Won my first King Game(my hate for siege weapons)

[TrentL]

I won my first king game and I played it very agressively which I don't normally do. I tend to spread out wide around good resources / rivers etc. Tech up and defend, and only expand when someone DoW's me.

This time I was playing Maya, and I started agressively expanding my borders right from composite archers.

Something I noticed I continued to expand constantly until Crossbowman were no longer effective at taking down cities, I tried a couple of times with Canons and the like, but I found that it became stupidly tedious.

I was moderately successful with Gatling Guns as well.

When I was very unsuccessful taking down a city with Cannons I decided to tech hard to Rocketry to get Rocket Artillery.

I think all of the siege weapons sorta blow, and the mid game for me just isn't fun at all.

I'm not sure how this would affect the game but my suggestions would be:

- Let siege weapons fire from 3 instead of two (starting with Trebuchet's)

- Build in Cover I to them so they take less damage from range attacks... (When was the last time a siege was broken by archers in a castle when the other side had already set up their Trebuchets) Generally a charge from the castle to destroy the siege weapons and run back in the castle was called for.

- Remove the Setup time...

As it stands I find siege even when upgraded to have Cover and City attack bonus, they fail to take over a city as quickly as Crossbows with Cover upgrades.

 

[TrentL]

In the end it was a fun game, I ended up owning one continent and Germany owned the other. I had to agressively take over some City States due to a shortage of aluminum.

I spent the majority of the time in second place in land / army, but when push came to shove I took over Germany's northern part of his continent and most of his east coast in a massive naval war. (I really like naval wars)

Was a great game I think I finished it around turn 370 with a diplomatic vote in the UN... I put a puppet Civ into power (Arabia) as I gifted them a crappy city in my Empire to protect them from bring completely taken out by Germany. (So I think that counts as a win not sure )

 

[thegingerninja]

To use siege weapons effectively move melee units in so the city attacks them. If the AI keeps firing on you ranged units attack the city with melee. Also try to stay ahead/. I did 134 damage on a enemy city with a cannon!

 

[blackcatatonic]

Siege weapons can be very effective, but tricky to use effectively. The advice to bring as many mêlée units as close to the city as possible is good. The main rule I have is never attack a city with Catapults unless it's undefended (preferably no Archers and definitely no walls - walled cities will often kill Catapults before they are even ready to fire once) and you have at least 3 or 4 of them. You'll lose one but if you have enough support you should take the city before it kills all of them. Catapults are pointless a lot of the time: I do think for the purpose of early wars it's better to have Swordsmen and Archers. Trebs do a lot more damage but are almost as difficult to protect. I very rarely manage to take a Medieval city without losing one.

When you get to Artillery there is a sudden jump in how much easier it becomes. Personally, I find that Artillery with their 3-tile range are too much of an instant I-win button, especially since the AI seems to be a lot slower/lazier about getting Artillery than the player.

 

[Heretiv]

All true - make sure you orchestrate the arrival of the troops so you get a sunned flood of about 4 or 5 within range of the city's attack.
Canno should eb very very effective at taking down cities, just remember to bring at least 3 for a fast takedown so you don't loose too many units.

 

[TrentL]

Thanks a bunch everyone as it stands I forgot about Artillerys 3 square range, I may end up quitting my aggression until I get Artillery (Or not who knows) in the end I really like the early and late game warfare.

ATM I'm doing an Archipelago game as England on an easier difficulty just to knock off the win a "Archipelago" achievement and the "Win on Warlord" (Seriously if I win on King it should give me all the easier level achievements)

 

[Crafty Bison]

Using siege effectively takes some skill, from protecting with melee and a getting a spotter to decoy units and the like. If setting up particularly annoys you then I would advise using the Persians or (on coast) the Danes. Both have UA's which, when used correctly, allow a siege unit to move, set up and fire all in one move, getting the first hit on a city.

 

[mrscotty]

In my opinion the only useless siege wep is the trebuchet. Once you get cannons, though, two of them will be as effective as any number of cbows.

I tend to play with bow units as my ranged support for city taking until I hit cannons, then I use the machine guns as city garrisons and use siege weapons in my offensive army.

Though by modern game most of my city captures are boats. Naval combat is massively effective with battleships, a couple destroyers and a couple subs to support.

 

[TyBoy]

A lot of the skill with siege weapons now is in gaming the AI's priorities so it attacks other targets when the right thing to do is pretty much always to attack the siege engines. I don't find that very interesting. I suppose that's what all vs. computer play is, but the ability to trick it into not attacking siege weapons is a particularly big hole in the current AI.

They were right to make siege specialized against cities in G&K. It's a good thing that they're like tissue paper to melee attacks and at least the early ones should be ineffective in the field, but it was a mistake to make them so vulnerable to archers. It doesn't make good sense and promotes bad gameplay.

 

[TrentL]

A lot of the skill with siege weapons now is in gaming the AI's priorities so it attacks other targets when the right thing to do is pretty much always to attack the siege engines. I don't find that very interesting. I suppose that's what all vs. computer play is, but the ability to trick it into not attacking siege weapons is a particularly big hole in the current AI.

They were right to make siege specialized against cities in G&K. It's a good thing that they're like tissue paper to melee attacks and at least the early ones should be ineffective in the field, but it was a mistake to make them so vulnerable to archers. It doesn't make good sense and promotes bad gameplay.

Sums up how I feel too... it feels way too gamey to trick the AI into killing units that don't pose a major threat.

Just like the AI has a hard time taking my cities out because I target his melee units first, all the Seige weapons + archers in the world can't take over a city without 1 melee unit.

 

[terveurn]

Since the AI is very much locked into attacking one unit until it is dead, I found the best way of killing a city is to have 3 mounted archers, three cannon and a least one ground pounder.

Problem is getting your cannons set-up and ready to go so that you can kill the city...

The solution is to send in one sacrificial mounted archer - let him rush the city (and firing an arrow at the city to draw attention). While that first archer is drawing attention to himself, you move the cannons into range. The city and his defending units will do everything to kill the archer and leave the siege units alone (since they have not fired yet, they pose no threat).

Next send in the second mounted archer and if your first has somehow survived have them fire again at the city. Now that your cannons are in position, let them fire at the city. Since the first units that fired are the mounted archers, the city will once again try and kill these easy targets.

By the third round, the city should be just about dead, just repeat the pattern - mounted archers to be sacrificed, fire the cannon as as soon as the city bar is gone, send in the ground pounders to capture the city.

 

[Biologist]

TrentL: "Sums up how I feel too... it feels way too gamey to trick the AI into killing units that don't pose a major threat."


That's one way to look at it. On the other hand, diversionary tactics and distractions have been a part of warfare for thousands of years. Some of the oldest stories in the world involve ridiculous examples of diversions ("Don't worry about what happened to the Greek encampments, look at this giant horse statue!"). If I have to divert the AI's attention with a warrior while my catapult sets up in range of the city, then that's what I'm going to do. Besides, the same thing is often necessary for archers if they have to move into rough terrain or over a river.

 

[smallfish]

Sums up how I feel too... it feels way too gamey to trick the AI into killing units that don't pose a major threat.

maskirovka

 

[Browd]

Agree. For all those who wish Civ would be more immersive, you don't get more immersive than seducing/deceiving your enemy into attacking a weaker unit while your city pounders sneak into position. Cheesy? Far from it. Distracting your enemy with a feint attack is good tactics. If you believe that the only "fair" battle tactics are massed firepower vs. entrenched enemy, you would have loved WWI (or most of the battles waged by Ulysses S. Grant in the American Civil War). That can work (both in game and in "real life"), but it is horribly expensive in terms of lives (units) lost and is invariably slow, slow, slow (again, both in the game and in real life).

 

[TrentL]

Distracting your enemy with a force then sneaking another force to hit his back door isn't cheesy I used do that in Age of Empires all the time.

Moving in mass melee units in hopes the AI chooses them over the real threat to me isn't the same. Its like selling Luxury resources to the computer for all its money so it can gain a benefit (Happiness) that the AI gets to completely ignore.

Just feels more gamey than strategy.

 

[TrentL]

maskirovka

Don't disagree, you could say that you are using misdirection to confuse the enemy.

Or I could say its gamey. Both are valid opinions based on perception

 

[Browd]

Although Homer didn't write it this way, I'm sure the Trojans' immediate reaction to the horse gambit was "No fair! That's a cheesy exploit!"

 

[TyBoy]

I think its inaccurate to characterize this as Maskirovka or the Trojan Horse. Those tend to involve some kind of competition of intellects. A more accurate analogy would be something like terrorism. The idea of using what are essentially civilians to carry out what are essentially military actions knowing that your opponent is rule- or honor-bound not to take the steps to squash them was around when Revolutionaries were shooting Redcoats from the trees and every conflict since. It's effective and, withing the rules of the game, has no counter strategy. That doesn't mean it's particularly clever or I can't consider it cheesey.

Somehow exploiting a consistently bad decision making process feels unrewarding compared to exploiting a weakness in a relatively unique tactical position or a circumstantial weakness in a normally sound strategy. This is way too universally applicable to be clever. It just attacks a damaged unit over a full health one every time. To me it just crosses the totally subjective line of simplicity that takes it from strategy to cheese.

It would be an exceedingly easy aspect of the AI strategy to fix too and undo these deceptions, and I say that with a very realistic idea about how difficult it can be to make an AI smarter. It just needs to complement its strategy of attacking the most killable unit available with a formula for determining vulnerability that includes the defensive strength of the unit.

My real problem with this one compared to others is that unlike many other weaknesses in the game that you can just choose whether or not to use (like selling luxuries or micromanaging research agreements), siege weapons are pretty much unusable without exploiting this weakness. To not exploit this exceptional weakness means just not using siege weapons pre-artillery (which is generally what I do) and that's unfortunate. Of course, composite bows are so freaking awesome that siege is only worth messing with to get some experience before the upgrade to cannons anyway, so that works out fine.

@terveurn: You're not distracting the AI by shooting it with your archer. It's having your sacrificial archer in range to get damaged before anything else that is causing the AI to lock onto it. You could accomplish the same thing with a much stronger defensive unit and not have to lose it. If its impractical to get that unit into range to attack the city or sending it in alone for a turn to take some damage without overly exposing and weakening it just keep it from healing all the way to full between city attacks by moving it around then put it on a nice defensive tile as you move your other units into place.

 

[Smokeybear]

Thanks a bunch everyone as it stands I forgot about Artillerys 3 square range, I may end up quitting my aggression until I get Artillery (Or not who knows) in the end I really like the early and late game warfare.

Another alternative, if you just want to be able to play a realistic early siege game where catapults/trebuchets/cannons are actually good for something without a mess of painstakingly fiddly unit movement and tricks... and can utilize cover the same as any other military unit... is to get these mods:

Promotions- All Siege Units Indirect Fire (v.2)
Promotions- Siege Defensive Terrain (v.2)

Those allow all siege units before artillery to shoot from 2 tiles away over obstacles; and gives terrain defensive bonuses to them as well. They are William Howard mods- not found on Steam Workshop, but available here at:

http://forums.civfanatics.com/downloads.php?do=file&id=20472

Since they are mods, using them will disallow getting achievements, if that's what you are after. But later on, when you are just looking for enjoyable early-game siege play, they are truly the bee's knees. Without those, I usually just don't bother expanding much till after I get artillery, either. At least not on maps with way too many hills and jungles and forests protecting everyone. Just be prepared for the enemy to use that ability, as well.

 

[Biologist]

When you get right down to it though, how clever do you ever have to be to beat an AI? At the end of the day, it's a computer chip that's creating an illusion of intelligence using logic gates and heuristics. Playing Civilization solo is a bit like playing golf... you're not trying to outsmart the golf course, you're trying to determine a course of action that leads to an optimum outcome (a low score in golf, an efficient city capture in Civ V).

As long as I feel I'm using the intended mechanics of the game to achieve an optimal outcome, I don't mind taking advantage of an AI weakness. In my opinion, it was not intended for a human player to trade for all of an AI's gold and then declare war on them. For me, that breaks immersion and violates the spirit of the game. However, I do feel that it was intended for military units to be used in whatever means necessary to achieve a civ's military goals.

As TyBoy stated, the line of what defines "exploitative" from "intended gameplay" is subjective and will likely be different for every player. I happen to feel that using melee units as a diversion for siege units is a valid tactic.