Why was Civ 3's artillery system changed for CivIV?

[Gam]

I really liked that system! It seemed very realistic to me, also-- artillery bombardments ARE used in real life to soften up enemy units; artillery does NOT go into combat on its own, attacking; and artillery indeed would not stick around and defend against an attack.. it WOULD be captured! Well, until you get to mobile artillery, anyway..

Anyway, I think the system atm is kind of ridiculous. Artillery units should cause collateral damage just via bombard a-la Civ3, not attack.

And ffs, PLEASE give me a mobile artillery unit-- I'm sick of still having slow-assed artillery in the modern era that can't keep up with my tanks! Again, mucho unrealistic-- and irritating!

One last thing I've remembered-- battleships. They can't bombard the shores. That doesn't make a whole ton of sense either. Battleships were expressly used for this purpose in WWII; softening up enemy units before amph attack.

Thoughts?

 

[T.A JONES]

Im not really a fan of the new system myself but you can always count on the same reasoning for most changes
Some guy found a way to expliot the old system and rammed it till the fan boards rang out foul the AI is to easy!! Artillary is to cheasy!
Next the Civ programmers who want to appease the loyal voice of the communty(cheesy players) strip the old system in favour of something they figure is less expliotable... At least thats how it works most the time. Later

 

[Louis XXIV]

Think about Bamspeedy's Beyond Sid game where an army of Spearmen and Catapults could defeat a more significant enemy when played right (even on the offensive). Not a fault of Bamspeedy, he just used the system right.

I think that, for some players, the old artillery system made them too weak (so they never used them) or too strong (so a disproportionately high number were used). With this system, they fit a role and pretty much have to be used for that role.

 

[Naismith]

I'm baffled as to why Battleships were nerfed. Now they are not as realistic, and not as fun. It's not like Civ3 naval units were overpowered...

 

[DigitalBoy]

I'm baffled as to why Battleships were nerfed. Now they are not as realistic, and not as fun. It's not like Civ3 naval units were overpowered...

Coming from an ignorant single-player only type, what makes Civ IV Battleships so weak?

As for the topic on hand, I can see why you would want artillery to be able to do bombardment damage a la Civ III. It would make dislodging enemies from high defense terrain like forests a lot easier. However, Civ IV artillery is still powerful, probably even more so than before; it just assumes a different role. Artillery is absolutely devastating against stacks of units. Plus, their role as city bombardment is a lot more reliable in Civ IV than in Civ III.

I'm not sure that a radar artillery unit is needed. Artillery is pretty effective by itself, even late into the game.

 

[Naismith]

Coming from an ignorant single-player only type, what makes Civ IV Battleships so weak?

In Civ3, any naval unit with bombardment capabilities could damage (and sometimes kill) military units in coastal cities. I haven't played Civ3 for a long time, but if memory serves me right, Battleships had a range of 2, so they could bombard any coastal square within that range. They could destroy all improvements. In general, bombardment just worked differently in Civ3.

In Civ4, naval units can only take out cultural defense. Compared to Civ3, that's a major nerf. I wouldn't care if it improved gameplay, but IMO it doesn't.

By the way, when I first read your post, I wasn't sure if you were identifying yourself as being an ignorant single-player only type, or accusing me of it. If you were accusing me, I'm guilty as charged.

 

[Ecclesiastes]

I like the CivIV system better, I now actually USE artillary.

 

[Kan' Sharuminar]

I like the CivIV system better, I now actually USE artillary.

Agreed. I never used it in Civ3, the bonuses of using it in Civ4 are too great to no not use it.

 

[Naismith]

Agreed. I never used it in Civ3, the bonuses of using it in Civ4 are too great to no not use it.

I never used it in Civ3, either. I have a friend who said it was essential at higher levels - I played emporerer (level 5), and never found it especially useful.

 

[DaveMcW]

When Civ4 artillery attacks and dies, think of it as running out of ammunition.

 

[saleg37]

If I remember correctly, catapults rarely worked at all in Civ 3. Of course with...what was it 5 maximum hitpoints?... I guess they had to play with success chances in order to get more advanced seige weapons to be better.

I still did prefer the siege of Civ 3. I think it would work better with the damage system of Civ 4. It was extremely realistic. I never used cats but seagoing bombardment was extremly powerful. They really turned the tide of a war.

Putting restrictions on it like bombing has, ie. maybe a 25% restriction on damage dealt, could keep it from growing into an end all be all strategy (in my opinion, the best change from 3 to 4 is the moving away from the "one true strategy"). With some such restrictions, battle could be changed for the better, rather than just throwing a hundred axeman at a city in the hope of dislodging strong defenders, you could win by tactical strength.

 

[MrCynical]

Artillery was ridiculously unbalanced in Civ 3 single player, because the AI had absolutely no clue how to use it. It rarely built them at all, and practically never used them offensively. Similarly it didn't recognise how dangerous stacks of artillery were, with the result tat a load of artillery and a tiny handful of other units could flatten just about any empire.

The Civ 4 system is far less exploitable, and the AI does at least make some use of it. In terms of gameplay it's certainly a better and more balanced system. The only snag is that artillery use is highly counterintuitive, and looks rather strange when compared to reality. I think it's a step in the right direction though.

 

[Vonreuter]

I used a lot of CivIII arty and I liked the siege system - initially. However, as there was no automated way to bombard hexes or to make multiple units bombard a hex at a time, I just grew tired of micromanaging my units to attack cities. Try bombarding a city with ten catapults for ten turns and you know what I mean.

The new artillery is immensely powerful and whenever an artillery unit gets destroyed by its suicide rush, I just imagine it running out of ammo. You've built a certain amount of guns and ammunition and then you simply run out and have to build more.

 

[Feyd Rautha]

Something I've done is change the CustomAssets of my game so Artillery units have a MUCH higher withdraw chance. 75% for catapults and +10% for each "improvement". On the flipside, however, I dropped their attack across the board. Basically you rarely hear of artillery units being defeated when they are on the offensive. They are only routed if they are attacked directly.

Civ3's system was more realisitic, but it was ridiculous. War is easy enough in Civ 4 without being able to never fight a combat like you could do in Civ 3. Artillery, Bombers, Naval Bombard, and Cruise Missles. I could take over an entire country with a WARRIOR given enough of those four things in 3.

Anyway... up the withdraw chance. Makes them infinitely more useful, but they are still not invincible because of the lower power and the fact that when they withdraw they have to take a couple turns to heal up. I like it in my games so far.

Cheers...

 

[TrailblazingScot]

I never used it in Civ3, either. I have a friend who said it was essential at higher levels - I played emporerer (level 5), and never found it especially useful.

ROFL, in Civ3 the artillery meant you could cripple opposing forces without taking any damage. The stack of artillery also protected your advancing stack.

With sufficient numbers in your stack you could dispatch without loss vast numbers of opposing enemy forces.

Now, there are still substantial benefits to artillery, however the A.I uses them as well and you do take losses in using that artillery, so there is attrition. So, whilst the suicide artillery is rather daft in a sense, it works well as a game mechanic.


That it wasn't simply done to program the A.I to use artillery effectively with the Civ3 model was that Soren couldn't and told me so much.

 

[viguier]

Yes I don't like this new system, it's not possible to shoot every where and it's just possible to attack, and attack with artillery is analogical. It's would be nice in Warlords their will be the old system.
I remember a battle two days ago, an enemy attack me with five XVIII century's artillery and the collateral damage touch all my units, and because he has scarified 5 units, he be able to kill all my units with, and I have a best technology.
I'm sorry for my English.

 

[Naismith]

That it wasn't simply done to program the A.I to use artillery effectively with the Civ3 model was that Soren couldn't and told me so much.

...and the same is true for Civ4, I suppose?

 

[Panda]

Because it allows more fluid game play than red-lining a dozen units turn after turn a'la Civ 3. Some might say it's more fun.

The artillery is, BTW, not really the only unrealistic thing in Civ.

 

[Commander Bello]

I agree that Civ3's artillery system was an invition for human exploits.

One would have assumed that this concept would have been repaired.
What happened instead? A system with flaws, yet intuitive, was converted into an unintuitive system with as much flaws.

The announced countering of the SoD was missed by all measures. First, due to the paper-scissor-stone concept the SoD is more needed than ever before. It may need to be composed of different units now, but still, it is a SoD.
Then, you move that SoD against an enemy city. Better, move two SoDs against that city. Wait one or two turns, and the enemy artillery units will move outside and try to weaken your first stack (what they will achieve, no questions about this).
As the enemy artillery is now in the open field, attack (and kill) them with your fast-moving units from the second stack. Move the least weakened units from the first stack to protect the artillery-killers. Have one or two units with medic promotions available to heal the other units.
Take the enemy city.
Rinse and repeat.

Perfect improvement! We've had a system by which we could beat the AI to our liking.
Now, we have an unrealistic and unintuitive system, by which we can beat the AI to our liking.

Great job!

 

[Kissamies]

Not every stack is SoD.

Never much liked the Civ3 artillery. More realistic and effective or not, it was boring to endlessly move those artillery stacks and bombard and bombard and bombard. It was boring even without stacks with only a few artillery pieces. The new system gives results, good or bad, faster.