Why the heck can cities indirect fire???

kamex

Emperor
Joined
Sep 13, 2008
Messages
1,272
Location
UK
When archers/siege (pre artillery) can't!

This is completely insane!

Typical example:

Say you have a 3 tiles in a row:

city (garrisoned by swordsmen) - hill - plains (occupied by trebuchet)

trebuchet can't fire at city, but city CAN fire at trebuchet. In order to fire, trebuchet must move onto hill, where it will get wiped by swordsmen

Its 'bearable' if there are multiple paths to siege the city, but when its block by coast etc, this becomes a nightmare when trying to take a high defense city!

It wouldn't be so bad if city couln't fire either, but it can, which is just... inexcusable bad design on the ranged combat system! :sad:
 
When archers/siege (pre artillery) can't!

This is completely insane!

Typical example:

Say you have a 3 tiles in a row:

city (garrisoned by swordsmen) - hill - plains (occupied by trebuchet)

trebuchet can't fire at city, but city CAN fire at trebuchet. In order to fire, trebuchet must move onto hill, where it will get wiped by swordsmen

Its 'bearable' if there are multiple paths to siege the city, but when its block by coast etc, this becomes a nightmare when trying to take a high defense city!

It wouldn't be so bad if city couln't fire either, but it can, which is just... inexcusable bad design on the ranged combat system! :sad:

man, its pretty obvious that the defenders stand on the roofs of their city, so on high-ground..! u really could ve come up with that urself :D

nah, i guess its just for balancing purposes
 
thats the game. thats the way it is. you dont get to choose these things, you just get to play the game.



are you finding it hard to capture cities per chance? (he says in his most honest and not trolling voice)
 
I find this more annoying when a cit is surrounded by *mountains* and I need to circle around them to get to the city.

Doesn't happen often, but it's weird I agree. It would be cool if indirect fire were opened in a later era for cities (so they would be able to do it eventually, but not right out of the box).
 
thats the game. thats the way it is. you dont get to choose these things, you just get to play the game.



are you finding it hard to capture cities per chance? (he says in his most honest and not trolling voice)

Not at all, I don't think the patch made much difference, as long as you have say four units.

I just think indirect fire from cities when siege engines can't is... ridiculous to say the least
 
I find this more annoying when a cit is surrounded by *mountains* and I need to circle around them to get to the city.

Doesn't happen often, but it's weird I agree. It would be cool if indirect fire were opened in a later era for cities (so they would be able to do it eventually, but not right out of the box).

Yes thats a good idea! Maybe with artillery or something
 
I just think indirect fire from cities when siege engines can't is... ridiculous to say the least

The usefulness of siege is greatly overstated by many players, IMO. I typically don't bother with it until artillery because of issues like this.

Battle tech path: warriors, swordsmen, longswordsmen, riflemen, now add artillery and continue to upgrade the pair.
 
The usefulness of siege is greatly overstated by many players, IMO. I typically don't bother with it until artillery because of issues like this.

Battle tech path: warriors, swordsmen, longswordsmen, riflemen, now add artillery and continue to upgrade the pair.

I agree with this, but I generally try to only fight defensive wars until artillery as well.
 
The usefulness of siege is greatly overstated by many players, IMO. I typically don't bother with it until artillery because of issues like this.

Battle tech path: warriors, swordsmen, longswordsmen, riflemen, now add artillery and continue to upgrade the pair.

I have found this too, especially as (for me at least) one siege engines causes about the same damage as 2 crossbows, may as well use the two crossbows :mischief:
 
Maybe because Trebuchets and catapults is short ranged compared to Artillery? If you hate it that much, lob so many rocks til you get indirect shooting promotion. My Frigates could lob shells over forests cuz it was so experienced xD
 
There's a simple solution. Move a longswordsman in between the city's swordsman and your trebuchet.

Cities are best taken with superior forces. If you come in with even forces, you can expect more casualties.
 
The city only bombards at half its shown strength, a fair trade off for indirect fire...
 
I think it would make sense if cities could indirect fire only if they built walls; castles or maybe military forts (whatever they're called) could increase radius by one tile. A siege unit built on a wall would have significantly more range than one on the ground.
 
Personally I think the real problem is that city bombard range maxes at 2. There's no real reason why city-based rocket artillery couldn't hit out as far as normal rocket artillery.
 
I have found this too, especially as (for me at least) one siege engines causes about the same damage as 2 crossbows, may as well use the two crossbows :mischief:

when I first got the game I made sure to take at least 3-5 swords, 2 archers, and 2 catas (droped the hourses as they made it to easy.) with me on a siege but after playing for a while I droped early siege units because of the issues you stated.
 
Maybe it's be a good thing to add in to walls. So by default, cities have no indirect fire, but build walls and suddenly you can. Then you could even throw in a range of 3 for castles, maybe, to encourage building those even more in front-line cities?
 
Imagine if cities *didn't* have indirect fire; a siege unit on a hill with a hill in between would be able to hit the city, while the city could shoot back.

Not good for balance.
 
I actually like that the city can get the extra bonus. It keeps things challenging, and in unusual terrain situations, such as you describe, it makes it even more of an interesting puzzle to solve, maybe even saves the city's life until you can get more advanced weapons. I see that as a good thing, not a problem at all. A city surrounded by mountains gave up a lot of good usable tiles for that extra security, it should be able to enjoy the trade off.
 
Considering that pre-patch cities fell in 2 turns or less no matter how well fortified they were, I have no problem with indirect fire....

I have no problem with some cities being almost unassailable (due to mountains/chokepoints) until arty either.... some cities (or castles/forts) in history really did last for decades or centuries before they could effectively be attacked....

Sure it's frustrating at times... and it may even make some games unwinnable.... but c'est la guerre!
 
Although there are many factors where you can't take the game too seriously from a historical context, this is one where you can take it seriously. Inhabitants of a city usually have a good idea of what the surrounding terrain is like, so they could know "On the other side of this hill in there's a valley in that exact direction. We know the enemy is camping there, so shoot, even if you can't see it." Even as far back as Sun Tzu, knowledge of terrain was an important part of combat, and that's an area that foreign invading troops would be at a disadvantage.
It's an explanation that works for me.
 
Back
Top Bottom