True, CivIII artillery is not more realistic in the sense that you can bombard freely without retribution. The only solution to this would be implementing an overall "stack-attack" mechanic like some mods, where stacks do combat as a whole. However, CivIII is MANY TIMES more realistic in the sense that >50% of your army isn't seige weapons. If anything siege is way more dominant in civ4 in my experience, it doesn't even take damage from other seige. The lack of ship bombardment is something that I would also easily like to reinclude in the game. Game Mechanics wise, I also feel that CivIII artillery weaponry was better, it augmented your armies and battles rather than defining and breaking them. (Although I wouldn't include "capture" in civ4, just reduce defense strength of seige weapons.) And I know it could work this way in civ4, even AI-wise, because it already works in a lot of mods, some which even have even more complexity and still are balanced.
@Breunor - here's the problem with your example. If the defender has all those units, and the attack just has two catapults and six axemen, it's a slaughter (in favor of the catas/axes). Siege makes attacking incredibly overpowered; there are very few situations where you want to be the one defending ground, and these are only due to AI quirks (ie. when "defending" you really just want to lure them into a spot where you technically attack). While civIII didn't do great as this either civ4 still pretty much fails at army diversity (and in this case, it's funny that the catas would probably even defend against chariots anyway, further protecting the axes!)
I don't disagree with you here although I'm not sure about the proportions of the weapons. I'm never anywhere close to 50% artillery in CIV IV; of course everyone has a different way of playing. By the end of my Civ III games, I think I had more artillery than I did in Civ IV, probably because my artillery didn't die. But I do agree that the 'artillery' system is out of whack; 'fixing' the issue of rock-paper-scissors with artillery may not be the best solution.
But having Civ IV switch to a CIV III system isn't any better, in my opinion it is probably a little worse. Here, the defending stack again would be taken to large losses, but without any losses from the attacking artillery. In CIV III the even bigger problem was that the AI didn't know how to use the artillery (which it can in Civ IV) which may be impacting my view. I know because I had artillery in CIV III I could pretty easily win on Deity, it just became too easy. Civ IV is a lot harder for a lot of reasons, and CIV IV artillery IS overpowered and decisive, but I think it isn't as bad as Civ III!
In some ways it is 'pick your poison'. In CIV III, once I had my artillery stack I won the game. The CIV III AI doesn't know how to use it so I always won decisively. In CIV IV, since AI understands artillery, the battle is won by the guy who hits the other guy first! I guess CIV IV is better; at least it is a fight!
But in my view, probably the biggest advantage of overpowered CIV IV artillery over overpowered Civ III artillery is that CIV IV artillery can work from an economy of force standpoint. The artillery dies to get the advantage -- this is costly. So, from a wartime economy standpoint, there are consequences from the use of the powerful weapon. In CIV III, as I said, once I built them, I won. In CIV IV, they are powerful, but at least you have to pay.
I don't have a problem if someone says that they think CIV III artillery is better, although I happen to not agree (in this case I strongly disagree). What gets me upset is when people say CIV III artillery is better because it is MORE REALISTIC, which drives me crazy! Neither system is very 'realistic' anyway, it is like saying that you are comparing Lord of the Rings to Star Wars on realism and arguing whether the power of the ring is more realistic than the force.
And my key point is that there is no such thing as a 'fix' to the CIV IV artillery system
taken in isolation, from a game standpoint, you have to figure out how any change will affect the entire offense/defense equation.
@Troytheface,
I agree that in WWII, artillery did indeed inflict the most casualties; but nonetheless, it was still a support and not a decisive weapon. The vast majority of decisive victories occurred through mobility and encirclement. For instance, the Fall of France actually had relatively few casualties but France was totally defeated, mostly through mobile troops that surrounded the French forces. At the beginning of the war, both the Soviet army and the US army doctrine emphasized the offensive use of artillery; by the end of the war, both countries adopted a mobile warfare doctrine. Even the Soviets, the leading users of artillery since the 18th century, viewed their tanks and their aircraft as their key. Look at the production of tanks and aircraft by the end of the war and you can see the emphasis they received. Stalingrad was a victory of tanks, not of artillery. Once Paulus was trapped, the artillery inflicted more casualties -- but it was the Zhukhov's T-34's that surrounded them and then the infantry came in to hold them.
I suspect you will find few military historians who viewed that army strengths had more to do with artillery than with armor and (especially at the end of the war) airpower.
However, an interesting fact is that artillery revived in the Korean War. A famous letter of Mao's complained of the American advantage in artillery. Once again, artillery was a key because the Chinese/UN forces were arrayed in relatively static positions.
In modern times, air power is a dominant element - I don't know if artillery will ever replace the overwhelming power of aircraft and helicopters now, and armor is still prominent.
Note that Fall From Heaven II indeed keeps the weapons advantages from CIV IV without the overpowered artillery, so it can be done. But FfH II is an extraordinary mod.
Best wishes,
Breunor
