[GS] The battering ram scandal.

[Whistled Blues]

Oh what a dark day. Dark day for us, cavalry player. The gods has smited us with the worst nerf the game has ever know.

Ok seriously, i would like to talk about battering ram and cavalry.


Some will say this make more sense in a historical point of view. But what am i asking is this :
How are we supposed to use nations that have a cavalry oriented gameplay ?
Basically this patch killed Tomyris, Hungaria (in a slighter way) and most importantly my beloved genghis khan.
All of these civs still have other bonuses. Mongolia still have his bonus based on diplomatic visibility, tomyris heal and double prod ...

But how are they supposed to conquer city now ? Persia may conquer cities faster than cavalry civs would do.
A city only need wall to completely make a cavalry army useless.
Yeah and don't tell me i should just make melee units, if i play Genghis Khan i wanna spread like in 1300 a.c. by storming through the map, their cavalry are supposed to have 5 PM you want me to bring some 2 PM units ? Is this what you would call a blitzkrieg ? Before making unit historically accurate, they shall make Civs gameplay historically accurate. Genghis Khan for exemple is designed to conquer very quickly when getting to the middle-age, i can't now because i need those battering ram, so melee units.

This is a serious topic i don't write this as just a complaint. I would like to know how i'm supposed to play either genghis khan or tomyris, unless they became as powerful as Poundmaker ( which is a useless civ sorry fans ).
This patch prevent me to play the civs i like cause i cannot use them properly anymore. I'm kinda praying for firaxis to remove the unit type restriction ASAP.

 

[RealHuhn]

Yes, the unit restriction is pretty odd but let's face it. Knight rushes were extremely OP. The double nerf was needed. You just have to bite the bullet and either optimize your infrastructure and science output to reach the UUs before the AI upgrades to more advanced walls or bring siege units. I prefer it this way but understand your frustration of course.

 

[Sostratus]

How are we supposed to use nations that have a cavalry oriented gameplay ?

Mounted units are still the fastest, strongest guys on the block. They can crush melee units in the field and building them gives you that nice bonus to your cities' defense rating. Now, once you've slaughtered their armies, what to do about those cities...

Yeah and don't tell me i should just make melee units, if i play Genghis Khan i wanna spread like in 1300 a.c. by storming through the map, their cavalry are supposed to have 5 PM you want me to bring some 2 PM units ? Is this what you would call a blitzkrieg ? Before making unit historically accurate, they shall make Civs gameplay historically accurate. Genghis Khan for exemple is designed to conquer very quickly when getting to the middle-age, i can't now because i need those battering ram, so melee units.

At some point you will come to this realization:
If you use cavalry, you need to build siege units. Gasp! the horror! Catapults?! What kind of loser builds those! It's only walls that resist attacks. Mounted and Melee do the same damage to cities themselves once you bring those pesky walls down. It's quite historically accurate for Genghis too. Do you think the mongols just rode into beijing? Siege weapons only kind of struggle against medieval walls because there's no trebuchet unit, but 2 promo catapults can handle it. Bombards make everything easy. Enough keshigs can snipe out ancient walls pretty easily too. I know, siege weapons don't run at 5 movement, but it's just the logistics of war. Kill their army and pillage everything, the catapults will show up by then.

 

[kaspergm]

Siege weapons only kind of struggle against medieval walls because there's no trebuchet unit, but 2 promo catapults can handle it.

Also on a sidenote, I can recommend the Steel And Thunder mod, that adds the Trebuchet and fills some other unit gaps. It's not my mod, but I do think it helps a lot with this issue.

 

[Victoria]

This is a serious topic i don't write this as just a complaint. I

Sure, just like you know a horse cannot attack a wall or climb a ladder very well.
These cavalry armies also had foot. Sure there was dismounting as well but within this game there was no balance, a knight army owned.
The funny thing is the game feels better to play now with a mix of troops, my knights go and kill their army and loot their land and go around the back of cities to put them in siege status while my foot do the hard work with a bit of ranged/bombard first to weaken the walls and then in with the foot and even possibly some knights.
The AI is not building walls as much now either so you can still do it.
There Is precedent in history for mounted armies with siege equipment to take a city but it made the game lopsided and this new way works well and feels more like a strategy game. There was little strategy in getting a bunch of horses and just owning big time without support bar a ram somehow strapped across 12 light horses that have been promoted.
The game makes many reality sacrifices and so the IRL has to be balanced.

 

[Bangau]

Battering rams had (and still have) a lower speed than cavalry, right? So the cavalry always had to wait for the rams before banging on city walls? Now you also bring some equally slow melee and siege with you. I agree that a mixed army makes war more strategic and interesting like Victoria illustrated.

 

[Tech Osen]

Also on a sidenote, I can recommend the Steel And Thunder mod, that adds the Trebuchet and fills some other unit gaps. It's not my mod, but I do think it helps a lot with this issue.

Steel and Thunder actually gives the Mongols a unique trebuchet iirc.

 

[King of Prussia]

I am happy with the change tbh. You should want to have a diversified army, even if its centered around different units depending on your strengths. If you want to focus one type, then don't expect to do as well as other types when it comes to certain actions.

 

[Tech Osen]

I am happy with the change tbh. You should want to have a diversified army, even if its centered around different units depending on your strengths. If you want to focus one type, then don't expect to do as well as other types when it comes to certain actions.

While true you are sometimes faced with a lack of diversity in strategic resources. No niter means no musketmen and no bombards for instance. Tough to break a city then.

 

[kryat]

While true you are sometimes faced with a lack of diversity in strategic resources. No niter means no musketmen and no bombards for instance. Tough to break a city then.

That fits historically. One of the motivators of colonialism was to secure places rich in niter. You may have to trade a bit to an initial supply, then “secure” your own supply.

 

[Archon_Wing]

You have to used mixed armies. Use pikes, siege or crossbows to take down the walls and then the knights can finish the city off.

Also Scythia and Mongolia have never, ever needed horses to take cities.

 

[cvb]

Is this what you would call a blitzkrieg ?

Blitzkrieg? 'Combined arms' all 'just in time'!

.

 

[S1AL]

I'm chalking this one up to a misplaced focus on "realism". We're talking about a game where turns (for the larger portion) comprise a decade or more, but mounted units move twice as fast because... I dunno, horses fast, go vroom-vroom?

 

[acluewithout]

Sure, just like you know a horse cannot attack a wall or climb a ladder very well.
These cavalry armies also had foot. Sure there was dismounting as well but within this game there was no balance, a knight army owned.
The funny thing is the game feels better to play now with a mix of troops, my knights go and kill their army and loot their land and go around the back of cities to put them in siege status while my foot do the hard work with a bit of ranged/bombard first to weaken the walls and then in with the foot and even possibly some knights.
The AI is not building walls as much now either so you can still do it.
There Is precedent in history for mounted armies with siege equipment to take a city but it made the game lopsided and this new way works well and feels more like a strategy game. There was little strategy in getting a bunch of horses and just owning big time without support bar a ram somehow strapped across 12 light horses that have been promoted.
The game makes many reality sacrifices and so the IRL has to be balanced.

I agree with all this.

The changes to Cav, Rams and Walls are good. There is a kind of fun dynamic now where you use Melee and Rams to take down walls, and Cav to take the weakened city and take down units. Or, rush to take cities before they get Walls.

But it’s not a big game changer.

• The AI doesn’t reliably build walls, so it’s really only an issue taking city states on higher difficulties. Cav are still too powerful overall, particularly Light Cav (they could really use a -17 v Cities), although the resource requirements for pre-modern Units is much better.

• The changes haven’t made me build more walls - the AI still just isn’t that much of a threat so there’s no need for walls defensively, and Walls really don’t have much benefit anyway beyond maybe ancient walls.

• Spearmen and Pikemen are still useless. Instead of being the bedrock of your army - which historically is what they should be - they are just useless. It’s a real shame.

• The changes have made Melee even more powerful, really. The only catch is they periodically time out because there’s no upgrade for particular eras. So, you can use Swords to take Cities but if City Defence gets too strong then you’re waiting until Muskets unlock, because you ain’t capturing squat with Pikes.

• Early Siege still suck despite the changes, because they get chewed up by ranged. Maybe if we get a Trebuchet it’ll improve (there was one in the RnF intro video, so maybe it’ll turn up in a 3xp).

I really hope FXS just rework Military Units at some point. It’s just not working.

 

[Lily_Lancer]

With enhanced pillage yields I still think cavalry are the best units. Now if you play under the standard rule set, capturing a city grants you much less profit than pillaging all its tiles (sometimes even again and again), which you need cavalry to do.

 

[Victoria]

With enhanced pillage yields I still think cavalry are the best units. Now if you play under the standard rule set, capturing a city grants you much less profit than pillaging all its tiles (sometimes even again and again), which you need cavalry to do.

Pillage then capture lily, repair all tiles then nicely give all the cities back.
Wiping out a civ for the era points or to remove their envoys or SV population benefits but it is far better to be a nice person and give their cities back. This is what makes legions and Toa stronger.
... they also count for warlords throne again.

 

[RealHuhn]

Pillage then capture lily, repair all tiles then nicely give all the cities back.
Wiping out a civ for the era points or to remove their envoys or SV population benefits but it is far better to be a nice person and give their cities back. This is what makes legions and Toa stronger.
... they also count for warlords throne again.

Another oversight from Firaxis. They should just remove city gifting. It only leads to exploits in my opinion.

 

[Victoria]

Another oversight from Firaxis. They should just remove city gifting. It only leads to exploits in my opinion.

No, no, no.... I am not gifting a city. I have taken 6 cities off a civ in a war and am giving them back at a peace deal. I think that is a rather decent thing to do and not something they can get rid of.

The real oversight here was implementing this stupidly high pillaging in the first place. And swapping it to be just gold and faith based does not help, especially with monumentality being so OP.

This pillaging implementation has meant they cannot speed up district repair after natural disasters or there would be more abuse... no one asked for this insane pillaging, we tried to say no when they said they were doing it.

Just to make is clear @RealHuhn , both lily and myself would rather such exploits were not in place but will use them if they are there unless we have a strong personal belief against them (I never do a cash deal before declaring war)

 

[Bibor]

Either:
Ancient walls should have a range of 1, catapults a range of 2.
Medieval and renaissance walls should have a range of 2, trebuchets and cannons a range of 3.
Observation baloons should not give +1 range, but rather make ranged units be able to shoot over obstacles.

Or:
Military engineers should come way sooner, with Engineering, and get more charges over time.

The problem is not in battering rams, or siege engines or towers, but for the fact that cities have a range of 2.
What idiot would put catapults within firing range of city/encampment defenders? As things stand now, a catapult survives for 2 turns, which means it can get off either 2 hits and die, or shoot once and retreat.

 

[Victoria]

As things stand now, a catapult survives for 2 turns, which means it can get off either 2 hits and die, or shoot once and retreat

As things stand now I move a scout into range at the same time as the catapult.
Or as a really novel idea...move 2 catapults into range
When it comes to bombards, no issue with a general present.
loons come very late and the +1 range could be considered 'effective range' because the difference to artillery when it can see what it is shooting remotely is huge.

If ancient walls had a range of 1 then they would be dead, and why would troops in an elevated position shoot less. One could say that a catapult in fact represents all siege tactics and counter tactics, thats how I think of it. That it includes the real military engineering because recreating all roles of a sapper is not simple.

What idiot would put catapults within firing range of city/encampment defenders?

The Romans, the mongols, me. You need to take a city, you have to expect a bloody nose doing so, "once more into the breach!".