• We need to know your opinion about our social media accounts! Tell us here if you follow us on social media and what we could improve.

Siege units attacking from ships

Should amphibious attacks with siege units on ships be changed?

  • Yes. Forbid amphibious attacks with siege units on ships!

    Votes: 14 23.0%
  • Yes. Let siege units be able to softening defenses only

    Votes: 1 1.6%
  • Yes. Let siege units be able to softening defenses only and with a greater amphibious penalty

    Votes: 4 6.6%
  • Yes. Let siege units be able to softening defenses and damage units both with penalty.

    Votes: 2 3.3%
  • Yes. Let siege units be able to softening defenses as normal but damage units with penalty.

    Votes: 7 11.5%
  • NO. They work perfecty now!

    Votes: 33 54.1%

  • Total voters
    61

Pep

King
Joined
May 28, 2002
Messages
688
Location
Spain
In my current game, I'm far ahead of technology and winning the game. The second civ in the ranking has recently discovered astronomy, and launched a deadly sneak attack against a coastal poor defended city (1 Musketmen, 1 Cuiraissier and 1 Explorer). Their galleons were filled with catapults and trebuchets so I just lost the city (+85% defense with castle and Chichen Itza!). So, I must admit I reloaded the game :mischief:

Well, I think it was a brilliant AI attack. In this particular case, AI could have been smarter by unloading first the units in a land tile near my city, and attacking then without the amphibious attack penalty.

Anyway, I'm writing this thread because I consider splash damage made from siege units on ships, a bit overpowered and unrealistic. Why frigates can only bombard city defenses while cannon or catapults units on galleons can damage units?. So I decide to post this poll...
 
i didn't know about that tackic thanks
 
I see no problem with seige units being able to attack from ships just like every other ground unit. Just defend your vulnerable coastal cities next time. Or better yet, build some frigates and sink those galleons before they can offload.
 
I'm glad the AI pulls crap like this now, keeps things interesting :)

I voted No.

Edit: Seige units can't take down defenses from ships right now, if I'm not mistaken... but they can attack at the standard - amphibious penalty 25%
 
Civ IV Siege isn't exactly right in my mind.

If anything, it should be reversed so that land based-siege can shoot at ships. I don't think army gunners could shoot straight from a pitching deck, and improperly mounted siege weapons would be dangerous to the ship and people on it.

I like the Civ IV change of allowing siege to defend itself, but don't like it's abillity to capture a city.

It's one of the few things that seems wrong in both gameplay and history.
 
I see no problem with seige units being able to attack from ships just like every other ground unit. Just defend your vulnerable coastal cities next time. Or better yet, build some frigates and sink those galleons before they can offload.

As a game which tries to model the reality, I think it's unrealistic that a catapult on a galleon can shot accurately and bypass coastal defenses to damage units while a frigate can't do the same.

But you are right: I'll protect my coastal cities better next time. And, as the attacking civ wasn't at war with me (sneak attack), it seems a good idea to have a big fleet of privateers to wipe out the attacking galleons without the diplomacy penalty of declaring war fisrt.
 
Theres no reason why this couldnt happen. Ancient civs have mounted catapults etc onto ships in the past. I think this could just simulate this, adding the arty to the ships and attacking with ships aswell as troops.

I dont think you are very fair reloading though :p The poor computer doesnt get to reload when you suprise it! I think you should give the comp a chance, specially if you are so far ahead in techs!
 
Siege units on a galleon aren't sitting there on the deck and shooting at the city, any more than berserkers are sitting on a galley and waving their axes threateningly at the enemy. The amphibious penalty is meant to reflect the difficulty in offloading and attacking into a hostile tile across water. Those siege units aren't firing from the ships, they're being offloaded (under fire) and attacking on the same turn (and probably being defeated, in most cases).

Maybe amphibious needs to be rethought in general (say, maybe you get automatic first strikes or something instead of a fixed %), but the current system seems to be good enough. And there doesn't need to be any exception for siege in all this; they work just like they do on land. (In fact, they can't even bombard, which reflects that they can't shoot off the decks of ships.)

I do think there needs to be something like the old coastal fortress, though (except better). Shore-based defenses have been a massive deterrent to naval attacks in both past (coastal batteries) and present (anti-ship missiles), and that should be reflected. The closest you have right now is airships/fighters attacking approaching ships.
 
Siege units on a galleon aren't sitting there on the deck and shooting at the city, any more than berserkers are sitting on a galley and waving their axes threateningly at the enemy. The amphibious penalty is meant to reflect the difficulty in offloading and attacking into a hostile tile across water. Those siege units aren't firing from the ships, they're being offloaded (under fire) and attacking on the same turn (and probably being defeated, in most cases).

Maybe amphibious needs to be rethought in general (say, maybe you get automatic first strikes or something instead of a fixed %), but the current system seems to be good enough. And there doesn't need to be any exception for siege in all this; they work just like they do on land. (In fact, they can't even bombard, which reflects that they can't shoot off the decks of ships.)

I do think there needs to be something like the old coastal fortress, though (except better). Shore-based defenses have been a massive deterrent to naval attacks in both past (coastal batteries) and present (anti-ship missiles), and that should be reflected. The closest you have right now is airships/fighters attacking approaching ships.

I'd like to see the return of shore defenses myself.

When you put it that way, which is a reasonable way to look at it, my issue is more one of not liking the idea of unmechanaized siege being able to both move and fire on the same turn rather than one or the other. Trebs as illustrated , were ponderous things, often built or at least assembled on site. If siege cleared an enemy from a square, then occupied it the next as a rule, rather than siezed territory, I'd be a lot happier about it.
 
The amphibious penalty is meant to reflect the difficulty in offloading and attacking into a hostile tile across water.

Ok, I get your point but I think the amphibious penalty should be far greater for siege units. It's not the same getting out of the ship with your axe or musket than with all the machinery of a catapult or trebuchet. It's slower, about ten times or more in real life.

Maybe I should have added another option to the poll to reflect this: catapults should remain one turn in a ship near a city before they could make an anphibious attack. Just at it happens with paratroopers (a good chice IMO to not unbalance the game).
 
Another idea is to allow land based siege units to attack naval units in adjacent squares. Maybe not cats or trebs because their ranges are measured in yards not miles, but howitzers built in the 20th century could hurl shells at targets miles away. Consider the old school Soviet D-30 / 2A18 towed howitzer. Its effective range was 15.4 km (~9 and half miles). A battery of those on a beach could could pound the bejesus out a ship just offshore. It all boils down to how much area a map square is actually supposed to represent.
If you assume a square is 100 miles wide, then a ship on the very edge of the tile would certainly be vulnerable, whereas if the boat is in the middle, not even a modern day piece of SPARTY could hit it... unless you consider MLRS or SSM's to be arty. Bottom-line: there are a couple of hairs to split when determining of arty tagging naval units would be ridiculous or reasonable.
I know, I kind of went off a tangent, but I think letting some land units hit naval units would balance out amphibious bombardments.
 
Well, the problem is that you're trying to bring realism into it. Yes, in the real world, you wouldn't be able to simply offload a trebuchet and have it start lobbing rocks at a city. But Civ doesn't really reflect the real world. In game terms, I don't really see anything wrong with it. My only caveat would be that collateral damage should only do 50% damage as well. I'm not sure if that's currently the case or not.

Bh
 

What bothers me is that the siege can't bombard from ships. I can understand if you have 2 cat units on a galley unit that both cat units couldn't be ship mounted. However, you should be able to mount Catapults on ancient ships to allow them to bombard. It should of course take up a cargo slot and take more time to unmount and land them.
 
I think Artillery should be able to bombard like normal and attack with amphibious penalty. I personal liked the Civ3 Artillery system where you could bombard from a safe distance like it should be and be able to soften attacks as well as defenders. I say they change it back with Civ5 with some things from Civ4 although.
 
I think Artillery should be able to bombard like normal and attack with amphibious penalty. I personal liked the Civ3 Artillery system where you could bombard from a safe distance like it should be and be able to soften attacks as well as defenders. I say they change it back with Civ5 with some things from Civ4 although.

I think the current artillery system is fine now.

Ranged bombardment:

Wouldn't everything up to Cannon all have a range of 1 tile? 1 tile represents more in Civ 4 than in Civ 3, which is why map sizes are smaller than before. An artillery piece firing over two tiles? If that was in real life, that would be like a mobile artillery unit in Los Angeles firing on units in San Francisco (the way tiles are scaled in Civ 4). For artillery to fire upon enemy units, they'd need to be pretty near (1-tile near), so I think the current artillery system is fine right now, specially with the damage limit.
 
I agree that siege units shouldnt attack from ship. So first it unloads, assemble, then attack? This is not realistic. Also, if it wins and withdraws, then its weirder as it unloads, assembles, attacks, dissembles and loads back to the ship while nobody can stop this whole process from happening.

In general, I think range bombardment like civ 3 should return to civ 5.
 
I think the current artillery system is fine now.

Ranged bombardment:

Wouldn't everything up to Cannon all have a range of 1 tile? 1 tile represents more in Civ 4 than in Civ 3, which is why map sizes are smaller than before. An artillery piece firing over two tiles? If that was in real life, that would be like a mobile artillery unit in Los Angeles firing on units in San Francisco (the way tiles are scaled in Civ 4). For artillery to fire upon enemy units, they'd need to be pretty near (1-tile near), so I think the current artillery system is fine right now, specially with the damage limit.

The range represents the ability to fire from a safe distance not necessarily a very far distance away. Also I agree that the more modern artillery isn't exactly accurate but I feel it added strategy and an upgrade from the artillery that had to approach enemy ranks in order to bombard.
 
I agree that siege units shouldnt attack from ship. So first it unloads, assemble, then attack? This is not realistic. Also, if it wins and withdraws, then its weirder as it unloads, assembles, attacks, dissembles and loads back to the ship while nobody can stop this whole process from happening.

In general, I think range bombardment like civ 3 should return to civ 5.

Ya personally I really dislike the withdrawal chance because it really doesn't make much sense until mobile artillery... Trebuchet assembles, fires, and runs away before enemy knights or even macemen can catch it?
 

Actually the withdrawal is something that bugs me as well. However I view it like this. Siege would be arrayed pretty far from the line of battle. But in case the attack did come to them they did have a team of defense to protect them. This is how I view the damage. The damage they suffer isn't to the siege engines themselves but rather to the troops assigned to defend them. Only when the Defensive teams are overwhelmed do the siege engines get destroyed. In addition it isn't the machine that is withdrawing it is the enemy troops withdrawing back to their fortifications[after all the siege doesn't go to the enemy... the enemy must come to the siege].
 
Top Bottom