Tweedledum
Prince
It was 12 in PTW. In C3C it was downgraded to 8, but given lethal bombardment...
Slow, slow, sllloowwww artillery
- Thread starter Khshayarsha
- Start date
It was 12 in PTW. In C3C it was downgraded to 8, but given lethal bombardment...
Cornflake
Chieftain
I use artillery for sea defence. Since I never build any naval units unless the enemy is overseas or I have to send settlers to some point in order to get natural resources.
They are also good for weakening units like infantry who are a pain in the ass to get rid of. Especially when they are standing on mountains or something.
They are also good for weakening units like infantry who are a pain in the ass to get rid of. Especially when they are standing on mountains or something.
Bigfoot
Emperor
My 2 cents: I find the bombard units to be quite useful as part of a 'combined arms' approach, but you need to build a lot of them to get results (say 10-20 in a stack, with 4-5 good defensive units). The AI won't touch them. They also provide a good tactic for dealing with an enemy who is ahead of you on techs (quantity over quality) -- simply redline the defenders with bombards, then send in your elites and fast movers to finish the job. Or you can use the stack to penetrate deep into enemy territory and cut all of the roads around his capital (keep some fast movers with the stack for this purpose). One final point, cats and cannons are cheap, making them useful production items for your remote / corrupt cities.
giama remil
Chieftain
Ciao,
here is my two eurocents. I agree (in awe)
with Moonsinger. I am a low-level player and
I mostly play low difficulty level games but in
general artillery (even catapults and cannon)
are important to me.
Blitzkrieg can work but you need to have clear
local superiority. If you are waging war to an
enemy of your streght it is difficult to get more
than 1-2 cities conquered before your army is
reduced by losses. Then Blitzkrieg is over.
Insted, with artillery, my army can be more
effective against an enemy on the field, losses
are greatly reduced in conquering cities and
my offensive can last longer.
I have been able to cope with superior
enemies (in technology) because of artillery.
In modern times, with a combination of Infantry,
Cavarly and Artillery I have been able many
times to win a war against an enemy with Tanks
and Mech Infantry.
here is my two eurocents. I agree (in awe)
with Moonsinger. I am a low-level player and
I mostly play low difficulty level games but in
general artillery (even catapults and cannon)
are important to me.
Blitzkrieg can work but you need to have clear
local superiority. If you are waging war to an
enemy of your streght it is difficult to get more
than 1-2 cities conquered before your army is
reduced by losses. Then Blitzkrieg is over.
Insted, with artillery, my army can be more
effective against an enemy on the field, losses
are greatly reduced in conquering cities and
my offensive can last longer.
I have been able to cope with superior
enemies (in technology) because of artillery.
In modern times, with a combination of Infantry,
Cavarly and Artillery I have been able many
times to win a war against an enemy with Tanks
and Mech Infantry.
I think the best use of artillery (and bombers to some degree) is eliminating the AI's military forces. There's a twofold issue going on here:
If you are powerful enough relatively to roll through the AI's cities using fast unit alone, and taking minimual losses, then there probably isn't much need for artillery. I'd tend to agree that you're playing at too low a level if that's the case then.
If you aren't. Then artillery is a huge asset, no matter how much you think you need it, or how big the difference is.
Unless you are specifically fighting a fast war (built up units ahead of time, start war, hit objectives, call for peace), you have to really consider time to build units in the equation. Artillery is a force multiplier. Sure. It make take me 2 more turns to get that artillery into place, but if it means that I lose 0 or 1 unit taking the city instead of 10 or 12, I can move on to the next one that much faster. I'm happy with moving at an average of one square a turn through my opponents territory. It still means that I'll get taking 2-3 cities a turn given the average distribution of the AI's cities and assuming I've got multiple fronts moving. It also allows me to maintain a steady progress through his area. I can rotate my attacking units out as needed to repair them. If you get the balance of forces just right, you will have a continually moving force that is very fluid. As your units get worn down, previous ones you've sent back to get healed up (or fortified in place), will come back at full strength. IMO, that's the most optimal way to use your forces.
I don't like to throw away units. It's just that simple. When you come right down to it, the entire game of Civ3 is about attrition. How much does it cost you to achieve something in relation to your opponents? It's all about making any action cost them more then it cost you. The payment isn't in gold, but in turns of civilization productivity. Thus, making your civilization more productive is equivalent to using your units more efficiently. More importantly, the reverse is true. If I lose 10 units that each took 5 turns to build on average, and I've got 20 cities in my civilization, then that combat just cost me 2 and a half total turns worth of my entire civilizations output. How many artillery can you build with that alone? And that's just one hard battle. How many will you fight during your wars? Every unit that you build and lose in war is a quantity of production that could have been used to build a city improvement, or a wonder, or wealth, or science, or any of a number of other things that help you win the game.
In addition to taking cities, artillery is fantastic for whacking AI units in kill zones. The AI is pretty brain dead sometimes. He will always counter attack if possible, but isn't very smart about how he does it. I once had a war where I had beacheads on two parts of the AI's continent (north and south). For some reason he got fixated on my southern area, even though it was much farther from his core area (maybe he detected me there first? I have no idea...). In any case, he'd send stacks (and by stacks I mean 20-40 units in a stack) at me. Moronically, he'd send them through the mountains and into my area.
What you do is reserve some defensive units to hold your rail spots, but otherwise, let his units into your area. Keep workers with your defending units to keep building rails to where you need them. Then you block off their advance. The AI just wont attack even small stacks if you've got a better defending unit then his attacking unit (which worked great for me since I deprived him completely of oil in this game). So he'd kind of mill around trying to work around my stacks to get to my cities. Meanwhile I'd move my artillery on rails and target just one or two stacks a turn. Then I'd use my MA along the same rails to move and attack twice with each MA. End result was that I could eliminate 20+ infantry and marines and usually not lose a single MA in the process. Meanwhile, my northern forces just rolled through his core area, but that's a different story...
The moral is that if you can figure out where the AI will counterattack you, you can use your artillery to maximum effect eliminating huge numbers of his units with little or not cost to yourself. So even if you're engaging a fast war with your offensive units, artillery is still incredibly useful for just generally weakening him. The AI's strategy pretty much always seems to be to put just a few units in defense and throw the rest at your cities during war. He takes very little effort to attack your units in the field. Use this to your advantage. Let him come right into your guns if you can. And even on attack, remember that all goals in Civ are long term. If you can afford to throw away units on attack, then the game you are playing probably isn't that challenging anyway. In a tough, hard game, every single unit matters. Every single bit of production matters. In those games, you'll find that units like artillery literally make or break the game.
If you are powerful enough relatively to roll through the AI's cities using fast unit alone, and taking minimual losses, then there probably isn't much need for artillery. I'd tend to agree that you're playing at too low a level if that's the case then.
If you aren't. Then artillery is a huge asset, no matter how much you think you need it, or how big the difference is.
Unless you are specifically fighting a fast war (built up units ahead of time, start war, hit objectives, call for peace), you have to really consider time to build units in the equation. Artillery is a force multiplier. Sure. It make take me 2 more turns to get that artillery into place, but if it means that I lose 0 or 1 unit taking the city instead of 10 or 12, I can move on to the next one that much faster. I'm happy with moving at an average of one square a turn through my opponents territory. It still means that I'll get taking 2-3 cities a turn given the average distribution of the AI's cities and assuming I've got multiple fronts moving. It also allows me to maintain a steady progress through his area. I can rotate my attacking units out as needed to repair them. If you get the balance of forces just right, you will have a continually moving force that is very fluid. As your units get worn down, previous ones you've sent back to get healed up (or fortified in place), will come back at full strength. IMO, that's the most optimal way to use your forces.
I don't like to throw away units. It's just that simple. When you come right down to it, the entire game of Civ3 is about attrition. How much does it cost you to achieve something in relation to your opponents? It's all about making any action cost them more then it cost you. The payment isn't in gold, but in turns of civilization productivity. Thus, making your civilization more productive is equivalent to using your units more efficiently. More importantly, the reverse is true. If I lose 10 units that each took 5 turns to build on average, and I've got 20 cities in my civilization, then that combat just cost me 2 and a half total turns worth of my entire civilizations output. How many artillery can you build with that alone? And that's just one hard battle. How many will you fight during your wars? Every unit that you build and lose in war is a quantity of production that could have been used to build a city improvement, or a wonder, or wealth, or science, or any of a number of other things that help you win the game.
In addition to taking cities, artillery is fantastic for whacking AI units in kill zones. The AI is pretty brain dead sometimes. He will always counter attack if possible, but isn't very smart about how he does it. I once had a war where I had beacheads on two parts of the AI's continent (north and south). For some reason he got fixated on my southern area, even though it was much farther from his core area (maybe he detected me there first? I have no idea...). In any case, he'd send stacks (and by stacks I mean 20-40 units in a stack) at me. Moronically, he'd send them through the mountains and into my area.
What you do is reserve some defensive units to hold your rail spots, but otherwise, let his units into your area. Keep workers with your defending units to keep building rails to where you need them. Then you block off their advance. The AI just wont attack even small stacks if you've got a better defending unit then his attacking unit (which worked great for me since I deprived him completely of oil in this game). So he'd kind of mill around trying to work around my stacks to get to my cities. Meanwhile I'd move my artillery on rails and target just one or two stacks a turn. Then I'd use my MA along the same rails to move and attack twice with each MA. End result was that I could eliminate 20+ infantry and marines and usually not lose a single MA in the process. Meanwhile, my northern forces just rolled through his core area, but that's a different story...
The moral is that if you can figure out where the AI will counterattack you, you can use your artillery to maximum effect eliminating huge numbers of his units with little or not cost to yourself. So even if you're engaging a fast war with your offensive units, artillery is still incredibly useful for just generally weakening him. The AI's strategy pretty much always seems to be to put just a few units in defense and throw the rest at your cities during war. He takes very little effort to attack your units in the field. Use this to your advantage. Let him come right into your guns if you can. And even on attack, remember that all goals in Civ are long term. If you can afford to throw away units on attack, then the game you are playing probably isn't that challenging anyway. In a tough, hard game, every single unit matters. Every single bit of production matters. In those games, you'll find that units like artillery literally make or break the game.
I agree wholeheartedly. I love artillery mainly because with it I can wage wars without casualty. One stack of cannons with an army of defensive units - how can I lose? A few attackers to clean up the redliners, and it's a sure thing.
The second reason I love artillery is that it denies the enemy units promotions or leaders. They get no chance to win battles.
Kaboth
Prince
After Wakboths long post but entirely relevent I think he deserves to be honoured with a "checkmate" 
Crow T Robot
Minister of Hedonism
- Joined
- Jul 17, 2002
- Messages
- 171
"...if you can figure out where the AI will counterattack you, you can use your artillery to maximum effect eliminating huge numbers of his units with little or not cost to yourself."
One of many good points, but this isnt limited to arty. If you can observe the route enemy units take, you can fortify ZOC units along the way to chip some HPs as they send units to the front or to invade. Then, having arrived, you can chip even more HPs with arty, then attack with elite untis and create a virtual GL making machine.
One of many good points, but this isnt limited to arty. If you can observe the route enemy units take, you can fortify ZOC units along the way to chip some HPs as they send units to the front or to invade. Then, having arrived, you can chip even more HPs with arty, then attack with elite untis and create a virtual GL making machine.
Esca
Warlord
My gun crews must need a lot more practice.
They usually, either miss everything, or destroy something I want to keep.
Seldom do they damage an enemy unit.
I am coming back to Civ after a long break.
What I said was true in Civ3.
Is it improved in C3C?
They usually, either miss everything, or destroy something I want to keep.
Seldom do they damage an enemy unit.
I am coming back to Civ after a long break.
What I said was true in Civ3.
Is it improved in C3C?
Wakboth, could not agree more.
I want only to add:
I use artillery mostly in modern times. Up to the Middle Ages I mainly fight without, but with Units that can retreat when wounded (aka Knights). They are mobile, too, so I do not carry Artillery with me usually.
However, if resistance gets stronger... you need the "RED GOD OF WAR" -> that's what Stalin called artillery.
Fighting against Riflemen is the first time where it will really become necessary to have some means to weaken them before attacking. You can still do it with Cavalry, but well... Artillery is a good protection for your advancing forces, too, it will fire on enemy attackers and weaken them before they can damage your units at all.
I want only to add:
I use artillery mostly in modern times. Up to the Middle Ages I mainly fight without, but with Units that can retreat when wounded (aka Knights). They are mobile, too, so I do not carry Artillery with me usually.
However, if resistance gets stronger... you need the "RED GOD OF WAR" -> that's what Stalin called artillery.
Fighting against Riflemen is the first time where it will really become necessary to have some means to weaken them before attacking. You can still do it with Cavalry, but well... Artillery is a good protection for your advancing forces, too, it will fire on enemy attackers and weaken them before they can damage your units at all.
Originally posted by Esca
Seldom do they damage an enemy unit.
True. So use plenty. One might argue, "Why use ten catapults and a knight when three knights alone can do the job nine times out of ten?" The answer is that the stack of bombarding units - with sidekick - never lose and just keep doing that grim job over and over throughout the entire game.
Building that stack of arty amounts to building a Win All Wars Forever wonder.
Originally posted by Esca
My gun crews must need a lot more practice.
They usually, either miss everything, or destroy something I want to keep.
Seldom do they damage an enemy unit.
I am coming back to Civ after a long break.
What I said was true in Civ3.
Is it improved in C3C?
You'll be happy to know that land based artillery (and I think sea based artillery as well) targets the units almost 100% of the time until they are all redlined. Planes are a different matter; they're a bit more scattershot, but they tend to hit units more I think. Also, you can hit improvements under redlined units if you need to; helps to get rid of those pesky radar towers and roads to strategic resources.
Esca
Warlord
Thanks Scop.
I have C3c but I am in the middle of a game at low level to get into the hang of things again.
Can't wait to finish and load up C3C.
I have C3c but I am in the middle of a game at low level to get into the hang of things again.
Can't wait to finish and load up C3C.
It seems to me the main complaint was how slow arty is...
I kind of like the fact that it is so slow. In real life it takes time for troops to be mobilized, or artilery to deploy. Once artillery is done firing they need to pack everything back up and move to the next firing position. I think Civ3 does a good job of simulating this aspect of combat with making arillery take a while to get to the front.
I kind of like the fact that it is so slow. In real life it takes time for troops to be mobilized, or artilery to deploy. Once artillery is done firing they need to pack everything back up and move to the next firing position. I think Civ3 does a good job of simulating this aspect of combat with making arillery take a while to get to the front.
pelmeister
Chieftain
- Joined
- Dec 1, 2003
- Messages
- 48
Artillery / Cannon / Cats are useful when your government does not allow for the rapid replacement of units. However, they do lead to a slow war, even with aggressive worker mobilization. Anyone with a republic government should definitely consider bombardment-based warfare, since once you've a healthy stack of arty / defense / attack units, you can war indefinitely without diverting production to unproductive / costly militia. Conversely, this approach is probably too slow a means of warfare in democracy and pointless in either despotism or communism / fascism.
In early warfare, you need bombardment when attacking towns on hills. Basically, a swordsman can expect to lose to a spearman, assuming matching hit points, and you are in trouble if the spearman upgrades. (One of the reasons Persians are so popular is that the Immortal's additional attack point has a big swing effect in this instance.)
If you've railroaded, multiple artillery units are great for helping eliminate any SoD headed your way.
In early warfare, you need bombardment when attacking towns on hills. Basically, a swordsman can expect to lose to a spearman, assuming matching hit points, and you are in trouble if the spearman upgrades. (One of the reasons Persians are so popular is that the Immortal's additional attack point has a big swing effect in this instance.)
If you've railroaded, multiple artillery units are great for helping eliminate any SoD headed your way.
Kaboth
Prince
Another problem is when you bombard enemy cites you tend to destroy all their city improvements and even Wonders. City Improvements is less of a problem because when you take a city much of the improvements are destroyed anyway but imagine my shock when I bombarded a size 3 Netherlands city and destroyed the Sistine Chappel. Anyway to avoid this or do most of you use Blitzkreig tactics against wonder cities. I was bombarding with Trebuchets at the time.
Also why do many of my bombard shots neither recieve a successful strike message or miss message when I bombard cities. Is that because a Trebuchets bombard value is so low?
Also why do many of my bombard shots neither recieve a successful strike message or miss message when I bombard cities. Is that because a Trebuchets bombard value is so low?
Flavor Dave
Warlord
- Joined
- Dec 31, 2001
- Messages
- 146
I play Civ 3, and I've never ever ever seen a Wonder destroyed. And I'm 99% sure the rules say that's impossible.
Yeah, you lose improvements, and that's a pain (altho if it's gonna take you more than one turn, destroying the barracks is awesome.) But at the same time, you're reducing the population, so your disorder problems are less.
Kaboth
Prince
Well you are probably right I never thought it possible before either but I destroyed the Sistine Chappel in C3C by bombarding a size 3 town with Trebuchets. Perhaps it is a rare bug.
Michael York
On Sabatical from Civ
Conquests has definately improved artillery strategies. Before, when the ai sent in their navy, you could use artillery to make it retreat. Now you can buid a bomber or two and sink it (or a dromon!) without exposing naval units.
The same is true on land. My artillery hits the enemy counterattack and the lethal bombardment of bombers wipes them out.
For cities, artillery are definantely my prefered forces. This is especially so when they've built their cities close enough to move my artillery and bombard on the same turn. Half the time, I find artillery to not take more than a single turn due the second square corner removal from the city's cultural borders but not from the artillery's range. By by garrison.
Further, in vanilla civ, Stealth bombers cost 240 shields while artillery cost 80 shields. That is twice the rate of fire (2*3=6 vs 3*1=3) or HP of the enemy. It also increase the odds of doing damage. IF the ai as borders as I spoke of before, the artillery supported advance can outrun the airforce's reach.
The same is true on land. My artillery hits the enemy counterattack and the lethal bombardment of bombers wipes them out.
For cities, artillery are definantely my prefered forces. This is especially so when they've built their cities close enough to move my artillery and bombard on the same turn. Half the time, I find artillery to not take more than a single turn due the second square corner removal from the city's cultural borders but not from the artillery's range. By by garrison.
Further, in vanilla civ, Stealth bombers cost 240 shields while artillery cost 80 shields. That is twice the rate of fire (2*3=6 vs 3*1=3) or HP of the enemy. It also increase the odds of doing damage. IF the ai as borders as I spoke of before, the artillery supported advance can outrun the airforce's reach.
And you don't have to pay upkeep for captured artillery in C3C (at least in verion 1.00 and 1.02; they may change that in future patch).
Similar threads
- Locked
