Siege units attacking from ships

[Lord Neil]

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].

Well everyone looks at the representations of the game differently...

 

[Rusty Edge]

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.

Sailing Ships can bombard a city, but artillery , even on a hill can't return fire?

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?

Amphibious assaulting siege should have zero% withdrawal chance.

 

[18lama]

@ShunNakamura: true. I agree completely.

Even in modern warfare, It also bothers me that my Mobile arty CR1/2 gets damaged by a fortified Longbow in a city; but thats a different story.

I would also like the arty and Mobile arty to have the ability to bomb nearby enemy ships (remember Guns of Navarone) but that will be like bringing back ZOC and that may never happen.

 

[Lorteungen]

The new ability for all land units and especially siege units to make amphibious attacks is the best thing that has happened to civ for a very long time IMHO. It actually makes the AI dangerous even if you've secured your own landmass. It also makes a navy essential for maybe the first time in civ-history! Yeah so it's a bit of a cheap way to avoid actually making a decent countered naval combat system or improving the AI further but who cares when it really makes a difference. Maybe the navy will get some deserved attention in the next installment, but for now this will do. I really don't care if it's unrealistic and not historically correct, no part of this game is.

 

[Arlborn]

It is just a game. You should be discussion if it is balanced for a siege unit to attack from sea like that, not the realism of it. Realism comes only after balance, IMHO.

 

[Rusty Edge]

It is just a game. You should be discussion if it is balanced for a siege unit to attack from sea like that, not the realism of it. Realism comes only after balance, IMHO.

Your priorities may well be for the best.


It's a game. It's supposed to be fun. When it's silly without being funny, it detracts from the sense of immersion and suspension of disbelief, and becomes less fun. For some people that's Caesar offering them a salad, for others it's a realism issue such as Airships being a major factor on land battlefields when historically they were more of a psychological weapon.

Dinner calls..

 

[Ormur]

I think artillery in Civ 3 made more sense than it does now. Artillery units should be able to damage units in nearby tiles without putting themselves in harms way. Unless of course they are badly protected, in which case you could snatch yourself some free siege units.

 

[fizsh]

I had a problem with the AI using catapults in an amphibious assault. That was all he brought!! Yeah, he did damage to my units (I think I had a couple of archers or longbowman), but had only 1 unit to finish off and take my city! I had a few frigates take out the ships as they tried to return, complete with some cats that were able to withdraw. Four galleons with 11 cats and 1 horse archer. I got 3 of them plus their caravel escorts.

 

[Rusty Edge]

It is just a game. You should be discussion if it is balanced for a siege unit to attack from sea like that, not the realism of it. Realism comes only after balance, IMHO.

As for gameplay-




Pressuming that the time enemy cavalry boarded my transport and killed some of it's occupants as I was bombarding his city was a fluke, I find gameplay workable. I think that sailing ships should bombard more per turn than a canon on land, but I also figure that it's a way of streamlining the coastal fortress defense effect without having to include them in the game.

Overall, I prefer the current Civ IV - siege as specialized units capable of collateral damage but vulnerable to flanking attacks and at risk when attacking , as opposed to Civ III siege as weapons to be captured or destroyed .

I still think there's room for improvement, but that tansitions into realism issues.

 

[Arlborn]

Your priorities may well be for the best.


It's a game. It's supposed to be fun. When it's silly without being funny, it detracts from the sense of immersion and suspension of disbelief, and becomes less fun. For some people that's Caesar offering them a salad, for others it's a realism issue such as Airships being a major factor on land battlefields when historically they were more of a psychological weapon.

Dinner calls..

Did I say anything about no realism? Balance comes first, or you might as well have a big praetorian for each unit that dominated a part of its time in history. And blablabla.

You got my meaning. First you make the basic of the game, then you balance, then you check for realism. Then balance again the realism. I think that is what they did.

 

[Rusty Edge]

Did I say anything about no realism? Balance comes first, or you might as well have a big praetorian for each unit that dominated a part of its time in history. And blablabla.

You got my meaning. First you make the basic of the game, then you balance, then you check for realism. Then balance again the realism. I think that is what they did.

Sorry.

I don't come here to quarrel or give offense. I come here to learn and to facillitate discussions that improve the game over time. I love this game.
I don't mean to be critical of the people who made it possible. Gameplay over realism is a respectable choice. It's the one the designers have made often.

If you like or are satisfied with an aspect of the game that I think needs more work, that's cool.