Those are some very excellent comments for people to read, and it's true! Fast units lose effectiveness against newer defensive technologies, especially Cavalry vs Infantry. But with Artillery, you could conquer the world with Guerillas or even MDIs!

 

[darski]

Too bad you didn't allow for a "both/and" option. I tend to use both tactics equally depending on the situation and what I can get to where.

I just had an early war situation with jungle tiles intervening that I could not clear or road due to enemy action. so I just rammed up the horseman production and managed to take out Hoplites with them As soon as the front moved and I could road, I brought my cats to support my swords. (all the battles leading up to this were about getting that iron. )

 

[Exwing17]

Pre-Motorised Transport, there is nothing that can compete with Infantry/Arty SoD. I play Emperor, and last night I had the BEST, and i mean BEST battle ever.

I had a stack of 30 Infantry, backed by 22 Artillery, and then out of the Indian's land pops a stack of 40 Inf, 12 cav and 10 artillery. I took position on a hill, and they skirted around me, stopped a turn and bombarded, whilst I bombarded them. After about 3-4 turns of this, and lots of casualties on both sides i had brought up another 20 artillery with 12 infantry guarding them into range. They moved too attack my weaker stack and put themselves in range of my hilled stack (1st Army). Double Artillery bombardment, followed by infantry attack left them all dead, and me with 10 shiney new guns. I had never seen anything like it, I think i'll stop playing Civ now!

But really, it totally depends on the era + difficulty. Remember that bombers are artillery tool, just a different evolution of warfare! I have a friend who never builds bombardment units until bombers, and generally he sucks at wars, and wonders why he cant beat Regent!

 

[Spoonwood]

True enough about bombers exwing17. But, there does exist some differences as I'm sure you well know. Bombers can get shot down, as well as having a wider range, as well as need a base of operations, etc.

 

[capnvonbaron]

Bombers can get shot down

Not when you're first to flight

Not saying I use them to any great extent, just being obnoxious. As it stands, if I can be first to flight, I'm also going to have already been first to replaceable parts AND motor transport, and therefor already will be stomping on their rifles/cavs with death-stacks of tanks and inf/arty. Bombers are an afterthought in that case, although I might have a few of them around for bombing units outside cities that my arty can't reach. For one, they are more likely to do damage that way, and two, don't neccesarily need to be re-based as the front advances to provide adequate hind-quarter defence. Third/foremost, they won't (usually) get shot down that way, thus negating war-weariness some and not require me to waste shields producing more.

EDIT: Because I know someone will jump on me for not clarifying, first to flight only grants immunity until the civ you are attacking gets there and is able to pop out some fighters. On regent, I'll have at least a good 15 turns of immunity, usually.

 

[Spoonwood]

It sounds like, as many people do I'd suspect, you play way below your ability level Capnvonbaron.

 

[psweetman1590]

In general, speed kills.

The sooner you can overwhelm your enemy, the less time they have to build units, or move already produced ones from one side of their country to the other.

Up until the age of the riflemen, there's really little reason to use artillery if you're on the attack, as I see it. Horsemen can take out spearmen, knights can take pikes (and maybe muskets if you're deperate), and cavalry will often destroy muskets. Only against riflemen does the fast unit of the era start to really falter, I find, and even then it's questionable whether it would be more efficient to bull through with numbers of attackers, or slow the advance for the artillery.

Obviously, this assumes tech parity. If you're behind, you've little choice but to use artillery and lots of it, and on the highest levels you WILL be behind.

Once you get to flight, anyways, you can have both at the same time. Airpower is much more tactically flexible than artillery (even if it is less efficient), and so you can run a blitzkrieg with some good planning and coordination. That said, if the cities are tightly spaced enough, you can do the same with artillery on rails, the obvious pitfall being that the AI doesn't build their cities closely enough to run a blitzkrieg this way. And then if you get robotics - yeah, how many of us play until that late into the game? - you get radar artillery which has two moves, giving you city bombardment that puts stealth bombers to shame.

 

[Sweetchuck]

I dig speed.

I still build artillery, but my first choice is mobile units.

 

[capnvonbaron]

It sounds like, as many people do I'd suspect, you play way below your ability level Capnvonbaron.

Without question

I'm really efficient at war due to lots of practice, but suck at/don't like/am too lazy for/seldom do city micro-management. So naturally my game suffers for that.

EDIT: Also I'm a very sore loser. Anything less than utter domination frustrates me