Should cities upgrade to range 3 upon discovering dynamite?

[Gort]

At the moment, there's quite a disconnect between pre-dynamite and post-dynamite warfare. When you're attacking a city using catapults or trebuchets or cannons, you have quite a hard time, especially if a ranged unit is garrisoning the city. You're pretty much guaranteed to at least take damage.

However, once dynamite arrives, you can just use artillery, which outrange the city and don't even have to worry about intervening terrain. Cities are then just bumps in the road - their defenses don't really matter except to give the opponent time to make a response with his units.

It seems kinda silly - cities have siege-type units in them, but they don't get upgraded as technology advances? I propose that we level the playing field - make cities upgrade to range 3 when artillery arrives.

 

[King_Course]

Besides the ability to shoot back at artillery, a range 3 would also mean it would be much harder to get melee units into range of attacking. And what about ships with their range 2? Or what about horses, they would never get back out of range after attacking. You might also very quickly find yourself bombed by 2 cities at a time.

And in other news, this would be devastating to the A.I. attempt to take cities.

I have seen on immortal games this patch a pretty extensive use of bombers by the A.I., and I think that´s good enough.

Had my artillery trying to get back to a friendly city. None of them did.

 

[Adjuvant]

No, I don't think cities should have 3 space attack. 3 space attack from artillery isn't even "that" scary, because cover promotion makes artillery (and gr war bombers) do frustratingly little damage, and cavalry easily foil exposed artillery.

 

[Lordleoz]

No. In G&K melee units all got nerfed a bit so IMO it's pointless to make ranged attack even stronger. 2 range is generally more balanced.

 

[Louis XXIV]

No, they shouldn't automatically get range three because that kills the advantage of Artillery (not to mention dramatically hurts a less-advanced civ who doesn't have Dynamite yet).

That being said, I do think there should be a building that upgrades the city to range three.

 

[kaspergm]

No, they shouldn't automatically get range three because that kills the advantage of Artillery (not to mention dramatically hurts a less-advanced civ who doesn't have Dynamite yet).

That being said, I do think there should be a building that upgrades the city to range three.

I think that's a fitting compromise. Military Base would be a good candidate - not that it's my impression that AI or even human players build Military Base that often, but at least it would have a greater purpose then.

Unlike what others have said, I do think that Artillery are pretty game turning, prioritizing Dynamite in research cue will let me take pretty much any AI city for quite some time, and while that does say as much about AI capability of strategic warfare as it does about the power of the Artillery unit, I still wouldn't mind something that countered the fact that I can make a ring of Artillery 3 tiles from city covered behind Riflemen with march promotion and be pretty much invincible while I'm taking their cities.

Btw. someone above mentioned mounted units and ships as an issue. Battleships get range of 3 if I'm not mistaken, Tanks have movement of 5, so I'm not sure I see a problem here.

We did have a discussion about Siege Weapon balance fairly recently, btw.

 

[fatboris]

If you made it a building it goes back to King_Course's argument. Maybe give the option to garrison a GG in a city post-Dynamite so you have to be a bit more selective?

 

[Bob_]

Cities are strong enof alrdy. I dislike even their abibility to fire on themselves. They rather should only damage units which attack the city.

 

[Grubnessul]

It's a good way of simulating the changing nature of warfare. Cities did stop to be strongholds that needed to be besieged at some point (with some exceptions like Stalingrad)

 

[Louis XXIV]

If you made it a building it goes back to King_Course's argument. Maybe give the option to garrison a GG in a city post-Dynamite so you have to be a bit more selective?

I don't necessarily agree. An advanced building requires a lot of other buildings, so it won't be in every city. And replaceable parts is entirely different from Dynamite, so it still gives a window for Artillery. Plus, you start having Tanks, so it's possible to stay outside of city range.

 

[eris]

For me, the answer is to garrison an Artillery in the city.
works nicely.

 

[nokmirt]

I say no as well, it would unbalance the game. Leave city range at 2 and just park artillery or rocket artillery in there, when needed.

There is another thing that bugged me about city animations. I know it is off topic, but I want to point it out. There should be an animation between catapult/trebuchet stones and rockets. Perhaps a cannonball for the Renaissance, or a rifled shell in the Industrial era, something other than rockets.

 

[woodshadows]

i dont even like cities having +2 range, let alone 3.

 

[nokmirt]

i dont even like cities having +2 range, let alone 3.

I was thinking the same thing, when I typed that earlier. Wait a minute, who is for reducing the range? That would make an interesting topic for discussion.

 

[neilkaz]

A huge NO vote from me as I strongly feel that cities are strong enough allready.

 

[JanghanHong]

Ewwwww no talk of giving more range to cities. Cities should have 1 range to begin with.

 

[bcaiko]

I think that's a fitting compromise. Military Base would be a good candidate - not that it's my impression that AI or even human players build Military Base that often, but at least it would have a greater purpose then.

That was my thought, exactly. "If this were to happen, I'd like it to be tied to the Military Base." Would make the upgrade more difficult and would benefit defensive and peaceful Civs.

I'm not utterly convinced the increase in range is necessary at all, but at least it seems balanced whereas the automatic increase in range at Dynamite the OP suggests is a complete no go to me.

 

[Denounced]

No because then nobody would need a proper army for defence. I do think that AA guns and mobile SAMS should be MUCH less effective against other units though.

 

[Peng Qi]

I'd almost prefer if they LOST one range UNTIL dynamite, when they'd be set back to 2.

 

[Deaths Advocate]

It would be cool to have a building that could provide this change.