 |
|  |
 |
|
King of Rasslin
|
|
A lot of people think that it should have a movement of 2, instead of 1. They say that modern artillery should be mobile because that is realistic.
I say that giving the radar artillery a range of 3 (1 movement plus 2 range attack) would make it an even weapon with modern armor. It seems that artillery is only good in the pre tank era, but becomes useless after that.
Radar artillery comes so late in the game, it should have more power. But some people say that this defeats its purpose as a siege weapon, used for long term assaults. This is probably why Firaxis wanted it to have only 1 movement. But as of now, its usefulness is only for people that don't have the uranium needed to make nukes.
The cannon is actually a good bombard unit! When swordsmen have a real upgrade path, I bet people will appreciate it more. Catapults however, are very worthless except for defence. Artillery is the unit to have when infantry come around, but it becomes very useless later on.
In fact, artillery should be useful on the defence. However, modern armor (and even tanks!) have too much defence! You should just counter attack with more tanks, instead of using artillery. Compare the cannon's bombard of 8 to a musketman's defence of 4, but then an artillery's bombard of 12 with a modern armor's 16 defence!? 
Later units have ridiculous amounts of defence! The transition to cavalry to tanks has nearly a 3x defence bonus. Then defence is doubled when tanks become modern armor!
Artillery needs to be heavily strengthened (especially the catapult and radar artillery) and some units need a serious reduction in defence. Tanks should have 6 defence (so cavalry still has a chance against them) and modern armor should have 12, even with artillery's bombard strength.
With PtW coming, it would be very nice is someone from Firaxis would take suggestions seriously, because game balance will become more of an issue in multiplayer. 
|
|
|  |
 |
|
XOR
|
 |
Venezuela
Aug 2002 time: 05:22
|
|
Giving a radar artillery a movement of 2 means you can move your artillery into firing range, fire, garrison it inside a city (when railroads are available, and by robotics, they ARE), that's too exploitable, RA is fine as it is. If you think they are weak then just build ;arger numbers of them. But they are very strong on defense already.
Catapults and cannons are good, you just have to build them by the dozen. Specially catapults are very effective at defending your masses of swordsmen (or immortals!) against those silly mounted units (you'll have some difficulty against Mounted Warriors though).
Last edited by XOR on 05-09-2002 at 15:15
|
|
|  |
 |
|
Corvusnex
|
|
New Jersey
Aug 2002 time: 00:22
|
|
What is this 'Radar Artillery' you speak of?
I have had only one game go on long enough for me to develop 'Modern Armor', and that's because I slowed down my production/research to get the war weariness under control. I have also never seen the Aegis Cruiser or any Stealth-based aircraft. I can't imagine playing a game all the way out to the end of the Modern era; that's just painful.
Here's a solution to your Radar Artillery dilema: beat down your opponents during the Ancient and Industrial eras, so you won't have to put up with tedious Modern era combat.
|
|
|  |
 |
|
Dida
|
|
I don't build any bombard unit in my game. All my Artillery are those that I captured from my enemies. They are completely useless and tedius to manage. How much work you have to do to tell 20 cannons to blast at the enemy city? And how enraging is it to see that 2/3 of your effords fails to do any harm to the enemy?
I simply build calvaries, inf, tank and if possible, MAs. Lots and lots of them. like an army of 500 MAs. I can walk through anyone on the planet with that. No stupid artilleries, no bombers needed. Just some BBs to back up your transport if needed. Once you are landed on their continent, they are dead.
|
|
|  |
 |
|
King of Rasslin
|
|
If you love artillery now, wait until multiplayer. Bashing a stupid AI with artillery is easy. I would rather have a bunch of tanks instead, when they are available.
And modern armor (available earlier than radar artillery!) has an effective range of 3. Radar artillery should be just as good as modern armor when attacking, since it is available at the same era.
I would rather make dozens of tanks or swordsmen than artillery. Artillery is only good in the pre tank era, and this should be different. Radar artillery should be just as effective as modern armor, range wise. 2 movement would be good.
|
|
|  |
 |
|
Blue Moose
|
|
Columbus, Ohio USA
May 1999 time: 00:22
|
|
I prefer bombers to artillery...true, you can't have them with a stack of units to defend them if they are attacked...but I wouldn't get than anyhow since I am moving to fast. Fast, quick assaults and holdings of a city usually bring the enemy close to you, then your bombers can hit them all down to one hitpoint, then your offensive units take them out, and depending on how many you have, nab another city or so as well. Bombers are also more useful for attacking cities, since they have a long enough range to hit and do well. Fighters come in handy for their scouting missions....win-win-win for flying units. I've hardly ever had any invasion problems either...since I am heavily attacking the enemy as I am moving more and more support up to the front lines, and then making sure my defensive at the lines are good. So I never use anything but captured artillery...and that's only good to defend a recently captured city. Most the time you can't get your artillery there anyhow, your artillery is move 1, but often there's a territory gap in later eras, when the culture of the other civ isolates the city you just took...just makes it a waste of resources to play it otherwise. Playing it more slowly just gives them more time to build more units that you'll have to take out. Ugh! Use Bombers, they are better. Just have large quantities.
-Moose
|
|
|  |
 |
|
bbaws
|
|
Catapults are amazingly useful. A stack of 5-10 moving with swordsmen, longbowmen, knights and workers can take any city. Knights used to mop up half dead attackers and workers used to build a fort on the best defensive position next to the target city. The catapult do pretty well against the enemy counterattacks and if you can take one or two hit points from every defender you should be able to take enemy cities with minimal losses and certainly without losing expensive knight.
|
|
|  |
 |
|
Blue Moose
|
|
Columbus, Ohio USA
May 1999 time: 00:22
|
|
quote: Originally posted by vmxa1
I am with Arrian, I don't build catapualts and prefer to make an attack unit. I have not have much success with cannons either. I prefer to have 10-20 arties. Prior to them, I am using mounted troops and do not want to slow them down. The failure rate of cats/cannons is very high. |
Well, I admit they are good against units in the field...just not for cities..
|
|
|  |
All times are GMT. The time now is 05:22. Apolyton Time is 00:22. |
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
|
|
|
|
|
|