Why do bombers not destroy buildings or reduce city population directly?

[AspiringScholar]

This has always struck me as an odd outlier within the game, especially since presumably the code is already all-there as per nukes doing both albeit to a larger scale, and even in Civ 3, bombing runs could result in either outcome, so it seems like it would have to have been a conscious omission rather than an oversight. Does it have something to do with game balance or the AI's inability to use it correctly, perhaps? While it might plausibly be argued as OP, air power historically proved to be vital and devastatingly powerful as of the time period of the unit's arrival, and it only works if one already has air superiority in the first place, and as for the AI's inability to use it; it doesn't seem like something particularly complex or challenging of what it already has in its warfare logic.

While you can indirectly wage strategic warfare via tile improvement destruction, the ability to do so properly by directly attacking your enemy's civilian population and domestic infrastructure would provide an enriching layer to the dynamic of warfare, and that in a much more compelling way than this being confined to mere city defense reduction.

Thoughts?

 

[AcaMetis]

I'm assuming it's something that was deemed too powerful during playtesting, and removed. Though it's difficult to say, as Civ IV 1.0 was released a long time ago, and has changed a lot since.

 

[PPQ_Purple]

Probably because it would have been extremely annoying for the player to have every siege end up with ruined buildings even if you win just because the AI got some bombers. And when you combine the necessity for artillery in this game compared to previous entries with just how useful bombers are compared to artillery and the fact buildings are destroyed on city capture you could easily end up with a barren and thus useless city.

 

[pecheneg]

Thoughts?

Aviation in this case would be catastrophically superior to artillery. At the same time, it is impossible to proportionally increase the price or reduce the power of aviation units - either bombers will have to be built for an ugly long time, or there will be an ugly lot of them.

At the same time, the specifics of artillery are connected with the fact that in Civilization 4 this is the only case in the series when they tried to observe the scale of distances. In Civilization 3, the fighter of the Second World War is three times more "long-range" than a field gun (i.e. its range is about 30 km). In civilization 5, in general, merciless trash is going on, when the ranges of early aviation are 2.5-3 times greater than those of ... an archer. It reliably destroys an unprepared brain, yes.

At the same time, it is technically impossible to depict real ranges of action using only a strategic map. The difference even only between a field gun and an "average" bomber will be a hundred times (and between a cannon and an archer - 50).
As a result, artillery in Civilization 4 was deprived of a remote attack at all, limiting the destruction of fortifications and suicidal attacks.

But since no one appreciated this refinement... The enchanting 5/6 appeared with their strategic archers. Well, or with aircraft flying at 600 meters, depends on the point of view.

 

[AspiringScholar]

I'm assuming it's something that was deemed too powerful during playtesting, and removed. Though it's difficult to say, as Civ IV 1.0 was released a long time ago, and has changed a lot since.

Yeah, that is an interesting thought. I wonder if anyone these days is privy to the decision making of the early design considerations, where questions like this were most likely specifically raised and considered directly. Obviously, the final product ended up being of an incredibly high quality, but in individual cases like this where it plausibly could work better even within the purview of existing mechanics already in the game, when one is left to wonder what the rationale was, it seems we can only guess...

Probably because it would have been extremely annoying for the player to have every siege end up with ruined buildings even if you win just because the AI got some bombers. And when you combine the necessity for artillery in this game compared to previous entries with just how useful bombers are compared to artillery and the fact buildings are destroyed on city capture you could easily end up with a barren and thus useless city.

Well, that wouldn't happen if you had some fighters, would it?

Aviation in this case would be catastrophically superior to artillery. At the same time, it is impossible to proportionally increase the price or reduce the power of aviation units - either bombers will have to be built for an ugly long time, or there will be an ugly lot of them.

At the same time, the specifics of artillery are connected with the fact that in Civilization 4 this is the only case in the series when they tried to observe the scale of distances. In Civilization 3, the fighter of the Second World War is three times more "long-range" than a field gun (i.e. its range is about 30 km). In civilization 5, in general, merciless trash is going on, when the ranges of early aviation are 2.5-3 times greater than those of ... an archer. It reliably destroys an unprepared brain, yes.

At the same time, it is technically impossible to depict real ranges of action using only a strategic map. The difference even only between a field gun and an "average" bomber will be a hundred times (and between a cannon and an archer - 50).
As a result, artillery in Civilization 4 was deprived of a remote attack at all, limiting the destruction of fortifications and suicidal attacks.

But since no one appreciated this refinement... The enchanting 5/6 appeared with their strategic archers. Well, or with aircraft flying at 600 meters, depends on the point of view.

But doesn't this just raise the stakes of achieving or maintaining air superiority? I mean, it only is that devastatingly effective if there's no struggle for the skies at the time period when that kind of weaponry becomes predominant, as it did in the mid 20th century. It's also worth considering that in light of the game's timeline, they still do make their entry quite late at a time when a game-winning position is likely already either attainable or achieved relative to other spearhead moments on the tech tree represented by the land siege units, making this less of a factor even in an overall context.

(Totally agree with you on the immersion-breaking absurdity of archers being a single-digit fraction of the striking range of an aircraft, by the way...)

 

[pecheneg]

= But doesn't this just raise the stakes of achieving or maintaining air superiority?=

Well, a "lyrical digression" is necessary here. Let's just say it turned out to be not only and not even mainly in the balance with artillery. Not to say that I didn't know everything written below, but... with a systematic presentation, everything becomes more obvious.

1. The effectiveness of bombing as a weapon of genocide was extremely low. Even during the raid on Dresden, no more than 25 thousand people died with a pre - war population of 642 thousand . + about 200 thousand refugees.

2. The resources of the aviation of that time were frankly not enough to turn the industry into ruins. In 1944, the Allies were undoubtedly able to reduce the growth of military production in Germany, but ... it was to reduce, not to prevent. By August 1944, it was 30% higher than the level of December 1943, and 210% higher than the level of December 1941.


3. Only attacks on "strategic resources" were really effective. That is, relatively few, compactly located and extremely vulnerable oil fields, synthetic fuel production, oil refineries and chemical plants. However, even there, the successes were far from supernatural – for example, 4 months of systematic strikes on the Romanian oil industry reduced production by 50-60%. The rest was taken out of circulation by the ground offensive of the USSR.

4. At the same time, to assess the overall effect, it is necessary to take into account that Germany has been sitting in a permanent fuel crisis since the beginning of the war. That is, the allies have collapsed an already weak industry. If the Reich had been any serious oil-producing power, the results would have looked much paler.

5. This rather limited effect cost the Allies about a third of military spending. Yes, all this happened against the background of active opposition to Germany. However, for a catastrophic drop in the effectiveness of bombing, it was enough just not to let the bombers "walk on their heads".
For the accuracy of even American daytime bombing from high altitudes was extremely low. 42% of the bombs fell at a range of 8 kilometers or more from the target. The average deviation from the target of all the others was 4 km. 7% of bombs fell into the "thousand feet" circle. This is something for attacks on soft or/and combustible buildings, but for successful attacks on capital industrial buildings, even very heavy bombs need to get much closer. I.e., the optimistic effectiveness of bombing on factories of the "big concrete box" type was about 1%.
An alternative option consisted of attacks by four-engine bombers from heights of 15-90 meters. This is exactly what the Americans tried to do during the bombing of Romanian oil fields in 1943 ("Tidal Wave"). Losses shot down and captured after forced landings – 50%. Beautiful, very brave, but suicidal.
There was a very powerful air defense in Ploiesti. However, as can be seen from the absolutely devastating statistics, even five times less (three and a half dozen anti-aircraft guns, etc.) would provide quite unacceptable damage.
In general, in terms of the impact on strategic goals, Civilization 4 is actually more realistic than Civilization 3, and very realistic in general. In general, someone thought deeper than it seems at first glance.

 

[PPQ_Purple]

Well, that wouldn't happen if you had some fighters, would it?

I am not talking about defense but offense. If bombers could wreck cities than they would become useless in their primary role as flying long range artillery because there is little point to capturing a city if you broke it while doing so. I mean, can you imagine having to rebuild all the buildings in a late game city and regrow it's population? By the time you were done the game would be over.

 

[AspiringScholar]

= But doesn't this just raise the stakes of achieving or maintaining air superiority?=

Well, a "lyrical digression" is necessary here. Let's just say it turned out to be not only and not even mainly in the balance with artillery. Not to say that I didn't know everything written below, but... with a systematic presentation, everything becomes more obvious.

1. The effectiveness of bombing as a weapon of genocide was extremely low. Even during the raid on Dresden, no more than 25 thousand people died with a pre - war population of 642 thousand . + about 200 thousand refugees.

2. The resources of the aviation of that time were frankly not enough to turn the industry into ruins. In 1944, the Allies were undoubtedly able to reduce the growth of military production in Germany, but ... it was to reduce, not to prevent. By August 1944, it was 30% higher than the level of December 1943, and 210% higher than the level of December 1941.


3. Only attacks on "strategic resources" were really effective. That is, relatively few, compactly located and extremely vulnerable oil fields, synthetic fuel production, oil refineries and chemical plants. However, even there, the successes were far from supernatural – for example, 4 months of systematic strikes on the Romanian oil industry reduced production by 50-60%. The rest was taken out of circulation by the ground offensive of the USSR.

4. At the same time, to assess the overall effect, it is necessary to take into account that Germany has been sitting in a permanent fuel crisis since the beginning of the war. That is, the allies have collapsed an already weak industry. If the Reich had been any serious oil-producing power, the results would have looked much paler.

5. This rather limited effect cost the Allies about a third of military spending. Yes, all this happened against the background of active opposition to Germany. However, for a catastrophic drop in the effectiveness of bombing, it was enough just not to let the bombers "walk on their heads".
For the accuracy of even American daytime bombing from high altitudes was extremely low. 42% of the bombs fell at a range of 8 kilometers or more from the target. The average deviation from the target of all the others was 4 km. 7% of bombs fell into the "thousand feet" circle. This is something for attacks on soft or/and combustible buildings, but for successful attacks on capital industrial buildings, even very heavy bombs need to get much closer. I.e., the optimistic effectiveness of bombing on factories of the "big concrete box" type was about 1%.
An alternative option consisted of attacks by four-engine bombers from heights of 15-90 meters. This is exactly what the Americans tried to do during the bombing of Romanian oil fields in 1943 ("Tidal Wave"). Losses shot down and captured after forced landings – 50%. Beautiful, very brave, but suicidal.
There was a very powerful air defense in Ploiesti. However, as can be seen from the absolutely devastating statistics, even five times less (three and a half dozen anti-aircraft guns, etc.) would provide quite unacceptable damage.

This is one of the highest quality, relevant to a debatable question and meaningfully answered posts I've ever read on this forum over many years on here. That is well argued and substantiated and my opinion is changed! (From a historical standpoint at that, and not only one of gameplay considerations.)

In general, in terms of the impact on strategic goals, Civilization 4 is actually more realistic than Civilization 3, and very realistic in general. In general, someone thought deeper than it seems at first glance.

I am truly curious however if you could make a similar-caliber apologetic for some of the other aspects of the game which are widely regarded as cheesy from the standpoint of realism even within a highly abstracted game. I've read several of your posts in the Realism Invictus thread, so I assume you are referring to the game as a platform and to the mod specifically, which did eliminate most of these?

I am not talking about defense but offense. If bombers could wreck cities than they would become useless in their primary role as flying long range artillery because there is little point to capturing a city if you broke it while doing so. I mean, can you imagine having to rebuild all the buildings in a late game city and regrow it's population? By the time you were done the game would be over.

That does actually make sense. To the extent that they're useful offensively, your incentive towards conquest is reduced.

 

[pecheneg]

This is one of the highest quality, relevant to a debatable question and meaningfully answered posts I've ever read on this forum over many years on here.

Thanks, I tried.

I am truly curious however if you could make a similar-caliber apologetic for some of the other aspects of the game which are widely regarded as cheesy from the standpoint of realism even within a highly abstracted game.

In at least one case, yes.
For example, the artillery zero range and suicidal attacks is clearly a forced decision. However, at the same time, the "suicides" reflect well the very difficult life of the entire early artillery.
As a rule, the enemy did not stand passively under fire, but tried to attack the attackers. At the same time, even the classical artillery of the 18th century is still a very convenient target for a counterattack. Simply put, for the targeted firing of the enemy and the use of ricochets, without which the effectiveness of the cores was no, you will have to drag the guns to a distance of about half a kilometer. At the same time, classical guns cannot shoot over the head of their own troops (1), that is, they will have to be put almost on direct fire without an infantry «fence» in front of them. As a result, an exciting game of "kill artillery with infantry/cavalry attack" is sometimes the main content of the battles of that time, especially closer to Napoleon.
It is clear that with regard to late guns, this scheme already works poorly, and with regard to self-propelled guns - in no way at all. However, in the vanilla version, it simply does not exist.
At the same time, yes, there is a very noticeable difference between an unmodified "civilization" and Warlords/BTS. In "vanilla" they got to the point that for the sake of realism they encroached on the holy - swordsmen. And it's like not dressing Arthur's knights in 15th-century armor or remembering the Pictish version of Guinevere's origin. Humanity will not forgive.
An unknown kamikaze, who dragged IT past the marketing department, may simply not have lived to see the next versions. Well, or so...

1) Howitzers were few in number for quite fundamental reasons. Explosive shells at that time were expensive and very moderately effective (black powder and large fragments, frequent failures). At the same time, a gun firing along a hinged trajectory cannot use ricochets, which significantly increased the efficiency of conventional cheap cores. As a result, howitzers-cannons ("unicorns") were massively used only by Russia - at that time the main military-industrial monster with world leadership in ferrous metallurgy, etc.

 

[PPQ_Purple]

That does actually make sense. To the extent that they're useful offensively, your incentive towards conquest is reduced.

Problem is that, in my view at least, the incentive to not just raze every city you take at that stage of the game is low anyway. At that point in the game even if you haven't already won you have all the cities you'll ever need. And wars are more about getting rid of a rival than actually expanding for expansions sake. So anything that reduces that incentive further is a bad thing.

Plus I just think it would have been unfun. And the devs probably agreed with that. And fun > everything else when it comes to game design.