Siege weapons are too unreallistic
- Thread starter Dedelph
- Start date
TheVampire
Chieftain
- Joined
- Nov 11, 2005
- Messages
- 26
my 2 cents.
Cannon and Artillary ( but not catapult ) should be able to fire against ships in coastal squares.
Battleships should be upgraded to range 2.
Seige weapons should be able to fire in support of defending units, just as in Civ 3.
Seige weapons should not be able to take a city.
Cannon and Artillary ( but not catapult ) should be able to fire against ships in coastal squares.
Battleships should be upgraded to range 2.
Seige weapons should be able to fire in support of defending units, just as in Civ 3.
Seige weapons should not be able to take a city.
jkp1187
Unindicted Co-Conspirator
Not at all. Siege weapons are perfectly realistic....what the programmers have done is create a crude but effective supply line rule for the Civ combat system.
Gargoyle
Warlord
I've responded to posts like this one many times now. I won't go into as much depth this time.
Artillery as portrayed in the game takes loses which if they didn't they would be the ultimate weapon. The loses need to be replaced. This uses up production capacity and time. Just the right EFFECT to simulate logistical drain caused by an offensive war using a great deal of ammunition and supply. The US and RUSSIAN armies of WWII used huge amounts of artillery during the war, but they also used up resources much faster than the Germans. They could afford to because of their industrial might.
Artillery as portrayed in the game takes loses which if they didn't they would be the ultimate weapon. The loses need to be replaced. This uses up production capacity and time. Just the right EFFECT to simulate logistical drain caused by an offensive war using a great deal of ammunition and supply. The US and RUSSIAN armies of WWII used huge amounts of artillery during the war, but they also used up resources much faster than the Germans. They could afford to because of their industrial might.
I have no problem with the way it was in Civ 3 or the way it is now in Civ 4. I adjust to the rules. It does bug me that air units can't sink ships and that seige weapons can't harm ships.
What I do find funny, well strange in any case, is that Firaxis said one of the main reasons to change arty to the way it is now is to cut down on the super stacks. Ummmmmm why change how an entire class of units works to do this, why not just put in a stack limit per tile? Even with the current rules there should be a limit of 4 to 6 units per stack.
What I do find funny, well strange in any case, is that Firaxis said one of the main reasons to change arty to the way it is now is to cut down on the super stacks. Ummmmmm why change how an entire class of units works to do this, why not just put in a stack limit per tile? Even with the current rules there should be a limit of 4 to 6 units per stack.
Proteus
King
- Joined
- Nov 25, 2001
- Messages
- 714
AFAIR CtP I and II had a limit of 12 units per stack.
The AI couldn´t adjust to this too well and often you could see large stacks of units in AI territory which couldn´t move, because they were blocked left and right by stacks of size 12 of their own civ
Maybe the AI Designers were fearing thagt they would encounter the same problems
(although the AI of CtP was considerably enhanced due to the work of modders [for example the AoM-Mod for CtP II uses a decent AI
])
The AI couldn´t adjust to this too well and often you could see large stacks of units in AI territory which couldn´t move, because they were blocked left and right by stacks of size 12 of their own civ
Maybe the AI Designers were fearing thagt they would encounter the same problems
(although the AI of CtP was considerably enhanced due to the work of modders [for example the AoM-Mod for CtP II uses a decent AI
])I had a similar thought to this, yet different ???Proteus said:In the official firaxis poll I made the suggestion to change the current artillery mechanics to:
Artillery can bombard units (like in Civ III) causing collateral damage. If any defending artillery is in the stack which is bombarded, an artillery duel is the result which lasts until one of the artillery units is dead and which causes collateral damage to units in both, attacking and defending stack.
(an option available only to true artillery units, not for tanks/MBTs which get the collateral damage promotion [here the old model should stay in place])
Maybe the firaxians find this suggestion worth implementing
(of course such a change would have to also result in higher costs for artillery units for balance purposes, as they will survive for a much longer time)
I would like to see both the C3 & C4 models combined.... The units behavior in C3 with the collateral aspect of C4.
Ability to bombard any target, collateral damage to any units on square and a token defense value requiring the unit to be escorted.
Older units should move as slowly as their real life counterparts. A catapult should take THREE turns to go one square. Cannon should be split into 2 varieties... The type used in the 16-1700's were far different than the types used with 1800's cavalry. Medieval cannon should require TWO turns to move, while "cavalry" cannon could be moved in 1 turn at a gallop.
The units should be expensive. It takes a crew of men ( and horses...? ) to transport and use a cannon in battle. Maintenance costs should reflect that. If a maceman costs 1GP, a horseman should be 2GP ( or more ). If that be the case, a typical cannon would have at least 2 men to fire it, 1 to get ammo, another 1 or a horse to help move it... That's at least 4+ GP. I would figure it would be 5 times the cost of maintaining a single soldier. It should be cost prohibitive to maintain a huge stack of artillery. That would make it much more difficult to support the artillery stack of doom, and relegate artillery to it's proper supporting role.
Having the units in the field for so long in transit invites them to be attacked before they reach their target. An artilery piece in transit would not be able to fire. They should be taken to where they need to go, set up ( deployed ) and THEN be used. Even with no per turn transit penalty on older units, the fact it would take a turn or two to set them up still leaves them open to preemptive strikes. Artillery would be vulnerable just as it is/was in real life, and exacts a price to use it's power effectively.
Any defender fortified in the field or in a should have a bombard defense modifier. I would start with 50% for a unit "dug in" in the field. Any unit fortified in a city would have a 75% modifier, UNfortified 50%. There are places to hide. Defenders are not sitting on top of the walls with their toungues out... Artillery is powerful, and there will be collateral damage. 2-3 units hitting 6 units apiece will help the attacker, BUT, they won't be waltzing in on 2 units with 1 HP each.
It should be possible to miss. Just because you're there doesn't mean they are....
I don't believe I'd like the "artillery duel". I think that would create a whole bunch of little artillery battles without solving the inherent problem with the system. Ability for attacker and defender to utilize their artillery in the field as described above would allow for flexability in deployment and allow units to be captured. If all defenders are lost, the unit should be taken by the victor.
As for attacking ships, Absolutely. If you can shoot it, it should be able to be shot at. Of course, modifiers should be present to take into account distance and speed and moving targets and the like. I would give a 50% defense modifier. I can see damage, but it would be a lucky shot to sink something.
Tim aka...antracer
If you want realistic artillery on a strategic level then play Hearts of Iron. In Heart of Iron there is no Artillery units moving across the map. Artillery only comes in battalions which can be attached to a division. So if you think of civ4 artillery as a infantry division with a attached artillery then you be just fine.
In Heart of Iron you can't capture artillery pieces either since units are represented on a strategic level and not on a tactical level (Combat mission for example). Capturing artillery or a strategic level is silly just as much as capture tank armies would be. True on a tactical level an army could capture artillery or even a tank but not whole complete armies with their troops.
In Heart of Iron you can't capture artillery pieces either since units are represented on a strategic level and not on a tactical level (Combat mission for example). Capturing artillery or a strategic level is silly just as much as capture tank armies would be. True on a tactical level an army could capture artillery or even a tank but not whole complete armies with their troops.
Sorry about the long post. The short point -- you can't make artillery realistic until you make all of warfare realistic!
Its way too simplistic to talk about the effectiveness of artillery and or ships in generic terms. History is fairly complex.
In ancient times, capture of cities was rarely done through medieval manners, with artillery causing a breach. Storming with rams and scale ladders was also rare. There were two main ways to capture a city -- treachery and starvation.
There are legions of examples. In the Pelopennesian War, there was only one city taken by direct siege, I think. Most were taken ultimately by the two common methods.
The later Greeks were better at it, because they learned about seige engines and especially archery. Demetrius ultimately failed to take Rhodes, but he showed the later Greek ability at siegecraft.
The story of Troy, although mythological, was basically treachery (troops entering the city at night). The story in Herodotus of how the Persians took Babylon was through Zopyrus pretending to be a traitor for Babylon, but then opened the gates for the Persians. Alaric captured Rome with a real life version of the story, having soldiers of his 'captured', enslaved, and then one night on a signal gathered in strength, overtook the guards, and opened the gates.
Starvation is the oldest technique in the books. Look at the seige of Tyre by Alexander, a marvel by both sides, which mostly came to Alexander's attempts (finally successful) in cutting the city off by sea. Athens is finally starved into submission at the end of the Pelopennesian war after their fleet is lost at Syracuse and then at Aegospotomai.
But the Romans were a different story. Their engineering ability was very advanced, and they had substantial archery and accompanying troops. After the Marian reforms, they had essentially a fully professional army. So they capture Jerusalem by storm after the revolt, beseige and take Alesia (more of an outside fort), and many other examples. However, even they usually used the old fashioned methods.
Fortification was the main defense against mobility. The steppe horse warriors/nomads (Scythians, Sarmatians, Huns, Avars, Pechenegs, Cumans, etc.) were always a problem for the stable populations, who often turned to fortifications. Neither the Goths nor the Huns could take Constantinople, but they could destroy all the surrounding lands (are were usually bribed to go away by the Eastern emperor).
One of the reasons that the Mongols were so successful was because of their legendary patience. When the took Northern China, they hired the Chinese skilled engineers, and the Mongols learned siegecraft as well as any settled community (and even taught a few tricks)!
As stated above, ancients didn't move artillery around very much. It was constructed on site. It was ineffective against ships.
The change in Medieval Siege warfare was important from technology, but the key change was that sieges became the dominant form of warfare. The advent of castles and the DIFFICULTY in taking them allowed small, local powers to thwart more powerful ones. Castles sprang up over Europe beginning in the 11th century, and siege warfare became an art.
Of course, we did have breakthroughs in siege equipment, especially trebuchets, although these were hard and expensive to build. Siege warfare is now so common that all three techniques are still in use -- treachery, assault (including advanced techniques like mining), and starvation. Indeed, the main way castles were taken was by surrender! That is, the defenders recognize that there is no out. However, when Bohemund got to the Levant during the first crusade, after seeing the walls of Tyre, he immediately began looking for a traitor. Remember the saying, 'There is no city that can't be captured without a wagon full of gold'.
The advent of cannon didn't end fortresses. They did the the OLD fortresses of large walls, and they changed to lower thicker ones. Soon, cannons peppered coastal defenses.
In real life, the range of cannon was small by naval standards. Therefore, coastal defenses could fire at ships that came close. Coastal artillery was effective at defense, but can't fire at ships passing by. Conversely, they were devestatingly powerful because a coastal battery required the cannon (or later artillery) itself to be hit -- the coastal artillery, of coarse, can aim at a lot of places on the ship, like the deck. Therefore, coming in on coastal battteries was very hazardous.
On land, siege warfare became more and more scientific. Vauban is often considered the greatest siegemaster of all time, both in defense and offense. We now have rings, and all kinds of offensive and defensive structures. All of the old tricks, mining, cannon, and of course starvation are all present, but Vaubon basically felt that eventually the attacker with enough resources can overcome any defense. Treachery isn't as common since defense is no longer based on a main gate.
Fortresses continued to be used, up to this day. In WWI, the key fortresses like Warsaw and Verdun dominated a lot of the warfare. At this point, fortresses can be taken only with artillery. Surrounding and starvation still matter but artillery assault is now the predominant form.
WWII showed fortresses at both ends. Why were fortresses less effective? It wasn't technolgy of assault and defense, it was the mobility of armies. So, the French built pretty much an impregnable fortress, but the German defeated it by going around it. This was easier in WWII because of the mobility of the armies. However, detailed sieges of Leningrad (where the Germans could take the city, but wanted to avoid heavy casualties, so tried to starve it), and Stalingrad, wehre the Soviets surrounded the Germans and went back to cutting supplies as the methodology. Rommel defeated the British in hte desert but originally couldn't take Tobruk with his small, mobile army, but did later. The Belgian forts, which were supposed to slow down the Germans as a key part of the French/Belgian/Netherlands defense, were taken by paradrop.
At this point also, artillery is absolutely devastating against ships coming close. In the Russo-Japanese war, the Japanese captured the Russian artillery and turned it against the Russian (Pacific) fleet, destroying it at Port Arthur. Running fortresses was considered heretical. Of course, this became Churchills' lament about Gallipoli. Churchill felt that the British fleet could run the straits and have 'acceptible' losses, but with enough battleships Britain could force the straits, bombard Constantinople, and force a peace. In actuality, the British took losses while running the straights (mines here were also an issue) and the Briitish fleet backed down in the middle, making it a disaster. Commanders were ALWAYS terrified of getting close to coastal artillery.
So, where does that leave us with the game? Well, to be honest, nowhere. You can't have realistic siegecraft if you don't have realistic combat conditions. And this means all kinds of factors that people usually don't like addressing. Indeed, even for hard core board wargamers, the issues over the importance of dealing with logistics and elements are unending.
In ancient times, armies did travel together because of command issues and force concentrations. Fortresses were always an issue. In real life, the besieging army's greatest fear was disease, with starvation a close second. The longer the siege, the more likely some disease breaks out. (See for instance the Assyrian attempt to take Jerusalem/Judah after defeating the Northerrn Kingdom).
Artillery wansn't taken on long trips, it was built on the spot. Therefore, artillery should take time to use once the army is in place (this happens, for instance, in the Lords of the Realm games). The amount of artillery that can be used is limited by local resources. If the siege wasn't fast enough, the army would die of starvation -- sieges were often a matter of which side could hold out!
In addition, what about traitors? How do we simulate that in the game? Do we want our defenses, well built, to fall because the computer rolled a '1' and got a traitor right away?
Worse, what about lines of communications and real fortresses? In real life, the city wasn't often the forterss itself. It was often outside the city, on a key piece of terrain. The attacking army, of course, can't leave the other army in the high terrain.
But we don't have that in the game either. The risk of getting cut from the army's base isn't in effect (why -- because , again, the attaking army doesn't starve. It doesn't need messages from home making sure there isn'at a new war, revolt, etc. The computer tells us all of that.)
So, in CIV III we had stacks of doom. The stacks of doom I made would NEVER have worked in real life -- they would have starved to death, been ravaged by disease, and ran out of artillery ammo way before doing too much damage. As I said, real life artillery didn't move. Also, the finances of the game aren't realistic. The armies I created would have been about 100 times my real life GNP.
Once cannon is invented, we have new issues. Again, though, disease, money, treachery, and especially supply need to be factored before we can make artillery 'work' properly. In real life, there would not be defenses of the enemy in the city. There would be castles all over the place with small amounts of defenders. There would be a large enemy field army. Taking the fortress all the way is very hard and tremendously expensive. What we need is a die roll to determine if the castle surrenders, based on the ability of the field army to relieve it. The defenders are also hoiping that the attackers run out of money, time, food, or get hit with a disease.
Now, don't get me started on modern times! Here, once the large armies expanded, the ability to keep the army together (in a stack) was impossible since the army couldn't be supplied. Also, the ability to flank the army was too important. With large armies, railroads to bring supplies, and modern needs, 'lines' and 'fronts' replaced armies. A stack of doom would easily be defeated by a mobile group cutting its supply lines, so a whole line needs to be created to stop that tactic.
If we want to have realistic artillery, my view is we have to have realistic warfare and combat. We need supply, disease, treachery, issues of lack of communcation. Warfare would have to be far more random than in the game. Are we OK in the game that your Assyrian army is defeated by a plague? If we had these issues, we wouldn't need to stop stacks of doom since the probability of the stack dying of disease would be so high.
We then would have artillery built on site. We would have to have realistic fortresses. We could have artillery take time to build -- unfortunately, the turns in this game are very long so a Lords of the Realm solution doesn't work. Maybe they are bought for cash on the spot? Or is this an exploit? The amount that can be used is a function of terrain. We need treachery and similar effects.
In order to simulate warfare in more modern times. your army should have a 'line on supply'. If it doesn't, it is in trouble. The enemy then stops you dead if they occupy any point between you and your supply base. So, if you set up a stack of doom, they simpyly take troops along the supply line and cut it, and your army is dead. So you don't have a stack of doom any more. Then, artillery can act as it should, taking the fortress when it gets there, without the other effects.
Please note that a lot of ancient civilizations were devastated by a series of calamities that the game doesn't simulate.
Is this a better game? I think CIV is trying to reward good play. We build an army, and attack. I can just think of posts to this forum -- 'I built an army with 50 units which should have wiped out the enemy in 10 turns. But the computer CHEATED! It said my army got typhus and wiped out 2/3 of my units. Now, I can't defend my capital. This game #$^%#&!!
What we have is unrealistic warfare. Therefore, to make the game 'work', we need unrealsitic artillery.
Best wishes,
Breunor
Its way too simplistic to talk about the effectiveness of artillery and or ships in generic terms. History is fairly complex.
In ancient times, capture of cities was rarely done through medieval manners, with artillery causing a breach. Storming with rams and scale ladders was also rare. There were two main ways to capture a city -- treachery and starvation.
There are legions of examples. In the Pelopennesian War, there was only one city taken by direct siege, I think. Most were taken ultimately by the two common methods.
The later Greeks were better at it, because they learned about seige engines and especially archery. Demetrius ultimately failed to take Rhodes, but he showed the later Greek ability at siegecraft.
The story of Troy, although mythological, was basically treachery (troops entering the city at night). The story in Herodotus of how the Persians took Babylon was through Zopyrus pretending to be a traitor for Babylon, but then opened the gates for the Persians. Alaric captured Rome with a real life version of the story, having soldiers of his 'captured', enslaved, and then one night on a signal gathered in strength, overtook the guards, and opened the gates.
Starvation is the oldest technique in the books. Look at the seige of Tyre by Alexander, a marvel by both sides, which mostly came to Alexander's attempts (finally successful) in cutting the city off by sea. Athens is finally starved into submission at the end of the Pelopennesian war after their fleet is lost at Syracuse and then at Aegospotomai.
But the Romans were a different story. Their engineering ability was very advanced, and they had substantial archery and accompanying troops. After the Marian reforms, they had essentially a fully professional army. So they capture Jerusalem by storm after the revolt, beseige and take Alesia (more of an outside fort), and many other examples. However, even they usually used the old fashioned methods.
Fortification was the main defense against mobility. The steppe horse warriors/nomads (Scythians, Sarmatians, Huns, Avars, Pechenegs, Cumans, etc.) were always a problem for the stable populations, who often turned to fortifications. Neither the Goths nor the Huns could take Constantinople, but they could destroy all the surrounding lands (are were usually bribed to go away by the Eastern emperor).
One of the reasons that the Mongols were so successful was because of their legendary patience. When the took Northern China, they hired the Chinese skilled engineers, and the Mongols learned siegecraft as well as any settled community (and even taught a few tricks)!
As stated above, ancients didn't move artillery around very much. It was constructed on site. It was ineffective against ships.
The change in Medieval Siege warfare was important from technology, but the key change was that sieges became the dominant form of warfare. The advent of castles and the DIFFICULTY in taking them allowed small, local powers to thwart more powerful ones. Castles sprang up over Europe beginning in the 11th century, and siege warfare became an art.
Of course, we did have breakthroughs in siege equipment, especially trebuchets, although these were hard and expensive to build. Siege warfare is now so common that all three techniques are still in use -- treachery, assault (including advanced techniques like mining), and starvation. Indeed, the main way castles were taken was by surrender! That is, the defenders recognize that there is no out. However, when Bohemund got to the Levant during the first crusade, after seeing the walls of Tyre, he immediately began looking for a traitor. Remember the saying, 'There is no city that can't be captured without a wagon full of gold'.
The advent of cannon didn't end fortresses. They did the the OLD fortresses of large walls, and they changed to lower thicker ones. Soon, cannons peppered coastal defenses.
In real life, the range of cannon was small by naval standards. Therefore, coastal defenses could fire at ships that came close. Coastal artillery was effective at defense, but can't fire at ships passing by. Conversely, they were devestatingly powerful because a coastal battery required the cannon (or later artillery) itself to be hit -- the coastal artillery, of coarse, can aim at a lot of places on the ship, like the deck. Therefore, coming in on coastal battteries was very hazardous.
On land, siege warfare became more and more scientific. Vauban is often considered the greatest siegemaster of all time, both in defense and offense. We now have rings, and all kinds of offensive and defensive structures. All of the old tricks, mining, cannon, and of course starvation are all present, but Vaubon basically felt that eventually the attacker with enough resources can overcome any defense. Treachery isn't as common since defense is no longer based on a main gate.
Fortresses continued to be used, up to this day. In WWI, the key fortresses like Warsaw and Verdun dominated a lot of the warfare. At this point, fortresses can be taken only with artillery. Surrounding and starvation still matter but artillery assault is now the predominant form.
WWII showed fortresses at both ends. Why were fortresses less effective? It wasn't technolgy of assault and defense, it was the mobility of armies. So, the French built pretty much an impregnable fortress, but the German defeated it by going around it. This was easier in WWII because of the mobility of the armies. However, detailed sieges of Leningrad (where the Germans could take the city, but wanted to avoid heavy casualties, so tried to starve it), and Stalingrad, wehre the Soviets surrounded the Germans and went back to cutting supplies as the methodology. Rommel defeated the British in hte desert but originally couldn't take Tobruk with his small, mobile army, but did later. The Belgian forts, which were supposed to slow down the Germans as a key part of the French/Belgian/Netherlands defense, were taken by paradrop.
At this point also, artillery is absolutely devastating against ships coming close. In the Russo-Japanese war, the Japanese captured the Russian artillery and turned it against the Russian (Pacific) fleet, destroying it at Port Arthur. Running fortresses was considered heretical. Of course, this became Churchills' lament about Gallipoli. Churchill felt that the British fleet could run the straits and have 'acceptible' losses, but with enough battleships Britain could force the straits, bombard Constantinople, and force a peace. In actuality, the British took losses while running the straights (mines here were also an issue) and the Briitish fleet backed down in the middle, making it a disaster. Commanders were ALWAYS terrified of getting close to coastal artillery.
So, where does that leave us with the game? Well, to be honest, nowhere. You can't have realistic siegecraft if you don't have realistic combat conditions. And this means all kinds of factors that people usually don't like addressing. Indeed, even for hard core board wargamers, the issues over the importance of dealing with logistics and elements are unending.
In ancient times, armies did travel together because of command issues and force concentrations. Fortresses were always an issue. In real life, the besieging army's greatest fear was disease, with starvation a close second. The longer the siege, the more likely some disease breaks out. (See for instance the Assyrian attempt to take Jerusalem/Judah after defeating the Northerrn Kingdom).
Artillery wansn't taken on long trips, it was built on the spot. Therefore, artillery should take time to use once the army is in place (this happens, for instance, in the Lords of the Realm games). The amount of artillery that can be used is limited by local resources. If the siege wasn't fast enough, the army would die of starvation -- sieges were often a matter of which side could hold out!
In addition, what about traitors? How do we simulate that in the game? Do we want our defenses, well built, to fall because the computer rolled a '1' and got a traitor right away?
Worse, what about lines of communications and real fortresses? In real life, the city wasn't often the forterss itself. It was often outside the city, on a key piece of terrain. The attacking army, of course, can't leave the other army in the high terrain.
But we don't have that in the game either. The risk of getting cut from the army's base isn't in effect (why -- because , again, the attaking army doesn't starve. It doesn't need messages from home making sure there isn'at a new war, revolt, etc. The computer tells us all of that.)
So, in CIV III we had stacks of doom. The stacks of doom I made would NEVER have worked in real life -- they would have starved to death, been ravaged by disease, and ran out of artillery ammo way before doing too much damage. As I said, real life artillery didn't move. Also, the finances of the game aren't realistic. The armies I created would have been about 100 times my real life GNP.
Once cannon is invented, we have new issues. Again, though, disease, money, treachery, and especially supply need to be factored before we can make artillery 'work' properly. In real life, there would not be defenses of the enemy in the city. There would be castles all over the place with small amounts of defenders. There would be a large enemy field army. Taking the fortress all the way is very hard and tremendously expensive. What we need is a die roll to determine if the castle surrenders, based on the ability of the field army to relieve it. The defenders are also hoiping that the attackers run out of money, time, food, or get hit with a disease.
Now, don't get me started on modern times! Here, once the large armies expanded, the ability to keep the army together (in a stack) was impossible since the army couldn't be supplied. Also, the ability to flank the army was too important. With large armies, railroads to bring supplies, and modern needs, 'lines' and 'fronts' replaced armies. A stack of doom would easily be defeated by a mobile group cutting its supply lines, so a whole line needs to be created to stop that tactic.
If we want to have realistic artillery, my view is we have to have realistic warfare and combat. We need supply, disease, treachery, issues of lack of communcation. Warfare would have to be far more random than in the game. Are we OK in the game that your Assyrian army is defeated by a plague? If we had these issues, we wouldn't need to stop stacks of doom since the probability of the stack dying of disease would be so high.
We then would have artillery built on site. We would have to have realistic fortresses. We could have artillery take time to build -- unfortunately, the turns in this game are very long so a Lords of the Realm solution doesn't work. Maybe they are bought for cash on the spot? Or is this an exploit? The amount that can be used is a function of terrain. We need treachery and similar effects.
In order to simulate warfare in more modern times. your army should have a 'line on supply'. If it doesn't, it is in trouble. The enemy then stops you dead if they occupy any point between you and your supply base. So, if you set up a stack of doom, they simpyly take troops along the supply line and cut it, and your army is dead. So you don't have a stack of doom any more. Then, artillery can act as it should, taking the fortress when it gets there, without the other effects.
Please note that a lot of ancient civilizations were devastated by a series of calamities that the game doesn't simulate.
Is this a better game? I think CIV is trying to reward good play. We build an army, and attack. I can just think of posts to this forum -- 'I built an army with 50 units which should have wiped out the enemy in 10 turns. But the computer CHEATED! It said my army got typhus and wiped out 2/3 of my units. Now, I can't defend my capital. This game #$^%#&!!
What we have is unrealistic warfare. Therefore, to make the game 'work', we need unrealsitic artillery.
Best wishes,
Breunor
Very nice post Breunor. To make war in Civ more relistic would require so large a change that the game would no longer be Civ. For the most part I think they do a fairly good job of adding the element of war without turning it into a war game.
Efexeye
Silly Donkey
Nilrim said:
Yeah, is it just me, or are most of the mods out there designed to make cIV more of a war game?
Grohan
Bug-hunter
Maceman in civ represents hundreds or maybe even thousands of macemen. Same thing with horsemen expect the amount of horsemen is smaller. Again same thing with cannons expect the amount of cannons is even smaller.antracer said:
So even though cannons are more expensive to maintain, the amount of cannons is allways smaller than amount of macemen so their upkeep cost shouldn't be different. This applies to horsemen too because amount of horsemen is smaller than amount of macemen.
Excellent Post ! Thouroughly enjoyed the read.... ( I always worry about being a little long winded, but I won't anymore...Breunor said:
) I totally agree with your assessment of the situation, and that it is really impossible to make completely realistic anything in a game like C4. In reality, every aspect of the game has to be altered from the real world in some way.
BUT... I would like to believe that the way the game simulates siege and artillery weapons could be a bit more representative of their actual roles in our world. I don't ever presuppose that you would want to make anything so hyper realistic in the fashion or sense that you are describing. If that were the case, we'd all be playing Saving Private Ryan on the Normandy beach...
I believe that implementing some of the suggestions in my post, along with those posted all over these forums would allow for the simulated versions of these units to behave in a manner more closely to their real world counterparts, without unbalancing the game or making them too powerful, as they were in C3. I'm not after hyper-realism, but the ability to use the unit in a reasonable way with reasonable limitations that will give the unit a reasonable likeness to it's real world counterpart.
By having units take longer to arrive, require support, require setup time etc... It, in a simple way, accounts for many of the things you mention pertaining to travel, setup, supply and use.
It was my objective to simulate in the game, in a simple way, the real life struggles that you have so eloquently written for us, while at the same time staying within the spirit and style of the game as it is designed.
IMHO it would make for more interesting game play, and remove a behavior that just seems downright odd.... not to mention easily exploited.
Tim aka...antracer
Antracer,
I'm all for making the game as 'realistic' as possible. I guess my complaint is seeing people say that artillery is unrealistic without looking at the whole picture.
I have no issue with you rule ideas if it works in game terms. That is, if the artillery is so slow in the GAME, say 1/3 the speed, is it possible to take cities, or does it take too long and the military part of the game shortchanged? For pre-cannon, all artillery was pretty much made on site, so moving it at all is simply a game issue.
Your rule ideas seem well suited for the gunpowder era.
Best wishes,
Breunor
I'm all for making the game as 'realistic' as possible. I guess my complaint is seeing people say that artillery is unrealistic without looking at the whole picture.
I have no issue with you rule ideas if it works in game terms. That is, if the artillery is so slow in the GAME, say 1/3 the speed, is it possible to take cities, or does it take too long and the military part of the game shortchanged? For pre-cannon, all artillery was pretty much made on site, so moving it at all is simply a game issue.
Your rule ideas seem well suited for the gunpowder era.
Best wishes,
Breunor
unscratchedfoot
War is a good thing.
Siege weapons are one the best improvements of civ4. They were impotent in civ3. In real life, catapults being used as anti-infantry weapons dates back to Alexander of Macedonia. And there are many cases of cities surrendering due only to the damage inflicted by catapults or cannon; for example, the Chinese cities which gave in to Kublai Khan after up to a decade of siege only because Turkish-designed catapults started launching rocks to crush buildings. Catapults and balista were also used a lot in defending cities with effect.
Thalassicus
Bytes and Nibblers
I think of seige weapons as ammo. They're expended constantly on the offensive, and you have to have a steady supply line behind your army. If there's enemies between your army and your cities, you can't resupply your army without escorting the supply train.
You have to use seige weapons to take cities. This is realistic...
Seige weapons are great at softening up large armies. Also realistic...
All their current purposes in strategy seem ok to me, even if the mechanics vary.
The only difference is that they can take damage or die. If they couldn't die or take damage when attacking you'd remove the supply line element and have balance problems. Artillery duels would just increase the number of seige weapons on both sides: if the defender builds 3 more, the attacker would just build 3 more too, ending up in the same place you started.
You have to use seige weapons to take cities. This is realistic...
Seige weapons are great at softening up large armies. Also realistic...
All their current purposes in strategy seem ok to me, even if the mechanics vary.
The only difference is that they can take damage or die. If they couldn't die or take damage when attacking you'd remove the supply line element and have balance problems. Artillery duels would just increase the number of seige weapons on both sides: if the defender builds 3 more, the attacker would just build 3 more too, ending up in the same place you started.
Some people seem to have forgotten how Siege units worked in Civ 3.
- Siege units had 0 attack and 0 defense. This meant they could not directly attack, but remained stationary and bombarded the tile they were attacking.
- They had a rate of fire which determined how many times they could hit.
- They could destroy terrain improvements when bombarding.
- When attacking a city, they had a chance to hit the main defending unit, destroy a building or kill population. Units could not be killed but could be knocked down to one hit point.
- There was no collateral damage to units. Collateral damage existed as the chance to hit buildings and population.
- If attacked, the unit was captured or destroyed.
As I posted earlier in the thread, this made for easy capturing of cities with no losses.
Adding collateral damage to the Civ 3 system would reduce the number of units needed bring down the cities defenses and make artillery even more overpowered. To balance this out, they changed it so artillery units had to attack and are weaker than the units they are attacking.
Maybe the Civ 4 system is better, maybe it's worse. It is unrealistic but realism takes back seat to gameplay and balance.
There are a number of things that could be done to make siege units and bombing with air and sea units better. I would like siege units to bombard and not attack. I like realism and if it can be implemented in a balanced way, that would be good. Here are my ideas on how to do this:
- Bombing defending units can't reduce their strength below a certain percent, around 40 or something. This would make bombing cities beneficial, but not overwhelming as both the Civ 3 and 4 systems are. Defending units would still be able to defend and cause damage to the attackers instead of just getting rolled over.
- There is a chance to hit buildings and population. A single bombing could not destroy a unit of population and, depending on the building, it would take between 1 and four hits to destroy a building.
Hits on population would be represented by loss of accumulated food. One hit would reduce the food by percentages. If 100 food is required for the city to grow to the next size and there is currently 75 food, the city would be left with 25 food. A second hit on population would reduce the food again but since the previous level would only take 80 food (example number only), the city would lose one population point and have 60 food left.
If a building was hit, it could be destroyed or just damaged. How much damage it could take before being destroyed would depend on how many hammers it takes to build it. A Lighthouse or Temple could be destroyed in one hit while a Factory would take four hits. The damage would be repreesented by a loss of use of the building. The player would have to select to build the unit, just like building it originally, but there would be a percent of its hammers already accumulated. If a Factory takes 400 hammers to build and it got hit, it would be available to build with 300 hammers already accumulated.
Complicated, I know, but realistic, strategic and fun IMO.
- Damage done could also depend on what unit is being used. A catapult might take 4 hits to destroy a temple but artillery could destroy it in one.
- Certain techs would effect the chances. At the start of the game, chances of hitting something you weren't targeting would be high. Late in the game, a precision bombing capability would become active with only a small chance of hitting something else.
There are probably more things that could be done to make bombing better, I just can't think of anymore right now.
- Siege units had 0 attack and 0 defense. This meant they could not directly attack, but remained stationary and bombarded the tile they were attacking.
- They had a rate of fire which determined how many times they could hit.
- They could destroy terrain improvements when bombarding.
- When attacking a city, they had a chance to hit the main defending unit, destroy a building or kill population. Units could not be killed but could be knocked down to one hit point.
- There was no collateral damage to units. Collateral damage existed as the chance to hit buildings and population.
- If attacked, the unit was captured or destroyed.
As I posted earlier in the thread, this made for easy capturing of cities with no losses.
Adding collateral damage to the Civ 3 system would reduce the number of units needed bring down the cities defenses and make artillery even more overpowered. To balance this out, they changed it so artillery units had to attack and are weaker than the units they are attacking.
Maybe the Civ 4 system is better, maybe it's worse. It is unrealistic but realism takes back seat to gameplay and balance.
There are a number of things that could be done to make siege units and bombing with air and sea units better. I would like siege units to bombard and not attack. I like realism and if it can be implemented in a balanced way, that would be good. Here are my ideas on how to do this:
- Bombing defending units can't reduce their strength below a certain percent, around 40 or something. This would make bombing cities beneficial, but not overwhelming as both the Civ 3 and 4 systems are. Defending units would still be able to defend and cause damage to the attackers instead of just getting rolled over.
- There is a chance to hit buildings and population. A single bombing could not destroy a unit of population and, depending on the building, it would take between 1 and four hits to destroy a building.
Hits on population would be represented by loss of accumulated food. One hit would reduce the food by percentages. If 100 food is required for the city to grow to the next size and there is currently 75 food, the city would be left with 25 food. A second hit on population would reduce the food again but since the previous level would only take 80 food (example number only), the city would lose one population point and have 60 food left.
If a building was hit, it could be destroyed or just damaged. How much damage it could take before being destroyed would depend on how many hammers it takes to build it. A Lighthouse or Temple could be destroyed in one hit while a Factory would take four hits. The damage would be repreesented by a loss of use of the building. The player would have to select to build the unit, just like building it originally, but there would be a percent of its hammers already accumulated. If a Factory takes 400 hammers to build and it got hit, it would be available to build with 300 hammers already accumulated.
Complicated, I know, but realistic, strategic and fun IMO.
- Damage done could also depend on what unit is being used. A catapult might take 4 hits to destroy a temple but artillery could destroy it in one.
- Certain techs would effect the chances. At the start of the game, chances of hitting something you weren't targeting would be high. Late in the game, a precision bombing capability would become active with only a small chance of hitting something else.
There are probably more things that could be done to make bombing better, I just can't think of anymore right now.
vbraun
Raytracing
Why Firaxis chose this way is because its fun and balanced (At least I think its fun).
Its really a trade off between the balanced and realistic ways of doing things. If you want the game realisitc, you want the way to win is to build lots, and I mean LOTS, of artillery to win the game, as it is in Civ3, which is in no way realistic. (Come on... Artillery outnumbering the actual Army? That would absolutly lose in real life)
Its really a trade off between the balanced and realistic ways of doing things. If you want the game realisitc, you want the way to win is to build lots, and I mean LOTS, of artillery to win the game, as it is in Civ3, which is in no way realistic. (Come on... Artillery outnumbering the actual Army? That would absolutly lose in real life)
lord_graywolfe
Wolfman
excellent post Breunor. i dont think anyone could explain it better.
the only thing id like them to change is to make it so that seige engines that are stationed in cities can bombard enemy units around the city. that i think actually improve game balance as it would make it harder for you to just sit outside a city and bombard it till its defensense are gone
the only thing id like them to change is to make it so that seige engines that are stationed in cities can bombard enemy units around the city. that i think actually improve game balance as it would make it harder for you to just sit outside a city and bombard it till its defensense are gone
