New Beta Version - April 17th (4-17)

[SolutionIt]

Some things I forgot to add:

• The City-States are damned axe murderers right now. This has been the case for many versions now, but I only had 2 in proximity to my start and I think they cleared more barb camps than I did. They threw my entire early game into jeopardy because they thinned the flow of barbs too effectively, and they nearly cost me a religion (god of war). I shudder to think if I had a third CS neighbor. I wonder if they could let just... not clear barb camps? Like ancient ruins, what if the CS just weren’t able to move onto those tiles, or otherwise ignored camp tiles, and needed a major civ to disperse them?
• The Khmer took Tutelary gods, and were leading the pack on their continent. It’s a very good fit for their kit, though not as synergistic as Goddess of Beauty. Shameless plug, perhaps, but I’m very happy with their performance in AI games, and the AI seems to be able to handle their abilities.
  
• Catapults suck. They have 1 job and they are just total garbage at it. Catapults need a CS/RCS boost, because melee units are doing more damage to cities while also being more durable, more mobile, and cheaper.

I'm halfway there on the CS/RCS buff for catapults and potentially some if not all of the siege line? Anyways I'd find it interesting if they just got a combat strength boost near a city, since the logic would be you just finished setting up the siege machines, and if they aren't close to a city they lose that combat strength bonus since the machine itself would be in pieces getting transported to the battlefield.

I did something like that by applying siege volleys/repeater to the siege line but it's not quite what i want if that makes any sense.

 

[Gazebo]

Crazy thought: I wonder if having siege units always be range 3 would be...bad? It would definitely give them a niche.

G

 

[vyyt]

Crazy thought: I wonder if having siege units always be range 3 would be...bad? It would definitely give them a niche.

G

Wouldn't it give too much of an advantage to us hoomans? Would the AI be able to push through/go around defenses with mounted and hunt down the siege units - even if they get out of sight?

Edit: also, they would be outside of the city ranged defense

 

[Stalker0]

Crazy thought: I wonder if having siege units always be range 3 would be...bad? It would definitely give them a niche.

G

Back to the shadows!!!!!

 

[SilentReply]

Crazy thought: I wonder if having siege units always be range 3 would be...bad? It would definitely give them a niche.

G

Perhaps that could work if their ability to move and fire was removed - say until rocket artillery. I think it could help address the strength of cities at the moment, especially with arsenals.

 

[JamesNinelives]

It doesn't seem that siege units in general need a buff, does it? I certainly use cannons myself and I haven't heard people call for changes to trebuchets. So maybe just a buff to catapults would address the balance concerns.

I don't use them much myself because other units are decent at both offense and defense. Whereas on defense catapults seem fragile (and don't provide sight) compared to say composite bowmen.

 

[2506]

It doesn't seem that siege units in general need a buff, does it? I certainly use cannons myself and I haven't heard people call for changes to trebuchets. So maybe just a buff to catapults would address the balance concerns.

I don't use them much myself because other units are decent at both offense and defense. Whereas on defense catapults seem fragile (and don't provide sight) compared to say composite bowmen.

Worth noting that ancient catapults were anti-personnel weapons, not technically siege weapons. I'd be okay if they were more effective against units, but I don't have a problem with their comparative weakness against cities. I'm also not a fan of city capture in every era being built around the same basic melee/range/siege balance.

 

[andersw]

Range 3 out of the box would def be broken in favour of humans.
They are a bit squishy if opponent have walls and several ranged units but that seems about right yes/no?
God of war can still wreck as well.

 

[Kim Dong Un]

Crazy thought: I wonder if having siege units always be range 3 would be...bad? It would definitely give them a niche.

G

I too, like to live dangerously... I'd still try it.

I'm also not a fan of city capture in every era being built around the same basic melee/range/siege balance.

Now this is interesting...

 

[Jiggly]

Crazy thought: I wonder if having siege units always be range 3 would be...bad? It would definitely give them a niche.

G

If the AI can try to flank siege properly, I really like this idea. I always like the end game layers of units with melee in front, archery/gun behind and siege in the back. It makes more sense to me and feel like the whole purpose of any artillery is that its far away. That being said, it just feels right, but I have no idea if its good for balance or such.

 

[wobuffet]

Range 3 out of the box would def be broken in favour of humans.

Agree: it's trivial for a human to line up 3+ Siege units exactly 3 hexes away from a City with a row or 2 of meatshields in front and pinprick a City to death. Tedious but effective: i.e., the opposite of fun.

Perhaps that could work if their ability to move and fire was removed - say until rocket artillery.

Siege units' "set up move" requirement was removed because the AI was atrociously bad at using it.

I'm also not a fan of city capture in every era being built around the same basic melee/range/siege balance.

This seems like it'd be hard to pull off. Siege should always be practically required to take Cities, or else what's the point? So you're left with messing with the balance between Ranged vs Melee units.

For me, the changes in melee/range/siege balance over time just depend on my military objectives, target City location, research path, UUs, etc.

 

[Recursive]

Tedious but effective: i.e., the opposite of fun.

I think "tedious and ineffective" would be an even more effective opposite (pause for groans), i.e. I'd probably have more fun building up a legion of units and zerg rushing the enemy than I would trying to fix a hopeless unhappiness spiral. But yes.

 

[pineappledan]

Why would 3 range siege be suggested if 2 range archers is already contentious? Archers outrange cities for 1 tech level. Siege units would outrange cities for 3 eras

 

[Snipergw]

Why would 3 range siege be suggested if 2 range archers is already contentious? Archers outrange cities for 1 tech level. Siege units would outrange cities for 3 eras

Is units outranging cities an issue, though? There was a very serious discussion in the other thread about removing city strikes altogether.

I for one am intrigued by the idea, but I worry that it will make the game too easy and human-favored. Siege is a bit tedious and terrain-dependent at the moment, but I'd rather just slash city strength/strike across the board. Units should defend cities, not... it's city guard? The civilian population?

 

[tothePAIN]

I don't think the AI could handle it.

 

[VampireSeraphin]

I think we all need to take a step back on siege units and ask a different question.

"How many cats/trebs/cannons should be needed to take a walled/castled/arsenal city?"

Because I'm seeing plenty of "too weak, just right, a little strong..." when we don't know anything about how big an army folks are using.

For example, myself, I've not been having trouble with sieges and feel comfortable with cats where they are because I'm using 3-4 at a time, sometimes more.

 

[VampireSeraphin]

Crazy thought: I wonder if having siege units always be range 3 would be...bad? It would definitely give them a niche.

G

I would much rather see the field promo line be overhauled completely to give mobility bonuses than have all siege out range all cities until Arsenals. I could get some serious use out of speed 3 siege with no enemy lands penalty even with no damage boost at all.

 

[andersw]

I think we all need to take a step back on siege units and ask a different question.

"How many cats/trebs/cannons should be needed to take a walled/castled/arsenal city?"

Because I'm seeing plenty of "too weak, just right, a little strong..." when we don't know anything about how big an army folks are using.

For example, myself, I've not been having trouble with sieges and feel comfortable with cats where they are because I'm using 3-4 at a time, sometimes more.

You need enough siege to do more damage than the city heals and have enough so you can replace the injured ones.
Sometimes this is achievable with a single catapult.
Even if it takes a long time, your siege will lvl up and the enemy will in time run out of units or get too much war weariness (if you trade units this is not viable).

 

[Snipergw]

3-4 siege units are too many IMO. Sieges are dependent on the terrain and getting units into position can be very difficult, if possible at all. 2 (or even 1) should be enough to take the city once the defending army has been destroyed. If cities are just health sponges it slows the game down dramatically and makes sieges very tedious (and also makes it too easy to break them by just sniping a siege unit away).

 

[pineappledan]

Catapults have 1 job: they are fort openers. They help take down cities. Later siege units can branch out using the promotion tree, but catapults will at most grow to lvl 3 before Trebs, barring some incredibly drawn out affair. The slowness and fragility of siege weapons means they don't get nearly as many shots off, so they lag behind other unit types in XP.

When Catapults come out, you probably have at least a few lvl 3, and even some level 4 spearmen and archers. If catapults come after these units and level up slower, then they have to have an immediate impact when brought into the field. My issue with catapults currently is that they need to be built and positioned in offensive formation BEFORE you declare war to even matter. If they come up behind, they are already too late to make an impact.

Ideally, what I want to see from Catapults is this: If I have already defeated a civ in the field and am surrounding their cities, and I have a catapult on its way to hit that city, I want that catapult to feel like it's worth waiting for. Right now, the XP that is on my existing melee units that have fought up to this point are as much of a factor in a city going down as the catapults. Catapults simply can't catch up to the promotions that you already have on your other units.