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

[Shackel]

I think that the "capture" option would be good, as well. Send your mounted units/gunships to take catapults/trebuchets/artillery/mobile artillery, and then use them against the same giant stack!

 

[rysmiel]

I think that the "capture" option would be good, as well. Send your mounted units/gunships to take catapults/trebuchets/artillery/mobile artillery, and then use them against the same giant stack!

Making this a possibility unless you heavily defended your SoD would make them cost a lot more and therefore be a useful balancing feature, IMO.

 

[Shackel]

Exactly, which is why I was praising that concept.

 

[rysmiel]

Exactly, which is why I was praising that concept.

We would appear to be in violent agreement here.

 

[Camikaze]

For what it's worth, I agree. But this could come from attaching attaching siege weapons to units. When the unit was defeated, the siege weapons could be captured, or destroyed (depending on whether you took control of a tile or not). This would mean you would probably want to protect the units with the attached siege, as well as the siege itself. A double balancing device, in a way.

 

[Rusty Edge]

For what it's worth, I agree. But this could come from attaching attaching siege weapons to units. When the unit was defeated, the siege weapons could be captured, or destroyed (depending on whether you took control of a tile or not). This would mean you would probably want to protect the units with the attached siege, as well as the siege itself. A double balancing device, in a way.

Let me see if I've got this concept.... I'll use Napoleonic examples. Artillery might have a 2 tile range.

1) My canon could make a ranged bombardment in the adjacent square without risking itself. My attached musketman could not attack that turn.

2) If my canon wasn't attached to a footsoldier unit, it could be captured like a worker .

3) If my canon wasn't attached to a footsoldier unit, but was in a stack, it would be destroyed in a flanking attack , or captured if the enemy curiasseurs won the field at the end of the battle.

4) If my attached musketman attacked an enemy musketman, my canon would be at risk.

5) Would attached canon get in a first strike on both offense and defense when the footsoldier fights ( unless the other unit is immune) ?

 

[rysmiel]

Let me see if I've got this concept.... I'll use Napoleonic examples. Artillery might have a 2 tile range.

Thing is, unless tiles are meant to be a great deal smaller than they are on any currently plausible map, most kinds of movable artillery having more than a one tile range seems wildly out of scale. And once one does get into weapons with map-crossing range, I think the Civ 2/Alpha Centauri missile or air unit paradigm is better than the bombardment one.

 

[MosheLevi]

Doesn’t “Rise of Mankind 2” have ranged bombardment ability?

I haven’t played it yet.

How does this play out in this mod?

 

[Rusty Edge]

Thing is, unless tiles are meant to be a great deal smaller than they are on any currently plausible map, most kinds of movable artillery having more than a one tile range seems wildly out of scale. And once one does get into weapons with map-crossing range, I think the Civ 2/Alpha Centauri missile or air unit paradigm is better than the bombardment one.

Yeah, I know. Computers couldn't handle realistic size maps.
Even battleships would fight as direct fire rather than ranged attack on this scale, but perversely, it takes one decades to circumnavigate the earth.

There's got to be a better balance.

 

[Camikaze]

Let me see if I've got this concept.... I'll use Napoleonic examples. Artillery might have a 2 tile range.

1) My canon could make a ranged bombardment in the adjacent square without risking itself. My attached musketman could not attack that turn.

2) If my canon wasn't attached to a footsoldier unit, it could be captured like a worker .

3) If my canon wasn't attached to a footsoldier unit, but was in a stack, it would be destroyed in a flanking attack , or captured if the enemy curiasseurs won the field at the end of the battle.

4) If my attached musketman attacked an enemy musketman, my canon would be at risk.

5) Would attached canon get in a first strike on both offense and defense when the footsoldier fights ( unless the other unit is immune) ?

Yes, that's pretty much it. As for the fifth point, it would be like having, perhaps, both collateral damage and first strike promotions, plus whatever promotions were given to the artillery unit. So, it could play a decisive part in those battles, and would make the unit stronger, but would, conversely, tie a unit up and take, in total, about double the time to produce (need to produce musketman and cannon).

 

[Rusty Edge]

Yes, that's pretty much it. As for the fifth point, it would be like having, perhaps, both collateral damage and first strike promotions, plus whatever promotions were given to the artillery unit. So, it could play a decisive part in those battles, and would make the unit stronger, but would, conversely, tie a unit up and take, in total, about double the time to produce (need to produce musketman and cannon).

Well, that does sound like it would make stacks more balanced and realistic looking, and add something to the gameplay at the same time.

Now, if in addition to these rule changes we could add an imperial mortar unit as a successor to the trebuchet ( military science) , which would be a direct attack seige unit only, ( no ranged bombardment or defensive fire ) but would not face penalties for hills, walls or fortifications ( because elevation is not a problem ).

 

[Camikaze]

Yeah, sounds good. I like siege units, so the more variety in them the better, as far as I'm concerned, so long as they don't completely dominate the game.

 

[Hail]

Well, that does sound like it would make stacks more balanced and realistic looking, and add something to the gameplay at the same time.

Now, if in addition to these rule changes we could add an imperial mortar unit as a successor to the trebuchet ( military science) , which would be a direct attack seige unit only, ( no ranged bombardment or defensive fire ) but would not face penalties for hills, walls or fortifications ( because elevation is not a problem ).

mortars hurl projectiles at purely ballistic trajectories. therefore it should be a siege unit with bombardment ability, but an attack of zero.

 

[Rusty Edge]

mortars hurl projectiles at purely ballistic trajectories. therefore it should be a siege unit with bombardment ability, but an attack of zero.

Not to be argumentative... just want to express it in civ terms..Doesn't a mortar circumvent the walls and defenses rather than destroy them?

 

[cardgame]

Now, if in addition to these rule changes we could add an imperial mortar unit as a successor to the trebuchet ( military science) , which would be a direct attack seige unit only, ( no ranged bombardment or defensive fire ) but would not face penalties for hills, walls or fortifications ( because elevation is not a problem ).

Legends of Revolution has the Bombard which fills the gap between trebuchet and cannon quite nicely

 

[Shackel]

Doesn’t “Rise of Mankind 2” have ranged bombardment ability?

I haven’t played it yet.

How does this play out in this mod?

Yep.

Ranged Bombardment, and if you don't want all of the other stuff, then I think it's a separate mod, as well.

 

[MosheLevi]

Yep.

Ranged Bombardment, and if you don't want all of the other stuff, then I think it's a separate mod, as well.

I read about it and the other features sound good too.
It has a lot of units and buildings and so on which is great.
I think that CIV 5 should have many more units than CIV 4.

I will definitely try “Rise of Mankind 2” later on.
But first I need to finish the two campaigns that I am playing now and then the “Free for All” campaign, lol.

 

[Shackel]

"I will definitely try “Rise of Mankind 2” later on."

- High-five.

It may take a while to get used to the large amount of techs, though.

"I think that CIV 5 should have many more units than CIV 4."

- Yeah, I think every era should be as expansive as the Modern Era when it comes to units. Why isn't there Light and Heavy Infantry? That was a vital role in the Medieval wars.

 

[Camikaze]

Not to be argumentative... just want to express it in civ terms..Doesn't a mortar circumvent the walls and defenses rather than destroy them?

I'd guess that's what they'd do. They'd probably cause collateral damage or something, without damaging city defences.

 

[Rusty Edge]

I'd guess that's what they'd do. They'd probably cause collateral damage or something, without damaging city defences.

That's what I was thinking. The real purpose is to get behind the wall, over the earthwork, or hit soldiers in the trenches. Weaken the defenders, rather than the defenses.

Of course, since you can't always see what you're hitting, you could have the CivIII style siege roulette- you might destroy a building or population instead of harming a defender.

To take it another step, there should be negatives for bombarding a city with either mortars or aircraft or modern navy. Something like raising cities, maybe. Or diplo or war-weariness penalties for harming civillian "brothers in the faith".