14-10-2001 18:08									#1
	Artillery and Cannon: They need other units to work? Full PM-box? Change here!

I was reading somewhere that these units can be captured and that they require another unit in order to operate them.

How does that work? Anyone know? Do the two units meld together, or does another unit have to be on the same square in order for them to work?

Anyone... anyone...?

	14-10-2001 18:15									#2
	Support Apolyton, buy GURPS/ Alpha Centauri

Idea:
you know about the bomber stuff, no attack just "mission" or "operation" capabilities? I think all the bombing/bombarding stuff will be treated this way.
So no attack in the classic sense, but bombarding (softening) capabilities - used by an other unit or army.

	14-10-2001 18:17									#3
	Inflate your Upload Space

Yes... I know that they will have a bombard value, but I heard that they need another unit to operate. Meaning, on their own, they can't function. I wish I knew where I saw that.

	14-10-2001 18:31									#4
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization III: Complete

that is not correct.. a cannon is a self-capable unit, in the same way as it was before..
nothing required to operate..

they might be captured though.. im not sure but most probably any unit with a defence value 0 --workers, catapults, etc.-- might be captured..

	14-10-2001 18:37									#5
	Support Apolyton, buy GURPS/ Alpha Centauri

Jason

i too have heard what you are talking about, and i don't have time to track down the exact quote right now but i agree with Yoleus

i think the quote was a miss interpretation of how artillary works...firaxis was trying to explain about bombard attacks in my opinion, since a bombard doesn't kill an enemy and that regular units are still needed

however if it is true that you must man a catapult then i think that will add extra micromanagement to the game without a single beneficial outcome, not only that it would violate the civ philosophy of abstraction and simplification

lets just hope that this is another misinterpretation, like the nationalism is a government misinterpretation

	14-10-2001 19:04									#6
	Enter the AD-FREE zone

quote: Originally posted by cort that is not correct.. a cannon is a self-capable unit, in the same way as it was before.. they might be captured though.

Well, maybe your right.

But who would dare to besiege a city, or just move around catapults/cannons/howitzers alone within enemy-territory, if they are easily stealable, even by a 1-1-1 enemy warrior-unit? Using them in armies only seems to be the safest and most practical route.

quote: Originally posted by Korn469 however if it is true that you must man a catapult then i think that will add extra micromanagement to the game without a single beneficial outcome, not only that it would violate the civ philosophy of abstraction and simplification

Why? Infact, its seems easier to me to have them in armies - you move around 1 single army-stack, instead of 3-4 units independently. Also, I dont think one is forced to have them in armies only - they ARE self-operating, I believe. But because of their zero point defence-stat, it seems more clever to incorporate them in armies only.

	14-10-2001 19:20									#7
	Suffering from ads?

Hmmmmm stacks.......

see http://apolyton.net/forums/showthre...&threadid=29223

	14-10-2001 19:21									#8
	Remove this text

quote: Originally posted by Ralf ... because of their zero point defence-stat, it seems more clever to incorporate them in armies only.

Yes, if they keep their full bombard capacity with an army that includes a non-bombard unit. But Firaxis says, somewhere, that armies a re offensive items for taking heavily defended cities. So I'm hoping that putting a defensive unit on the same tile as my artillery will be enough to protect them.

David

	14-10-2001 19:24									#9
	Inflate your Upload Space

quote: Originally posted by Crouchback So I'm hoping that putting a defensive unit on the same tile as my artillery will be enough to protect them.

Thats an alternative also. I hope thats possible - why shouldnt it be?

	14-10-2001 19:29									#10
	Lose 30 kilos (of popups)

I believe that since artillery and cannon are defenceless, it would make sense that Firaxis would have simply required a unit to accompany the artillery or cannon.

Like mentioned in this tread above, it would be pretty senseless to send a connon unit out on it's own without something to protect it.

I'm just wondering whether you can group these two units together to reduce micromanagement, which is another concern mentioned here.

	14-10-2001 19:35									#11
	Support Apolyton, buy GURPS/ Alpha Centauri

It really seems bizzare that building a catapult or cannon wouldn't imply training a crew. I suppose by killing the crew, a siege weapon could be captured, but wouldn't the crew fight back, possibly ending in the weapon's destruction? A bunch of warriors couldn't just charge at and sieze a cannon aimed at them.

	14-10-2001 19:39									#12
	Inflate your Upload Space

quote: Originally posted by Jason Beaudoin Like mentioned in this tread above, it would be pretty senseless to send a connon unit out on it's own without something to protect it.

And your enemy is very happy about your "gift"

	14-10-2001 20:22									#13
	Support Apolyton, buy Alpha Centauri

too lazy to read all the threads so heres what i know.

in that shot with the build queue the catapults attack rating is 0(4) meaning it can be captured if it is alone, and can attack (bombard) if it is with another unit.

will stacks work, or do they have to be in an army?

	14-10-2001 20:26									#14
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization III: Complete

quote: Originally posted by Jingo will stacks work, or do they have to be in an army?

Considering the rarity of armies, I would have to assume a stack would work, else artillery would be nigh useless.

Btw, did you change your username a few days ago? I always preferred UberKruX.

	14-10-2001 20:26									#15
	Support Apolyton, buy Galactic Civilizations

quote: Originally posted by Jingo: in that shot with the build queue the catapults attack rating is 0(4) meaning it can be captured if it is alone, and can attack (bombard) if it is with another unit.

So according to you, they need to be accompanied by another unit in order to be used. How do you come to that conclusion in a screen shot?

	14-10-2001 20:29									#16
	Browse Apolyton AD-FREE

quote: Originally posted by Executor Considering the rarity of armies, I would have to assume a stack would work, else artillery would be nigh useless. Btw, did you change your username a few days ago? I always preferred UberKruX.

yes i certainly did. and everyone seems to be saying that.

	14-10-2001 20:32									#17
	Put an end to popups!

quote: Originally posted by Jingo yes i certainly did. and everyone seems to be saying that.

oh, i thought you were some other idiot using uber's avatar. your posts seem differant now

	14-10-2001 20:32									#18
	Support Apolyton, buy Galactic Civilizations

quote: Originally posted by Jingo yes i certainly did. and everyone seems to be saying that.

Jingo just sounds, for lack of a better word, childish.

	14-10-2001 20:37									#19
	Support Apolyton, buy Alpha Centauri

quote: Originally posted by Executor Considering the rarity of armies, I would have to assume a stack would work, else artillery would be nigh useless.

Don't see how. Were they useless in Civ 2 ( even without the bombard ability? )

You put a couple of them along with a unit with a good defensive rating and lay seige to the nearby enemy city until it can be taken by your army ( which is in effect just a big unit ) without risk.

	14-10-2001 20:37									#20
	Support Apolyton, buy Galactic Civilizations: Deluxe Edition

a jingo is a vociferous patriot with a billegerent foriegn policy.

	14-10-2001 20:39									#21
	Increase the size of your Attachments

quote: Originally posted by Jingo a jingo is a vociferous patriot with a billegerent foriegn policy.

That may be true, but that's not what comes to mind when I think about it.

	14-10-2001 20:43									#22
	Get a bigger avatar today!

Jingo!

So according to you, they need to be accompanied by another unit in order to be used. How do you come to that conclusion in a screen shot?

	14-10-2001 21:29									#23
	Inflate your Upload Space

Ralf

quote: Infact, its seems easier to me to have them in armies - you move around 1 single army-stack, instead of 3-4 units independently. Also, I dont think one is forced to have them in armies only

well if armies were of unlimited size then i would agree with you, but since armies are limited to three units until you build the pentagon having even a single catapult in your army would cut the attack and defense power of your army by a third

quote: they ARE self-operating

i agree, and what i was saying is that if catapults aren't self operating then it will be horrible for gameplay...why should you be forced to have to stack units with an artillary piece to make it work?

Crouchback

quote: So I'm hoping that putting a defensive unit on the same tile as my artillery will be enough to protect them.

stacking any 0.0 unit with a military unit seems like it should protect that unit from being captured

hey i liked Uberkrux better as well

btw you do realize that jingo is a derogatory term don't you?

	14-10-2001 22:30									#24
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

quote: Originally posted by korn469 hey i liked Uberkrux better as well

Now you can vote for the better name: http://apolyton.net/forums/showthre...&threadid=29412

	14-10-2001 22:49									#25
	How bombardment works: my perception Tired of ads?

Bombarding units (e.g., catapults, cannon), have a range of 1 or more squares. If the particular piece has 1 square range, you are going to want to stack it (ala Civ2) with a defensive unit. If it has more than 1 square range, you may still want to, just in case. You do not NEED to stack them with another unit for them to be 'manned'.

I would guess that Catapults have a 1 square range. Cannon, Destroyers, Cruisers and Battleships: 2 or 3. Being on a hill or mountain increases it by 1(?).

Including bombardment units within armies is probably going to be a waste, because I do not believe that bombardment has ANY value during the combat procedure. Bombardment is separate, before combat. Instead, just stack them with an army if you wish.

Obviously, this totally flies in the face of any concept of tiles being 200 miles across, so please forget the analogy, and get over it.

Last edited by Jaybe on 15-10-2001 at 01:40

	15-10-2001 01:15									#26
	Support Apolyton, buy GURPS/ Alpha Centauri

This is a little OT, but does anyone know if every unit in a stack dies when one unit in the stack is defeated in combat, like in Civ 2? Or are units killed individually regardless of whether or not they are in a stack. I always hated having to spread my forces out along a wide front to avoid annihilation by one enemy unit, so I hope this is out of Civ 3.

	15-10-2001 01:37									#27
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

quote: Originally posted by Drake Tungsten This is a little OT, but does anyone know if every unit in a stack dies when one unit in the stack is defeated in combat, like in Civ 2? Or are units killed individually regardless of whether or not they are in a stack. I always hated having to spread my forces out along a wide front to avoid annihilation by one enemy unit, so I hope this is out of Civ 3.

It's really unclear at this point, though I would think that artillery types will be destroyed or captured. There has been no official word as to the mechanics.

Probably either (1) retreat, if they are fast enough; or (2) dead, as in Civ2.

If the AI is good at attacking (or you're playing MP), it is GOOD to have your troops spread out behind the front! You have depth in your defense.

	16-10-2001 22:35									#28
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization 2

Another alternative is that the bombard unit adds its firepower to another unit's attack if the unit is adjacent (or in range, or whatever). So your 1-1-1 warrior attacks with a 5 if accompanied by a catapult. Possibly he defends as a 5 if stacked with the bombarding unit. Some war games use artillery in this manner. That would make that "0(4)" attack factor notation make some kind of sense.

	17-10-2001 00:02									#29
	Full PM-box? Change here!

Wait a cotton picking minute, I thought stacks of any sort except armies were OUT.

What I meant was that I expected to be moving all the units involved independently and separately, but making sure I kept a good defensive unit with the 0 defence units.

Painful micromanagement anyone?

David

	17-10-2001 00:19									#30
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization 2

Ok, let's say you got a cannon on a mountain that can bombard up to say, three spaces away. Regardless of your target, any experienced Civ player's not gonna leave a lone cannon within three spaces of enemy units (except if it's across water or something.) So there's probably gonna have to be another unit there anyways to defend the cannon, so I don't see the manned artillery issue to be a problem really, except when moving them. If you can't stack a cannon with a manning unit, if only to move, I'm gonna be peeved.