Siege units in melee fights

[Galvatron]

Something I really dont like in the Civ series is the implementation of siege units as decent in melee. When my swordsmen or cavalry charges a siege unit in open terrain and get a fair chunk of beating. This feels unrealistic. And now when we get more and stronger siege units.

Siege should be okay against most units. It should be weak vs. Light cavalry though, and strong vs. Ranged when defending.

And really, how does a catapult actually defend itself? Not anymore than the supply convoy or observation balloon. Someone mentioned dedicated defenders and that might be the case one has to imagine.

Well the catapult is crewed by soldiers who're jacked from lifting heavy rocks all day. The convoy and balloon are staffed by civilians and ballast respectively.

 

[Linklite]

Siege should be okay against most units. It should be weak vs. Light cavalry though, and strong vs. Ranged when defending.

They technically are weak to LC already, it's locked behind a promotion, though.

 

[SirWill90]

No it didn't.

In civ 4, back in SOD era, siege units were useless on 1v1 combat. It had only one purpose, soften enemy SOD while being stacked in your SOD.

I seem to remember otherwise. I think fighting stack vs stack with some kind of quick combat resolution was an option, but I specifically remember having to go through my stack and look at what each unit would be facing in order to get the highest combat odds; frequently if the AI had a bunch of catapults I would have to attack with my swordsmen/axemen until the catapults were dealt with before I could move on to killing the actual melee units. This essentially led to the absurdity of the siege units being the frontline defenders of the melee units. I wonder how often the scorpions shot so many charging barbarians that the Roman infantry never had to draw their swords?

Add in the "RNG" results where if you had "97.3%" chance of victory, you would lose at least 33% of the time, and there was a little bit of rage quitting going on at my house during the Civ IV days. Oh yeah, and I posted (maybe under an old forgotten username) a comment about defending catapults destroying swordsmen and axemen way back when, and I will never forget the first response: "Working as intended. Build more units." Lol.

Ok reminiscent rant over.

 

[UWHabs]

Siege should be okay against most units. It should be weak vs. Light cavalry though, and strong vs. Ranged when defending.



Well the catapult is crewed by soldiers who're jacked from lifting heavy rocks all day. The convoy and balloon are staffed by civilians and ballast respectively.

I wonder if you could simulate that with a mechanism like giving units double flanking bonuses against siege units? So like, 1v1, siege units might be decent, but if you can flank it with multiple units, then it's absolutely useless.

 

[SammyKhalifa]

I seem to remember otherwise. I think fighting stack vs stack with some kind of quick combat resolution was an option, but I specifically remember having to go through my stack and look at what each unit would be facing in order to get the highest combat odds; frequently if the AI had a bunch of catapults I would have to attack with my swordsmen/axemen until the catapults were dealt with before I could move on to killing the actual melee units. This essentially led to the absurdity of the siege units being the frontline defenders of the melee units. I wonder how often the scorpions shot so many charging barbarians that the Roman infantry never had to draw their swords?

Add in the "RNG" results where if you had "97.3%" chance of victory, you would lose at least 33% of the time, and there was a little bit of rage quitting going on at my house during the Civ IV days. Oh yeah, and I posted (maybe under an old forgotten username) a comment about defending catapults destroying swordsmen and axemen way back when, and I will never forget the first response: "Working as intended. Build more units." Lol.

Ok reminiscent rant over.

It floors me how people say they prefer that to what we have now.

 

[SirWill90]

It floors me how people say they prefer that to what we have now.

You're absolutely right. I went back and tried a Civ IV BTS game about two years ago, with memories of the time-faded glory that Was... and within a half hour, nope... I was loading up VI.

 

[BrotherInJah]

You're absolutely right. I went back and tried a Civ IV BTS game about two years ago, with memories of the time-faded glory that Was... and within a half hour, nope... I was loading up VI.

I did even better, i forgot to defend my city..