Why do catapults suck so bad?

Caligastia · March 11, 2002, 11:25

They are a load of crap! They hardly ever hit their target, and when they do they only take one measly hit point off the target!

Also I want to know why I cant build the units that come with bronze working when I have the technology.

Worthingtons · March 11, 2002, 11:28

they dont suck so bad. you just have to use them correctly. A catapult seemingly always hit's it's target the first time. They can be useful in defense when you take a city too.

Arrian · March 11, 2002, 11:34

Catapults are kinda weak, and I almost never build them. I do, however, keep ones that I capture, because they will eventually upgrade to artillery, which IS useful.

-Arrian

Spec · March 11, 2002, 12:00

IMO they suck. I never build them, never use them, never want to see them..... I dont even use artillery so imagine what I think of catapults. But that's only MY way of playin, doesn't mean I'm right.

Spec.

Willem · March 11, 2002, 13:54

The thing with all bombard units is that they work much better on units in the field than they do on cities. I admit I get frustrated sometimes with all the "Bombard failed' messages I get when trying to soften up a city, but I find with units out in the open they do a pretty good job. With just a few of them, I can reduce any attacking units to a single hit point, making it very easy for my regular units to pick them off.

BillChin · March 11, 2002, 14:04

Best uses for catapults are to reduce the population of a 7+ pop city to eliminate the defense bonus. To soften up fortified defenders, especially Hoplites or Legionaires. To damage enemy units in the field.

About 10% of an attacking stack is a good number for catapults, or one catapult in a stack of ten units. Increase this to 20% if attacking 3 defense units such as Hoplites or Legionaires (or Pikemen before Knights show up).

Bad ways to use catapults include bombarding low pop cities with small garrisons. The chances of hitting anything are tiny. Another low percentage use is against hill cities as the hill defense bonus increases the number of misses. However, sometimes shaving off one hitpoint can save a player several units when storming a hill.

Zylka · March 11, 2002, 14:21

Catapults function about right, and are best for defense. Artillery, on the other hand, is way too powerful and easy to exploit.

Caligastia · March 11, 2002, 17:08

Quote:

Originally posted by BillChin
Bad ways to use catapults include bombarding low pop cities with small garrisons. The chances of hitting anything are tiny.

Ah, that would explain it then.

KrazyHorse · March 11, 2002, 17:44

By the time I've built enough roads to actually use catapults it's time to upgrade them to gunpowder units.

Willem · March 11, 2002, 17:55

Well that's still quicker than having to build Cannons from scratch.

KrazyHorse · March 11, 2002, 18:20

I suppose.

Pius Popprasch · March 12, 2002, 04:22

How often do they miss(fail)? From my experience it's 50%.

They suck because they are underpowered. They should cause real damage. I'm aware that real Catapults were little effective, too, but Civ is a game and we want some fun.
Not building Catapults is an option, though.

Deathwalker · March 12, 2002, 04:59

I think that they do suck. The problem is if there defending a city they only defend against the forst attack. They shold have a shot at hitting every unit that attacks the city they are in. If they could do that is would make them better for the game

ThoughN I personally aggree that should not have the power to destroy land units, though they should be able to sink ships

Tingkai · March 12, 2002, 08:09

Yeah, I'd say catapults are not worth it. Same thing for cannons.

kailhun · March 12, 2002, 09:33

Quote:

Originally posted by Deathwalker
I think that they do suck. The problem is if there defending a city they only defend against the forst attack. They shold have a shot at hitting every unit that attacks the city they are in. If they could do that is would make them better for the game

But that would make a city with 3-4 catapults amost impossible to take. Those 3-4 would each take a shot at every attacking unit before the defense even has to wake up.
Although limiting the defensive attack to one catapult regardless of the number in the city, would make them more useful.
I seem to remember building a lot of catapults and cannon in civ1. Don't really remember them in civ2.

Robert

Spec · March 12, 2002, 10:44

They suck that much cuz the're made of wood and ropes....

korn469 · March 12, 2002, 11:39

ok for my mod i made air units more powerful but them still seemed to fail too many times when they attacked, so i decided to test and see if it was true

there was a size 1 city with 2 infantry units and no buildings, so i made the following changes

i increased the bombardment strength of my unit to 1000 (editor max) and changed the RoF to 1, i then lowered the defense of the units to 1 and increased their hitpoints to 20 each (editor max), i then gave my air unit 100 movement and tested

in all i had 67 bombardment failed messages from those 100 attacks

so what appears to be happening is that a random number is rolled before the attack to determine if the bombardment attacks buildings, population, or units; however since size 1 cities can't die, a size 1 city with no building means that 2 out of three attacks will fail against units in that city, if so this is a bug and firaxis needs to fix it

Whoha · March 12, 2002, 12:49

that would explain a great deal korn, think you just answered his question.

BillChin · March 12, 2002, 14:11

Quote:

Originally posted by Pius Popprasch
How often do they miss(fail)? From my experience it's 50%.

They suck because they are underpowered. They should cause real damage. I'm aware that real Catapults were little effective, too, but Civ is a game and we want some fun.
Not building Catapults is an option, though.

Against a spearman fortified in a small city, I estimate 20% hits. Against an archer on grassland in the open, it is more like 60% hits. Against, a hoplite in a hill city, it is like 5% hits.

I do wish there was an option or a wonder or something to produce heavy catapults, heavy cannon, heavy artillery. Maybe cost 30% more and have 25% higher attack rating, or have a wonder or a building that enables their production. Just as barracks enable production of veteran units, a special building (ballistics range?) enable production of heavy bombard units.

Ghengis Brom · March 12, 2002, 17:13

Catapults are a weak unit and I don't recommend them for offense. Where they truly shine is as a city defensive unit in conjunction with another defender type. They soften up just about any ancient attacker which can sometimes mean the difference between keeping and losing a city. I have also found that a defender like a Hoplite and a catapult fortified in a fortification scares the bejeesus outa of the AI, at least in ancient times.

Willem · March 12, 2002, 18:51

Yes, Catapults are a weak unit, but that's how they were historically. They were grossly inaccurate and only used in very limited situations, namely a seige. But they are the first link in a chain that leads to Artillery and Radar Artillery, all with fairly inexpensive upgrades. So if you use them well, and especialy if you look after them, they can become much more valuable units later on, with little extra cost. It's not a bad policy to stockpile a bunch of them for later on in the game. Like I said earlier, it's quicker to upgrade Catapults to Cannon than it is to build a Cannon from scratch.

Though, and yes I'm repeating myself, it would be just great if there was a stack Bombard command. I find in order to have an effective bombard regiment, I need at least 10 of them, which makes it somewhat tedious when it comes to firing on a target. I think if we could issue a single order to a bunch of units to fire at a target, that more people would consider using them. As it is, with their inaccuracy, they can be a pain to use.

simwiz2 · March 12, 2002, 22:21

catapults are too weak to be of any great use. artillery is where bombard units get useful. there is nothing the AI can do to keep a city when theres 30 artillery and 15 infantry on a mountain next to the city

i used the infantry-artillery strat last game to decimate the egyptians. this was pre-tank, so they couldn't attack at all, 6 att vs 10 def can only be accomplished with alot of bombardment.

Caligastia · March 13, 2002, 09:16

Thanks for all your help guys!

Skanky Burns · March 13, 2002, 09:32

Catapults are useful when you have quite a few of them, but by the time you build that many, you could have just built many horsemen which do the same job and also have a chance of killing the enemy.

But being able to upgrade them is rather nifty.

Caligastia · March 13, 2002, 09:34

It seems to me that military units in general are weaker than in Civ2, what do you guys think?

SpencerH · March 13, 2002, 10:24

Quote:

i increased the bombardment strength of my unit to 1000 (editor max) and changed the RoF to 1, i then lowered the defense of the units to 1 and increased their hitpoints to 20 each (editor max), i then gave my air unit 100 movement and tested

Can someone explain how RoF functions. I havent seen much of an effect.

At some point we'll have a trebuchet as an upgrade for (or in addition to) the catapult.

Marquis de Sodaq · March 13, 2002, 10:34

Rate of Fire just means how many pops with one bombard. RoF=2 can result in 2 hp being reduced from a unit, or two improvement ruined, or 2 citizens killed with one bombard.

I find catapults and cannon very useful on the attack. Someone mentioned using 10% of your attack force. I use them as half or more of my attack force. 8 cannon with a few riflemen and cavalry, for example. Many of the bombards miss, but often it's just a matter of a turn or two before they flatten the city - every defender down hps, half the improvements pulverized, some of the citizenry crushed. Easy easy cleanup for the real units after that.

Defeating AI armies is also made easy with bombarding. That 12 hp army advancing to your city can be cut in half with a swarm of rocks showering down on it. Throw a few bad guys at it, et voila! the AI wasted a leader.

Catapults are dirt cheap, and cost peanuts to upgrade. By the time you get artillery, you spend a pittance to upgrade a heap of 20 shield units to some real bad boys. They require an escort (I always use at least 2 units) and are slow - But they make conquest easy.

Ghengis Brom · March 13, 2002, 16:10

Quote:

Originally posted by Caligastia
It seems to me that military units in general are weaker than in Civ2, what do you guys think?

They're not necessarily weaker, combat is done in an entirely different way now. This has been the cause of much debate since the game was released. Notably the tank-killing swordsman.

I am above the law!

Hurricane · March 14, 2002, 04:33

Agree with Marquis de Sodaq; Catapults are great.

First, they are cheap, and having no attack value does not require barracks to be built. This means you can build them in large number in some of your otherwise worthless cities.

Second, they never die (even if they get captured you can easily recapture them), so you don´t need to build that many. 5-10 should be enough for the Ancient era. Think about how many HP:s the average catapult will take out during its lifespan - much more than the average Horseman or Swordsman.

Third, good use of catapults mean minimal losses on your side, which means more promotions and that way more leaders.

All in all, don´t underestimate the use of catapults.

SpencerH · March 14, 2002, 08:12

Sorry to keep on about this. So if a unit RoF is 2 it WILL remove 2hp in a successful attack or CAN remove 2 hp (ie sometimes 1 sometimes 2). Thanks