The best strategy for rams and towers

[Eagle Pursuit]

I always thought Towers were better than Rams. Why bother doing more damage to Walls, when you can bypass them entirely? Especially if you plan on keeping the city after you capture it - you won't have to waste time afterwards repairing the Walls.

I sometimes like to nullify the city's range attack and pillage around it with impunity before taking it, especially if I'm going to give it back in a peace deal.

 

[kamex]

I find if you have about 4 Archers with Incendiaries, walls are no problem at all. At least Ancient Walls anyway...

 

[Scaramanga]

I thought the general rule was: lots of ranged units? Bring a ram. Lots of melee? Bring a siege tower. If ranged units directly attack with siege tower that has to be a bug since the description says melee.

 

[Zuizgond]

I'd say 16GB DDR4.

 

[Victoria]

I find if you have about 4 Archers with Incendiaries, walls are no problem at all. At least Ancient Walls anyway

It all depends on the strength of the garrison. As soon as they build a knight your archers cannot touch ancient wall.

 

[Scaramanga]

I'd say 16GB DDR4.

Liquid cooling siege towers also a good way to go.

 

[MooFreaky]

So you only need a single siege weapon adjacent a city to get the effect?
I always assumed only the unit sharing a tile with it benefited

 

[Victoria]

The damage difference is too great to even be 3 of them @MooFreaky

 

[Scaramanga]

So you only need a single siege weapon adjacent a city to get the effect?
I always assumed only the unit sharing a tile with it benefited

Yes all adjacent melee units.

 

[Lily_Lancer]

The damage difference is too great to even be 3 of them @MooFreaky

Towers are better if you have the ability to build both of them.
Since they can be bonused by classical GG, thus having 3 movement (a great advantage to catch up with the 5 movement knights). Rams are ancient units which cannot be affected by GGs.

 

[KoKid90]

It makes me mad to see such bad wordings and bad mechanics like towers benefiting ranged units although it clearly says in the description in game that it affects melee units. how can stuff like that happen in such a big game.

 

[Victoria]

It makes me mad to see such bad wordings and bad mechanics like towers benefiting ranged units although it clearly says in the description in game that it affects melee units. how can stuff like that happen in such a big game.

Agreed and likely a coding mistake they will hopefully correct
I sort of feel bad for showing it but it's better than only a few people knowing it

 

[KoKid90]

I mean, civilization is a strategy game. Therefore the wording of the mechanics in game is extremely important for the Integrity of the game. I know civilization is more complex than chess for example but this is like establishing the rules saying the knight can only move in a L-shape, but then having someone take your pieces by moving the knight in a straight line across the board like the rook ... quite disappointing and defeats the purpose of strategy. we're not talking of an action shooter game here ... attention to details is lacking in this particular case ...

 

[Victoria]

100% agree @KoKid90

 

[UWHabs]

I mean, civilization is a strategy game. Therefore the wording of the mechanics in game is extremely important for the Integrity of the game. I know civilization is more complex than chess for example but this is like establishing the rules saying the knight can only move in a L-shape, but then having someone take your pieces by moving the knight in a straight line across the board like the rook ... quite disappointing and defeats the purpose of strategy. we're not talking of an action shooter game here ... attention to details is lacking in this particular case ...

Yeah, it's one thing if a bonus is unclear, or if the wording is a little awkward, but it's another when it's just wrong. I mean, the siege tower wording says it applies to melee attacks - at first it's unclear if that means just melee units (warriors, swords, etc..) or if it should apply to all melee-style attacks (including horses or ships). But if it also applies to ranged attacks, then that's simply a wrong description, and either the effect needs to be fixed, or the wording needs to be fixed.

 

[Victoria]

It also can be confusing for UU like hoplites.
Hoplites get the autocracy melee benefit but really should not.
They also get +10 when adjacent to a hoplite but in fact it means the beginning of the turn so as long as I start the turn adjacent I will get +10

 

[agonistes]

It also can be confusing for UU like hoplites.
Hoplites get the autocracy melee benefit but really should not.
They also get +10 when adjacent to a hoplite but in fact it means the beginning of the turn so as long as I start the turn adjacent I will get +10

Same with defenders of the faith, provided you dont pause your march, but directly attack from inside your border.

 

[myclan]

Yeah, it's one thing if a bonus is unclear, or if the wording is a little awkward, but it's another when it's just wrong. I mean, the siege tower wording says it applies to melee attacks - at first it's unclear if that means just melee units (warriors, swords, etc..) or if it should apply to all melee-style attacks (including horses or ships). But if it also applies to ranged attacks, then that's simply a wrong description, and either the effect needs to be fixed, or the wording needs to be fixed.

I would say melee was a bad word since ciV, it always confuses me whether it refers to melee unit only or melee-style unit. I also feel that it is strange that spearman or pikeman doesn't have the +50%bonus policy, making them relatively weak.

 

[Lily_Lancer]

It also can be confusing for UU like hoplites.
Hoplites get the autocracy melee benefit but really should not.
They also get +10 when adjacent to a hoplite but in fact it means the beginning of the turn so as long as I start the turn adjacent I will get +10

I
In fact Oligrachy melee bonus applies for both melee and anti-cavalries.
Autocracy doesn't amplify any strength.
Also, the real bonus for Communism is +6 instead of +4 in the description.

 

[MooFreaky]

To help clear it up and make it easy to follow they should use the keyword system that Warhammer 40k recently brought in.

So a unit like Swordsmen could be <INFANTRY> <MELEE> while Horsemen might have <CAVALRY> <MELEE> (and you can have as many as needed).
Then a Tower could easily say any <INFANTRY> unit will benefit... and obviously other rules would use other keywords.

So when you want to know if it works with X you look up X's profile and see if it has the <INFANTRY> keyword. It just helps get rid of the grey area.