Suggestion: Improve Catapults

[Warts]

Catapults don't need much attention what does is cannons. They are much less useful than catapults.

 

[smusebaer]

carring catapults would be a great use for chariots

 

[Hanny]

I meant they would be useless without their collateral damage attack. What should Khazad do? They have no spells. Be forced to go Veil or OO for ring of fire or Tsunami?

|

Ok, we are posting at cross purpose, if we use history as a guide, then siege engines in field battles are really a non starter, if we use fantasy, or vanila civ, as our guide then you dont get siege engines you get panzers instead. I would prefer to have more relaism in that siege engines functions only apply to sieges, so yes you loose the catapault as mobile combat unit, which it never should have been in the first place, but gain a city defense reducing unit, which is what siege engines are for, not rolling across Erebus like panzers.

Now as to specvific civs and what it does to them is not really part of that design choice, form follows function, so after that choice is taken to improve the game design, you the then have to cover specific civs in what effects this has, since Khazad is penalised no differntly than anyone else, ie the mechanics is the same for them as everyone else, i dont follow as to why they are penalised.

 

[Grey Fox]

They would be penalized as in they wouldn't have as many choices in a stack destroying unit. All others have more options, Catapults, Mages, Archmages, Priests, Druids, etc.
Khazad would be forced to use many more sacrificial axemen when attacking a city instead of as now, siege units + axemen.

 

[Kolath]

So give the Khazad a better version?

 

[kumquatelvis]

Don't the Khazad already have better cannons? The flamethrower ones?

 

[westamastaflash]

Catapults don't need much attention what does is cannons. They are much less useful than catapults.

I agree. Without the 80% retreat, cannons are nearly worthless for all civs but Khazad

 

[Breunor]

I actually think catapults are quite powerful and should not be increased in power. They do collateral damage and withdrawal about 80% of the time -- this is quite strong.

Of course they are slow. As a player, you have to decide if you want to bring city defenses down by using mages or catapults (or ships if attacking a coastal city, but that's a special case). Mages just plain take a while to get. You have to get Sorcery and have a bunch a units with 10 experience points and have fire mana. This is superior if you are moving an army along with a haste spell, and for that you need Body mana also.

If you are the Amurites, clearly that is the way to go. But for many Civ's, they can have a bunch a catapults that not only bring down the city defenses but then also pummel them with collateral damage and almost always survive, making them perhaps more powerful than in 'regular' Civ. This can make quite a powerful stack.

If you find you are building the pact of Nilhorn, then that is another alternative. I think it is a lot to give up to build this, though. I haven't built it in a long time. (I'm playing emperor).

So, I'm happy with my catapults. This is especially true for the slow starting Civ's like the Sheam, Bannor, etc.

Best wishes,

Breunor

 

[Blakmane]

catapults are great. They used to be more powerful than currently and they got nerfed down because MP consisted of rushing to catapults first.

The cannon however, is underpowered. It needs to have a withdrawal rate at least as high as the catapult in order to be effective.

 

[bonesbro]

I would consider them fixed if they allowed them to take the Mobility 1 promotion. That would address their mobility problem for those who care about it, at the cost of using up a promotion.

I also like having Earth 1 or Air 1 cast a siege-only Haste spell. (Earth because it would give easy access to Khazad, who depend on them more and need the help).

 

[Ranbir]

I like the civ3 style artillery.

It is military hardware that can be captured. It would certainly be nicer than the possibility of suicide attacks of mass catapults - even with that withdraw chance.

 

[Zurai]

The only siege artillery that was only assembled on-site were trebuchets large enough to require entire trees as beams. Civ-sized catapults could be hitched onto wagons or horses, and field cannons have always been wheeled precisely so they could be moved from battle to battle (and, for the record, they received extensive use outside sieges and ships).

 

[MagisterCultuum]

I would really like it if you could set a percentage chance of capturing units, and alter said percentage by promotion. This could be use for siege units too, but I'm mostly thinking of mercenary units. Having them betray you every time would make building them stupid, but I don't think they should be the most loyal troops.

 

[Grey Fox]

Geneva Convention article 47

1. A mercenary shall not have the right to be a combatant or a prisoner of war.
2. A mercenary is any person who:

(a) is specially recruited locally or abroad in order to fight in an armed conflict;
(b) does, in fact, take a direct part in the hostilities;
(c) is motivated to take part in the hostilities essentially by the desire for private gain and, in fact, is promised, by or on behalf of a Party to the conflict, material compensation substantially in excess of that promised or paid to combatants of similar ranks and functions in the armed forces of that Party;
(d) is neither a national of a Party to the conflict nor a resident of territory controlled by a Party to the conflict;
(e) is not a member of the armed forces of a Party to the conflict; and
(f) has not been sent by a State which is not a Party to the conflict on official duty as a member of its armed forces.

Though, on the question of loyalty. You could argue that mercenaries have loyalty, in the way that if you betray your employer there will be no future contracts. There has been conflicts in our history where mercenaries from the same organizations have fought on both sides but it's probably not the norm. And I don't think that a mercenary, in general, would consider switching sides during a conflict.

 

[Monkeyfinger]

Geneva Convention

FfH forum

Thoughts of remaining loyal to an employer because of perceived monetary gain tend to fly out of someone's head when they're about to DIE.

 

[Grey Fox]

Mercenaries are often veterans of war who's only skill in life is that of warfare, or perhaps something else they can't do anymore cause of various reasons (not owning a farm anymore etc). And I just used that part from the convention cause I figured it summed up quite nicely what a mercenary is.

And if you choose to be a mercenary you probably don't fear death so much as to be too coward to fight. Either you need the money very badly, or you just like to fight so much you choose to make it your living.

There are probably the ones who would switch sides if paid better, but not cause they were captured. Not in the form of a merc anyways.