Tile resources...bomb bomb bomb away!

F

Frdmlover

Chieftain
Joined
Aug 15, 2012
Messages
41
Location
Kuwait
I have not yet figured out why planes and ships cannot bomb tile resources in Civ 5.
In Civ 4 it was an integral defense and offense ability. If you were losing a war you could bomb away the road system to slow your attackers progress so you could retreat or reinforce. not to mention the damage you could do to a civs growth and number of citizens. Those things allow for really nasty wars where the objective doesn't always have to be take or raze the city. Sometimes we just need to knock a civ off their high horse.

-Frdmlover
 
Because the Civ 4 road system meant roads on every workable tile. The civ 5 road system often means a single tile connecting large segments of the system. Being able to bomb that single tile without retaliation or interception from dozens of tiles out in order to cut off multiple cities would be overpowered. And so would being able to knock out their strategic resources without retaliation. Bombers are already extremely powerful as is, they absolutely do not need this.
 
Being able to bomb tile improvements was a useful and meaningful option in Civ IV, so it's a shame that they took it out in Civ V (which has so many meaningless options). I don't agree that it would be overpowered, especially since damaged tile improvements are not destroyed but rather "pillaged" and can be repaired by a worker in only a turn or two. On the contrary, I think it would give your idle post-industrial workers something useful to do, which they currently don't have once your rail network is built.

Plus, the smoking pillaged state looks cool and would give you the sense that there's really a modern war going on.
 
I think they may have removed it to 1) reduce complexity, and 2) to go along with the general theme of the removal of mechanics perceived to be annoying / frustrating. Or they just ran out of time and failed to implement it. One of the two.
 
I agree, this would be a nice feature. As it is, you have to send units in to pillage the tiles, which at this point the best bet is send a scout or mounted unit to do since they can move so much quicker. Being able to bomb them would add a strategic element in that you would need to use a unit to defend the tile.

It probably goes into that mentality of fielding a smaller, more modern force over the previous 20,000 units on 10 tiles. Still, I would like to see bombers and artillery able to do this.
 
I don't think it would be overpowered if there was a percentage chance of success. That's how it worked in IV. 'Your XXX failed to destory XXX improvement' (or whatever the message was) happened frequently in my Civ IV games, especially when using naval bombardment.

As AriochIV stated, the improvements wouldn't be destroyed, just pillaged, and could be reapaired via workers. I don't see anything overpowered about this.
 
hambonecu said:
I think they may have removed it to 1) reduce complexity, and 2) to go along with the general theme of the removal of mechanics perceived to be annoying / frustrating. Or they just ran out of time and failed to implement it. One of the two.
Click to expand...

One of the 3 :)

As far as the ability to use air or naval or artillery power to bomb tiles being overpowered I have to disagree too.

1. Bombers are susceptible to Fighters which have like 9 tiles range for interception. Great reason to need to build bombers AND fighters.
2. This ability would add a great dynamic to the end game, make it more challenging and give you more reason to use different units.
3. If you could affect tiles then you can affect production, food and gold. What better way to win a neck and neck end game race than by causing a city to implode on itself because it doesn't have enough foo to feed that one extra specialist!

I guess I just like very complicated games, and today it seems games are being written for the give me generation.

-Frdmlover
 
No. It wouldn't add more dynamic. It would ruin what already exists. Bombers are already the 2nd easiest way to win the endgame wars, apart from straight up nuking a city and waltzing a fast unit in there. They do NOT need more power.
 
I really miss this aswell. Bombers was frequently used to set back enemy productivity and mobility, by bombing factories, bridges and railroads.

Implementing this would actually make the ground based anti air more useful aswell. Win WIn imo.
 
AriochIV said:
Being able to bomb tile improvements was a useful and meaningful option in Civ IV, so it's a shame that they took it out in Civ V (which has so many meaningless options). I don't agree that it would be overpowered, especially since damaged tile improvements are not destroyed but rather "pillaged" and can be repaired by a worker in only a turn or two. On the contrary, I think it would give your idle post-industrial workers something useful to do, which they currently don't have once your rail network is built.

Plus, the smoking pillaged state looks cool and would give you the sense that there's really a modern war going on.
Click to expand...

I'd like to point out a counterargument that no one has stated yet.

Yes, a pillage tile can be *quickly* repaired. But here's something to chew on:

In CIV, when you cut off an oil resource, a civ couldn't build anymore oil based units. But they still had all the oil based units they had before.

In CiV, when you cut off an oil resource, a civ can't build anymore oil based units AND the one's they have are now 50% less effective. So, if you can cut off a resource, those units are now essentially useless. Which means you can steamroll the opponent before they can rebuild the tiles. Plus, as others have stated, bombers are already really powerful.

Making it so that you can easily steamroll an opponent this way would only make them even more powerful and IMHO, would break the game.

BTW - I used to miss bombarding tiles until I hit upon this realization.
 
Frdmlover said:
One of the 3 :)

As far as the ability to use air or naval or artillery power to bomb tiles being overpowered I have to disagree too.

1. Bombers are susceptible to Fighters which have like 9 tiles range for interception. Great reason to need to build bombers AND fighters.
2. This ability would add a great dynamic to the end game, make it more challenging and give you more reason to use different units.
3. If you could affect tiles then you can affect production, food and gold. What better way to win a neck and neck end game race than by causing a city to implode on itself because it doesn't have enough foo to feed that one extra specialist!

I guess I just like very complicated games, and today it seems games are being written for the give me generation.

-Frdmlover
Click to expand...

I feel i should say that I'm technically part of the give me generation and I to would love to see some of the older features that civ games have had in the past. this would allow for greater variation in game play.
 
hobbsyoyo said:
Making it so that you can easily steamroll an opponent this way would only make them even more powerful and IMHO, would break the game.

BTW - I used to miss bombarding tiles until I hit upon this realization.
Click to expand...

True, but if your goal is to do that, you can always roll-up with a tank, pillage and run like hell. That's currently available and hasn't exactly broken the game, now has it?
 
Except a tank has to REACH the tile, through hostile territory and adjacent-enemy movement, risking bombardment and attack. That's called a tradeoff.
 
nefloyd said:
Except a tank has to REACH the tile, through hostile territory and adjacent-enemy movement, risking bombardment and attack. That's called a tradeoff.
Click to expand...

Plud zone of control issues, but maybe that's what you meant by adjacent-enemy movement, which I took to mean counterattacks.

Also, river crossings, hilly terrain and mountains mean nothing to bombers.
 
Let's put aside bombers for the moment, why can't we have artillery units capable of bombarding tiles? They only get 3 range (before upgrades), and are highly vulnerable to attack.
 
I would like to have this option in civ 5 as well, maybe give it a % chance of working.
 
I think the nays have it on this one, for the same reason we can't have so many other features in this game--the AI wouldn't be able to handle it.

In MP games this would add new levels of strategy to the end game, force players to build more varied defensive units, and all the other stuff that people are mentioning in favor of allowing tile bombardment. But in single player, the AI would suck at defending its tiles just as badly as it sucks at defending its cities, making it all the more easy to dominate opponents militarily in the end game. There are all kinds of rules/stipulations you could add in to make it appear more equitable, but in the end you'll still have an AI that focuses all of its units in an attack on an unimportant city state ally across the map while you sweep through with a stack of stealth bombers and wipe out every aluminum, uranium, and oil improvement in his territory.

Besides which, with aluminum now required to build spaceship parts the ability to destroy mines from a continent away does indeed become overpowered.
 
I realise the title of this thread may have lead some to think I was only referring to Bombers...I was not. The ability to destroy tile improvements in general from the air or sea or from ranged units...really by any means should simply exist.

I understand the concerns about bombers, the obvious answer to them are fighters. Perhaps (which makes sense) fighters should come earlier in the tech tree, which gives civs the opportunity to "gear up" before bombers are available.

There could also be tile improvements that dont take away the connected resource...such as tile shields or bomb shelters that cover all tiles around the built improvement. Thus lowering the odds of success of the attacker with out negating it or ensuring it, and preventing all civs from having to build a defense on every single tile.

There are ways to make this work. My hope is the devs will be creative and find a way.
I guess the thing is, there are many things that could be added to the game to make it more challenging and more involved.

-Frdm
 
Harv72b said:
I think the nays have it on this one, for the same reason we can't have so many other features in this game--the AI wouldn't be able to handle it.
Click to expand...

I for one think it's futile to blame the AI for not implementing a feature like this. It's like a double fail for the devs.

"We're not capable of designing a better AI than this, thus we can't implement feature X, Y and Z because it would be overpowered in the hands of the human player".

Back in the days, game designers used to have a certain level of pride in the work they did, and designing an AI that constantly was improved upon was considered an art by itself.

TLDR: If the AI really is the problem here, why not improve it? I mean, the game would only become better. Win win :confused:

(And I agree, the AI is bad, but better than vanilla. Lets pray for awesome-AI in the next expansion) :king:
 
AriochIV said:
Being able to bomb tile improvements was a useful and meaningful option in Civ IV, so it's a shame that they took it out in Civ V (which has so many meaningless options). I don't agree that it would be overpowered, especially since damaged tile improvements are not destroyed but rather "pillaged" and can be repaired by a worker in only a turn or two. On the contrary, I think it would give your idle post-industrial workers something useful to do, which they currently don't have once your rail network is built.

Plus, the smoking pillaged state looks cool and would give you the sense that there's really a modern war going on.
Click to expand...

I agree, this should be in the game. Although to appease the commenter above you, perhaps they could have it so roads aren't pillaged, only the other improvements (although bombing bridges was a common practice in WW2). But I love the pillaged look. Sometimes I have a goal to pillage every single tile the enemy has. It looks so cool.

It would give you something to do if you aren't powerful enough to take over AI cities. As they said at the beginning of Civ5, taking cities shouldn't be as prioritized as it was in past Civs. The civ5 developers said this themselves prior to Civ5 being released. So why not give us more to do in the "field" then?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

X
My first VP game as The Shoshone - looking for advice (Prince/Standard Vers. 3.10.14)
Replies
2
Views
886
Xylon73
X
Chalito
Night Demons - War of the Triple Alliance
Replies
3
Views
625
Chalito
Chalito
Boris Gudenuf
Visions of the Seventh Civilization
2 3 4
Replies
62
Views
7K
dripyanim
D
E
[BTS] Earth Equatorial Islands - a more accurate realistic map for Civ4 BTS RFC
Replies
5
Views
338
HNation
HNation
B
Back after 19 Years, Winning on Deity
Replies
1
Views
385
Chalito
Chalito
Top Bottom