Suicide Artillery = broken concept

[Kolyana]

too complicated. Anyway once armies had gas masks they became mostly useless, thats why it wasnt a battlefield weapon in WW2

Slightly off with your facts here; it wasn't that Chemical Weapons were useless, but rather they were banned under the Geneva Protocol of 1925 ... which would lead to some interesting political effects in game if ignored

http://www.olive-drab.com/od_chemical_weapons.php

Chemical weapons have been in use for centuries, but their modern form starts with World War I when large scale "gas attacks" were part of both German and Allied tactics. Those attacks used common industrial chemicals, typically delivered by artillery shells, and distributed by the wind, relatively crude technology with uncertain results. Public outcry against the use of gas (actually aerosols or vapors) led to the Geneva Protocol of 1925 under which nations agreed to not be the first to use such weapons.

Although both Nazi Germany and the Allies stockpiled chemical weapons, there was no use made of them in World War II. A few smaller conflicts have seen the use of chemical munitions, in particular Irag against Iran in 1983 through 1986 as well Iraq's use against its own Kurdish population in 1988.

Under the 1997 Chemical Weapons Convention (CWC), the United States, Russia, India, and South Korea have declared that they possess CW and have accepted an obligation to destroy these weapons. China and several other countries have declared abandoned chemical weapons on their territory, primarily left over from World War II

http://www.fas.org/nuke/intro/cw/intro.htm

Chemical weapons were never deliberately employed by the Allies or the Axis during World War II, despite the accumulation of enormous stockpiles by both sides. Instances of employment of chemical weapons in the local wars since then are arguable, although they were definitely used in the Iran-Iraq conflict of 1982–87.

http://www.chinadaily.com.cn/english/doc/2004-06/18/content_340357.htm
http://english.sina.com/china/1/2005/0920/46657.html
http://www.geocities.com/CapeCanaveral/Lab/4239/chemweapons/history.html

 

[Volstag]

What am I not understanding here? Why would anyone directly attack a city with an artillery unit? Just bombard from range... that's what they're for.

 

[LordKestrel]

What am I not understanding here? Why would anyone directly attack a city with an artillery unit? Just bombard from range... that's what they're for.

Because it's been changed in Civ4. Now, in order to do what was considered bombardment in civ3, you are forced to actually attack with your unit, causing damage to all the units on that tile, but also almost always destroying your siege weapon in the process.

IMO, it's not at all intuitive. In civ3, it was obvious how to use siege weapons. You move them next to the tile you want to attack, click the bombard icon, and they rain fire upon that tile. Simple, and to the point. Now, you take that same siege weapon up next to your target tile, and attempt to move on to the occupied tile. Your siege weapon does a small amount of damage to all the units on that tile, and then is destroyed, gone forever.

I've only played a single game so far, but as far as I can tell, it's better to build a few siege weapons for defense, and then rely upon bombers for bombardment. At least they can actually bombard, and aren't destroyed in the process.

 

[Gustomucho81]

What am I not understanding here? Why would anyone directly attack a city with an artillery unit? Just bombard from range... that's what they're for.

Bombard in Civ4 lowers city defense, thats all.

If you want to attack units within the city, you have to ram the arty in the city, destroying the arty most of the time.

 

[Kolyana]

To be honest, I'm okay in losing the catapult if I can damage half a dozen units in the process. Often 2 catapults can reduce the city defenses to near nothing and then weaken the defenders sufficiently for my other troops to storm the city with little effort.

 

[Mujadaddy]

What do you people think?

Here is a FACT about real-world artillery --

Once fortifications are in place, NO AMOUNT of Bombardment can dislodge the troops themselves (happened alot in WWI... and anyone ever hear of Iwo Jima?)

The Civ4 model is both BALANCED and ACCURATE. The point is that these aren't real-time battles, people--they're over-time approximations. IRL, if you bombard a unit of Archers (for example) with a unit of Catapults you will do a LITTLE bit of damage to the Archers, and then the Archers will, over time, find the positions of the Catapults, and kill their crews. With a fixed defensive position, like a city wall, the artillery can fire more reliably, b/c the wall isn't capable of seeking cover.

 

[Smidlee]

Here is a FACT about real-world artillery --

Once fortifications are in place, NO AMOUNT of Bombardment can dislodge the troops themselves (happened alot in WWI... and anyone ever hear of Iwo Jima?)

The Civ4 model is both BALANCED and ACCURATE. The point is that these aren't real-time battles, people--they're over-time approximations. IRL, if you bombard a unit of Archers (for example) with a unit of Catapults you will do a LITTLE bit of damage to the Archers, and then the Archers will, over time, find the positions of the Catapults, and kill their crews. With a fixed defensive position, like a city wall, the artillery can fire more reliably, b/c the wall isn't capable of seeking cover.

Good points . I don't see Civ4 artlillery nothing but a pile of artillery but an infantry unit with artillery. (the inf. attacks the target while it's artillery does damage to the stacks.) Also civ4 battles represent battles on a strategic level not on a tactical level. So Civ 4 artillery to me seems a lot more better and more realistic (even though it's not) than Civ3 on the strategic level.

 

[Mujadaddy]

Good points . I don't see Civ4 artlillery nothing but a pile of artillery but an infantry unit with artillery. (the inf. attacks the target while it's artillery does damage to the stacks.) Also civ4 battles represent battles on a strategic level not on a tactical level. So Civ 4 artillery to me seems a lot more better and more realistic (even though it's not) than Civ3 on the strategic level.

Yeah, it's not PERFECT, but it's a damn site better than the Civ3 stack-of-doom baloney ...

Plus, you don't have to worry about your arty getting captured

 

[zeeter]

As far as chemical weapons in the European theater of WWII, first, lets not forget the chemical "weapons" used against the Jews. However I'm sure that is not in line with the discussion here as we're talking their use in combat.

Reason one why it wasn't used, the Geneva Convention, as someone else noted. Everyone knew that if they had used it the other side would use it. Pointless.

Reason two, I don't believe that chemical weapons are that effective against the mobile troops of WWII. For one thing, the Germans battle plans were to move quickly and strike hard. That wouldn't have worked too well if they had to wait for the chemicals to make take their effect. Also, I'm sure that they were more interested in taking out any defenses that whomever they were fighting had. Why toss a mustard gas canister into a house when you can just blow up the house? Then you don't have to worry about your troops succumbing to the fumes when they take that position.

Also, it's a lot easier to gas soldiers hold up in trenches than it is to gas the guys running around to different positions in WWII.

Finally, many of the generals in WWII were junior officers in WWI (Hitler himself was a Corporal). They saw first hand what the effects of these weapons was, so they were probably reluctant to use them.

 

[Inflammatory]

I don't think Hitler in particular had any qualms about any form of rancid weaponry, and since he was in charge I believe it's more a case of what actually worked on the battlefield in WW2. Gas attacks were just one ingredient in a wholesomely out-dated doctrine, and when Blitzkrieg came along it certainly didn't require it. Besides, everyone knew how to counter it already in WW1, so putting an emphasis on it for WW2 would have been wasted funds.

 

[Inflammatory]

I'd say you could have the option to decide how much money that goes into the army. Different levels of belligerence could unlock higher levels of economic mobilisation, and it'd be up to you if you could spend it. If you couldn't your artillery would lose in performance along with all your other troops.

 

[Lucky4s]

I suggested this in another thread:

If arty is garrisoned in a city, give it the abilty to fire back at attacking arty pieces in that turn. Just like when you attack a defending unit, that unit attacks back. Arty should do the same, but at range. Make it like a defensive mode, like airplanes have intercept.

Then bring back the old arty from Civ3. Then both sides of this arguement would be happy.

 

[Kissamies]

Got to say that I like the new model better, however unrealistic it may be. In Civ 3, you'll endlessly bombard the defences with no risk, but low success rate until you finally redline the defenders. In Civ 4 you just attack, will probably lose the piece, but get results a lot faster. This is much smoother gameplaywise.

 

[snowmelk]

I don't like the new artillery system. Yes, huge artillery stacks in Civ3 are an exploit, but only because the AI doesn't use it.
Now we have two nice armies, meeting on the battlefield. The spearmen get into position, the archers are ready.... And now the battle starts with the charge of the catapults! how ridiculous!

Please, don't tell me it's game balancing! They started working on Civ4 so long ago, and they didn't came up with a better solution than this? What next? we find the economical system works not correct? Why not make a donkey unit, giving you 1gpt when you click on it? Not good? Hey, it would be game balancing!

The new system is maybe most suitable for catapults, though they shouldn't have an attack value at all. they were made to tear down walls, nothing more. However, modern artillery can attack troops quite well, and as long as there is no form of counterattack (be it air strikes, hostile artillery or counterattacking troops) they will happily fire one round after another and there is no chance for them to be destroyed. Actually, the long range to fire savely from behind the front line is the whole idea of artillery.

 

[insydr]

^^^ My point exactly.

 

[claxer]

Anybody ever hear of "Design for Effect". This doctrine, initially used by Avalon Hill in its Squad Leader series of board games, is:

The game mechanics do not need to emulate real life mechanics, they just need end with correct results.

I believe that is the purpose behind how artillery works in Civ IV. An artillery base strategy involves huge outlay of supply and logistics. The end effect of Civ IV to using such a strategy is you must stockpile many artillery units, expending them as you use up massive amounts of ammo. This requires additional resources to build up and maintain.

The results are correct.

That is an interesting point that you bring up, and while I agree with that concept I still feel that artillery could perhaps be implemented better in CivIV.

It would be nice if they could have some use in the field without having to be sacrificed. I think it would be a bit overpowered if artillery could indirectly attack, but being able to put a small negative defense modifier on enemy units through 'bombardment' would be useful in the field. Artillery is not particulalry mobile, so I see this as being a fair idea.

I think it's a tricky issue to balance, and I can see why cities need to be difficult to take for obvious reasons so that isnt really my issue with artillery. I just dont like having to sacrifice them in order to get a decent effect.

 

[Big J Money]

For instance, how realistic is this scenario: you have a huge army outside an enemy city (or stack), and a bunch of artillery along for support. You bombard the city to reduce its defenses (so far so good). But then, in order to soften up the actual enemy forces inside, you send the artillery to attack AHEAD of your army?

The reason you are wrong, here, is because you would never use artillery to "soften up the actual enemy forces inside". Once the bombardment is over, the artillery is finished. You'd be a fool to send artillery into a city to attack the defenders inside.

Why should an artillery piece (or catapult or whatever) that is capable of hurling deadly projectiles into a city while safely behind your army's front lines be forced to enter the city all by itself and engage the defenders in direct combat? This doesn't make any sense. Can you imagine a general sending his artillery units in before the tanks?

You are absolutely right. It makes no sense. So stop doing it!

Now, you may be wondering, "What is the point of collateral damage, then?" Well, this is when you might choose to use artillery in a field battle. In this case, you would bring some artillery along to lob some shells at the enemy army, but doing so is a HUGE risk. Your artillery may get destroyed. There is no way to protect undefensible artillery, except to not bring it along. Now, there is one benefit to this. If you use artillery to attack an army who is invading your territory, the chance of them having anti-seige bonuses is very, very low. (meaning, they aren't prepared for it) So, you might actually get to attack with a catapult and see it live. But that's simply good strategy on your part. Sun Tzu would be proud.

=$= Big J Money =$=

 

[insydr]

The reason you are wrong, here, is because you would never use artillery to "soften up the actual enemy forces inside".

Well why not? If my artillery can lob shells at your walls, why can't I change the aim a little and lob shells at your troops sitting right BEHIND the walls? It doesn't make sense that the shells can ONLY damage fortifications and not the army that is using those very fortifications.

In this case, you would bring some artillery along to lob some shells at the enemy army, but doing so is a HUGE risk. Your artillery may get destroyed. There is no way to protect undefensible artillery, except to not bring it along.

Again, I don't agree. What's the point of the rest of the army in the same stack as the artillery if not to defend it? Are you suggesting that my infantry and tanks will sit by idly while my artillery makes a bum rush at the enemy army?

Of course not! The artillery would be firing from behind my army's front lines, and if you want to damage my artillery you're gonna have to destroy my troops to get there, or use your own long range weapons.

Anyway, bottom line is that using suicide artillery to attack in Civ4 may bring "balance," but that doesn't make it the BEST way to address the problem. There are numerous other ways of handling artillery so that it bombards for collateral damage but doesn't become an exploit, such as all the great ideas posted in this thread. Here's hoping that a mod or a patch will find one of those better ways.

 

[Commander Bello]

Well, I think arty is one of the most obvious design flaws of Civ4.

As many already have pointed out in much more detail, you wouldn't send your arty into close combat in real life. Having you to do so in Civ4 is just completely counter-intuitive and feels wrong.

Then, it was said that arty would serve against SoD's. This seems to be right at first glance, but only then.
That means, arty typically works only one half of the first turn against a SoD, because afterwards a good 66% of it will be destroyed (taking into account that it actually CAN win against a unit AND has the chance to retreat. So the assumption is that 33% might survive). Ok, now all units in the SoD have taken slight damages. Unfortunately, the SoD will consist of own arties as well - so now it its there part and the same thing happenes on the other side.
The end result will be that both stacks after 2 turns may be damaged and all the arty will be gone.
Under the assumption that both, attacker and defender may have caused comparable damage to the other side, it is still up to the numbers which side will win in the end.
Especially, this concept doesn't change the fact that the attackers artillery will tear down the defender's defense values, as true artillery duels would do as they would damage first the attackers artillery, with leaving the defenders artillery mostly unharmed.

I agree the concept of artillery was broken in Civ3, but not because of the artillery by itself, but because of the inability of the AI to handle it. In fact, in Civ3 artillery worked as anyone ever having heard of it would have expected. THIS was intuitive and easily to manage (well, for the player, that is)

I will not understand at any time, why they didn't put their efforts into making the AI understand how to use artillery, instead of changing an understandeable concept into this mess.

 

[Smidlee]

Again Civ4 units are suppose to be on the strategic level not tactical level. Civ3 artillery acted like individual artillery which is totally wrong when attacking on a strategic level of armies. As in Medieval total wars my "artillery army" wasn't a pile of artillery but instead 2-4 artillery peices with knights, infantry, etc doing the main attack. If I lose my calvary and infantry then the artillery is totally useless. So when you lose an artillery units in Civ 4 doesn't mean the artillery (on the tactical level) itself was destroy nor that ever single men was killed in the army but the unit as a whole was disabanded and could no long function. Since Civ 4 is suppose to be on the strategic level then a artillery unit represents an army with artillery not a pile of artillery. This is why Civ3 artillery was such an exploit and was broken since the artillery worked on the tactical level (as on battlefields of Medieval) instead on the strategy level (as on the map of Medieval).
So you are not sending a pile of artillery in to attack a city but an army with artillery as in Medieval.