LOL, I like artillery too, but ...
(I dont have c3c ... just give me a few months) are you saying that RA has the same movement points as MA and has a targeting priority on defending units?
I've played enough civ3 to have the opinion that the human advantage over the AI when it comes to the application of artillery bombardment makes wars too easy.
Now - reading that c3c allows units to be targeted first - I wonder if the AI's *tendency to build* and *ability to effectively apply* artillery has been improved.
In general, I think the AI's ability to manage its armed forces is an aspect of the game that sorely begs development. The AIs war effectiveness in the game seems to rely mainly on larger numbers (with matching military technology) and even then it sucks at it.
More specifically, too many times I have been attacked by larger AI forces and smoked them simply because I tend to have a sufficient amount (25) of artillery and I can very effectively micromanage their use. This ability is enhanced enormously in the presence of a good railroad network. On the offensive too, a stack of infantry with 10 artillery pieces is a deadly porcupine. It provides perfect cover for cavalry units that simply stand around waiting to attack after the artillery have worn down a city's defenses. In one game I took out the Greeks with a stack of 26 catapults and 10 swordsmen (with a few other swordsmen spread around) - and we all know how impossible those hoplites are early in the game.
Yes, totally agree, it's a lot of fun using artillery; but my point is that the AI just can't use artillery like that, and the situation is therefore heavily lopsided in favour of the human player. So I am shocked
to read that it may have become even more lopsided.
I wish it were otherwise but I don't blame Firaxis at all
. The amount of work required to improve that AI characteristic might be asking waay too much.