Artillery and Cannon: They need other units to work?

[Jason Beaudoin]

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...?

[Yoleus]

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.

[Jason Beaudoin]

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.

[cort]

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..

[korn469]

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

[Ralf]

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.

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.

[Faboba]

Hmmmmm stacks.......

see http://apolyton.net/forums/showthrea...threadid=29223

[Crouchback]

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

[Ralf]

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?

[Jason Beaudoin]

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.

[Cluk]

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.

[cyril25376]

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"

[Inverse Icarus]

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?

[Executor]

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.

[Jason Beaudoin]

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?

[Inverse Icarus]

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.

[d_dudy]

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

[Executor]

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.

[Faboba]

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.

[Inverse Icarus]

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

[Executor]

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.

[Jason Beaudoin]

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?

[korn469]

Ralf

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

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

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?

[Executor]

Originally posted by korn469
hey i liked Uberkrux better as well

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

[Jaybe]

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.

[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.

[Jaybe]

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.

[Blaupanzer]

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.

[Crouchback]

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

[cassembler]

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.