Siege units in melee fights

[ezzlar]

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.

There are a number of better solutions offered earlier in the series.

One would be a pure support unit. Maybe working something along how siege tower works. But allowing a distant shot at the city. However, the AI is not too bright with these kind of mechanics.

Another one would be a low melee value but +100% attack against cities. Or even +150%.

A third one which might be the most simple, make sieges defend like embarked units. They take damage but can´t deal damage when attacked.

 

[lilnev!]

I suspect that their melee power was set so that they can survive ranged fire. I agree that they should be more vulnerable to direct attack, somehow.

 

[mrwho]

I suspect that their melee power was set so that they can survive ranged fire. I agree that they should be more vulnerable to direct attack, somehow.

I feel like the same number representing defense against melee and defense against ranged is a flaw in Civ VI. Firing a bunch of arrows at siege units should achieve next to nothing, whereas attacking a siege unit on-foot should be devastating. Maybe splitting up melee and ranged defense would be overcomplicated, but for siege especially the current implementation doesn't sit right.

 

[ezzlar]

Right now I dont really remember, do siege units get -17 against land units when defending (melee)?

Edit: Guess not. That would apply to ranged as well then?

 

[mrwho]

Right now I dont really remember, do siege units get -17 against land units when defending (melee)?

Edit: Guess not. That would apply to ranged as well then?

Unless I'm missing something, they get -17 bombard strength when attacking land units, but don't get any melee adjustments on defense. This would be a good feature though.

 

[Buktu]

They could just implement a modifier to the dmg taken from melee units attacking siege units similar to the modifier they use when melee units attack walls.

 

[Linklite]

Personally, I don't like them becoming more of a glass cannon than they already are. They still.need to be able to hold up somewhat against attacks from units, so I don't think reducing their CS against units or giving them a weakness to them is a good idea.

I think it best to use the embarked unit idea. This makes them a bit more vulnerable to attack, but also is realistic - I doubt that artillery batteries turned their guns on the cavalry in their midst, and once they were actually attacked, they were largely defenceless. So I think the idea that they can't harm their attackers when they're actually being attacked is a good solution.

 

[UWHabs]

Personally, I don't like them becoming more of a glass cannon than they already are. They still.need to be able to hold up somewhat against attacks from units, so I don't think reducing their CS against units or giving them a weakness to them is a good idea.

I think it best to use the embarked unit idea. This makes them a bit more vulnerable to attack, but also is realistic - I doubt that artillery batteries turned their guns on the cavalry in their midst, and once they were actually attacked, they were largely defenceless. So I think the idea that they can't harm their attackers when they're actually being attacked is a good solution.

I think the theory talked about above would make them stronger on ranged defense, and weaker on melee defense. It always sucks that I often can't get around to sieging a city because one crossbow shot and one city shot and my bombard is basically dead. Would be nice if they could at least take a couple ranged shots, but if you can sneak a horse unit around, I got nothing wrong with you being able to one-shot it.

 

[Pietato]

Siege should do increased damage to cities and anti-cavalry, take reduced damage from range (unless promoted) and be vulnerable to light cav and melee flanks. It is stupid that they are not included in the whole unit counter system.

 

[sethjohnson]

tell the light brigade they can't be hurt charging into cannons!

 

[Linklite]

tell the light brigade they can't be hurt charging into cannons!

When they were a distance a way, yes they would get slaughtered charging into their killzone. Once you get to melee, which is the topic of the discussion, the cannons would be largely impotent.

 

[shaglio]

Back in the day ( ) each unit had an offensive strength and a defensive strength. That lasted from Civ 1 to Civ 4, but I'm not sure why they did away with it starting with Civ 5. Maybe it was too complicated on the AI coding side of things or something, but it seems like a concept that would help with the Siege line. If they had separate offensive and defensive Combat Strength, it would be much easier to distinguish how they are better at attacking certain units but poorer at attacking others, while also being able to distinguish how they are more vulnerable to being attacked by certain units but are less vulnerable to being attacked by others.

Maybe the separate CSs could make a comeback for Civ 7.

 

[Buktu]

Back in the day ( ) each unit had an offensive strength and a defensive strength.

Thats kind of what ranged and melee strength is used for at least for ranged units, isnt it?

 

[SirWill90]

Been a ridiculous feature since at least Civ IV. But then you also had the very random combat results. So a swordsman attacking a catapult would die pretty often. Very frustrating if one is looking at it from a realism standpoint, which I guess is not good in Civ heh.

 

[Oberinspektor Derrick]

I suspect that their melee power was set so that they can survive ranged fire. I agree that they should be more vulnerable to direct attack, somehow.

Most likely, but I also think it's just a lazy band aid fix from Firaxis because Siege units still struggle with city defences.
The problem with Siege units and city defences is that the Siege unit (unlike civ 5) actually has to set up for an attack within range, whereas civ 5 allowed for +1 range and indirect fire upgrades.
So while some extra defence helps for the Siege unit, it will always take return damage (until Balloons arrive) compared to civ 5.
And as you say, it gets the dumb consequence that swordsmen might actually kill themselves when attacking a Catapult.

I'd really like to see the +1 range and/or indirect fire upgrades to return for Siege units, and then just flat out nerf their combat strength in return.

 

[Taefin]

What I’ve been telling myself is every catapult comes with a unit of pseudo swordsmen dedicated to its defense. But wow does it make attacking AI difficult once they get 3+ catapults up, since attacking one, the return fire is lethal. Perhaps the anti-unit promotions could be changed to increased bombard strength against land units instead of combat strength, so that it only applies to its ranged attack. Adding +10 to melee attacks like anti cav on cav would certainly be appreciated.

 

[shaglio]

Thats kind of what ranged and melee strength is used for at least for ranged units, isnt it?

Oh, that's right. I completely forgot about the Ranged Combat Strength value. I'll just go back eating my tapioca pudding and than take my nap.

 

[Pietato]

tell the light brigade they can't be hurt charging into cannons!

Flanking, bro. And in civ 6, one combat instance is the attacker hitting the defender, with the defender only being able to defend in melee range. Which is why ranged units do not shoot back when defending.

 

[ezzlar]

From cannon onward there might be some differences compared to charging a catapult head on. Which shouldn´t be a problem? Unless it´s actually a very heavy artillery piece which shouldn´t be able to cause damage in close combat either.

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.

 

[BrotherInJah]

Been a ridiculous feature since at least Civ IV. But then you also had the very random combat results. So a swordsman attacking a catapult would die pretty often. Very frustrating if one is looking at it from a realism standpoint, which I guess is not good in Civ heh.

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.