I would really want to see my Catapults, Canons, ... be able to actually kill someone. I'm not saying that it should be 100 % but perhaps something with the RNG. You could have a chance of 5 % of actually killing a unit. IMHO cruise missiles should also be able to sink boats (not sure about this one though, lon time since I used cruise missilies)

Greetings Jurimax

I like this, bombardment should be better.

I couldn't agree more.

The percentage shouldn't be too high, but it's frustrating not to be able to destroy enemy naval units cruising your shore simply through the use of bombardment, without having to resort to naval units of your own.

Equally as frustrating is the inability to bomb a unit to death. Both scenarios occur regularly in real warfare but can't be replicated with the bombard command.

Perhaps these units could be outfitted with attack and defense values and hit points to give the option of attacking and not just bombardment.

Cheers

Seff

I would like a upgrade all button on my war advisor so i don't have manually upgrade my cannos to artillery and so on

What about more artillery units like ROCKET LUNCHERS !!!

You realize you could give units lethal bombard (even devide it to lethal land, and lethal sea)

Cruise Missiles already can sink ships as well as destroy land units.

Giving other bombardment units lethal bombard raises delicate balancing issues ... those Arty SODs could easily become unstopable. But it feels really wrong not to be able to sink ships with aircraft. Give Bombers and Stealth Bombers the Lethal Sea Bombard flag, and in return give modern ships some ability to fire back.

Originally posted by The Last Conformist
But it feels really wrong not to be able to sink ships with aircraft.
You can still damage the hell out of them. ;)

Sure I can - it's one of my standard tactics. It just feels wrong that no matter how many bombs you drop on warship it will not sink.

I have been trying to avoid this "lethal bombardment" discussion - it was argued to death a long time ago.

However, for the record, let me state that the "ship" units do not represent single ships, just like the land units do not represent single people/tanks/whatever. As a retired Air Force member, I can attest to the fact that a bomber can sink a ship. However, a fleet of bombers has never sunk a fleet of ships! Seriously damaged, yes. Sunk most, yes. I have seen the Battle of Midway used as an example of successful sinking of ships by aircraft. True, on the specific point that certain ships (on both sides) were sunk by aircraft. But *most* of the ships of the Japanese invasion fleet returned to Japan! We sunk some of the most important vessels, and the fleet as a whole, in Civ terms, was reduced to 1 HP, and retreated.

Originally posted by EddyG17
I would like a upgrade all button on my war advisor so i don't have manually upgrade my cannos to artillery and so on


On the map, activate a unit of the type you would like to upgrade. Hit Shift-U. You will be given the price to upgrade all units of that type that are currently residing in cities with Barracks.

Well, four Japanese naval carriers were sunk off Midway - all that took part in the battle. The Imperial Navy had some trouble replacing them.

And your argument could be used for normal battles too - it's rare that a defeated fleet is sunk in it's entirety.

But I guess it hinges on what you assume a single Carrier unit to represent - I tend to think of it as representing a single carrier with perhaps some smaller attendant ships and for non-nuclear carriers a minor fleet of tankers to keep it going. Sink the actual carrier and the rest of essentially no combat value. I would certainly think that the Japanese fleet at Midway would have to be represented by multiple ships in Civ.

thank Rdomart

Why shouldn`t there be colonys, which can become independent after a time? For example you settle down on a new continent. The new continent is far away from the mother country, and there are living many barbarian tribes, which the player civilizes with weapons or with culture! If the "civilized" barbarians are more than the settlers(percentage), they can become(ex.: 100 years later or more) independent from the mothercountry and if they win the war they become independent. The new conutry should take a minor role, and should not be a protagonist civ! If you, the player, have a colony and there is an uprising(partisans, rebels, freedom fighters) you have the ability to let the freedom-fighters win the war without fight, or you must kill them in "set in advanced" turns(Sorry my english is not good, I hope you understand me). If you loose the country gets free! With minor role, I mean that this country has not the ability to change something or to begin wars(but you can conquer them another time and then they have an other status, notlike a colony but like a conquered country)This countries only exists and can make "minor diplomacy"(trade, change maps, right of passage etc.) they can`t use the full ability of diplomacy. They can build an army, but only for defend, the can earn money with trade, make alliances with other former colonies, etc. And there should be an further ability; Only one country(of the protagonist countries, not former colonies) can make a special diplomatic contract; To be a "protecting power" for the country. The protecting power earns 40% of the Income of this country and has the ability to move their soldiers in ttheir cities, without conquering them! You can use this ability for your interests;) ! I know, that I can write more to this theme, but it will last to long, so if you have questions´, ask.

Ther should also be this kind of Shism, which was in Civ1, and then was removed(Why?)

Well, I'd have to side on the Lethiality side of the arguement. If they were fleets, then regular battles would never be resolved to a total kill, And, carrier fleets wouldn't stand a chance against carrier fleets, since carrier fleets tend to contain several escort ships to protect it. Even nowdays, carriers are escorted by several other ships... Ok... if that's the case, then they almost cannot be destroyed. However, the ability to launch aircraft can definately be taken out. For example... If the USS Yorktown could be used as an example.... It wasn't able to launch an attack after being repeatedly attacked... and it was eventually sunk.... Thus, the "one red but never dead" rule doesn't apply... Even with one red.. a carrier in the game can launch aircraft.

If they were single ships, it would make more sense. Perhaps what's needed is something similar to the "army", there could be something considered a "fleet". Where the defensive destroyers would strike back at the fighters. The person might attach one carrier, one battleship, and one destroyer... The defensive units would defend the carrier first.. which leads to the sinking....


I do agree that sinking via artillery/bombardment should be possible, but not without much effort. Most carriers were sunk by aircraft... Or, at least had SOMETHING to do with it. Even by todays standards, the bigest threat to carriers are not battleships or destroyers.. but subs and aircraft. I believe today, there are more aircraft carriers than there are battleships... and a battleship wouldn't stand a chance against a carrier. an aircraft carrier should use it's fighters as defenseive units when attacked. So, a "fleet" might be made like this:

Carrier group:
1 Carrier
5 Fighters, 3 bombers
1 Battleship
1 Destoryer
1 Submarine

Carrier killing group:

1 Battleship
2 Destroyers
1 Submarine (or another destroyer)

Destroyers would be used as fighter screens much like they were during WWII


Just a thought....

Why should they be minor factions? Why not like England and the US?

Lethal bombardment can be flagged for specific units in PTW. It doesn't always kill units, unless you hammer the square with a lot of bombard attacks. Especially big stacks of land units.

Then again, I've modded the HP for various units according to experience and the era they are built, so that affects the outcome as well. Basically, I doubled the score for each level, (i.e, conscript has 4 hp, elites have 10 hp); and added +1 for medieval, +2 for industrial and +3 for modern eras. Oh, plus a few more hp for units like tanks, heavy warships, etc. Makes one shot kills w/artillery and radar artillery more difficult. (Also makes spearmen a bit less invincible against modern armor.) ;)

I would like to see the bazookaman as a unit in industrial age(especially effective against tanks)

I think that lethal bombard should be allowed - in the modern ages only. Think about the kinds of things catapaults and cannon were used for through most of history - knocking down walls, shooting up troops, etc. These things never decided the outcome of a battle by themselves. In fact until you get artillery I wouldn't even allow them to destroy roads or city improvements (except for city walls) - it would be redlining adjacent enemies only. Precision strikes shouldn't be allowed, either, unless you have super modern aircraft, AND you've reconned the city (investigate city, recon mission). Having done that, you should have a choice to attack infrastucture or units (don't tell me all those B2 missions over Iraq futilely blew up houses and office buildings 9/10 of the time) with a fair chance of hitting either choice. Padma, Re your post about Midway - I'd say you're right about that, but WWII was a different era than today, and if 2 first world nations like the US went up against each other with carrier task forces, and all the missiles and strike aircraft available now, I can pretty much guarantee that on one side not a ship would be left afloat after the battle was over.

I can understand why lethal bombard is turned off for land units. Artillery has NEVER been a means to completely destroy an enemy force. Usually it is used to make the other side keep their head down. I challenge anyone here to find a historical account where one sides artillery killed EVERY soldier from another side. It just doesnt happen like that; artillery cant do it.

Artillery was used to beat up enemy positions, they never could fully destroy them like many thought which led to devastating batlles in 1916 such as Verdun and the Battle of the Somme. Cruise missiles however definetly should have lethal bombard, which it does.

Originally posted by RX2000
I can understand why lethal bombard is turned off for land units. Artillery has NEVER been a means to completely destroy an enemy force. Usually it is used to make the other side keep their head down. I challenge anyone here to find a historical account where one sides artillery killed EVERY soldier from another side. It just doesnt happen like that; artillery cant do it.

And I challenge you to find an instance where every soldier of one side have been killed by artillery and other troops combined.

The destruction of a unit in Civ can't reasonably be assumed to indicate the death of every single trooper - only the end of the unit as an effective fighting force.

The Last Conformist is right. As far as realism is concerned there are only three explanations for what a "unit" and "killing" it mean:

1) Unit is a single figure: both artillery and other units definitely can finish a single figure off.

2) Unit represents a group of figures and "to kill" means to completely destroy: neither artillery nor any other unit can kill the group.

3) Unit represents a group of figures and "to kill" means to break the group to the point of rout/surrender/immobility: both artillery and other units can kill the group.

From the real world point of view the non-lethal civ bombardment is inconsistent no matter how you define the concepts of "unit" and "to kill".

However, however: This is one of those cases where realism has to bow before the Mighty God Of Game Balance. If you allow lethal bombardment (with other game rules staying the same!) then the game is rendered to a meaningless and dull artillery duel if it's a multiplayer game and to a foregone (and dull) conquest victory in a single player game.

The AI can't handle lethal arty at all and humans OTOH are too good at it.

I am not saying that lethal bombardment couldn't make the game better. Only that if it's included then something else has to be changed, too, to balance things out. What that something is I don't know, though.

Maybe one solution could be that artillery could be flagged lethal to all "non-foot units". This way you could sink ships with bombarbment, massacre cavalry, and destroy tanks (all things that real world artillery has done) but entrenched infantry would at most be reduced to 1hp. Because unless you nuke them (and even that is debatable) the only way to defeat an enemy infantry division is by sending two or three of your own to dig them out. Artillery only makes them keep their heads down.

But like I said, unless the AI can be made to handle lethal bombardment even the above "non-foot" rule is too much power for the human. Possibly could work in a multi player game, though.

i hate those cruise missiles! and I hate lethal BB!

Originally posted by The Last Conformist
And I challenge you to find an instance where every soldier of one side have been killed by artillery and other troops combined.

The destruction of a unit in Civ can't reasonably be assumed to indicate the death of every single trooper - only the end of the unit as an effective fighting force.

Maybe I should rephrase what I meant. Artillery is a means of damaging an opponent at best. Ever since artillery was first invented, there's always had to be some type of infantry to go in and clean up after an artillery strike. The clean up crew doesnt have to kill everyone, you are right about that. What I am saying though, is that artillery alone has pretty much never made a "unit" in real life "disappear." Not by them running or ceasing to exist as a fighting force, and definitely not by killing all of them. Thats infantry's job. (Not to kill all of them neccessarily, but to make them cease being "an effective fighting force."

This lethal bombard topic has really been beaten to death around here though. ;) I'll just say that my personal opinion is that from a realistic standpoint AND from a gameplay standpoint, lethal bombard from artillery should stay off.

i think lethal bobmbarment should be an option at the start of the game, like accelerated production.