Siege Units

[JeffFahFah]

So first things first, I really like vox populi. I'm pretty new with the mod but the ai is much better than vanilla and civ 6. But as a new player I'd like to share one of my small issues with balance with the mod. Namely siege units.

So in vanilla, the difference between a catapult and a trebuchet was huge and again from artillery to rocket artillery. You can easily conquer cities with these upgrades. However, in the mod the upgrade is almost negligible. There's barely any change.

Now I'm not expecting it to be like vanilla because honestly it was too easy. But once the ai builds castle walls versus your trebuchet, there's almost no way you're going to capture it. And there's no way you're going to capture a city with a military base short of nuking the city. I have no problem nuking a city, but when you're competing against a 25 city civ, it ends up being a lot of nukes.

I just feel that with how much the ai has improved with war and infrastructure, that a buff to siege unit upgrades would be better. Especially since there's barely any noticeable upgrades between the different siege units. Like when you hover over a city with a catapult versus a trebuchet the amount of red that shows is like... A pixel lol.

Anyways those are my thoughts on that, let me know what your thoughts on it are and if there's anything I can do to improve my gameplay so maybe I can stop feeling like such a scrub.

 

[CrazyG]

The displayed damage tends to look really small when you target cities. I know what you mean when you say the difference between a catapult and a trebuchet is just 1 pixel, but the difference is there.

I usually use at least 2 siege weapons together. They will wear down the city over a few turns. If your opponent has Fealty (new Piety), it makes their cities stronger though. If you are taking on cities with castles and fealty trebuchets can feel really slow.

 

[XplosiveLun]

I disagree that trebuchets need a buff. With 3-4 trebuchets, you could easily tear down a castle city over time. The same goes for 2-3 catapults for a walled city. But more importantly, you should destroy most of the enemy force before directly attacking cities. You'll have to secure positions for your siege units so they can't be directly attacked by melee units. Also, trebuchets are a significant step up from catapult. While catapult is effective against wall, trebuchet is effective against castle.

 

[ElliotS]

I strongly suspect you're not bringing enough force to take the city. You need a critical mass. Let me give you a few situationt to explain the situation:
A city with 300 HP and you have 2 trebuches doing a total of 40 damage a turn. The city has a garrisoned unit, so both the unit and the city take 20 damage per turn, which they heal off. The city can last basically indefinitely.
Adding another trebuche means that you'll be doing 60 damage per turn, but this means that only 10 of that damage will stick to the unit and city each turn. Assuming it buys new defenders when the current one dies, it will take 30 turns to take down.

Now let's bring 5 trebuches and hit it with each of our 5 longswordsmen.
The trebuches will deal 100 damage, split between the city and the unit. You wait a turn, then fire another 100 damage and your longswordsmen hit for another 100 damage. The unit dies after the second longswordsman hit, so the final 3 do full damage to the city. The city is at 140 HP. The AI buys another defender. You shoot, pillage the tiles the swordsmen are on to heal and swing again. This kills the defender and brings the city to 60 HP. The AI buys another unit, but it's for naught. You fire again and take the city on the fourth longsword attack. The last swordsman heals for 15 that turn.

The fight might have only taken 1 turn if you could have surrounded the city fully with a 6th swordsman, for that sweet sweet +20% blockaded bonus.

These numbers are probably not exactly accurate, but the point is: You need to bring a lot of damage to outpace the healing of the city, and the unit inside the city. Melee unit attacks DRASTICALLY speed up taking cities, but can also backfire if you swing carelessly.

 

[Stalker0]

Yeah the trick is you have to build a lot of force to take a city....but once you have it, you can roam around and take city after city

 

[CrabHelmet]

I strongly suspect you're not bringing enough force to take the city. You need a critical mass. Let me give you a few situationt to explain the situation:
A city with 300 HP and you have 2 trebuches doing a total of 40 damage a turn. The city has a garrisoned unit, so both the unit and the city take 20 damage per turn, which they heal off. The city can last basically indefinitely.
Adding another trebuche means that you'll be doing 60 damage per turn, but this means that only 10 of that damage will stick to the unit and city each turn. Assuming it buys new defenders when the current one dies, it will take 30 turns to take down.

Now let's bring 5 trebuches and hit it with each of our 5 longswordsmen.
The trebuches will deal 100 damage, split between the city and the unit. You wait a turn, then fire another 100 damage and your longswordsmen hit for another 100 damage. The unit dies after the second longswordsman hit, so the final 3 do full damage to the city. The city is at 140 HP. The AI buys another defender. You shoot, pillage the tiles the swordsmen are on to heal and swing again. This kills the defender and brings the city to 60 HP. The AI buys another unit, but it's for naught. You fire again and take the city on the fourth longsword attack. The last swordsman heals for 15 that turn.

The fight might have only taken 1 turn if you could have surrounded the city fully with a 6th swordsman, for that sweet sweet +20% blockaded bonus.

These numbers are probably not exactly accurate, but the point is: You need to bring a lot of damage to outpace the healing of the city, and the unit inside the city. Melee unit attacks DRASTICALLY speed up taking cities, but can also backfire if you swing carelessly.

Is this desirable? It means VP has no concept of a limited war. If I can take one of my opponent's cities, I can probably take all of them, so... why wouldn't I?

 

[Tarzan737]

In Civ3 it was a mod that destroyed buildings and infrastructure in a city when you used ranged units, not only walls or castles, it could be randomly anything like aqueduct or something. I liked that mod, especially late game when you could almost destroy cities with bombers.

 

[Gazebo]

Is this desirable? It means VP has no concept of a limited war. If I can take one of my opponent's cities, I can probably take all of them, so... why wouldn't I?

That’s just how civ works. It’s how civ has always worked.

G

 

[Blue Ghost]

Is this desirable? It means VP has no concept of a limited war. If I can take one of my opponent's cities, I can probably take all of them, so... why wouldn't I?

Other cities may be more defensible and not as easy to capture.
Your units may be worn down and need time to recover, during which time the enemy will have reinforcements.
Pursuing a total war takes time and commitment, and can open you up to attacks from other civs.
Diplomatic penalties for warmongering.

There have been times when I’ve completely conquered other civs, but I find that most of my wars tend to be limited in scope. I take what I can get, and make peace when I can’t get further.

 

[andersw]

So first things first, I really like vox populi. I'm pretty new with the mod but the ai is much better than vanilla and civ 6. But as a new player I'd like to share one of my small issues with balance with the mod. Namely siege units.

So in vanilla, the difference between a catapult and a trebuchet was huge and again from artillery to rocket artillery. You can easily conquer cities with these upgrades. However, in the mod the upgrade is almost negligible. There's barely any change.

Now I'm not expecting it to be like vanilla because honestly it was too easy. But once the ai builds castle walls versus your trebuchet, there's almost no way you're going to capture it. And there's no way you're going to capture a city with a military base short of nuking the city. I have no problem nuking a city, but when you're competing against a 25 city civ, it ends up being a lot of nukes.

I just feel that with how much the ai has improved with war and infrastructure, that a buff to siege unit upgrades would be better. Especially since there's barely any noticeable upgrades between the different siege units. Like when you hover over a city with a catapult versus a trebuchet the amount of red that shows is like... A pixel lol.

Anyways those are my thoughts on that, let me know what your thoughts on it are and if there's anything I can do to improve my gameplay so maybe I can stop feeling like such a scrub.

That depends a lot.
Did you tech fast for that siege or did you go for a lot of other things?
If opponent have walls vs catapults or castle vs trebs it does take more than 1-2 siege units.
On the other hand if you're hitting smaller cities in the outskirts of their empire they will likely have far less defence and go down a lot faster.
Look at the defence numbers and compare their capital with their other cities, on emperor and below its usually quite a difference.
Lastly if you get a full surround on the city a special marker is shown, and as long as you have that surround it will not heal.

 

[Kim Dong Un]

Is this desirable? It means VP has no concept of a limited war. If I can take one of my opponent's cities, I can probably take all of them, so... why wouldn't I?

Happiness will also inevitably spiral out of control, causing all kinds of problems like barb spawns and city upheavals. There's a certain pace you have to go about warmongering, if the goal is to really sprawl out and conquer like 20+ cities.

 

[tu_79]

Is this desirable? It means VP has no concept of a limited war. If I can take one of my opponent's cities, I can probably take all of them, so... why wouldn't I?

There are a few mechanics preventing a player from taking too many cities at the same time. For instance, you have a happiness penalty. Then, increased costs for techs and policies. If the city is revolting and rebuilding basic stuff, it's going to be a drag in your progress for a while. If you puppet the city, fine, but then you have bigger territory that you have to protect with the same army you used to conquer it, and some unhappiness either way.
There is a combat penalty for unhappiness, and there is another combat penalty for capturing too many cities. Lastly, if a warmonger gets too successful, other AI will bang up against it. Many people hate warmongers.
If you remain unhappy (under -20) for too long, some of your cities might revolt and secede.

 

[Bridger]

The fight might have only taken 1 turn if you could have surrounded the city fully with a 6th swordsman, for that sweet sweet +20% blockaded bonus.

fudge, when did this get added? What if a city is on the coast? Ships can help create a full 6 unit blockade?

 

[chicorbeef]

****, when did this get added? What if a city is on the coast? Ships can help create a full 6 unit blockade?

Yes, ships can help blockade but not embarked units. I believe HP does not regenerate when a city is blockaded as well.

 

[Bridger]

Yes, ships can help blockade but not embarked units. I believe HP does not regenerate when a city is blockaded as well.

I've been playing this mod for hundreds of hours over the years. How many other things am I going to learn about when the inevitable "Guide to VP 1.0" is released

 

[CppMaster]

****, when did this get added? What if a city is on the coast? Ships can help create a full 6 unit blockade?

Also, when there is a mountain tile adjacent to the city, then you need only 5 units surrounding the city.

 

[tu_79]

I've been playing this mod for hundreds of hours over the years. How many other things am I going to learn about when the inevitable "Guide to VP 1.0" is released

Heck, I've just updated my guide to religion since I didn't know correctly how religious pressure works.

 

[azum4roll]

Also, when there is a mountain tile adjacent to the city, then you need only 5 units surrounding the city.

Does that work against Inca?

Also, ships seem to blockade the unoccupied water tiles adjacent to them as well, so you need fewer ships to blockade a coastal city than you need land units to blockade a landlocked city.

 

[tu_79]

Does that work against Inca?

Also, ships seem to blockade the unoccupied water tiles adjacent to them as well, so you need fewer ships to blockade a coastal city than you need land units to blockade a landlocked city.

Not sure, but it should not work against Incas, since the blockade happens when there's no pathfinder escape route.

 

[CppMaster]

Also, ships seem to blockade the unoccupied water tiles adjacent to them as well, so you need fewer ships to blockade a coastal city than you need land units to blockade a landlocked city.

I'm pretty sure that's not how it works. Would 1-tile island city take only 3 ships to blockade it? IIRC I had to have all 6 ships.

Does that work against Inca?

I don't know about that.