Is there any Reason Why Mobile Artillery doesn’t have Long Range Capabilities?

[MosheLevi]

Does anyone know why Mobile Artillery units don’t have Long Range Capabilities?

Airplanes can bomb targets several tiles away so why can’t Mobile artillery do the same?

I think that mobile artillery should be able to bomb units 2 or 3 tiles away.

What do you guys think?

 

[exhile]

Does anyone know why Mobile Artillery units don’t have Long Range Capabilities?

Airplanes can bomb targets several tiles away so why can’t Mobile artillery do the same?

I think that mobile artillery should be able to bomb units 2 or 3 tiles away.

What do you guys think?

Mobile Artillery is good the way it currently is. If you are referring to the bombard ability back in Civ3, it was okay but I hated how a catapult was considered a bombard unit than a regular unit.

 

[Camikaze]

I think that siege weapons should be able to bombard, and that in the later game, there should be heavy artillery, that can bombard two squares away. I've elucidated this idea before, but to summarise, they should be attached to other units like Great Generals are, and that unit can bombard with them for a turn if they so please.

 

[exhile]

Is it realistic that a siege unit is able to bombard a stack of units that is two squares away but having a mountain in between them so that the stack can't touch the siege unit?

 

[Hail]

Does anyone know why Mobile Artillery units don’t have Long Range Capabilities?

Airplanes can bomb targets several tiles away so why can’t Mobile artillery do the same?

I think that mobile artillery should be able to bomb units 2 or 3 tiles away.

What do you guys think?

i think that the game dev(s) at firaxis thought that giving bombard capability to siege units would overpower them in the current set of parameters. and they did not bother to add new parameters to balance this issue.
i also think that siege, ranged, gunfire unit types should have bombard ability, but it must be balanced as not to overpower them. the most simple solution is to add an "accuracy" parameter to any unit able to bombard.

P.S. adding a "splash damage" coefficient would make such units as katusha and Panzerwerfer possible

 

[warpstorm]

IIRC, there was a HUUUUUGE exploit with stacks-o-doom full of bombard units in Civ3. You could easily go from city to city wiping them out in a single turn with no chance for taking any damage.

(Accuracy likely wouldn't work - I'd just make my stack bigger before using it)

 

[Ooovis]

just set the accuracy modifiyers to be effected by terrain and unit health.
an example a bombard unit has 100% default accuracy shooting into a square that has a forest and hill means the effective shot has 25% chance, after you hit your target your accuracy is reduced by a percent = to the damage done to the unit when the unit heals the units chance of being hit again goes back to what it was before it got hit.

the effect as far as i can tell is that only in flat land without forest or fort could you wipe out units with shelling/bombing alone would that effect be acceptable?

 

[rysmiel]

Is it realistic that a siege unit is able to bombard a stack of units that is two squares away but having a mountain in between them so that the stack can't touch the siege unit?

It's not excesssively unrealistic, and it's a good game mechanic.

 

[rysmiel]

IIRC, there was a HUUUUUGE exploit with stacks-o-doom full of bombard units in Civ3. You could easily go from city to city wiping them out in a single turn with no chance for taking any damage.

Getting enough bombard units and enough defenders to stop them being picked off and enough attackers to finish off the defenders and enough units to occupy and defend the cities you take is not an "exploit", it's an exercise in being able to do logistics and build an empire that can support that stack.

 

[warpstorm]

It was an exploit - I could easily do it every single game. You just had to last long enough to get 20-30 ranged units built and it was game over.

 

[MosheLevi]

I brought up this question because I served in the Israeli army and participated in the 1982 Lebanon war.
I was in Artillery back then and we used to bombard the enemy from 10-15 mile range.

I do know that artillery is the most effective against infantry units and NOT against armor units unless it is a direct hit (which is very unlikely).

So why not make the bombard ability (long range for artillery) effective only against infantry units and NOT against vehicles or gunships?

That should not be overpowering yet it will offer interesting new strategies.

 

[exhile]

Civ 3 brought new elements to warfare. Bomber units could no longer remain in mid-air during a turn. Catapults, cannons & artillery could only bombard and not attack like regular units. Ships were able to bombard inland. Also, the regular, veteran & elite system of unit health got introduced.

In Civ 4, bombarding was removed and the promotion system was implemented.

I wouldn't be surprised to see elements of of Civ 2, Civ 3 & Civ 4 come back in Civ 5. The return of Aerial combat in Civ 1 & Civ 2 and bombarding from Civ 3. Ammunition, fuel & maintenance will probably makes its introduction in Civ 5 as I start to realize the direction in which warfare in Civ is going.

 

[Shackel]

Balancing, probably.

You'd just get a GIGANTIC stack of artillery, and kill everything in your way.

Maybe it would have to have units maintaining them(I THINK that was in Civ3), as in, if I have 10 Infantry, I could only have 10 Mobile Artillery.

 

[Camikaze]

Perhaps mobile artillery should only be able to bombard adjacent squares, and the 'bombarding radius' (for lack of a better term) could be left to a heavy artillery unit.

@ Shackel, attaching artillery to units would be a way of limiting the number to however many of those basic and standard units you have. So, you would have them as pieces of equipment that could be attached to units, rather than as units unto themselves.

 

[Hail]

It was an exploit - I could easily do it every single game. You just had to last long enough to get 20-30 ranged units built and it was game over.

the ai was not aware of bombarding capabilities. don't ever recall the ai building siege units in numbers if at all.

I brought up this question because I served in the Israeli army and participated in the 1982 Lebanon war.
I was in Artillery back then and we used to bombard the enemy from 10-15 mile range.

I do know that artillery is the most effective against infantry units and NOT against armor units unless it is a direct hit (which is very unlikely).

So why not make the bombard ability (long range for artillery) effective only against infantry units and NOT against vehicles or gunships?

That should not be overpowering yet it will offer interesting new strategies.

it would be overpowered before armor units and much useless afterwards.

Balancing, probably.

You'd just get a GIGANTIC stack of artillery, and kill everything in your way.

Maybe it would have to have units maintaining them(I THINK that was in Civ3), as in, if I have 10 Infantry, I could only have 10 Mobile Artillery.

no, in civ3 siege units did not have health bars and could be captured, but their number was not limited by anything.
on a side note adding (reintroducing) bombardment similar to civ3 would overpower the defending side. so if in civ3 firaxis did teach ai to use bombardment, then the attacking party will almost always lose. how ironic. maybe discuss how to balance bombardment to give the attacking side a chance?

 

[warpstorm]

the ai was not aware of bombarding capabilities. don't ever recall the ai building siege units in numbers if at all...snipped rest of comments

You could very well be right...

 

[exhile]

In Civ 4, there is a defensive weakness to siege units where some mounted units who are either on the offense or defense can flank the enemy stack to get to the siege unit. The chance of flanking will destroy the siege unit which I really liked.

In Civ 3, there was a choice of keeping the siege unit or destroying it when captured. I hope this choice is not implemented in Civ 5.

If it is possible, I would like a zoom combat feature that will provide a choice to attack or defend against a particular unit in a stack. However, certain probabilities would decide if such a battle were take place or not.

 

[Hail]

In Civ 4, there is a defensive weakness to siege units where some mounted units who are either on the offense or defense can flank the enemy stack to get to the siege unit. The chance of flanking will destroy the siege unit which I really liked.

In Civ 3, there was a choice of keeping the siege unit or destroying it when captured. I hope this choice is not implemented in Civ 5.

If it is possible, I would like a zoom combat feature that will provide a choice to attack or defend against a particular unit in a stack. However, certain probabilities would decide if such a battle were take place or not.

in civ4 firaxis chose the rock-paper-scissors approach. and i like the "capturing" ability. they should bring it back. i would certainly like for civ to move away from the unit-centered scale. i dislike the individual unit promotions and where did the "always build the last unit built" option go?. wars in civ should be more on an army (organized stack?) scale. something like build a general give him some units and right-click on the minimap and there he goes. they same goes for bombardment:
if an artillery bombards other artillery, it should respond immediately wasting some of the movement points for next turn.

 

[rysmiel]

Maybe it would have to have units maintaining them(I THINK that was in Civ3), as in, if I have 10 Infantry, I could only have 10 Mobile Artillery.

Not as such, no.

The way I think this should work is slightly different; one defensive unit should only be able to defend one siege unit, so if you want a stack of thirty cannon, you either need to have thirty defenders sitting on it. or any attacker gets to pick off the bombard units for free. Combine that with more sensible unit support mechanism - shields from home city as well as overall financial support - and the Civ 3 bombard unit system could be made to work, by making stacks o'doom really a lot more expensive to maintain.

 

[rysmiel]

In Civ 3, there was a choice of keeping the siege unit or destroying it when captured. I hope this choice is not implemented in Civ 5.

Whereas I really want this back.

If it is possible, I would like a zoom combat feature that will provide a choice to attack or defend against a particular unit in a stack. However, certain probabilities would decide if such a battle were take place or not.

Something along these lines appeals to me, too.