21-02-2002 19:48									#1
	Are bombers and catapults usefull? Get a bigger avatar today!

Do you think bombers and catapults are usefull units?
Do you actually use bombers and catapults?
What do you use them for?
Are they worth the cost?
How could these units be improved in a patch/x-pack?

I'd gladly hear your thoughts on this subject.

	21-02-2002 19:58									#2
	Re: Are bombers and catapults usefull? Support Apolyton, buy Call to Power 2

quote: Originally posted by Martinus Magnificus Do you think bombers and catapults are usefull units? Do you actually use bombers and catapults? What do you use them for? Are they worth the cost? How could these units be improved in a patch/x-pack? I'd gladly hear your thoughts on this subject.

I don't think they are useful. I rather spend my shields on units that can kill, not damage. I would hope, (to make everyone happy), have a little checkbox in the editor that lets bombarding units kill units. Just a little checkbox. That's all.

Just a little... small... insignificant... pithy option.

	21-02-2002 20:18									#3
	Artillery units are great. Support Apolyton

Good use of artilley units means that your main attacking force stays healthier in the war. More specifically, catapults bombing a city can make the difference between your horsemen staying a healthy 4/4 or 3/4 and in the next turn they're ready to take another city, or the death of your whole force.

Artillery is much cheaper to build than attacking units; you can build two cannons in the time it takes to build just one cavalry unit. Backing up a cavalry with two cannons means you don't need as many cavalry units as you otherwise would to achieve the same objectives.

Who hasn't attacked a city only to be halted by a catapult that chops off a hit point, thus tipping the scale in favor of the city? Backing up your defenders with an artillery unit makes them much more powerful, and trust me, paying maintenance for those catapults is well worth it compared to rush-buying because you understaffed your defenses.

It's all a matter of learning how to play. Firaxis weren't silly enough to have units that lacks a purpose...

Artillery can be improved by having a unit inbetween the catapult and cannon. The catapult has the longest life-span of any unit in the game, I bet. Ballista launchers - a swarm of long sharp spears used by romans as city defenses - is one idea.

Last edited by MonsterMan on 21-02-2002 at 20:27

	21-02-2002 20:25									#4
	Support Apolyton, buy GURPS/ Alpha Centauri

i think air units are better then Civ2 just cos there different. but there should be an option to hav them kill, atleast naval, not in the editor but peferences.

i dont build artilerry though. i just like having bombers cos there long distance, so it will take my tank 2 turns to get there, by then my bomber has to have done SUMTHING!!

they do feel pointless alot of the time though, just expensive long range artillery units.

	21-02-2002 20:29									#5
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization: The Boardgame

They are very useful, but you need a lot of them to cause significant damages. I usually send around a few stacks of 8 artilleries each, guarded with infantrymen or an infantry army. Same with bombers and not to forget battleships. You need a lot of them, but they do good work softening the target city. Since 1.17 this is still more important, due to the limited retreat ability of your mounted/armored forces.

	21-02-2002 20:30									#6
	Catapults no, bombers yes Increase Your PM Length

I have found catapults rather pointless simply due to how fast they are obsolete. They also are sitting ducks unless yous stack them, and then you have to slow your invasion army. It may be better strategy to use them (as MonsterMan pointed out), but they are also boring unless you're fighting a close quarters war.

Bombers, on the other hand, are terrifying weapons. I fought one game against the americans, and I used bombers (in conjunction with Battleship bombardment) to reduce their defensive units to one hp each, destroy temples (enducing CD), destroy improvements over SR, and to generally weaken their entire empire. By the time I was done, I needed half to a third of the tanks to finish them then if I had not used bombers at all. This also saved time, as I could rebase the bombers to my carrier fleet sitting off the american coast. This not only saved my from having to double my tank out put, but also saved me from the tedium of transporting a double size invasion force.

The only problem I ran into was that moving bombers around took awhile, but it was better than dealing with a zillion transports.

	21-02-2002 20:33									#7
	Lose 30 kilos (of popups)

Bombers are useful, simply because you can attack from so far away.

Catapults and cannons are pretty useless. Artillary and radar artillary are useful, because of their high bombard value. The 1.17 patch made bombarding harder, so catapults and cannons aren't so hot anymore.

	21-02-2002 20:34									#8
	Increase the size of your Attachments

problkem with catapults andcannons are the range. thats why i dont bother with em.

thing i like about bombers is the site of all them sqaures for my bombing run.

	21-02-2002 22:04									#9
	Inflate your Upload Space

Bombers? Yes, absolutely. Catapults? Not the original version.

The main problem has been, thanks to the retreat feature, the best attacking force has been an all-cavalry one. Catapults/Cannons/Artillery are just too SLOW, and because of their range they can only fire when adjacent (or nearly so) to the bad guy, which means at least 1 turn advancing before attacking the city. When I attack, I take several cities per turn, leapfrogging through one to get the next.

So, I made changes. First, rate of fire. Since I upped unit HP to 3/4/5/7, I doubled the rate of fire of all bombardment units. (I then gave a RoF=1, range=0 "defensive" bombard to archer-type units; for example, the longbowman is now 4/1/1 with a power 4 defensive bombard, so when stacked with a Pikeman he gets a free shot against an attacker).

Next, range. Catapults (and the Trebuchet, which I added at Engineering) have range 1. Cannons (and the naval equivalents, up to Ironclad) have range 2. Artillery/Radar Artillery (and the naval equivalents) have range 3.

It makes a huge difference; these units become useful again without being overpowering. Attacking a city with infantry covered by artillery SHOULD hurt.

	21-02-2002 22:31									#10
	bombers & artillery Got spare money?

Partially agree with Spatzimaus. I also increased the range of artillery and radar artillery to 3. It doesn't make sense that cannon and artillery have same range.

Bombers are useful for ranging from sea, but do not work very well from the land bases. Even with expanding range to max {8}, they have limited effectiveness because you need to stepping stone air bases along the moving front. Present game testing theory that best bombardment is bombers from sea and artillery from land. Only in start of indust age so too early to see if will work better or not. So far game is easier with bombardment than not. I am still finished 1.16 so have not seen how the reduced bombardment power in 1.17 effects game play. Suspect reduce in bombardment power is because AI has problem dealing with coordinating bombardment attack.

Would be interesting if anyone has any real bombardment experience with 1.17f.

	21-02-2002 22:37									#11
	Help yourself to an AD-FREE life

Catapults are a key part of my invasion forces. Monsterman sums it up well. They also are good for killing population, reducing the city in question below the defense bonus threshold. Your attackers have an easy time of it then. Also, they are dirt cheap to build, and cost peanuts to upgrade.

	21-02-2002 22:44									#12
	Re: Are bombers and catapults usefull? Support Apolyton, buy Civilization: The Boardgame

quote: Originally posted by Martinus Magnificus Do you think bombers and catapults are usefull units? Do you actually use bombers and catapults?

They are my #1 choice of units. I normally have at least 40 artileries during the modern age and at least 40 bombers during the space age. I have very few battleships (may be a dozen or so to protect my carriers).

I always bomb the hell out of the enemy before I move in for the kill. This way, I have better chance of destroying the enemy with mininum lost.

	21-02-2002 23:24									#13
	Support Apolyton, buy Galactic Civilizations: Deluxe Edition

My 2 cents:

Artillery and Bombers are useful. Catapults and Cannon are not.

As othes mentioned, the 1-move per turn and 1-square range of the catapults and cannon makes them less valueable. Bombers are the best, because they can be rebased anywhere you have a city and they have the 8-square range.

The patch increased bombard defense of many things, so these units are a bit less useful now. In the game I just finished, I ended up bombarding AI cities with 20 Bombers and 15 or so artillery prior to attacking, and at least half missed, it seemed like more.

However, if I hadn't built bombard units (I built maybe half of the artillery and all of the bombers... some of the arty was captured from the AI), I would've been in a world of pain. Due to the new AI tech trading, I never jumped out to a large tech lead. I was forced to fight a Cavalry vs. Infantry war, which hurt even with the artillery, and later a Tank vs. Mech Infantry war, which REALLY hurt, even with bombers and artillery. I won both, but I took heavy losses. Without bombard units softening up those AI defenders, I would have lost my attack force without making any significant gains.

-Arrian

	21-02-2002 23:39									#14
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

quote: Originally posted by Arrian Due to the new AI tech trading, I never jumped out to a large tech lead. I was forced to fight a Cavalry vs. Infantry war, which hurt even with the artillery, and later a Tank vs. Mech Infantry war, which REALLY hurt, even with bombers and artillery. I won both, but I took heavy losses. Without bombard units softening up those AI defenders, I would have lost my attack force without making any significant gains.

I know what you mean. Most of the time, I have to fight those same battles. Without bombard units, I have no chance of winning any battle.

	21-02-2002 23:46									#15
	Support Apolyton or Terrorists Win

The early bombard units (catapult, cannon) are very easily built and (as far as I know) have no need for barracks. Because of these two facts, I tend to keep my main production centers building my main attack force, and any outlying, lower-production cities build bombardment units for support. I mean, hey, cannons are slow and not particularly devastating, but if you build a cannon now you can still ship it out to the battle front before you could finish building a cavalry unit and get it there.

	22-02-2002 00:10									#16
	Support Apolyton, buy GURPS/ Alpha Centauri

I use both units extensively.

Massed catapults and bombers are quite effective in damaging enemy units as well as taking out roads, mines, etc.

The only artillery you get in the ancient age is the catapult and if used correctly you can do damage allowing your ground forces to finish off the enemy.

Same deal with bombers. They can weaken enemy naval units and tear up improvements.

	22-02-2002 05:14									#17
	Re: Artillery units are great. Remove this text

quote: Originally posted by MonsterMan It's all a matter of learning how to play. Firaxis weren't silly enough to have units that lacks a purpose...

You've not tried the English UU then?

	22-02-2002 05:15									#18
	Re: Re: Are bombers and catapults usefull? Support Apolyton or Terrorists Win

quote: Originally posted by Thrawn05 I don't think they are useful. I rather spend my shields on units that can kill, not damage. I would hope, (to make everyone happy), have a little checkbox in the editor that lets bombarding units kill units. Just a little checkbox. That's all. Just a little... small... insignificant... pithy option.

I agree but the game would be so easy that way!! Bombers make to much damage and ground units can't kill them!
piece of cake!

Spec.

	22-02-2002 06:20									#19
	Re: Are bombers and catapults usefull? Support Apolyton, buy Civilization 2

quote: Originally posted by Thrawn05 I don't think they are useful. I rather spend my shields on units that can kill, not damage. I would hope, (to make everyone happy), have a little checkbox in the editor that lets bombarding units kill units. Just a little checkbox. That's all. Just a little... small... insignificant... pithy option.

I am certainly not against you being provided "just a little checkbox," however bombard doesn't normally destroy units. Even in the modern age with smart bombs, it takes foot soldiers to take and hold ground. In game terms, bombard works great.

In this position with Impis and Pikemen fortified on a hill, bombard was essential. The Impis make horsemen ineffective, and swordsmen are too weak. On the other hand, ten catapults backed by sword and pike worked quite nicely.

	22-02-2002 08:53									#20
	Inflate your Upload Space

Perhaps a different approach is required. Instead of making 'bombard units' more powerful, they might be made more useful by having one or two more military city improvements which could be destroyed.

For example, If any size city could have walls, and they were destroyable (?) or if barracks gave a defensive bonus (or some other new improvement), then bombard units would be a more popular strategy.

	22-02-2002 17:41									#21
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

quote: Originally posted by Slax Perhaps a different approach is required. Instead of making 'bombard units' more powerful, they might be made more useful by having one or two more military city improvements which could be destroyed. For example, If any size city could have walls, and they were destroyable (?) or if barracks gave a defensive bonus (or some other new improvement), then bombard units would be a more popular strategy.

I usually bombard until the barracks and any walls are destroyed -- plus a little more for good measure.

	22-02-2002 17:53									#22
	Support Apolyton, buy GURPS/ Alpha Centauri

I'd rather spend my production on chariots and swordsmen (guaranteed to take out the enemy) rather than catapults.

	22-02-2002 18:16									#23
	Re: bombers & artillery Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

If you don´t need catapults & cannon it´s time to move to a higher difficulty.

One thing many of you might have missed is that lots of catapults=lots of leaders. Because your units rarely will die you will have a lots of elite units around greatly increasing the chance of obtaining leaders.

DrFell: chariots and swordsmen have serious trouble taking out a spearman fortified on hills. And if its behind walls you´ll need many of them.

Slax: What´s your point? You have always been able to destroy walls and barracks with bombardment. Quite easily, too.

	22-02-2002 18:30									#24
	Re: bombers & artillery Support Apolyton or Terrorists Win

quote: Originally posted by Hurricane One thing many of you might have missed is that lots of catapults=lots of leaders. Because your units rarely will die you will have a lots of elite units around greatly increasing the chance of obtaining leaders.

Very good point!

	22-02-2002 19:04									#25
	Re: Are bombers and catapults usefull? Support Apolyton, buy Galactic Civilizations

quote: Originally posted by Martinus Magnificus Do you think bombers and catapults are usefull units? Do you actually use bombers and catapults? What do you use them for? Are they worth the cost? How could these units be improved in a patch/x-pack?

Two questions - two answers.
Bombers are useful and worth their price. although not a bargain. Micromanagement of a 10 Bomber attack is horrible, though.
Range is too short.
Catapults are toys at best. Even with improved stats(bombard 10) I don't build them. Artillery should have anti-stack effects. One shot - many units damaged. Bad for the AI Cavalry killer stacks.

In the last patch buildings got improved defense values which means that artillery has got even more worthless.

	22-02-2002 19:11									#26
	swordsmen & catapults : vae victis Tired of ads?

Since the latest 1.17 patch, I've changed my playing style a little bit.

Before I thought the Egyptians were strong (rel&ind): a fast UU from the start, upgradable to cavalry. Military focus, after building enough warriors for exploration and happiness upkeeping, was on building those cheap war chariots and upgrading them asap.
Now fast units aren 't that 'immortal' anymore ...

Right now, until the appearance of cavalry, better defensive and offensive qualities lay in the use of swordsmen & catapults (The ancient Romans actually used this form of combined tactics, eg 'Gladiator'). When being attacked, catapults usually take away one HP of the attacker, effectively improving the odds of the defender.

Building a good road network and fortresses on strategic locations (defensive bonuses, protection of sources and lux.), equipped with catapults and, preferrably, pikemen, will turn your empire in a very tough competitor (playing emperor). Everyone entering your empire unwanted can be attacked from distance first (ok, only 1 range bombard), where the poorer chances of hitting are well smoothened by a serious number of catapults: using roads and well positioned fortifications try reducing your adversaries HP's to the minimum before attacking them with swordsmen. Offensive use (bombarding cities and eventually destroying barracks) can't be underestimated, as mentioned in this thread before (also the upgrade 'trick' from warrior to swordsmen).

Use your catapults both off. and def. in combination with swordsmen/pikemen or better UU's, and after experiencing first successes start building up a reservist horsemen army: helping were needed, finishing off unguarded wounded and becoming your main offensive power with the introduction of cavalry.
Whenever possible, build enough catapults: they will prove usefull all the game until bombers replace artillery (farther distance bombing).


AJ

	22-02-2002 19:54									#27
	Re: Re: bombers & artillery Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

quote: Originally posted by Hurricane Slax: What´s your point? You have always been able to destroy walls and barracks with bombardment. Quite easily, too.

My point got a little muddled.

My point was that bombard units would be made more important if we had more improvements to bombard that when destroyed, immediately decreased the defensive ability of the city.

Only WALLS are like this now, and walls are hardly used.

(Not to say that I don't use bombard units - I'm just giving a method of increasing their importance)

	22-02-2002 20:24									#28
	Increase the size of your Attachments

Walls are hardly used... by the PLAYER. The AI seems fond of plopping down walls on any city that isn't going to reach size 7 anytime soon, and many cities that would anyways.

	22-02-2002 22:21									#29
	Support Apolyton or Terrorists Win

Thanks for your comments. Maybe I'll have to revise my strategies. Untill now, I've used catapults, cannons and artillery only for defensive purposes, and I never build many. I don't build bombers at all, because I think spending the money on tanks (available at around the same time as bombers), especially modern tanks, is a better choise.
The bombard option is just to weak IMO. That's why I don't build many naval units either.

	22-02-2002 23:33									#30
	Support Apolyton, buy Call to Power 2

Bombers are very useful for destroying improvements on resource squares. I like to use little carrier/battleship groups to park near each oil & rubber to deny access.

In some cases you can bomb away all of the improvements around the opposing capitol and disrupt the computer's trading capacity.