 |
|  |
 |
|
albiedamned
|
|
Ellicott City, MD
Sep 2001 time: 00:20
|
|
Artillery is at the heart of my industrial/early modern era strategy. When used in sufficient numbers on the offense, there is no way the AI can possibly defend. Artillery appear at a time in the game when the balance is generally tipped toward the defender, since there is no offensive unit at the time more powerful than the 10 defense of the infantry. I've seen several posters talk about how they generally pull back their forces upon the appearance of infantry, and then wait for tanks. However artillery can overcome this defensive advantage.
Let's say you're attacking with cavalry against infantry in a city. The key is to use artillery to get all the defenders down to 1 HP, and to get the city size below 7. Depending on how many defenders there are and how big the city is, a stack of 20-30 artillery should get the job done. Your cavalry are thus attacking against a defense strength of 11 (assuming the city is not on a hill or across a river, the infantry only get the standard 10% defense bonus). So you will take roughly 2 hits for every 1 you inflict. If the infantry are down to 1 HP from the artillery barrage, then even regular cavalry have the odds in their favor. Veteran and elite cavalry will almost always win.
Getting the artillery into position can be a problem since artillery is not mobile. However artillery's range of 2 definitely helps. Ideally there is a tile within your borders that is also within 2 squares of the target city, and also ideally that tile is railroaded. In this best case scenario, you can roll up your artillery and fire on the same turn, and then attack with your cavalry also on the same turn (since cavalry have enough movement points to cross the border and still attack). If not, then look for a tile within range of the target city that is only one tile into enemy territory. That way you can roll up in one turn and fire in the next. Preferrably the tile you fire from will be hills or mountains, but this isn't critical given sufficient numbers of artillery.
If the enemy's territory is railroaded, then you can easily conquer more than one city in a turn provided you have enough artillery. Use sufficient artillery to get the first city below 7 and the defenders down to 1HP, then take it with cavalry. Now his railroads are yours, and you can use them to roll the next set of artillery into range of the second city, all within the same turn. In fact if you have enough artillery, you can keep going like this for several cities in a single turn.
IMHO, artillery is an extremely powerful unit. And due to the AI's inability to use artillery effectively, it is pretty much an unbalancing unit. The AI simply can't defend against huge artillery stacks, and it doesn't know how to do the same thing to you.
Artillery is also very cheap - less than the cost of infantry or tanks. With a bombard attack of 12 and rate of fire of 2, artillery is clearly more powerful than a battleship (bombard 8, rof 2) and arguably more powerful than a bomber (bombard 8, rof 3). It is certainly cheaper then either of these other 2 units.
And of course artillery requires no resources. This opens up a resource-less strategy of using artillery and rifleman. Even rifileman attacking at 4 have a reasonabe chance of defeating infantry defending at 10 if the infantry are down to 1 HP and not receiving a defensive bonus beyond the standard 10%. Your rifleman will roughly inflict 1 hit for every 3 they take, so regular rifleman have an even chance of winning while veterans and elites have the odds in their favor. So no more complaining about lacking resources; a rifleman/artillery army can conquer a city defended by infantry and no resources are required.
I predict than when multiplayer comes out, industrial era warfare will turn into massive artillery battles, and attacking your opponent's artillery stack (or stacks) will become just as important as attacking his cities. If you take out his artillery, you take out his ability to attack you effectively until tanks.
By the way, make sure you always defend your stacks of artillery with infantry. There would be nothing worse than to have the AI capture a stack of 30 artillery!
|
|
|  |
 |
|
ninjaboyelroy
|
|
Canada
Jun 2002 time: 00:20
|
|
Once you've dispensed with your opponent the excess guns can be disbanded in your newly conquered cities. 10 shields each. 3 guns disbanded buys you a temple in 1 turn.
|
|
|  |
 |
|
Nakar Gabab
|
|
of Pedantic Nitpicking
May 2001 time: 00:20
|
|
Frankly, you "need" artillery, even if you have tanks. Any city over size 7 with a fortified Infantry in it is going to be a major pain in the butt to take, even though the odds should technically be in the tank's favor. So, I definitely try (key word here is try, since I'm not very GOOD at it) to make use of the artillery fire.
The only way you can tip the balance here is with MA - MA is so incredibly strong that it punches through infantry and tends to wear down MI. While artillery does maintain its usefulness at that point, I've found that MA just moves too fast for the arty to keep up... but by that point, your game had better just be a mop-up anyway...
|
|
|  |
 |
|
albiedamned
|
|
Ellicott City, MD
Sep 2001 time: 00:20
|
|
One downside of massive artillery bombardment is certainly that you destroy all the improvements in the city, which would be nice to have when you take it over. Cruise missles are definitely better in this regard (and their 16 bombard, 3 rof is very nice), but the primary point of the game when artillery is needed is in the industrial era before tanks. Obviously cruise missles aren't around then.
To me, the benefits of reducing the population below 7 more than offset the cost of destroying all the improvements. A lot of them will be destroyed when you capture the city anyway. Assuming the AI has built up the infrastructure around the city (irrigation, maybe even railroads), the city will grow again quickly after you capture it. And the new citizens will be yours, not foreign nationals. Once the city starts growing again, you can rebuild or buy the basic improvements fairly quickly.
As for ancient bombardment, I haven't done too much of that. I find that the weak bombard strength and 1 tile range of catapult make them generally not worth the effort. You would need large numbers to make a difference, and it's much harder to amass huge numbers of units in the early eras than in the later ones.
One side note I forgot to mention in my first post. If the city you are attacking has a wonder, stop bombarding when it reaches size 2. I made this mistake once, and then I had to wait a few turns for it to grow back to size 2 again so that I could conquer the city without destroying it and its wonder along with it.
|
|
|  |
 |
|
albiedamned
|
|
Ellicott City, MD
Sep 2001 time: 00:20
|
|
Yeah, that's a definite area for improvement in the AI. I actually sent an email off to Firaxis with the suggestion. It seems as if the AI is only programmed to use artillery defensively. But it also seems like it shouldn't be too much of a stretch to code it to use artillery offensively. The key would be to teach it how to use the artillery in effectively large stacks, and to teach it how to defend the artillery by moving infantry with it. Obviously the AI already knows how to move around large stacks of units on the attack - we've all seen that! So maybe this is something Firaxis could do, either in a patch or in PTW.
Soren?
|
|
|  |
 |
|
albiedamned
|
|
Ellicott City, MD
Sep 2001 time: 00:20
|
|
Due to the AI's inability to use artillery on the offense, I have to agree with some others that have said that enabling lethal bombardment breaks the game. There would be no reason to build any ground forces at all except for the bare minimum needed to occupy the city and quell the resistence. Your artillery could safely destroy all the defenders from a mountaintop two squares away, with little or no chance of counterattack.
|
|
|  |
 |
|
albiedamned
|
|
Ellicott City, MD
Sep 2001 time: 00:20
|
|
Depending on what path you follow through the industrial tech tree, it can potentially be a long time between getting infantry and getting tanks. I usually go for TOE, Infantry, and Hoover before I start up the path towards tanks, so in my case it's always a long time between infantry and tanks. If you're at war during this period, artillery is the key since the defender will always be stronger. You really can't win with cavalry and infantry attackers against infantry defenders unless you have vastly superior numbers, and even then you're going to take lots of losses. Why not build lots of artillery instead, especially since you won't lose them?
|
|
|  |
 |
|
albiedamned
|
|
Ellicott City, MD
Sep 2001 time: 00:20
|
|
I guess my point is, why wait? If you use artillery, then it doesn't have to be an age of defense. If you're going for a conquest or domination victory, then you can get there faster by proceeding with the attack during this period, and using artillery as I described.
|
|
|  |
All times are GMT. The time now is 05:20. Apolyton Time is 00:20. |
top of page
|
| archivepost |
|
Forum Rules:
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
|
HTML code is ON
vB code is ON
Smilies are ON
[IMG] code is ON
|
|
|
|
|
|