Influx of New Info

[MadDjinn]

I quoted the text exactly as you did. When I commented in my own words that it was "melee-ranged," I did not mean to imply that it had a ranged attack, but rather that it attacks at point-blank-range, in other words, at melee range.

yeah, but others have taken it to be otherwise - as seen a few posts up.

it's not a comment on what you wrote, but how others interpreted it

 

[TheMarshmallowBear]

So what's the current opinion on Battering Ram?

Wouldn't it make sense historically to say it's a melee unit? You don't range-attack with Battering Rams, you Batter the gates/walls with it?

 

[Raiki]

So what's the current opinion on Battering Ram?

Wouldn't it make sense historically to say it's a melee unit? You don't range-attack with Battering Rams, you Batter the gates/walls with it?

I don't think the argument is so much whether or not it's a melee unit, but rather whether or not it is a melee infantry unit, or melee seige unit. (Which, according to some, can not take cities...though being melee either way, I certainly don't understand why it shouldn't.)


~R~

 

[Uberfrog]

I think the rationale behind the Battering Ram is to give the Huns an early (i.e. pre-catapult) advantage in taking cities.

It strikes me as counter-intuitive, therefore, that they would give the Huns a unit that is strong against cities, but can't actually take them. It would be a bit of an over-complication.

 

[janboruta]

It may be complicated, yes, especially when Spearmen are usually basic early military beside Warriors and if the Battering Ram can't take cities, then it is a bit restricting and forcing you to beeline Iron Working, which is more expensive in GaK. Unless you want to bring weak Warriors with you to capture the city after the Ram battered down the gates.

I think that, in the end, Battering Ram will have the same effect as "melee" naval ships - it will be able to take cities, since it has a melee, not ranged attack. This might overrule it's "Siege" class. The other possibility is that the term "siege" wasn't used as a designation of unit class, but it was just an abstract term emphasising that it isn't an ordinary infantry unit.

 

[Louis XXIV]

I go with the latter. Siege is just a description to tell people that the unit is supposed to take cities.

 

[AriochIV]

A unit's type also sometimes determines whether special abilities work against it (such as bonus vs. Mounted or Armored), so it's more than just nomenclature... but there's nothing to prevent a Siege unit from having a melee attack, or a Melee unit from having a bonus against cities.

 

[Ajuga]

I agree on that, there is no rule that siege units can not take cities, it's just that ranged units can not take cities.
So a melee siege unit can exist perfectly fine.

Of course as siege units they are vulnerable to infantry, having a melee unit stationed in the city might help against battering rams.

 

[fat_tonle]

Horse archer ain't melee either... what else would the Huns possibly use to take cities? If you go horseback riding your Iron is delayed, assuming you even have iron.

Battering Rams should be terrible against melee units and great against cities. So so against other ranged units to make it harder to snipe before reaching its intended target.

 

[Eagle Pursuit]

We don't know for sure that the Huns' Horse Archers replace Horsemen, do we? The damage seems quite low at 6/8. The vanilla chariot is 4/6 and damage values have been trending up for what we've seen in G&K.

 

[AriochIV]

We don't know for sure that the Huns' Horse Archers replace Horsemen, do we? The damage seems quite low at 6/8. The vanilla chariot is 4/6 and damage values have been trending up for what we've seen in G&K.

We don't yet know which unit the Horse Archers replace.

 

[fat_tonle]

Horse archer battering ram would be a sick combo. Pick of all melee and get a surround with rams. I don't know what would counter it, other than a German landsknecht or straight up iron working units which would obviously take a while to pump out. If they had melee horseman as well it would be way too imbalanced. Huns would have way too much mobility and amazing city attacks with an early siege weapon.

 

[AriochIV]

There are essentially two options: either the Horse Archer replaces the Chariot Archer, or it replaces the Horseman. If the former, than the Huns have both Horse Archer and Horseman; if the latter, the Huns have two mounted ranged units, which doesn't make much sense. Especially since I don't think there's any record of the Huns having chariots.

Add to this the facts that the Battering Ram is at Bronze Working, and the Huns start with Animal Husbandry, both of which are to allow the Huns to attack very early, and I think it's a pretty strong guess that the Horse Archer replaces the Chariot Archer.

 

[fuzzatron717]

Zurich is a new city-state as mercantile, and so is Hong Kong.
Links:
Zurich:http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=461820 Mt. Kailesh image far right.
Hong Kong:http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pOKHm0nslHI Exactly 13:53 on the espinoge srceen.

 

[Louis XXIV]

Are you saying Hong Kong is mercantile or just that it exists?

 

[Pouakai]

Mercantile

 

[AriochIV]

I've seen Hong Kong in the Destructoid video, but no evidence that it's Mercantile.

That would be the logical conclusion, but I haven't seen confirmation.

 

[Pouakai]

I did see a screenshot somewhere I think, let me try and dig it up

EDIT: My mistake. It was this website, and this image:

Instead of Hong Kong, it's Singapore that's now mercantile.

 

[Louis XXIV]

Well, that makes sense (although I'm starting to think Lisbon is Maritime).

 

[fuzzatron717]

I did see a screenshot somewhere I think, let me try and dig it up

EDIT: My mistake. It was this website, and this image:

Instead of Hong Kong, it's Singapore that's now mercantile.

and genoa as well which is at the top.