Is Artillery Too Strong?

[StormEye]

I am not sure about reducing the damage against melee units.

Artillery in fortified positions have surrounding areas zero'd out, so when enemy approaches, they will be blasted with pinpoint accuracy. It is very unlikely any survivors would walk out from such barrages. Its only when people are hiding in bunkers, trenches, or some sort of fortification, that they are able to avoid being totally being shredded.

 

[Fish Man]

Pardon me if I necroe'd but...

Heck no. Artillery is fine as is in G+K. ANY unit of the modern era can steamroll over it; GW infantry and GW bombers kill it in two shots; everything else above one-shots it, including battleships, infantry, machine guns, tanks...

Also, it's pretty much useless against units from the modern era onward. Without promotions, an artillery does 12 damage against a GW infantry and 10 against an infantry. To kill an artillery, a GW infantry takes 25 damage, and an infantry 15. That's barely a scratch. And remember, artillery have a of 21. That's AS weak as a longswordsman. Even 4 crossbows could outright destroy an artillery.

 

[Irkalla]

Whoa whoa no black magic. Only regular magic is allowed here.

 

[Alzadar]

Pardon me if I necroe'd but...

Heck no. Artillery is fine as is in G+K. ANY unit of the modern era can steamroll over it; GW infantry and GW bombers kill it in two shots; everything else above one-shots it, including battleships, infantry, machine guns, tanks...

Also, it's pretty much useless against units from the modern era onward. Without promotions, an artillery does 12 damage against a GW infantry and 10 against an infantry. To kill an artillery, a GW infantry takes 25 damage, and an infantry 15. That's barely a scratch. And remember, artillery have a of 21. That's AS weak as a longswordsman. Even 4 crossbows could outright destroy an artillery.

None of those units should be allowed to reach your artillery. The only real threat to Artillery for around 100 turns after Dynamite is enemy bombers when you don't have supporting interceptors. Yes, Infantry will take out Artillery in a single hit. But Infantry have only 2 movement and Artillery have 3 range... If you have vision and are careful, they should never get you. Their strength is wearing down huge 60+ defense cities without taking any damage, not in their anti-personnel (although until GW Infantry they do fine).

Although it does happen, just today I lost a Logistics Artillery with +1 range to an unexpected Infantry attack.

 

[Socratatus]

I think artillery is pretty good. they do the kind of damage I`d expect if you get a few of them together. I`d even say some of the more modern ones should have an extra hex`s worth range as long as they have someone friendly able to see the target.

Artillery should be weak in melee.

 

[thegingerninja]

I think that the artillery are fine, and I wouldn't change them.
I hated the 50% rule with planes in Civ IV, devaluated them so badly especially against SoDs

Not attacking anyone...

 

[Irkalla]

None of those units should be allowed to reach your artillery. The only real threat to Artillery for around 100 turns after Dynamite is enemy bombers when you don't have supporting interceptors. Yes, Infantry will take out Artillery in a single hit. But Infantry have only 2 movement and Artillery have 3 range... If you have vision and are careful, they should never get you. Their strength is wearing down huge 60+ defense cities without taking any damage, not in their anti-personnel (although until GW Infantry they do fine).

Although it does happen, just today I lost a Logistics Artillery with +1 range to an unexpected Infantry attack.

How in the hell'd you manage that?

 

[IBYCFOTA]

I wouldn't mind seeing some changes to Artillery, at least in SP. Currently it's a bit too easy to take down a fellow Civ with basic use of artillery because they don't do a very good job of defending. In many cases you can simply place artillery 3 tiles away from a city and wittle it down while the AI does nothing but sit and watch the fireworks show, even with units nearby. Granted, it's difficult to program good AI in any game, but it really gets exposed when Artillery come out and that's why many consider it OP. Can't speak for multiplayer, but I would think it's still somewhat OP in it's current state. An extra tile range is just a massive advantage that is difficult to counter at a point in the game where you don't have bombers or artillery yourself.

I think a few small tweaks would keep Artillery as a very useful unit while not making it a complete game changer that is nearly impossible to defend against. For one, I think they should be range limited by terrain similar to how archers are, whilst taking into account their increased range. For example, if Artillery were surrounded by forest they'd have their range reduced to two for that turn. They would not be able to shoot over a hill and a forest. In the first example, they would still have a range of 3 if they were on a hill, and in the second example they would have a range of two.

It's a subtle but important balance change that forces people to take into account terrain to use them effectively instead of allowing players to spam them without having to think.

Another possibility would be to keep their range the same but implement damage modifiers for targets 3 tiles away. They would dish out somewhere between 50-75% of a normal attack for an opponent 3 tiles away. Good for balance purposes and it's also logical to think that Artillery are less effective at their maximum intended range.

Just spitballing here but I think a few tweaks to Artillery would be better for the game. It would keep Artillery as the game changers they are while forcing players to use them wisely to be effective, and making it a little more difficult to exploit the AI.