Thoughts on if there will be an Artillery Fix?

[Nick31]

One of the problems with CiV is the AI simply isn't capable against Artillery. Only on Diety with enough units and enough of a tech lead can the AI fend off a competent Human with Artillery (i.e. with planes or swarms of GWar Infantry).

A good player can basically win on Immortal 100% of the time by turtling with Tradition and then coming at a neighbor with Artillery, and depending on your surroundings, that will work on Diety a lot as well. If an AI can move and shoot (via mod), it's less of an issue on Diety, but the point remains: A human planning for Artillery (which are easily built as Cannons with 30XP, i.e. with +50% City Bombard, and then upgraded to Artillery for an affordable price) is unstoppable.

Do you think this is something worth remedying in CVI? Do you think Beach/Shirk think it's a problem? Beach has said a lot in the press that he wants to get players out of a comfort zone, and I can think of no bigger comfort zone, frankly, than Human Supremacy with Artillery, and the ease of pre-build, bulb, upgrade.

 

[dexters]

Unknown.

If Artillery falls under support unit, it could simply give the unit it is embedded into a ranged attack, or even just an attack bonus vs. certain units and cities. Removing ranged attack completely ala Civ4.

Though losing ranged attack, as unbalancing as it may be for the human player, would be a big change. I'm not sure if I'm ready to give up ranged attacks yet.

 

[kaspergm]

Well they did said that the military district will have a ranged attack of its own and that strategic placement of this district will be an important part of empire defense, so I guess that might work at least partially to that aim. I do hope they'll also reconsider how artillery attacks work, however, the fact that you can just sit at a distance and bomb city down to 0 health and then swoop in with a cavalry unit didn't do much good for the game.

 

[joncnunn]

Well they did said that the military district will have a ranged attack of its own and that strategic placement of this district will be an important part of empire defense, so I guess that might work at least partially to that aim. I do hope they'll also reconsider how artillery attacks work, however, the fact that you can just sit at a distance and bomb city down to 0 health and then swoop in with a cavalry unit didn't do much good for the game.

Something like Civ IV max damage that can be done by ranged units would work well here. Especially with it being known that Civ VI bombing can destroy buildings.

 

[AriochIV]

It sounds from the previews as if they have recorded the AI from scratch, so one can only hope that the known shortcomings of the tactical AI will be addressed in some form.

 

[Drakarska]

Wouldn't mind seeing a RCM or even DCM modcomp variation from Civ IV in this. Some of the best mods from IV solved that issue awhile ago. Would be nice if the Devs do something similar.

 

[sugerdady87]

I liked the way artillery worked in Civ5 personally.

 

[Drakarska]

I liked the way artillery worked in Civ5 personally.

Why yes, range 3 longbows is such a beautifully crafted design.

On the serious side, the entire "artillery" line needs a major overhaul and rework, especially with the new district concept that's being implemented.

 

[AriochIV]

I liked the way artillery worked in Civ5 personally.

I do too. I don't think the complaint was with the mechanics of artillery, but rather with the AI's inability to adequately employ it or defend against it.

 

[GenjiKhan]

One way they can do that is to decrease the damage of ranged units the more weakened the target unit is, and set up a threshold where ranged units can no longer deal damage to them .

 

[AriochIV]

That was feature of Civ III that I thought was pretty good. That along with the ability to bombard tile improvements.

 

[Lucius_]

I miss bombarding tile improvements. I would always start a late game war with bombers taking out all the roads surrounding the enemy's capital, crippling their ability to make modern units.

As for artillery, they are a fun unit, but I agree the AI couldn't deal with them or use them effectively. I'd hate for Firaxis to balance all the fun out of the game to compensate for AI. I'd hate to see an artillery nerf, but steamrolling the entire world the moment artillery is researched is a bit ridiculous.

 

[Aristos]

The TOAW engine solved the Arty problem in tactical scenarios/environments eons ago. Basically, arty is a support unit, and its optimal use involves adding firepower in an attack when the arty unit is in range. It can also be used as bombard unit alone, but at a steep decrease in power and effect (basically, only damaging fortifications). That is exactly how to solve the dilemma in the new era of semi-tactical civ: if arty units are in range of an attack or defense, they add power to the offensive/defensive values of attacking/defending units, OR it is used as fortification busters stand alone. Should also be much easier for AI, because it would only have to worry about putting arty in range, and not about potential danger tiles.

 

[Aristos]

I'd hate to see an artillery nerf, but steamrolling the entire world the moment artillery is researched is a bit ridiculous.

You obviously didn't play Civ 2 much.

Any civ2 player fondly remembers the Howitzer rushes.

Unstoppable.

 

[stealth_nsk]

The problem with artillery in Civ5 is its setup-fire cycle, which generally makes it firing the next turn. It adds the hell of difficulty for AI to count. However it's still possible to make AI use artillery effectively in defense or against static targets. The good news for AI - with district system it will have much more static targets on offense, so it could look quite well if done properly.

We have to wait and see.

 

[dexters]

Yeah AI airpower can be a nusience and quite deadly. They are more adept when not having to set-up their bombard units.

Short of designing 2 separate firing systems, I think removing the set-up cycle and making early bombard slightly weaker would be better.

The crossbows' power made catapults essentially obsolete in Civ5. I just build 5-6 crossbows as my mobile artillery in the early game. The trebuchets barely edge them out on the utility front and often die with one strong bombard from defending units. I usually only bring 1 or 2 to kill a city, and rely on my mass of archers.

 

[TheMeInTeam]

No.

Get rid of "ranged units > all" model that pervades the vast majority of V's gameplay and you get rid of this issue.

Arty are among the first stock units that can break turtling without special investment or tricks. If anything, similar units to press cities from outside city range should exist much sooner. The entire siege line should be range 3, not just artillery, though pre-cannon versions should be really pathetic as field artillery.

 

[stealth_nsk]

No.

Get rid of "ranged units > all" model that pervades the vast majority of V's gameplay and you get rid of this issue.

Arty are among the first stock units that can break turtling without special investment or tricks. If anything, similar units to press cities from outside city range should exist much sooner. The entire siege line should be range 3, not just artillery, though pre-cannon versions should be really pathetic as field artillery.

Or, better, city range should be 1. This would require barbarian archers to appear later (for initial city protection against barbs), but not a big issue.

Needs balancing, but I believe city ranged attack mechanic was a big problem in Civ5.

 

[dexters]

City range was fine. It's been mentioned military camps in Civ6 will have their own range attack and that district will be outside the city. Units will also appear from that tile instead of the city centre. so simply surrounding the centre tile is not enough as units could be attacking the siege from behind.

So you could well have 'free' crossfire situations without investing in a lot of artillery or ranged for defense. For the defenders at least.

I'm sure even that can be overpowered by a dedicated human player, but it does open up the possibility of more balance to seige warfare, as the bee-line to the city centre is often all that's needed to take a city in V. That will be harder to do in 6 if what we're told is right

 

[stealth_nsk]

City range was fine. It's been mentioned military camps in Civ6 will have their own range attack and that district will be outside the city. Units will also appear from that tile instead of the city centre. so simply surrounding the centre tile is not enough as units could be attacking the siege from behind.

I think cities in Civ5 are too strong. I'm ok with cities being able to defend themselves against barbarian or a lonely warrior, but 3 military units should be able to deal with a unprotected city of the same time period quite effectively.

The only good news I have in this regard is - city ranged attack is enabled with walls only, so I doubt it's as uber as it was in Civ5.