Is there any reason to use the early siege units?












19














I compared the early ranged units. I'll abbreviate melee strength with MS and ranged strength with RS.



Unit             MS RS
Composite bowman 7 11
Catapult 7 8

Crossbowman 13 18
Trebuchet 12 14

Cannon 14 20


You get composite bowman and catapult about the samt time in the classical era, and the crossbowman and trebuchet is available in the medieval era. Also roughly about the same time.



The composite bowman is (as far as I can see) better in all aspects compared to the catapult. Same goes for crossbowman and trebuchet. And the catapult and the trebuchet have the huge drawback that you have to set them up before firing, which means that the enemy gets the first shot. The cannon which comes in the renaissance era is slightly better than the crossbowman, but not by much.



I know that the siege units (catapult, trebuchet, cannon) gets a bonus when attacking cities, but apart from that, is there any reason to use them? The only reason I can think of is that when you upgrade a crossbowman you get a unit with less range, which is a huge drawback, while the cannon upgrades to artillery that has 3 in range.










share|improve this question


















  • 2




    As a side note that might shine light on this from a different angle, I've generally found in all games of the Civ series, that none of the early units are worth it and by the time you have a reasonable amount of them, you also have more advanced units already. This is a scaling problem (e.g. on the scale of the game, training a single infantry unit can take 50 or 100 years early game). It's not surprising at all that the early siege units are of questionable efficiency.
    – Tom
    Dec 12 '18 at 16:06






  • 2




    @Tom that just means you're not good at the game and are playing it at a low level. The reason those units exist is because they are required. Any city is siegable in the first era, let alone the last. You might start to think the units are worth it when your base is being destroyed by barbarians or your neighbouring civ has an army....
    – insidesin
    Dec 13 '18 at 6:18








  • 2




    Ever since Civ I, I can't recall barbarians being a major issue. They're typically one or two tech levels behind the player. Maybe I just focus on tech more than others, that's why I qualified my statement with "I've found..."
    – Tom
    Dec 13 '18 at 6:21








  • 2




    @Tom I believe they scale with the average player tech level. If you play on anything above Prince then (barring particular civs) you are always going to be behind in the first era.
    – OrangeDog
    Dec 13 '18 at 10:54
















19














I compared the early ranged units. I'll abbreviate melee strength with MS and ranged strength with RS.



Unit             MS RS
Composite bowman 7 11
Catapult 7 8

Crossbowman 13 18
Trebuchet 12 14

Cannon 14 20


You get composite bowman and catapult about the samt time in the classical era, and the crossbowman and trebuchet is available in the medieval era. Also roughly about the same time.



The composite bowman is (as far as I can see) better in all aspects compared to the catapult. Same goes for crossbowman and trebuchet. And the catapult and the trebuchet have the huge drawback that you have to set them up before firing, which means that the enemy gets the first shot. The cannon which comes in the renaissance era is slightly better than the crossbowman, but not by much.



I know that the siege units (catapult, trebuchet, cannon) gets a bonus when attacking cities, but apart from that, is there any reason to use them? The only reason I can think of is that when you upgrade a crossbowman you get a unit with less range, which is a huge drawback, while the cannon upgrades to artillery that has 3 in range.










share|improve this question


















  • 2




    As a side note that might shine light on this from a different angle, I've generally found in all games of the Civ series, that none of the early units are worth it and by the time you have a reasonable amount of them, you also have more advanced units already. This is a scaling problem (e.g. on the scale of the game, training a single infantry unit can take 50 or 100 years early game). It's not surprising at all that the early siege units are of questionable efficiency.
    – Tom
    Dec 12 '18 at 16:06






  • 2




    @Tom that just means you're not good at the game and are playing it at a low level. The reason those units exist is because they are required. Any city is siegable in the first era, let alone the last. You might start to think the units are worth it when your base is being destroyed by barbarians or your neighbouring civ has an army....
    – insidesin
    Dec 13 '18 at 6:18








  • 2




    Ever since Civ I, I can't recall barbarians being a major issue. They're typically one or two tech levels behind the player. Maybe I just focus on tech more than others, that's why I qualified my statement with "I've found..."
    – Tom
    Dec 13 '18 at 6:21








  • 2




    @Tom I believe they scale with the average player tech level. If you play on anything above Prince then (barring particular civs) you are always going to be behind in the first era.
    – OrangeDog
    Dec 13 '18 at 10:54














19












19








19


2





I compared the early ranged units. I'll abbreviate melee strength with MS and ranged strength with RS.



Unit             MS RS
Composite bowman 7 11
Catapult 7 8

Crossbowman 13 18
Trebuchet 12 14

Cannon 14 20


You get composite bowman and catapult about the samt time in the classical era, and the crossbowman and trebuchet is available in the medieval era. Also roughly about the same time.



The composite bowman is (as far as I can see) better in all aspects compared to the catapult. Same goes for crossbowman and trebuchet. And the catapult and the trebuchet have the huge drawback that you have to set them up before firing, which means that the enemy gets the first shot. The cannon which comes in the renaissance era is slightly better than the crossbowman, but not by much.



I know that the siege units (catapult, trebuchet, cannon) gets a bonus when attacking cities, but apart from that, is there any reason to use them? The only reason I can think of is that when you upgrade a crossbowman you get a unit with less range, which is a huge drawback, while the cannon upgrades to artillery that has 3 in range.










share|improve this question













I compared the early ranged units. I'll abbreviate melee strength with MS and ranged strength with RS.



Unit             MS RS
Composite bowman 7 11
Catapult 7 8

Crossbowman 13 18
Trebuchet 12 14

Cannon 14 20


You get composite bowman and catapult about the samt time in the classical era, and the crossbowman and trebuchet is available in the medieval era. Also roughly about the same time.



The composite bowman is (as far as I can see) better in all aspects compared to the catapult. Same goes for crossbowman and trebuchet. And the catapult and the trebuchet have the huge drawback that you have to set them up before firing, which means that the enemy gets the first shot. The cannon which comes in the renaissance era is slightly better than the crossbowman, but not by much.



I know that the siege units (catapult, trebuchet, cannon) gets a bonus when attacking cities, but apart from that, is there any reason to use them? The only reason I can think of is that when you upgrade a crossbowman you get a unit with less range, which is a huge drawback, while the cannon upgrades to artillery that has 3 in range.







civilization-5 civilization-5-brave-new-world






share|improve this question













share|improve this question











share|improve this question




share|improve this question










asked Dec 12 '18 at 13:40









Broman

342212




342212








  • 2




    As a side note that might shine light on this from a different angle, I've generally found in all games of the Civ series, that none of the early units are worth it and by the time you have a reasonable amount of them, you also have more advanced units already. This is a scaling problem (e.g. on the scale of the game, training a single infantry unit can take 50 or 100 years early game). It's not surprising at all that the early siege units are of questionable efficiency.
    – Tom
    Dec 12 '18 at 16:06






  • 2




    @Tom that just means you're not good at the game and are playing it at a low level. The reason those units exist is because they are required. Any city is siegable in the first era, let alone the last. You might start to think the units are worth it when your base is being destroyed by barbarians or your neighbouring civ has an army....
    – insidesin
    Dec 13 '18 at 6:18








  • 2




    Ever since Civ I, I can't recall barbarians being a major issue. They're typically one or two tech levels behind the player. Maybe I just focus on tech more than others, that's why I qualified my statement with "I've found..."
    – Tom
    Dec 13 '18 at 6:21








  • 2




    @Tom I believe they scale with the average player tech level. If you play on anything above Prince then (barring particular civs) you are always going to be behind in the first era.
    – OrangeDog
    Dec 13 '18 at 10:54














  • 2




    As a side note that might shine light on this from a different angle, I've generally found in all games of the Civ series, that none of the early units are worth it and by the time you have a reasonable amount of them, you also have more advanced units already. This is a scaling problem (e.g. on the scale of the game, training a single infantry unit can take 50 or 100 years early game). It's not surprising at all that the early siege units are of questionable efficiency.
    – Tom
    Dec 12 '18 at 16:06






  • 2




    @Tom that just means you're not good at the game and are playing it at a low level. The reason those units exist is because they are required. Any city is siegable in the first era, let alone the last. You might start to think the units are worth it when your base is being destroyed by barbarians or your neighbouring civ has an army....
    – insidesin
    Dec 13 '18 at 6:18








  • 2




    Ever since Civ I, I can't recall barbarians being a major issue. They're typically one or two tech levels behind the player. Maybe I just focus on tech more than others, that's why I qualified my statement with "I've found..."
    – Tom
    Dec 13 '18 at 6:21








  • 2




    @Tom I believe they scale with the average player tech level. If you play on anything above Prince then (barring particular civs) you are always going to be behind in the first era.
    – OrangeDog
    Dec 13 '18 at 10:54








2




2




As a side note that might shine light on this from a different angle, I've generally found in all games of the Civ series, that none of the early units are worth it and by the time you have a reasonable amount of them, you also have more advanced units already. This is a scaling problem (e.g. on the scale of the game, training a single infantry unit can take 50 or 100 years early game). It's not surprising at all that the early siege units are of questionable efficiency.
– Tom
Dec 12 '18 at 16:06




As a side note that might shine light on this from a different angle, I've generally found in all games of the Civ series, that none of the early units are worth it and by the time you have a reasonable amount of them, you also have more advanced units already. This is a scaling problem (e.g. on the scale of the game, training a single infantry unit can take 50 or 100 years early game). It's not surprising at all that the early siege units are of questionable efficiency.
– Tom
Dec 12 '18 at 16:06




2




2




@Tom that just means you're not good at the game and are playing it at a low level. The reason those units exist is because they are required. Any city is siegable in the first era, let alone the last. You might start to think the units are worth it when your base is being destroyed by barbarians or your neighbouring civ has an army....
– insidesin
Dec 13 '18 at 6:18






@Tom that just means you're not good at the game and are playing it at a low level. The reason those units exist is because they are required. Any city is siegable in the first era, let alone the last. You might start to think the units are worth it when your base is being destroyed by barbarians or your neighbouring civ has an army....
– insidesin
Dec 13 '18 at 6:18






2




2




Ever since Civ I, I can't recall barbarians being a major issue. They're typically one or two tech levels behind the player. Maybe I just focus on tech more than others, that's why I qualified my statement with "I've found..."
– Tom
Dec 13 '18 at 6:21






Ever since Civ I, I can't recall barbarians being a major issue. They're typically one or two tech levels behind the player. Maybe I just focus on tech more than others, that's why I qualified my statement with "I've found..."
– Tom
Dec 13 '18 at 6:21






2




2




@Tom I believe they scale with the average player tech level. If you play on anything above Prince then (barring particular civs) you are always going to be behind in the first era.
– OrangeDog
Dec 13 '18 at 10:54




@Tom I believe they scale with the average player tech level. If you play on anything above Prince then (barring particular civs) you are always going to be behind in the first era.
– OrangeDog
Dec 13 '18 at 10:54










3 Answers
3






active

oldest

votes


















44














As you have noted, the main difference between the "seige" units (Catapult, Trebuchet, Cannon) and other ranged units (Composite Bowmen, Crossbows), is that the seige units have a bonus against cities.



However, it is not a small amount - each of them has:




Bonus vs Cities (200)






As such, your table against cities will look like this:



Unit             MS RS
Composite bowman 7 11
Catapult 7 24

Crossbowman 13 18
Trebuchet 12 42

Cannon 14 60




Whether you value this benefit enough to warrant their deployment, compared with the more mobile and higher base-damage units such as Composite Bowmen - is entirely up to your strategy.



However, the Bonus Vs. City is the main advantage of these units, and should be considered the main differentiating factor between them and the other ranged units.






share|improve this answer



















  • 19




    Just a correction here- the (200) doesn't mean double strength, it means a 200% increase, ie triple strength.
    – Studoku
    Dec 12 '18 at 13:51










  • @Studoku oops, thanks very much for the correction - numbers updated.
    – Bilkokuya
    Dec 12 '18 at 13:53






  • 3




    I've only played the original and not Brave New World, so this might have changed, but non siege ranged units actually have a penalty vs cities (which can be removed with a level up bonus) which makes catapults etc. even more useful for that purpose.
    – adaliabooks
    Dec 13 '18 at 10:30



















11














As you said, they get a bonus when attacking cities. This is not a small bonus- it's a 200% increase. That's 24 strength for the catapult (vs 11) and 42 (vs 18) for the trebuchet. When you're dealing with the high strength, health, and regeneration of fortified cities, you'll need that strength.






share|improve this answer





























    7














    Another incentive to use siege units early is to increase their level to get the Range promotion (+1 range) as early as possible.



    Early cities are realatively weak and need a few rounds to destroy a siege unit. You can attack a city, retreat, heal, attack again, etc. Later cities, in combination with occupying units, can obliterate a siege unit in one round, so this "training" is not possible anymore. If you have trained 2-3 siege units early on and keep them alive you can siege a city without it being able to shoot back. It's almost too easy from this point on. Even more so, if you also choose Logistics (1 additional attack per turn).



    In summary, you build them early to use weak enemy cities or city-states to train elite siege units for later.






    share|improve this answer





















      Your Answer








      StackExchange.ready(function() {
      var channelOptions = {
      tags: "".split(" "),
      id: "41"
      };
      initTagRenderer("".split(" "), "".split(" "), channelOptions);

      StackExchange.using("externalEditor", function() {
      // Have to fire editor after snippets, if snippets enabled
      if (StackExchange.settings.snippets.snippetsEnabled) {
      StackExchange.using("snippets", function() {
      createEditor();
      });
      }
      else {
      createEditor();
      }
      });

      function createEditor() {
      StackExchange.prepareEditor({
      heartbeatType: 'answer',
      autoActivateHeartbeat: false,
      convertImagesToLinks: false,
      noModals: true,
      showLowRepImageUploadWarning: true,
      reputationToPostImages: null,
      bindNavPrevention: true,
      postfix: "",
      imageUploader: {
      brandingHtml: "Powered by u003ca class="icon-imgur-white" href="https://imgur.com/"u003eu003c/au003e",
      contentPolicyHtml: "User contributions licensed under u003ca href="https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"u003ecc by-sa 3.0 with attribution requiredu003c/au003e u003ca href="https://stackoverflow.com/legal/content-policy"u003e(content policy)u003c/au003e",
      allowUrls: true
      },
      noCode: true, onDemand: true,
      discardSelector: ".discard-answer"
      ,immediatelyShowMarkdownHelp:true
      });


      }
      });














      draft saved

      draft discarded


















      StackExchange.ready(
      function () {
      StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fgaming.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f342306%2fis-there-any-reason-to-use-the-early-siege-units%23new-answer', 'question_page');
      }
      );

      Post as a guest















      Required, but never shown

























      3 Answers
      3






      active

      oldest

      votes








      3 Answers
      3






      active

      oldest

      votes









      active

      oldest

      votes






      active

      oldest

      votes









      44














      As you have noted, the main difference between the "seige" units (Catapult, Trebuchet, Cannon) and other ranged units (Composite Bowmen, Crossbows), is that the seige units have a bonus against cities.



      However, it is not a small amount - each of them has:




      Bonus vs Cities (200)






      As such, your table against cities will look like this:



      Unit             MS RS
      Composite bowman 7 11
      Catapult 7 24

      Crossbowman 13 18
      Trebuchet 12 42

      Cannon 14 60




      Whether you value this benefit enough to warrant their deployment, compared with the more mobile and higher base-damage units such as Composite Bowmen - is entirely up to your strategy.



      However, the Bonus Vs. City is the main advantage of these units, and should be considered the main differentiating factor between them and the other ranged units.






      share|improve this answer



















      • 19




        Just a correction here- the (200) doesn't mean double strength, it means a 200% increase, ie triple strength.
        – Studoku
        Dec 12 '18 at 13:51










      • @Studoku oops, thanks very much for the correction - numbers updated.
        – Bilkokuya
        Dec 12 '18 at 13:53






      • 3




        I've only played the original and not Brave New World, so this might have changed, but non siege ranged units actually have a penalty vs cities (which can be removed with a level up bonus) which makes catapults etc. even more useful for that purpose.
        – adaliabooks
        Dec 13 '18 at 10:30
















      44














      As you have noted, the main difference between the "seige" units (Catapult, Trebuchet, Cannon) and other ranged units (Composite Bowmen, Crossbows), is that the seige units have a bonus against cities.



      However, it is not a small amount - each of them has:




      Bonus vs Cities (200)






      As such, your table against cities will look like this:



      Unit             MS RS
      Composite bowman 7 11
      Catapult 7 24

      Crossbowman 13 18
      Trebuchet 12 42

      Cannon 14 60




      Whether you value this benefit enough to warrant their deployment, compared with the more mobile and higher base-damage units such as Composite Bowmen - is entirely up to your strategy.



      However, the Bonus Vs. City is the main advantage of these units, and should be considered the main differentiating factor between them and the other ranged units.






      share|improve this answer



















      • 19




        Just a correction here- the (200) doesn't mean double strength, it means a 200% increase, ie triple strength.
        – Studoku
        Dec 12 '18 at 13:51










      • @Studoku oops, thanks very much for the correction - numbers updated.
        – Bilkokuya
        Dec 12 '18 at 13:53






      • 3




        I've only played the original and not Brave New World, so this might have changed, but non siege ranged units actually have a penalty vs cities (which can be removed with a level up bonus) which makes catapults etc. even more useful for that purpose.
        – adaliabooks
        Dec 13 '18 at 10:30














      44












      44








      44






      As you have noted, the main difference between the "seige" units (Catapult, Trebuchet, Cannon) and other ranged units (Composite Bowmen, Crossbows), is that the seige units have a bonus against cities.



      However, it is not a small amount - each of them has:




      Bonus vs Cities (200)






      As such, your table against cities will look like this:



      Unit             MS RS
      Composite bowman 7 11
      Catapult 7 24

      Crossbowman 13 18
      Trebuchet 12 42

      Cannon 14 60




      Whether you value this benefit enough to warrant their deployment, compared with the more mobile and higher base-damage units such as Composite Bowmen - is entirely up to your strategy.



      However, the Bonus Vs. City is the main advantage of these units, and should be considered the main differentiating factor between them and the other ranged units.






      share|improve this answer














      As you have noted, the main difference between the "seige" units (Catapult, Trebuchet, Cannon) and other ranged units (Composite Bowmen, Crossbows), is that the seige units have a bonus against cities.



      However, it is not a small amount - each of them has:




      Bonus vs Cities (200)






      As such, your table against cities will look like this:



      Unit             MS RS
      Composite bowman 7 11
      Catapult 7 24

      Crossbowman 13 18
      Trebuchet 12 42

      Cannon 14 60




      Whether you value this benefit enough to warrant their deployment, compared with the more mobile and higher base-damage units such as Composite Bowmen - is entirely up to your strategy.



      However, the Bonus Vs. City is the main advantage of these units, and should be considered the main differentiating factor between them and the other ranged units.







      share|improve this answer














      share|improve this answer



      share|improve this answer








      edited Dec 12 '18 at 13:53

























      answered Dec 12 '18 at 13:49









      Bilkokuya

      62159




      62159








      • 19




        Just a correction here- the (200) doesn't mean double strength, it means a 200% increase, ie triple strength.
        – Studoku
        Dec 12 '18 at 13:51










      • @Studoku oops, thanks very much for the correction - numbers updated.
        – Bilkokuya
        Dec 12 '18 at 13:53






      • 3




        I've only played the original and not Brave New World, so this might have changed, but non siege ranged units actually have a penalty vs cities (which can be removed with a level up bonus) which makes catapults etc. even more useful for that purpose.
        – adaliabooks
        Dec 13 '18 at 10:30














      • 19




        Just a correction here- the (200) doesn't mean double strength, it means a 200% increase, ie triple strength.
        – Studoku
        Dec 12 '18 at 13:51










      • @Studoku oops, thanks very much for the correction - numbers updated.
        – Bilkokuya
        Dec 12 '18 at 13:53






      • 3




        I've only played the original and not Brave New World, so this might have changed, but non siege ranged units actually have a penalty vs cities (which can be removed with a level up bonus) which makes catapults etc. even more useful for that purpose.
        – adaliabooks
        Dec 13 '18 at 10:30








      19




      19




      Just a correction here- the (200) doesn't mean double strength, it means a 200% increase, ie triple strength.
      – Studoku
      Dec 12 '18 at 13:51




      Just a correction here- the (200) doesn't mean double strength, it means a 200% increase, ie triple strength.
      – Studoku
      Dec 12 '18 at 13:51












      @Studoku oops, thanks very much for the correction - numbers updated.
      – Bilkokuya
      Dec 12 '18 at 13:53




      @Studoku oops, thanks very much for the correction - numbers updated.
      – Bilkokuya
      Dec 12 '18 at 13:53




      3




      3




      I've only played the original and not Brave New World, so this might have changed, but non siege ranged units actually have a penalty vs cities (which can be removed with a level up bonus) which makes catapults etc. even more useful for that purpose.
      – adaliabooks
      Dec 13 '18 at 10:30




      I've only played the original and not Brave New World, so this might have changed, but non siege ranged units actually have a penalty vs cities (which can be removed with a level up bonus) which makes catapults etc. even more useful for that purpose.
      – adaliabooks
      Dec 13 '18 at 10:30













      11














      As you said, they get a bonus when attacking cities. This is not a small bonus- it's a 200% increase. That's 24 strength for the catapult (vs 11) and 42 (vs 18) for the trebuchet. When you're dealing with the high strength, health, and regeneration of fortified cities, you'll need that strength.






      share|improve this answer


























        11














        As you said, they get a bonus when attacking cities. This is not a small bonus- it's a 200% increase. That's 24 strength for the catapult (vs 11) and 42 (vs 18) for the trebuchet. When you're dealing with the high strength, health, and regeneration of fortified cities, you'll need that strength.






        share|improve this answer
























          11












          11








          11






          As you said, they get a bonus when attacking cities. This is not a small bonus- it's a 200% increase. That's 24 strength for the catapult (vs 11) and 42 (vs 18) for the trebuchet. When you're dealing with the high strength, health, and regeneration of fortified cities, you'll need that strength.






          share|improve this answer












          As you said, they get a bonus when attacking cities. This is not a small bonus- it's a 200% increase. That's 24 strength for the catapult (vs 11) and 42 (vs 18) for the trebuchet. When you're dealing with the high strength, health, and regeneration of fortified cities, you'll need that strength.







          share|improve this answer












          share|improve this answer



          share|improve this answer










          answered Dec 12 '18 at 13:50









          Studoku

          36.8k14110169




          36.8k14110169























              7














              Another incentive to use siege units early is to increase their level to get the Range promotion (+1 range) as early as possible.



              Early cities are realatively weak and need a few rounds to destroy a siege unit. You can attack a city, retreat, heal, attack again, etc. Later cities, in combination with occupying units, can obliterate a siege unit in one round, so this "training" is not possible anymore. If you have trained 2-3 siege units early on and keep them alive you can siege a city without it being able to shoot back. It's almost too easy from this point on. Even more so, if you also choose Logistics (1 additional attack per turn).



              In summary, you build them early to use weak enemy cities or city-states to train elite siege units for later.






              share|improve this answer


























                7














                Another incentive to use siege units early is to increase their level to get the Range promotion (+1 range) as early as possible.



                Early cities are realatively weak and need a few rounds to destroy a siege unit. You can attack a city, retreat, heal, attack again, etc. Later cities, in combination with occupying units, can obliterate a siege unit in one round, so this "training" is not possible anymore. If you have trained 2-3 siege units early on and keep them alive you can siege a city without it being able to shoot back. It's almost too easy from this point on. Even more so, if you also choose Logistics (1 additional attack per turn).



                In summary, you build them early to use weak enemy cities or city-states to train elite siege units for later.






                share|improve this answer
























                  7












                  7








                  7






                  Another incentive to use siege units early is to increase their level to get the Range promotion (+1 range) as early as possible.



                  Early cities are realatively weak and need a few rounds to destroy a siege unit. You can attack a city, retreat, heal, attack again, etc. Later cities, in combination with occupying units, can obliterate a siege unit in one round, so this "training" is not possible anymore. If you have trained 2-3 siege units early on and keep them alive you can siege a city without it being able to shoot back. It's almost too easy from this point on. Even more so, if you also choose Logistics (1 additional attack per turn).



                  In summary, you build them early to use weak enemy cities or city-states to train elite siege units for later.






                  share|improve this answer












                  Another incentive to use siege units early is to increase their level to get the Range promotion (+1 range) as early as possible.



                  Early cities are realatively weak and need a few rounds to destroy a siege unit. You can attack a city, retreat, heal, attack again, etc. Later cities, in combination with occupying units, can obliterate a siege unit in one round, so this "training" is not possible anymore. If you have trained 2-3 siege units early on and keep them alive you can siege a city without it being able to shoot back. It's almost too easy from this point on. Even more so, if you also choose Logistics (1 additional attack per turn).



                  In summary, you build them early to use weak enemy cities or city-states to train elite siege units for later.







                  share|improve this answer












                  share|improve this answer



                  share|improve this answer










                  answered Dec 13 '18 at 10:20









                  problemofficer

                  455139




                  455139






























                      draft saved

                      draft discarded




















































                      Thanks for contributing an answer to Arqade!


                      • Please be sure to answer the question. Provide details and share your research!

                      But avoid



                      • Asking for help, clarification, or responding to other answers.

                      • Making statements based on opinion; back them up with references or personal experience.


                      To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.





                      Some of your past answers have not been well-received, and you're in danger of being blocked from answering.


                      Please pay close attention to the following guidance:


                      • Please be sure to answer the question. Provide details and share your research!

                      But avoid



                      • Asking for help, clarification, or responding to other answers.

                      • Making statements based on opinion; back them up with references or personal experience.


                      To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.




                      draft saved


                      draft discarded














                      StackExchange.ready(
                      function () {
                      StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fgaming.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f342306%2fis-there-any-reason-to-use-the-early-siege-units%23new-answer', 'question_page');
                      }
                      );

                      Post as a guest















                      Required, but never shown





















































                      Required, but never shown














                      Required, but never shown












                      Required, but never shown







                      Required, but never shown

































                      Required, but never shown














                      Required, but never shown












                      Required, but never shown







                      Required, but never shown







                      Popular posts from this blog

                      If I really need a card on my start hand, how many mulligans make sense? [duplicate]

                      Alcedinidae

                      Can an atomic nucleus contain both particles and antiparticles? [duplicate]