Originally posted by cracker
. . . Cannons are designed to kill Musket men, knights, and cavalry. A knight costs 70 shields (cavalry costs 80 shields) and cannons cost 40 shields. The bombard to defense ratio in the open terrain is 8 to 3+(0.10 minimum) so the ration of hit success is 2 out of 3. This means it usually takes at least 4 cannons to kill a single advancing Knight or Cavalry unit. 160 shields killing a 70 or 80 shield unit in the open attack is a fair trade off. If the advancing unit is a veteran or elite unit it may take 5 or 6 cannons. . .
You are TOTALLY missing the historical reality of bombardment weapons. TOTALLY.
First, I can't believe anyone is still playing with the idiotic unit values that Firaxis gave us. Edit, Edit.
Second, bombardment weapons functioned primarily to REDUCE ENEMY FORTIFICATIONS and CITY WALLS. That was true up until Gustavus Adolphus and Frederick the Great started making field artillery really mobile, something Napoleon perfected. Cannon was always the prime offensive mover in most of his battles.
But before the 17th century, bombardment units were fairly IMMOBILE once committed to a battlefield or siege. But they were great, once built, against those fortifications - and walls.
Firaxis, in its simplistic idiocy, couldn't even give us the TREBUCHET, which was a sort of highly advanced sling-catapult that started making castles obsolete before cannon.
But in Civ 3, there is no trebuchet, no castles, and NO way to allow bombardment units to be used IN THE WAY THEY WERE INTENDED - against fortifications and walls. Cataputs should have no discernible effect on attacking knights, for example.
But when Firaxis allows War Elephants to airlift, and gives Longbowmen only a '1' in defense (elephants get a '3' - another joke), we know they are EFFING CLUELESS.
EDIT, EDIT.