Overpowered catapult?

[Khamul]

AIs stacks of catapult´s and horse archers are annoying in a early game. There is no unit to beat them: axemans loose against horse archers, and spearman loose against catapults. Even swordsman vs. horse archers is 50-50. Catapuls don't cause collateral damage to catapults. Isn't this annoying? Or am I only one who thinks like that?

I think catapults should have some kind of penalty when defending (other than no defensive bonus). Or catapults should defend last, no matter what.

On the other hand, usually AI sucks in a battle...

 

[azzaman333]

Catapults should be captured instantly on defense, and every attack on a stack of units with catapults in them should take 5% of their health, and siege attacks -10%.

 

[PMabey]

Catalpults DO defend last, same as all siege weapons.

 

[Elras]

Sounds to me you need your own cavalry wing.

Attack with 2 suicide catapults of your own to cause bombard damage and
soften up the enemy and then an avalanche of Horse Archers with Combat
I&II (and better yet Formation) promotions. Sit back and watch that Attack
Stack disintregrate.

Cheers
Elras

 

[Quagga]

Catalpults DO defend last, same as all siege weapons.

Originally yes, but it was changed. 2.08 patch. Now, as the OP suggests, the spearman attacker matches up with the catapult defender and the axeman or swordsman with the horse archer defender.

This is much more pleasant when you are the one with the stack of catapults and horse archers.

 

[PMabey]

Originally yes, but it was changed. 2.08 patch. Now, as the OP suggests, the spearman attacker matches up with the catapult defender and the axeman or swordsman with the horse archer defender.

This is much more pleasant when you are the one with the stack of catapults and horse archers.

Didnt know that - thanks.

 

[Stylesrj]

Catapults shouldn't be instantly captured on defence. We're not going back to Civ III here! Catapults can defend themselves, think of the support troops fighting back with swords and spears or sticks and stones. Of course, as the army is charging, watch out for the falling rocks. If the army is too close, the crew fights back. That's why catapults can defend themselves and are not captured out in the open like in Civ III.
It got annoying when your artillery got captured/destroyed because somehow it could not defend itself (imagine a Radar Artillery being destroyed by a spearman! Can't the MLRS defend itself by running the guy over or firing missiles or machine guns)

 

[LucyDuke]

Catapults should be captured instantly on defense...

Oh jeez. Wasn't this the case in Civ3? That was terrible. Decrease their defense strength, sure, but don't turn them into defenseless objects. That's a huge pain in the neck.

 

[azzaman333]

Catapults shouldn't be instantly captured on defence. We're not going back to Civ III here! Catapults can defend themselves, think of the support troops fighting back with swords and spears or sticks and stones.

Realistically, there is no way for a catapult to defend against a charging army of just about anything.

Of course, as the army is charging, watch out for the falling rocks. If the army is too close, the crew fights back. That's why catapults can defend themselves and are not captured out in the open like in Civ III.
It got annoying when your artillery got captured/destroyed because somehow it could not defend itself (imagine a Radar Artillery being destroyed by a spearman! Can't the MLRS defend itself by running the guy over or firing missiles or machine guns)

Seige units shouldn't be able to fight against other units at all IMO, unless its attacking a stack of 5+ units or attacking a city/fort. Saying 'That's stupid cause I don't want to suit my strategy to what the game makes me do' is rediculous.

Oh jeez. Wasn't this the case in Civ3? That was terrible. Decrease their defense strength, sure, but don't turn them into defenseless objects. That's a huge pain in the neck.

Protect your catapults? Then you wouldn't have a problem.

 

[Breunor]

If we want to be realistic, catapults shouldn't be used against troops in the field. It very rarely happenend. They were almost exclusively used for seigecraft. Subudai used them to capture the bridge at Pest, but that was a genius and there was a fixed target -- in real warfare, it was pretty rare to use them except to defend fixed points because they were too cumbersome to move. They were usually built on the spot for seigecraft.

So, please, don't say 'catapults could defend themselves' or 'catapults can't defend themselves', neither is realistic. When they were used, they were integrated with the army, they weren't 'seperate' units as we think of seperate untis, and they were bombarding fortifications.


Now, from a game standpoint, that's different. Catapults are VERY powerful. Realism or not, the game needs them because of the way combined arms works.

Say you have a stack of two axemen, two horse archers, and two spearmen. We all know the drill -- its very hard to attack this stack. If I have the exact same 6 units, whichever one of us attacks will get annihilated because the best defender will be picked in a rocks/paper/scissors exercize. The defensive advantage would be tremendous even without the terrain or fortification advantage.

So, attacking is hard. But the catapults change that. Take that same stack of 6 units we each had -- if we each had on catapult, the defender still dominates. But give us, say, 3, and now the attacker can win. Attack with three catpults, one or two may even survive, and the defenders are worn down to the point that you can attack. If you put 5 catapults in each stack, then the attacker has a big advantage. Attack with the 5 of them, you probably lose 3, maybe only 2. You can then take the stack of 6 units down with about 1 or 2 losses for a large victory.

So, when attacking, lots of catapults make sense.


So, we really can't have realism. Having lots of catapults in a field battle only happens in Hollywood, not on real battlefields. I view the catapults as a way to have unit type advantages (a good feature in my book) without having defense being totally dominant. They aren't even close to realistic, but when I play CIV, I play to win. I probably build about 1/3 - 1/2 catapults when attacking, and I understand that the stronger players build even more.

Best wishes,

Breunor

 

[LuckyAC]

Powerful, yes, but it's hard for them to be called overpowered, since they are available to everyone and are a complement rather than a substitute for other units.

 

[pigswill]

What about a stack of your own horse archers and a couple of barrage cats to start with; they'll almost certainly die vs HA but should still cause some damage improving combat odds for your HA vs their HA. Once you've got rid of their HA you then have the advantage vs their catapults.

 

[Dominico]

Catapults were used in the Roman attack on the druids at anglesey and in many other field battles. It has been used in many battles where there was time to deploy it.

Also artillary can defend itself pretty well. Just look at the charge of the light brigade. Cavalry vs cannon. The game is pretty fine as it is, weakening arty would make it pointless.

 

[Breunor]

Catapults were used in the Roman attack on the druids at anglesey and in many other field battles. It has been used in many battles where there was time to deploy it.

Also artillary can defend itself pretty well. Just look at the charge of the light brigade. Cavalry vs cannon. The game is pretty fine as it is, weakening arty would make it pointless.

I didn't know about their use against the druids, thanks for the reference!

It does make sense, this is the kind of occasion they were used -- when time is ready to prepare. Ballsitae were used by Caesar at Alesia, again, with time to prepare. I'm pretty sure that there weren't any used in the following war in England, starting with the Iceni revolt.

Armies could use artillery if they could transport it or build it on the spot and didn't have to mvoe too much.

Thanks,

Breunor

 

[dragomaster]

Sounds to me you need your own cavalry wing.

agree on that. you can only counter that with a stack of mounted units and cats

 

[Dominico]

Yeah, you are right they needed time to prepare. Roman armies carried artillery of some type round with them all the time in the baggage train. Often along with families too! At the least they would usually have time to set up mini ballistae to fire on the enemies, and if it was a preset battleground they would have had catapults ready also.

Many times there would not be time to organise this though, as in the battles against Boudica where the Romans were racing to meet her and chasing her. I dont think they used anything large, more than likely they would have left it behind.

The weaponry was carried in carts in bits, ready to be built up on the battlefield. Even Varus' legion slaughtered by the Germans in the Tuetenburg (sp) forest had heavy weaponry in its baggage train, though of course had no time to use it.

 

[JimT]

I don't want to reduce their strength (which damages all their uses) but they could have -30% when defending. I don't see the point in gameplay terms, except for the mentioned horse archer/catapult stacks. If you reduce their strength is reduced to 4 then they become even more useless with the advent of gunpowder and cannons are still reasonably far.

Maybe even -50% defending but get the fortification bonuses (a catapult or cannon in a hill top city tower will always have an advantage over one in the field).

To be honest if I get attacked and my catapult defends then I deserve to lose it, which is generally what happens. Str 5 at the stage they are used is pretty poor (with no bonuses)

 

[Stolen Rutters]

Yeah, you are right they needed time to prepare. Roman armies carried artillery of some type round with them all the time in the baggage train. Often along with families too! At the least they would usually have time to set up mini ballistae to fire on the enemies, and if it was a preset battleground they would have had catapults ready also.

Many times there would not be time to organise this though, as in the battles against Boudica where the Romans were racing to meet her and chasing her. I dont think they used anything large, more than likely they would have left it behind.

The weaponry was carried in carts in bits, ready to be built up on the battlefield. Even Varus' legion slaughtered by the Germans in the Tuetenburg (sp) forest had heavy weaponry in its baggage train, though of course had no time to use it.

Needing time to prepare or not could be thought of as the difference between whether you are the attacker or the defender.

 

[Blaarg]

Mounted units should get a new promotion:

Flanking III
50% chance to attack Siege units first.

 

[Watiggi]

I allways wondered why seige units (from a gameplay perspective rather than a realistic perspective - the seige units being the anti stack unit) don't have increased collateral damage for bigger stacks. So, if the enemy stack is 5 units, then the cat (and other seige) do normal collateral damage. But if the enemy stack is bigger, then the collateral damage that is inflicted is increased more so that the more units in the other stack, the more collateral damage each seige unit does. Currently there is no way of stopping a huuuuggggeeee stack except with another huuuuuggggeeee stack which kinda screws up this rock-paper-scissors system imo. The bigger the opposing stack, the more lethal your seige units become. Sounds cool to me and would solve this problem.