When to use cannons?

[Tecibbar]

I never use siege weapens, what good are they?

 

[undertoad]

Catapults, Trebuchets, Cannons and their modern descendants are different in CivIII from in previous versions. The great thing about the new "bombard" ability which they have (replacing the old way, in which they attacked - strongly - just as other units do, i.e. at the risk of dying in the attack) is that it carries no risk at all to them.

This means that you can build a stack of Catapults - e.g. 8 of them - use them against one city, and then use them against another city. As long as you defend the square containing your Catapults properly, you need never lose one in a game. The only way to lose them is by having the last non-artillery unit on that square defeated by the enemy. (Even then, they're only captured by the enemy, not destroyed - so you have a chance of getting them back. The only exception is if the enemy doesn't have the tech to figure out how to use a unit - then they pull the wrong lever/press the wrong button and the thing blows up!)

Sure, the "artillery bombardment failed" message is frustrating - but IMHO it's more than made up for by artillery units' survivability. When Catapults become obsolete, just upgrade them to Trebs/Cannon/Artillery. And another thing - bombard units doesn't have veterancy, so you can build them (cheaply, too) in non-barracks cities.

When to use them? When there's a big stack of enemy defenders in a strong defensive position. The obvious example is an enemy city, but it could be another situation.

Bombardment allows you to weaken the defenders before your other units go for the kill (always have non-bombard good attackers around - unlike in previous versions, you can't actually kill defenders/take a city with bombard units). Here's how it goes:

City defended by 2 Pikeman + 1 Spearman
You're attacking with 3 Knights

Without bombardment:
Knight 1 gets Pikeman 1 down into the yellow. Knight 2 attacks - but because Pikeman 2 is now the best defender (at full health), all Knight 2 does is get Pikeman 2 down to yellow. Knight 3 attacks - the full-health Spearman is now the best defender, and Knight 3 gets him down to yellow.

All this has achieved very little. Defending units in a city will heal at least a bit by next turn, and if the enemy city has a Barracks - by next turn, all 3 units in the city will be back at full health!

It's a bit mathmo-ish: you're very unlikely to kill a city defender in a single attack with a single unit. If there are multiple defenders, you might get that first Pikeman down into the red on your first attack in a turn - but your next attack (in the same turn) will ignore him, and attack Pikeman 2 who's at full health - because Pikeman 2 is now the best defender. The only way to make progress when a city has multiple defenders is to weaken all of them enough that the healthiest one left can be killed.

With bombardment, you've got a good chance of getting all the defenders at least down to the yellow (if not red). Then your attacking units proper have a good chance of actually killing one of them, rather than just weakening them only for them to recover by next turn. (I often have to wait a few turns when the Artillery Gods are against me - sometimes even a stack of 8 Cannons just gives me "artillery bombardment failed" for 7/8 of them. That's a cue to save your attacking units, have them do nothing, and try again next turn, as long as your bombard units are safely defended).

 

[Theodora]

Artillery is very important. They reduce the health bar on the defenders, making it more likely that more of your units will survive the fray. Otherwise it's like throwing away your units when you could have kept them. Further in this vein, they may reduce the population of a city from 12 to 11, or from 6 to 5, again lessening the defenses and boosting your units' chance of survival and winning. It's essential to good strategy.

I don't like when artillery destroys city improvements, though. I don't feel it adds much to my strategy, it just feels wanton, and since I'm planning to take the city, I would rather have the barracks/marketplace/harbor intact, thank you.

Edit--except as Undertoad pointed out when he got his post in just ahead of mine-- the barracks in the rival's city allows their units to heal up fast and that can really impede your strategy. Too bad you can't selectively take out their barracks and have to wantonly blast their banks and harbors, etc.

 

[Tecibbar]

very good points, but what I don't understand is when attacking a city with say 5 defenders. Then 10 attackers will have better chance of taking the city than 7 attackers and 3 siege weapon. Right?

 

[undertoad]

very good points, but what I don't understand is when attacking a city with say 5 defenders. Then 10 attackers will have better chance of taking the city than 7 attackers and 3 siege weapon. Right?

Hard to call the odds on that one. I'd say either combination would probably be a waste of units against 5 defenders. Assuming you're at roughly equivalent tech-levels (e.g. Catapults vs Spearmen, Cannons vs Musketmen, Artillery vs Riflemen/Infantry), I wouldn't even try to take down a 5-times-defended city with anything less than 10 siege weapons. (OK, maybe 7-8; especially if I have a good Army attacking. Armies change the odds completely, especially if you have a Barracks nearby where they can go and heal up in just one turn).

The number of non-siege attackers you use with the siege weapons will just speed up/slow down how quickly you kill defenders. 10 siege weapons have a good chance of seriously weakening all 5 defenders (but again, the Artillery Gods have the final say on this!). Then 4 good attackers might kill 2 of them in the same turn; 6 good attackers might kill 3 of them in the same turn.

10 catapults/cannon/artillery seemed really excessive to me when I first played CivIII. I'm used to CivII where Catapults really put some hurt on an enemy Phalanx - and can actually kill him too.

Then it dawned on me that those 10 catapults are not a one-use stack - because bombardment carries no risk, I can use the 10 catapults again and again - unlike in CivII where maybe 8 of them would die trying to take down a 5-defended city.

 

[undertoad]

I don't like when artillery destroys city improvements, though. I don't feel it adds much to my strategy, it just feels wanton, and since I'm planning to take the city, I would rather have the barracks/marketplace/harbor intact, thank you.

In my limited experience, I've only seen city improvements destroyed when I bombard but there's "nothing left to do" as far as the defenders are concerned: i.e. all defenders are down to their last red bit of health, which bombardment can't take off them. (Of course you can't always know whether this is the case before bombarding again).

Is this how it works, or just an accident of what I've seen?

PS: I thought you were based on Istanbul, Not Constantinople

 

[Snarkhunter]

In AA, I generally send at least 4 bombard units per expected defender, at equivalent tech level. That usually means 8-12 cats/trebs per city. When I get cannons, it's often 16 if I really, truly want the city quickly, but the era of cannons soon passes, as I go for RP ASAP in the IA, & artillery is a bigger force multiplier (it can inflict 2 HP). At that point it becomes highly dependent on what I am facing tech-wise & number-wise; a city with 6 riflemen & 1 pike is going to call for max effort: 20 arty if I've got 'em, or even more. If I've got multiple axis of advance, I often look to consolidate them near heavily defended targets to increase the amount of bombardment I can throw; the 2 tile range helps tremendously--on rare occasions I can position a stack so that it can attack more than one city without moving from its position.

Generally, I play standard maps & find that my artillery park runs at 40-50 units unless the game ends early; about 16-25 in the early MiA. If I played on large or huge maps, I could quite easily see myself building 100 artillery units or even more.

One further point about bombard units: they are excellent recon-by-fire pieces. If I don't have enough units to form an extra offensive axis, but do have some left over, I will very often send them against a later target to be taken & recon fire against it so that I have some idea in advance of what I am facing. It's worth building bombards for this reason alone.

kk

 

[splunge the 2nd]

As an addendum, the AI doesn't tend to use artillery (or use it well when they do) so it is one of the advantage the human player has.
Check out these articles in the War Academy:
http://www.civfanatics.com/civ3/strategy/artillery_defensive.php and http://www.civfanatics.com/civ3/strategy/artillery_effective.php

 

[CommandoBob]

Here's how it goes:

City defended by 2 Pikeman + 1 Spearman
You're attacking with 3 Knights

Without bombardment:
Knight 1 gets Pikeman 1 down into the yellow. Knight 2 attacks - but because Pikeman 2 is now the best defender (at full health), all Knight 2 does is get Pikeman 2 down to yellow. Knight 3 attacks - the full-health Spearman is now the best defender, and Knight 3 gets him down to yellow.

All this has achieved very little. Defending units in a city will heal at least a bit by next turn, and if the enemy city has a Barracks - by next turn, all 3 units in the city will be back at full health!

undertoad leaves out one critical factor of seige weapons: Casualities.

In the example here, how many Knights died? undertoad doesn't say, so lets say the last one died and the first two retreated. Now the offense is stalled and the retreated Knights might be at risk of counter-attack.

With some bombardment (even one catapult, at a cost of 30 shields), and one hit on a defender, things change. Instead of facing vPike, vPike and vSpear, now the defenders are vPike, vSpear and vPike 3/4. The first two attacks still result in retreats, but the third attack is on a weaken vPike. It still takes 2 HP of damage (same as in all attacks this round) and now it is redlined. At this point the Knight will go for the kill and continue to attack until either it or the Pike are dead. No retreat from a redlined unit. The Knight wins the next HP and the Pike is dead. All from one HP from a rock-thrower.

Which means that you still have 3 Knights, not 2. They can heal. They do not have to be replaced.

Not only do these weapons help you win the battle, they also help to reduce your losses when you attack. When your units are more likely to win, then they are less likely to die and need to be replaced. Obvious, yes, but consider how that changes your city production. One or two cities of the core can build strategic things (markets, libraries, settlers) while the rest crank out units.

 

[Theodora]

In my limited experience, I've only seen city improvements destroyed when I bombard but there's "nothing left to do" as far as the defenders are concerned: i.e. all defenders are down to their last red bit of health, which bombardment can't take off them. (Of course you can't always know whether this is the case before bombarding again).

Is this how it works, or just an accident of what I've seen?

I'm pretty sure I've seen improvements destroyed, and citizens slain, while defending units are still in the green. Or is that a bug that has been fixed by a patch that I've missed?

PS: I thought you were based on Istanbul, Not Constantinople

Not if the Byzantines have anything to say about it.
"Why did Constantinople get the works? That's nobody's business but the Turks."

 

[iambenben]

i use them whenever i can

 

[anaxagoras]

I'm pretty sure I've seen improvements destroyed, and citizens slain, while defending units are still in the green. Or is that a bug that has been fixed by a patch that I've missed?

That doesn't happen from regular bombardment units in fully-patched C3C. However, bombers can still take out non-units with green defenders, I believe. I'm sure someone will correct me if I'm wrong about the bombers. I'm quite sure about artillery, though.

 

[TheOverseer714]

In Vanilla and PTW, artillery works like bombers do, there is a even chance of killing a citizen, destroying a building, or damaging a defender. In Conquests, artillery damages units first. If all units are redlined, then the other things happen. Bombers always can do collateral damage, get shot down, or just plain miss, which is why artillery is better. Definitely want to build bombardment units en masse if you want to win wars without mass casualties. Recently I lost 2 cavalries and redlined 4 others on 3 Muskets by not waiting for artillery support and ended up not taking the city. 10 cannons would have changed that outcome, cutting the casualties way down and gaining a city.

 

[timerover51]

That doesn't happen from regular bombardment units in fully-patched C3C. However, bombers can still take out non-units with green defenders, I believe. I'm sure someone will correct me if I'm wrong about the bombers. I'm quite sure about artillery, though.

Bombers will take down improvements and citizens with defenders at full health. I have run a few saves to check that in Conquests.

 

[Rodent]

Here Goes.

There are 2 ways of waging a war-

1) Blitz- Using only fast units and relying on speed. Very Expensive to do and can stall quickly

2) Combined Arms- Using a Combination of Defensive Units, attacking Units and Artillery (Cats Trebs Cannons etc). The Idea being that you walk slowly up to a city while your defensive units take the enemy counter.

Upon Reaching the City your Arty starts Bombarding, then the attack comes Which Usually Results in sure fall of the city if planned right.

You wouldnt want to do Combined Arms in a Government that has War Weariness as It is a slow war. It can be done but you need lots of luxuries.

How many Cannons to Take?- It can vary according to the Era and the number of Defenders you are Expecting per city

A good rule of thumb is to take 3 Artillery for every Defensive Unit you expect per city. I usually assume that i will be facing 5 defenders per city which is good for all levels below Demigod

Hope this helps

 

[Snarkhunter]

Here Goes.
You wouldnt want to do Combined Arms in a Government that has War Weariness as It is a slow war. It can be done but you need lots of luxuries.

I don't have any problem doing combined arms in Republic. It usually takes 2 turns to get the first city & 2-4 turns for every city after that. However, I don't war unless I have enough units to go for 2-3 cities simultaneously, sometimes more (my current record is 5 separate axis of attack on the first war turn), unless I am warring for some very specific, limited purpose. Usually a resource, occasionally something like a chokepoint.

kk

 

[Rodent]

I don't have any problem doing combined arms in Republic. It usually takes 2 turns to get the first city & 2-4 turns for every city after that. However, I don't war unless I have enough units to go for 2-3 cities simultaneously, sometimes more (my current record is 5 separate axis of attack on the first war turn), unless I am warring for some very specific, limited purpose. Usually a resource, occasionally something like a chokepoint.

kk

Maybe, I just find that with Attrition and all, I find it difficult to capture more than a 3-4 cities before the people start shouting. It can be done, but Spending 50% on lux doesnt seem funny

 

[anaxagoras]

Maybe, I just find that with Attrition and all, I find it difficult to capture more than a 3-4 cities before the people start shouting. It can be done, but Spending 50% on lux doesnt seem funny

The key to managing WW is to make sure you are the attacker as much as possible, and that you always win whatever fights you get into. The citizens don't mind at all if you are always attacking and winning, which is yet another major benefit of bombard units. You get the enemy hit points down so that your attacks are nearly always without losses. Your citizens love that.

What they don't like is their own boys dying, and they also get annoyed about holding ground, even when you win. Since the AI seldom attacks with injured units, bombard units help with the latter problem, as well.

If you will recall from SGFN05, we were in a WW government at the end of the game and were still on an absolute rampage. 21 cities in less than ten turns. But in those same ten turns, we only lost something like 5 units, so our citizens didn't much care. Granted, we had a whole hoast of luxuries and a tech advantage by that point, but we experienced only minor WW throughout the game thanks to a successful offense bolstered in part by trebuchets and cannons.

 

[Othniel]

Originally Posted by Theodora
I'm pretty sure I've seen improvements destroyed, and citizens slain, while defending units are still in the green. Or is that a bug that has been fixed by a patch that I've missed?

That doesn't happen from regular bombardment units in fully-patched C3C. However, bombers can still take out non-units with green defenders, I believe. I'm sure someone will correct me if I'm wrong about the bombers. I'm quite sure about artillery, though.

In a recent game, my catapults destroyed a temple and a cathedral with full-health defenders still in the city. It surprised me, but I think this is related to the Great Wall bug. That's the bug where you can destroy wonders with artillery if the city you are bombing has the Great Wall.

The city I was bombing didn't have the Great Wall itself, but its mother civ had just completed the GW in the capital.

 

[Argetnyx]

in civ4 artillery units are just like regular units, they can only bombard cities