Is Artillery Too Strong?

[Marshall Thomas]

Lately I've been wondering if artillery is overpowered. It's certainly been the key unit for military success for me in all my emperor games.

The fact that it can fire further than cannons and over terrain is certainly realistic. By WWI, modern artillery was devastating and amounted for more casualties than any other weapon during the 20th century. So I believe that it's great range in CiV is fitting.

In Civ 4, aircraft could only damage enemy units to 50% of their original hit points. I wonder if something like this would be good for Civ 5 artillery. I remember when Civ 4 was released, some players complaining that this limitation for aircraft was unrealistic because it meant that the attack on Pearl Harbor could have never happened the way it did (no ships would have been sunk; rather the fleet would all have 50% of their hit points and would have to heal). So some players modded the limitation out. I wonder if that type of limitation could be modded in for Civ 5 artillery.

It would make some historical sense because the roll of artillery was often to "soften up" targets prior to a ground attack. But often in The First World War artillery failed to kill as much of the enemy as the generals expected. That's why there were so many casualties at The Somme. Although, as I wrote above, artillery was still the most lethal weapon of the war.

One thing I just noticed in my current game is that, in my opinion, artillery is too effective against ships. I'm playing on a Europe map script and I'm located at the northern center of the "Mediterranean." I have a large army with lots of artillery, but almost no navy at all. Rome, who just declared war on me, has a large, modern navy; but weaker army than me. I thought Rome's naval supremacy would be a problem for me in this war, but I was mistaken: in addition to being devastating on land, my artillery defeated the Roman Ironclads and Destroyers at sea. Artillery shouldn't be able to compensate so well for lacking a competitive navy.

What do you think about artillery in CiV? Thanks in advance

 

[Gucumatz]

Yes it is still too strong. It is too effective against ships and too effective against units still. Spamming artillery in a multiplayer game is more effective than spamming gatling guns for example. The range, indirect fire, and still powerful strength allows you to hold powerful front lines.

There are a few late game units that should be balanced more from a game perspective.

Artillery needs a little bit more balance to be a little less effective on units.

Nukes still need a defense (Give fighters a greater role! Allow them to be able to shoot the bombers nukes are on down)

 

[DarkMaster]

is artillery too awesome?

ftfy.


edit: Why is my text being converted to lowercase?

 

[GenjiKhan]

In Civ 4, aircraft could only damage enemy units to 50% of their original hit points. I wonder if something like this would be good for Civ 5 artillery. I remember when Civ 4 was released, some players complaining that this limitation for aircraft was unrealistic because it meant that the attack on Pearl Harbor could have never happened the way it did (no ships would have been sunk; rather the fleet would all have 50% of their hit points and would have to heal). So some players modded the limitation out. I wonder if that type of limitation could be modded in for Civ 5 artillery.

I think that something similar to this limitation should be applied to all ranged attacks,except the ranged attack of cities .

 

[GrayingGamer]

IMHO all ranged attacks (siege + other) need a basic nerf: 2/3 damage when hitting 2 hexes away, 1/3 damage when hitting 3 hexes away.

All siege weapons need an additional nerf: Reduced, scaling damage as unit is damaged (in other words, full damage against a 100% target, 50% damage against a target with 50% health, etc). Numbers could obviously be tweaked, but you get the idea.

 

[smallfish]

Artillery needs a little bit more balance to be a little less effective on units.

Its been nerfed pretty bad dude. They can't even one shot units anymore its that bad.

The point of artillery was to hold and smash lines, that's why in WW1 and WW2 you never really saw a situation where the enemy could overrun artillery-heavy positions (ie. Bastogne), and in this regard they have been balanced well.

 

[MaximusK]

No.

Case in point, I am fighting a game-long war against Sweden. 4 hits from artillery don't kill a Carolean! I have to finish it off with a shot from a conquered city. If you don't take military tradition it takes forever to upgrade them.

Granted, if you have artillery with logistics + range your set. But that takes time/focus and usually military tradition.

IMO, if you focus on preparing units for a particular strat (ie. military trad. or nuturing siege units up through the tech tree) they should be powerful.

 

[smallfish]

Its pretty bad when even a single Logistics artillery can't whack out a Rifleman.

 

[MaximusK]

Yes it is still too strong. It is too effective against ships and too effective against units still. Spamming artillery in a multiplayer game is more effective than spamming gatling guns for example. The range, indirect fire, and still powerful strength allows you to hold powerful front lines.

If your opponent is going with artillery go for GWBombers and take em out like nothing.

 

[Rathelon]

Lately I've been wondering if artillery is overpowered. It's certainly been the key unit for military success for me in all my emperor games.

The fact that it can fire further than cannons and over terrain is certainly realistic. By WWI, modern artillery was devastating and amounted for more casualties than any other weapon during the 20th century.

I think you answered your own question there.

 

[Prophet Skeram]

IMHO all ranged attacks (siege + other) need a basic nerf: 2/3 damage when hitting 2 hexes away, 1/3 damage when hitting 3 hexes away.

All siege weapons need an additional nerf: Reduced, scaling damage as unit is damaged (in other words, full damage against a 100% target, 50% damage against a target with 50% health, etc). Numbers could obviously be tweaked, but you get the idea.

That would make domination an even worse, more painful victory than it already is.

Let's face it: Early warmongering hits you like a truck with negative happiness and subsequently negative gold.

Late warmongering requires strong lategame units (including ranged ones) and/or dedicated capitol sniping and some luck.

Without great lategame ranged units, like artilleries, it would be an absolute desaster to even think about taking the often enormous 30+ cities.

You could make melee units stronger vs. cities to compensate (or stronger in general), but that might make them too powerful in the early stages, especially against cities . . .

 

[BobDole]

Artillery was overpowered in regular Civ V, but now that all siege units have been toned down versus units, artillery feels fairly balanced. It's still a game-changing unit, but that's fine.

 

[Flaviusx]

It is still very strong. But you'll need melee to finish units off. Artillery no longer one or two shots units (except naval units), but it certainly can knock them down to the yellow and put them in a place where one or two melee attacks will kill the unit.

Against cities it is every bit as overpowered as before. 4-5 artillery will reduce most cities to 1 HP and then you just need a single melee unit (any will do) to take it.

I'm okay with how strong it is against naval units, btw. Traditionally coastal guns had the edge on ships.

 

[Hyper Nova]

I think the issue more is with the jump form Cannons to Artillery being too large and that Artillery last for 2 full eras from Industrial through modern to Atomic until you get Rocket Artillery at Rocketry (which bizarrely rocketry doesn't the need entire bottom line of techs from Chemistry onward how can you build rockets and not know how chemistry or a cannon works?).

Cannons to Artillery is a big jump because your going from a 2 range to unit with higher range strength (which is expected and fine) but on top of that its now 3 range AND with Indirect fire, thats a triple upgrade.
Then When you do get them they have to last 2 full eras.

This is what I would do...

Nerf the current Artillery to only be a range 2 unit while keeping its strength the same and keep its indirect fire. This would then make it still a significant upgrade over the cannon and still be in keeping with its ability to fire over obstacles but not such a huge leap in power.
Then at Combustion add some sort of Modern/Motorised Artillery, That has about a Range Strength of about 35-40 and now has both 3 Range and Indirect fire and be a nice halfway point between Artillery and Rocket Artillery.

 

[smallfish]

Nerf the current Artillery to only be a range 2 unit while keeping its strength the same and keep its indirect fire. This would then make it still a significant upgrade over the cannon and still be in keeping with its ability to fire over obstacles but not such a huge leap in power.
Then at Combustion add some sort of Modern/Motorised Artillery, That has about a Range Strength of about 35-40 and now has both 3 Range and Indirect fire and be a nice halfway point between Artillery and Rocket Artillery.

That would make them more useless than it currently is. Like, exposing them to city fire useless.

Artillery is meant to be kept way out of harm's way, and they are fine as currently.

 

[Naresh]

It's the artillery range that makes people feel it's "overpowered" because cities cannot hit them back.

I'm not advocating this point as taking cities is a struggle as it is.

I use artillery for holding lines, bombers for taking cities.

 

[MasterMishi]

Arty is not too strong imo

I was about to start a rant thread on how annoyingly weak they are vs units now until i saw this.

I play mp only, arty used to be an instant win if you got there earlier than your enemy not the case now.

It took me 6 arty hits to kill an infantry, no more wall of scouts and arty behind.

I hit an unfortified rifle on a marsh x2 with arty then attacked with a cavalry and it survived! WTH!

Vs good mp players arty will be countered with double move lancers.

If you have decent hammers, wit hthe new combat system, yo ucan spam a cheap unit and just park it in fronmt the city to prevent the melee unit taking the city, counter and pick of the arty with lancers/ cavs. cannons hitting their melee. Even with arty the attacker will take significant losses in takign the city, no more steamroll the entire civ.

 

[Lyoncet]

I think for the sake of realism and gameplay, either making their damage taper off as their target takes damage, or doing the Civ IV system of "max collateral" damage would make sense for siege units and possibly also the archer line (probably not Gatlings and MGs though). That would make loading up on tons of arty with a couple units to twiddle their thumbs in front of them a less appealing tactic while still keeping artillery units as very important pieces on the battlefield.

Although the first solution could get difficult programming-wise, since you'd either have situations where artillery would do weird things like bringing one unit from 100 HP to 25 HP while bringing another identical unit from 50 HP to 35 HP (makes no sense) or have some way to have it deal its damage in the Civ IV way of multiple combat rounds to make its damage scale down as it wears down its target - and it would have to do that all within the process of one attack.

I did a horrible job of explaining that. Can't think well when it's 107°.

 

[Naresh]

Arty is not too strong imo

I was about to start a rant thread on how annoyingly weak they are vs units now until i saw this.

I play mp only, arty used to be an instant win if you got there earlier than your enemy not the case now.

It took me 6 arty hits to kill an infantry, no more wall of scouts and arty behind.

I hit an unfortified rifle on a marsh x2 with arty then attacked with a cavalry and it survived! WTH!

Vs good mp players arty will be countered with double move lancers.

If you have decent hammers, wit hthe new combat system, yo ucan spam a cheap unit and just park it in fronmt the city to prevent the melee unit taking the city, counter and pick of the arty with lancers/ cavs. cannons hitting their melee. Even with arty the attacker will take significant losses in takign the city, no more steamroll the entire civ.

There are obviously some hidden modifiers or exaggeration going on there...
Great general? Discipline and a unit next to it? Ethiopia with a smaller empire?

Melee units are now very durable in defensive terrain, though I don't think Marsh gives any bonuses (other than from the open terrain promotion)

EDIT: civ is still subject to the RNG too remember, maybe you just got some unlucky rolls.

 

[Marshall Thomas]

I think that artillery should keep it's range and indirect fire, but should be weaker against ships (maybe less range against ships too). and maybe only be able to reduce targets to 33% or something would be realistic.

Cannon to artillery is a huge jump (as it was historically). When one thinks about cannons, Frederick the Great and Napoleonic battlefield tactics come to mind. On the other hand, when you think about WW1 artillery, you think about the strategic shelling which comes just before the infantry goes "over the top" to attack the bombarded enemy trench. The Industrial Era artillery isn't on the battlefield like Napoleonic cannons. The uses are completely different.

Artillery was useful against far-off entrenched targets. Cannons were shot at infantry marching in formation, not entrenched. In Civ 5 terms, I guess this means that artilerry is more for attacking cities or fortified units; while cannons should be effective at attacking infantry, calvary or other cannons.