Lost interest in only 4 weeks

[terveurn]

Been playing civ since it first came out 20+ years ago. Just started with Civ 5 and the game has finally pissed me off to no end.

Do not mind so much no stacked units, but the attacking and defense points are all screwed-up

Here is where I am having problems - set-up a killing corridor with 10 artillery pieces surrounding a city on an narrow inlet (2 hex's wide). The enemy can only come in one way.

So he declare war (after a truce) and immediately sends in infantry - my artillery pieces all fire on his advance.

Now the problem is I fired all 10 pieces at the same unit and not even a dent in the attacking unit status.

Give me a break - this program sucks that you can not even fight back.

In real life, artillery would have chewed-up this unit and the rest of my artillery battery would have stopped the attack before it began - instead all my batteries were over run and destroyed. The city that I was defending (with walls etc.) was overrun without even slowing down the advance.

I have the same issues with Gatling guns - entrenched and firing on calvary (with overlapping field of fire), infantry etc and not a dent in the opposing forces - who ever designed these his points did not have a clue that when defending, a Gatling gun would chew-up infantry, horses etc...

Anyone have a solution that would fix this software - if the computer cheats this openly, no longer will I play this game (hey, I want a level playing field). I'll go back to Civ 2

 

[Smokeybear]

If artillery could waste melee (infantry) units with ease from afar before they could even get close, then they would be completely overpowered in the game. You wouldn't even need any melee units, just attack or defend with massed artillery. It was kinda like that early in vanilla, but they fixed it so that ranged siege units no longer did a lot of damage to non-city targets, so that wouldn't be the case. You just have to expect to need melee units also, whether on offense or defense. Artillery is actually a number of tech levels below infantry as well, which makes them even more resistant to it. Any time you're battling units that outstrip your current tech, it's a lot harder to put a dent in them.

 

[ense7en]

Firstly, keep in mind Civ5 isn't really real life realistic. If you are expecting that, you'll be disappointed.
But once you learn the mechanics and which military units are best against which, it becomes at lot easier to understand.

Artillery are siege units; best used for taking down cities, not units.

Cavalry (horse units) are best for taking out ranged and siege units, so not surprising they made short work of your defense.

You'd want to have melee units in the front fortified in your corridor, with ranged units just a bit behind or to the sides behind the melee guys in a way that the horse units couldn't access them without having to get around the melee units.

Having forts or Citadels is also very useful for those sorts of scenarios.


This thread is extremely useful for understanding where the enemy will be able to move their units based on your positioning (or vice versa).
http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=444783

 

[Civking5]

Dont get angry, You should learn rules of the game 1st. Artillery is very good for taking cities, but not effective against melee units like infantry.

 

[terveurn]

I did have riflemen positioned in forts in front of the siege units - again, they went thru these units like they were not even there.

Had other riflemen in citadels (on a hill for height) and they still got overrun.

Sure siege units are great for taking out a city, but, WTH, 10 cannons against one infantry and not even a ding ??

No calvary in this attack - just infantry and artillery - was using calvary as an example

Same with gatling guns (useless) placed them in forts and still got wiped out by everything sent against them (even spear-chuckers).

 

[Smokeybear]

I did have riflemen positioned in forts in front of the siege units - again, they went thru these units like they were not even there.

Had other riflemen in citadels (on a hill for height) and they still got overrun.

Sure siege units are great for taking out a city, but, WTH, 10 cannons against one infantry and not even a ding ??

No calvary in this attack - just infantry and artillery - was using calvary as an example

Same with gatling guns (useless) placed them in forts and still got wiped out by everything sent against them (even spear-chuckers).

Infantry are far above riflemen in the foodchain- they will beat them up pretty easily, I'm afraid. Other factors that come to play in combat like that, are the experience level-ups of their units vs. your units- if the enemy has mostly experienced units that have gained some levels in previous wars, then they are that much tougher. And if they took the Honor social policy tree and buffed up the strength of their units with several of those policies, and so on. These things may or may not have come into play in your scenario, but they are things to be aware of.

 

[Browd]

I can't help but think you are exaggerating. Gatling guns do not melt in front of spearmen (if that's who you mean by "spear-chuckers"). Accuracy in describing units does matter. In some places you say artillery and elsewhere cannons--those units are an era apart.

In any event, in terms of strength, there is a gulf of difference between riflemen (34 strength), gatlings (30 strength), cannons (20 ranged strength) and artillery (28 ranged strength), on the one hand, and infantry (70 strength) on the other (before taking into account terrain and flanking promotions, bonuses and penalties). If you are trying to use the former to hold off that latter, you will lose ... badly ... and you should, since they are one to two eras apart. Should be no surprise that a WWII/Korean War-era unit will rip apart a Civil War-era unit, even if the latter is sitting in a fort.

 

[Crafty Bison]

Sounds like you need to focus more on tech, or on military tech specifically. Gatlings (30) aren't supposed to be able to do much against infantry (70), but the ranged unit which is a contemporary of the infantry, the machine gun (60), makes it a very fair fight. If you're defending, don't build so much siege. To add to the right terrain promotions, take medic and cover promotions with melee, and behind them, take logistics and range with ranged. Fortify and heal melee units in forts and citadels. Bring a GG for the bonus. Try to build Himeji Castle for further bonus, Great Wall and Kremlin can both be useful too. If you have an isthmus bring a couple frigates/battleships.

 

[Socratatus]

The problem with Civ 5 is that the Devs have really gone fast and loose withany kind of reality in history. The attitude they have now seems to be `whatever` and the kids will find it `awesome`.

This is why people get happier the more cities you lose and we have such things as the Giant death Robot that doesn`t even make hypothetical futuristic sense.

They only made an effort on realism with the Leaders. It is also very unintuitive. You have to learn its rules forget what you instinctively know.

In previous Civs I learned something, in Civ 5 I learn nothing. Least realistic Civ game I`ve ever played.

 

[terveurn]

I think everyone is missing the whole point - I know about different scales and ratings for different combat units - that is one of the reasons I stacked 10 artillery (not cannon) plus 6 ground pounders in the same area. Did not have the tech to go with the AI toe to toe, so was trying to overwhelm his superior forces (technology) with numbers.

Should also mention these were veteran units - since the AI had called a truce, and I was beating him before the truce, I did not disband my original experienced units. I guess I should go back to the save right before the truce and ignore his request for peace and just kick the crap out of him.

What got me is not even a ding - hell, if you brought a civil war cannon (yes cannon this time nor artillery) against gulf war troops and you got the first shot(s) off - your going to do a whole lot of damage. Might get your ass kicked, but your going to make the gulf war troops bleed. If you add a narrow channel and funnel the modern troops into it, they are going to have to lose a whole lots of ground pounders before they wipe out you ranging guns.

Look at Afghanistan with the Russian invaders in the 1980's rifles vs tanks and the rifles win.

agree with Socratatus realism has been seriously lost between Civ 2 and Civ 5.

 

[ense7en]

Ah sounds like you were behind in tech indeed.

Unfortunately it's absolutely imperative you not fall far behind in tech for units in Civ5 as it tends to result in a massive advantage for the side with the tech superiority.

 

[terveurn]

Yeah, I did get behind in tech - got into a 2 front war at the beginning of the game - beat the crap out of both - but since I was using my cities for building units - instead of developing tech, got behind in this area.

What also did not help is that both of these countries that I beat up suddenly surrendered and gave me cities (one gave me two cities and the other 4 cities). Then a third country suddenly thought I was fair game and this is the one that been fighting for almost 200 turns)

So even with the cities under puppet, my unhappiness rating was at 36 (and my cash flow went into the crapper)

Hey that a question for those in the know:

If the other guy surrenders do you take his cities and if you do what do you do with them to get rid of the unhappiness rating - as I said, I suddenly had 6 cities all filled with unhappy people. Do you try and force your way tru or do you just burn the cities to the ground?

 

[joncnunn]

So even with the cities under puppet, my unhappiness rating was at 36 (and my cash flow went into the crapper)

Hey that a question for those in the know:

If the other guy surrenders do you take his cities and if you do what do you do with them to get rid of the unhappiness rating - as I said, I suddenly had 6 cities all filled with unhappy people. Do you try and force your way tru or do you just burn the cities to the ground?

If the city isn't bringing in a key tile (luxury/resource/natural wonder) that can't be worked by another city and also doesn't have a world wonder: Yes; burn to the ground. The AI founds cities too close to each other for the normal (human) happiness levels.

Anything else, puppet is more of a while waiting for city to come out of resistance so you can rush a court house (followed by happiness buildings). There's a few cases where the city is always going to be so hammer poor (but has a unique luxury) that should always be kept a puppet, but not many.

Also, if your happiness was already below zero when the war started, your not building enough happiness buildings / within your chosen social policy tree(s), making the happiness policy enough of a priority (every tree has a policy making happiness easier).

 

[bc1]

my unhappiness rating was at 36

RTFM with such level of unhapiness + obsolete technology you're pissed that your troops are a pushover ? Actually each factor is enough to make you lose, both combined !!!
As to historical accuracy, technology and morale are both crucial to military prowess. You had neither

 

[Donaskme]

set-up a killing corridor with 10 artillery pieces

Heh heh heh! Now that you know how Civ 5 works, you'll know to setup your killing corridor with Archers going forward. I mean, unless a walking city attacks you.

If you had used 10 ranged units instead of 10 Artillery, you could have held back a simultaneous assault by two enemy civilizations, and then rolled forward and capped a city.

my unhappiness rating was at 36

An unhappiness greater than ten reduces the effectiveness of your military units. You should not expect to keep every city you attack when doing a "scorched earth" victory plan. Most of them you should be razing, while puppeting only the very nicest cities with ample luxuries and solid positioning.

 

[Zezima]

I just want to ask: as a Civ veteran how did it take you 4 weeks to figure this out?

 

[Gucumatz]

36 unhappy and outdated units... wait what was the problem here again? That seems like poor planning on your part

 

[Gamewizard]

You do know that if your happiness is at -10 or lower then all of your units get a -50% strength penalty. Combine this with being behind in tech and this is why your units were obliterated.

Next time you shouldn't accept those cities if you know it is going to put you into the very unhappy penalty. Just accept the gold or resources, or just the very best city and not the crappy ones.

 

[dadams588]

Random question... I know unhappiness 0-9 is 1/4 city growth, 10-19 is reduced unit effectiveness and lower production in cities, 20-29 puts the empire in revolt spawning barbs in your territory randomly every few turns... is there any further negatives for 30+ ?

 

[joncnunn]

Random question... I know unhappiness 0-9 is 1/4 city growth, 10-19 is reduced unit effectiveness and lower production in cities, 20-29 puts the empire in revolt spawning barbs in your territory randomly every few turns... is there any further negatives for 30+ ?

Nope; at -20 its as bad as it ever gets.