[GS] The battering ram scandal.

[kaspergm]

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.

I kind of agree with this, at least in reality, but the map layout of Civ6 often works against this, being that you'll find a hard time finding free land to settle once it becomes apparent that you need "late" resources like Niter, Coal, and particularly Oil and Uranium. Niter particularly sits in an awkward spot ... good luck conquering someone who builds medieval walls and particularly renaissance walls without bombards and musketmen.

I think the game needs some sort of late-to-the-party option to produce strategic resources in at least small amounts, when you spawn in an area without them. Civ6 had the Iron Works building which did this, if I'm not mistaken. There should be a building available around ~early medieval era that allows you to produce some iron, say 2 iron per turn. It could even be a Workshop replacement to go into the Industrial Zone. Similarly, there should be a late renaissance/early industrial building allowing you to produce Niter - maybe it could unlock at Military Science, could go into either the Industrial Zone or the Encampment. Of course, this idea plays into a bigger wish of mine, namely a frame where you could actually put your Workshops and Factories into producing goods, not just for military, but also for trade (say, blue jeans, toys, cosmetics or perfume, just to give some examples).

 

[Victoria]

I think the game needs some sort of late-to-the-party option to produce strategic resources in at least small amounts,

Well, making Niter has been a thing for centuries using urine and faeces and "beat their swords into ploughshares" comes from the bible (iron amassed in all countries due to trade since the iron age) so I see no reason why any civ could produce swords in small quantities. 1/2 - 1 per turn or perhaps run projects to make it.

 

[kaspergm]

A project for an amount of a resource is a great idea. It works within the frame of the game, it has appropriate disadvantages to still make you want to search for the actual resources, yet it opens a viable option in those situations where you urgently need a specific resource.

 

[oSiyeza]

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.

I an convinced is a good change. Cavalry units are actually not very effective in sieges against fortress. Nor the mongols in real life engaged in a long siege against seriously fortified cities.
However and more importantly, it makes sense gamewise to balance the strenght of cavalry. So to me that is a good decission overall.
It may make the game harder, but since most complains ara that the game is too easy, i dont think that is a bad thing either.

 

[Tech Osen]

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.

It doesn't make sense for mobile artillery to be better range than stationairy artillery. You can use bigger, heavier designs if it doesn't have to move.

 

[acluewithout]

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.

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!".

I've never had much luck with Catapults, but reading your post it occurred to me that I've never built very many. I think you're right - they might be more effective that given credit to them if people fielded two or three.

Still. Given they're already vulnerable to land units, I still think they could a buff v ranged and could use a Medieval upgrade.

Well, making Niter has been a thing for centuries using urine and faeces and "beat their swords into ploughshares" comes from the bible (iron amassed in all countries due to trade since the iron age) so I see no reason why any civ could produce swords in small quantities. 1/2 - 1 per turn or perhaps run projects to make it.

A project for an amount of a resource is a great idea. It works within the frame of the game, it has appropriate disadvantages to still make you want to search for the actual resources, yet it opens a viable option in those situations where you urgently need a specific resource.

Projects sound like too much micro to me. And that's the end of strategic resources as a limiter.

Iron is not so bad. If you don't have some handy, you can get it through the Jerky Bell Wonder, or use Magnus, or go for Horses instead. Or just suck it up and make do.

Niter is more of a pain. And silly because you should be able to make it (although I get the gameplay reasons for the resource). If the Armory gave you Niter, that would probably be enough both for "realism" / "flavour" and gameplay.

I'm more sad that Spears and Pikes still suck. Indeed, they suck so bad I think FXS could consider just folding the whole unit line into Melee and doing away with them. They add nothing at the moment.

AC are not just weak, they don't even really have any niche. Leaving aside their rock-scissor-paper role of countering Cav, they are clearly intended to be a defensive unit. As others have pointed out, Spears and Pikes weren't "defensive" historically - they were soldiers who did, er, soldier stuff. But leaving that aside, with a few Melee, ranged and maybe a wall and or Encampment here or there, you have all the defence you need. I built one AC recently to buff my early City defence and honestly, such a waste of effort.

The whole rock-scissor-paper thing is quite silly anyway given 1upt. You ready have tech, terrain, positioning (flanking, ranged), logistics (Rams, Seige, roads, resources) and UUs. There's plenty strategically and tactically. Having a Sword-Pokemon beats Spears-Pokemon, but not Horsie-Pokemon is kinda lame.

Just roll AC into the Melee line. No idea how that works with resources, but I'm sure it'd work itself out.

 

[Victoria]

Not always 100% with you

They suck so bad I think FXS could consider just folding the whole unit line into Melee and doing away with them. They add nothing at the moment.

I have played games with 12 hoplites before and won, I have played an English spear army a few times and lost. I have learnt a lot about spears on the way. used to be an ancient table topper years ago so know some history on spears and spears were the great unwashed and often it was more morale than anything else that let them down but regardless in this game they are different and I use spears in over half my armies now and they are useful and do serve a purpose, they are just the weakest as you say. What they do provide as a decent arm against light horse and chariots early. They do enough un-promoted but you have to keep them away from club wielders. I friggin hate the whole concept of club wielding warriors, the game should start with spears not clubs... that is the problem. Anyway once you have enough xp to take that first upgrade you make a call, become a chariot crushing +10 promotion or if there are a lot of clubs around take the +10 against melee and you are then +5 vs clubs.
They are only worth having a couple of them and often 1-2 will die but they give variety and some flexibility. They do such but not as badly as you seem to be saying and the reson is you keep your troops and upgrade them while the AI keeps getting noobs. In MP I am sure they super suck.

The whole rock-scissor-paper thing is quite silly anyway given 1upt

I disagree, it is the promotions that mess things up. +12 archers do not help in the slightest... also there is the fact that Spears are +10 vs cav, swords are +10 vs spears but cav are not +10 vs swords and or archers. Archers should be mown down by horse, literally. Archers are just too OP and are the opposite of spears and the promotions just make things worse. Having some type of Rock Paper Scissors (RPS) stops a grinding attrition battle and I guess it is a question of which you prefer but attrition tabletops was dull while RPS feels more tactical. This is especially true while Morale/supply/retreat rules are not in existence.

 

[acluewithout]

Not always 100% with you.

That's okay. And I change my mind from time to time, so I'm not always 100% with me either.

Anyway. I don't totally disagree, but a few random thoughts.

• Anti-cav. The +10 v Melee is quite good, maybe even underrated, and you can get it fairly easily if you're defending. My point is that Melee and other units are more efficient at defence, so AC are missing their own "niche" (like how Melee's niche is taking Cities and Light Cav's niche is Pillaging and Harassing). Yes, AC are good v Cav ... but generally so are Melee with ranged to back them up and some Oligarchy. I guess if you're defending Knights then Pikes are better because Swords are an Era behind. But I could maybe just build my own Knights... I guess I'm just saying AC have only an edge case at best. And then there's still the problem they get chewed up by ranged and are slower than Melee after promotions. AC are just ... disappointing. I can't get excited about having "one or two". Sigh.

• Cavalry generally. They don't generally get a bonus v Melee, so that can seem like a hole on the RPS thing, but I don't think it is. Sure, they don't get a +10 v melee, but they're faster and ignore ZOC, so that's really their edge over Melee rather than a flat bonus.

• Light Cav. I do think LC are overpowered, but that's not always the case. I find LC are quite vulnerable to ranged, and their promotions don't really help much with fighting units. They are very good at Pillaging, and I find they survive well because they can usually heal from farms but they are vulnerable once they farms run out.

• Ranged. These guys are way too powerful and the promotions are broken. I try to avoid building them because they are just a yawn. Although. I've noticed the AI builds them more, which is fun...

• Rock-Paper-Scissors. I'm not saying RPS is bad design. And Civ VI has a slightly more nuanced version because of promotions, unit classes having niches, various other unit class (eg the two ranged classes), policies etc (eg oligarchy), era gaps etc. But RPS at its core is kind of simplistic, and I'm not sure Civ VI needed to go down that (maybe) cliche path. War Games can have strategy without RPS. Anyway. It's not going to change, and like I said, it's not inherently a bad design. Just a bit, meh, to me. But it's a good point about avoiding boring attrition wars, so yeah maybe you're right. Dunno.

• Promotions. Regardless, I agree promotions are a mess.

I friggin hate the whole concept of club wielding warriors, the game should start with spears not clubs... that is the problem..

Could not agree more.

Guys with club is just one of the franchise's "ticks", and the early game would be better if it got rid of it.

 

[MrRadar]

@OP
I agree that Battering Ram was a scandal, and one that was going on for far too long. But now it has been finally resolved in a surprisingly sensible and welcome way. "Should've been like this from the start" sort of way

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

Wreck havoc in their territory, destroy their forces, pillage their resources, their trade, their districts, their farms, be a general nuisance like a swarm of vicious mosquitoes that would drive them mad to the point that they would be ready to give you about anything you want just so that you leave them alone, at least for the time being. If you want cities, they will cede you cities, provided you annoy them long enough. On top of all those pillaged yields, you can also get some gpt or gold in a peace deal if they have some remaining, to cover your extensive war expenses.

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.

Yes, you must expect at least some casualties and, as already mentioned, bring in more catapults to rotate (and accumulate XP). War is still much too one-sided affair and far too beneficial, given instant yields from captured cities, so toughening them up is only welcome.

On the other hand, Military Engineers could be given a possibility to dig tunnels and place mines under city walls. Must be adjacent to the city/Encampment, must not have moved, uses all charges to blow up 100 HP with 75% probability of success. The remaining 25% probability is left for failure, owing to them blowing up themselves, being discovered and killed, faulty fuses, wet gunpowder, etc. The unit is lost with no other consequences.

 

[Troy Bruckner]

If they want to reflect upon history better then they should let players construct battering rams and other siege units at the place the siege is taking place.

 

[King of Prussia]

Well, making Niter has been a thing for centuries using urine and faeces and "beat their swords into ploughshares" comes from the bible (iron amassed in all countries due to trade since the iron age) so I see no reason why any civ could produce swords in small quantities. 1/2 - 1 per turn or perhaps run projects to make it.

Honestly, i would be happy with strategic resources providing some nationwide boosts and removing the requirement of needing them to build units. You could add some penalty/boost to producing units if you have the resource. You would still want to go and get them through settling, trade, and conquest. You would still have gameplay variety in maps. It would remove the issue of not having your army being upgradeable for large swaths of the game, or the issue of not having enough oil/other resource in the late game to make even a remotely decent army.(partially made worse because of resource upkeep)

as for the unit balancing. i wouldn't mind siege units being more resistant to ranged units. or AC units providing ZoC on cav. i just can't get that excited with AC units. They don't seem that impressive either vs cav when attacking.(maybe more of an issue with cav being able to fortify) perhaps they should of given them increased movement promotion instead of melee inf. as you said, promotions are kind of a mess.

 

[Duuk]

Is it time for me to wax nostalgic for the army system from CtP2 again? Because I can do that.

 

[Victoria]

. i just can't get that excited with AC units. They don't seem that impressive either vs cav when attacking

You inadvertently highlighted another issue, the units are phased in, so a cavalry unit comes later than AC which is putting the cart before the horse so to speak.
So coming later it has a higher strength which nullifies the +10 basically putting them on equal footing. The AC advantage is a first promo gives them +10 vs the cav. AC units were only good if they did not break formation so it sort of makes sense in reality just not so good in the game.

Basically if you are gonna implement a Rock Paper Scissors your units should all come at once and have the same strength.

 

[Duuk]

Basically the RPS model doesn't work because the units NEVER happen all at once. If the game was Age of Empires where each set of units was a single "Era Unlock" so all era-appropriate units unlocked at once so the RPS system could balance with each era, it could be balanced correctly. But in a game where it's not only possible but very likely that a given player will have an advantage in one leaf of the RPS that will offset whatever the opposing leaf might be the RPS breaks down into nonsense. For example, a pikeman (counter-cavalry) isn't going to stop WWI-era mounted cavalry unit any more than a Redcoat standing in square formation is going to do much against a late WWI tank. Fast forward a tiny bit and that WWI tank gets blown to shreds by literally any WWII era unit because it's slow and explosives have advanced and even grunt infantry have grenades that will blow a track off it, much less a modern (WWII) tank that will blow it apart AND be immune to its weapon.

I've ALWAYS hated the raw RPS model that later civ games have taken, especially since Civ5 and the 1UPT that pretend Civ is a game of chess. If you want to have unit counters then you need to create combined armies that fight as armies (ala CTP2), otherwise just give them basic attack and defense values with costs and bonuses with doing certain things. Quit making Civ a tactical wargame. STOP IT. GET HELP.

Yes, I'm ranting. But I hate that Civ games lately FEEL like they want to be Panzer General mixed with Age of Empires and forgot that they're an EMPIRE BUILDING BOARD GAME.

FOCUS ON EMPIRE BUILDING DAMMIT

/endrant

I think

Maybe not.

 

[Victoria]

Quit making Civ a tactical wargame.

some like it. You are allowed to rant but sadly I am one of those that like this part of the game as much as the other.
Just glad we got to the bottom of RPS as it had been bothering me.

 

[S1AL]

The "tactical" combat element is time-consuming, awkward, doesn't work well with ranged units, doesn't work well with the size of the map, doesn't work well with flying units, plays poorly with terrain, and makes no sense within the scope of the game generally. There are several different approaches that could be taken that don't involve simple deathballs.

 

[Troy Bruckner]

I an convinced is a good change. Cavalry units are actually not very effective in sieges against fortress. Nor the mongols in real life engaged in a long siege against seriously fortified cities.
However and more importantly, it makes sense gamewise to balance the strenght of cavalry. So to me that is a good decission overall.
It may make the game harder, but since most complains ara that the game is too easy, i dont think that is a bad thing either.

 

[Sostratus]

@7:10ish "the city surrendered after a barrage of catapult fire"
Pedantically yes, the mongols did of course sack many fortified cities. But they used siege engineers!
I suspect @oSiyeza meant, the weren't riding keshiks onto the battlements!

Too bad only the ottomans have a super swag siege ability like Great Turkish Bombard.

 

[S1AL]

Really, seriously, remove ram and siege tower. Move Military Engineers to super early in the game, but give them a bunch of additional abilities throughout the game, and additional charges, but make them scale in cost. They become your all-purpose siege enabler. It's historically accurate and a lot more fun.

Boom, all problems solved.

 

[Troy Bruckner]

@7:10ish "the city surrendered after a barrage of catapult fire"
Pedantically yes, the mongols did of course sack many fortified cities. But they used siege engineers!
I suspect @oSiyeza meant, the weren't riding keshiks onto the battlements!

Too bad only the ottomans have a super swag siege ability like Great Turkish Bombard.

The ottomans get credit for their huge cannons, but it was a Hungarian metal worker that made them. :/