catapults - what is the point?

[grumble]

It takes two turns for ancient walls to destroy a catapult.
They are expensive to build but only ever get one shot before being destroyed.
Are there any circumstance where building a catapult is not a waste of resources?

[Copernicus]

I prefer to attack with at least three catapults; have all three enter range of the city at the same time, and you'll get at least a few shots off. Of course, it is best to have a complete set of infantry and archers at the ready as well; even if you can't get through the walls completely, your catapults will make a dent and will keep the city from attacking the rest of your army, so they will have a chance to participate in taking down the remnant of the wall.

And once the wall is gone, your catapults are relatively safe (unless the enemy has a ranged unit in the city).

[grognardgary]

Originally posted by grumble:

It takes two turns for ancient walls to destroy a catapult.
They are expensive to build but only ever get one shot before being destroyed.
Are there any circumstance where building a catapult is not a waste of resources?

Dude pull them back and heal them The only reason to have catapults is that they promote to Trebuchet and will be better for the experience. I'll never under stand why people let stuff get killed if they don't have to I've had field artillery that began life as slingers. And Battleships that began as quads. That being said I'd rather have archers and crossbows than cats and if the city has walls at least 4 of those. and a couple of melee units. Note the AI tends to not use it's ranged units well It will move them out of the city and when they do kill them.

[SlasH]

I remember the catapults back in Civ 1 & 2, those were much different and I personally liked them way better.

[grognardgary]

Originally posted by SlasH:

I remember the catapults back in Civ 1 & 2, those were much different and I personally liked them way better.

Properly promoted they weren't bad in IV either. I tended to use cats for city defense and trebs for city assaults.

[Evrach]

Originally posted by grumble:

It takes two turns for ancient walls to destroy a catapult.
They are expensive to build but only ever get one shot before being destroyed.
Are there any circumstance where building a catapult is not a waste of resources?

Ancient Walls combat strengh is equall to the range combat strengh of the best range unit built by its civilization. If your opponent only have archers, with their 25 range strengh, it won't two-shot your catapults and their 25 melee strengh.
If that's the case, then your opponent probably have better range unit.
Generaly speaking, siege weapons are weak (not that weak, but still weak) and must be protected. A General is also a great addition for the movement boost.

[SlasH]

Originally posted by Evrach:

Generaly speaking, siege weapons are weak (not that weak, but still weak) and must be protected. A General is also a great addition for the movement boost.

[plaguepenguin]

Siege artillery has two main drawbacks that tend to reinforce each other to create real problems for the whole unit line.

1) They are rather fragile, yet their whole utility is in taking down walls, and walls have a ranged attack that can always hit them. A very late promotion and the late game observation balloons give them stand-off range, and that's nice, but not available until pretty late.

2) They can't (normally!) move into range of a city and then fire on the same turn. This slows down the tempo of your conquest, but also means that these fragile units always are open to attack by the walls and whatever ranged units are in the city before they can get in their own first shot. Yikes!

It is true that one of their first line promotions, Crew Weapons, gives them +7 defense strength, which helps correct the fragility problem. However, they have to attack a lot and/or survive a lot of attacks to get the XP needed for the first promotion, and 2) interferes with getting in a lot of attacks, while 1) interferes with survival. Yikes!

All that said about their drawbacks, you become dependent on siege artillery to take cites for the whole long period between Renaissance walls and bombers, so you have to either figure out a way around their drawbacks, or accept the impossibility of conquest during this interval. Okay, the interval is not quite that long,as observation balloons give them stand-off ability, but it's still pretty long, and may encompass the interval during which a unique unit of yours is relevant.

One method has been mentioned, massing them and moving in 2-3 on the same turn. Unless they can be one shot, you get shots with the ones the enemy doesn't target, while the targeted unit retreats to heal. This can be pretty slow,but it will bring down the walls eventually. Melee or anti-cav with rams can speed it up, with both together maximizing the speed, which is all-important to keep up the tempo enough to work past loyalty problems.

A stratagem you can use to avoid the AI choosing your siege units to target is to distract them with something more vulnerable, like a scout, or a unit weakened by prior damage. The AI pretty rigidly uses the wall's ranged attack against the weakest available target.

Preferable, if you can manage it, is to use a great general with your siege artillery. Having them in range helps a bit with the fragility problem, but much more importantly by granting an extra movement point. It isn't really that siege artillery cannot categorically move then shoot on the same turn, it's really that they need 2 mvt points to shoot. The general gives them 3 mvt points, they use 1 to get in range, then can attack (with a strength bonus from the general) before the walls can attack back. Send in enough of them and the walls never get to attack, or at least not powerfully enough to kill your siege artillery..

The Khmer's Domrey, Bolivar's ability, and Cyrus's surprise war bonus achieve the same effect as a great general, which is why all three make wonderful conquerors.

Making siege artillery viable is a huge benefit, because they can help greatly with the tempo of conquering cities up until they are replaced by bombers in that role, and conquering cities is hugely beneficial to any victory type.

The catapult is indeed the problem child of the line, because it is so fragile (especially after crossbows appear), and the ram and tower are a better alternative in that era. But, if you foresee a need for trebuchets or bombards later on when rams and towers won't work anymore, acquire some catapults and get them that first promotion so that these later units in the siege line can get a running start.

[Goof]

there really isnt any reason to use catapults or trebuchets. their hit points are so low its a complete waste of resources. siege towers are much better until you hit renaissance walls. then you cant win domination until you reach bombers

[grognardgary]

Catapults are probably better as harbor guards than as offensive weapons, Between them and city walls you can likely one shot almost enemy you see prior to Gun powder, and lets not forget you eventually need three of them for the eureka for one tech.

[Maya-Neko]

Technically it is not necessary to build them, since you can still use other units at that point, however war is best done in early game, since AI forgets about it faster and on top of it, some of the best unit upgrades are the later siege-perks, which you can obviously unlock earlier, if you begin as early as possible with it.

[Exemplar]

Originally posted by plaguepenguin:

Preferable, if you can manage it, is to use a great general with your siege artillery. Having them in range helps a bit with the fragility problem, but much more importantly by granting an extra movement point. It isn't really that siege artillery cannot categorically move then shoot on the same turn, it's really that they need 2 mvt points to shoot. The general gives them 3 mvt points, they use 1 to get in range, then can attack (with a strength bonus from the general) before the walls can attack back. Send in enough of them and the walls never get to attack, or at least not powerfully enough to kill your siege artillery..

This is what i do if i care to rush. If not gran colombia you can build encampment (or ikanda, thanh) early with a barracks and if you care to, slot strategos policy. Swords (or equiv) and a couple catapults is pretty strong early enough.

[grognardgary]

I am usually done with the military conquest by at the latest early classical.

[plaguepenguin]

Originally posted by Exemplar:

Originally posted by plaguepenguin:

Preferable, if you can manage it, is to use a great general with your siege artillery. Having them in range helps a bit with the fragility problem, but much more importantly by granting an extra movement point. It isn't really that siege artillery cannot categorically move then shoot on the same turn, it's really that they need 2 mvt points to shoot. The general gives them 3 mvt points, they use 1 to get in range, then can attack (with a strength bonus from the general) before the walls can attack back. Send in enough of them and the walls never get to attack, or at least not powerfully enough to kill your siege artillery..

This is what i do if i care to rush. If not gran colombia you can build encampment (or ikanda, thanh) early with a barracks and if you care to, slot strategos policy. Swords (or equiv) and a couple catapults is pretty strong early enough.

Of course, purchase of a great general with faith or gold can augment or entirely replace building encampments and slotting in the Strategos card.

[plaguepenguin]

Originally posted by Goof:

there really isnt any reason to use catapults or trebuchets. their hit points are so low its a complete waste of resources. siege towers are much better until you hit renaissance walls. then you cant win domination until you reach bombers

Sure, if you could only use one and not the other, if you had to choose between siege artillery and towers/rams in the time before Ren walls, I would go with rams and towers every time. But, you can use both, and if you do you will capture cities more quickly, and tempo is everything in successful conquest.

After Ren walls start popping up, you really will have no choice. It's siege artillery or nothing until bombers appear. If you used both back when both were still useful, then your siege artillery will have acquired the promotions that help it succeed against Ren and later walls.

[Goof]

Originally posted by plaguepenguin:

Originally posted by Goof:

there really isnt any reason to use catapults or trebuchets. their hit points are so low its a complete waste of resources. siege towers are much better until you hit renaissance walls. then you cant win domination until you reach bombers

Sure, if you could only use one and not the other, if you had to choose between siege artillery and towers/rams in the time before Ren walls, I would go with rams and towers every time. But, you can use both, and if you do you will capture cities more quickly, and tempo is everything in successful conquest.

After Ren walls start popping up, you really will have no choice. It's siege artillery or nothing until bombers appear. If you used both back when both were still useful, then your siege artillery will have acquired the promotions that help it succeed against Ren and later walls.

thats fair. i largely play deity so they're one shotted by everything and takes way too many resources to produce to be worth while. usually you either try to win via early war with a swordsman or horse rush or after bombers with domination