A petition to fix bombardment

[sgrig]

For the first point, if you increase the withdrawal chance for artillery, then you get an effect similar to Civ3 but more balanced, since artillery units get damaged ("out of ammo") and have to wait a few turns before they can attack again.

Signed for the second point. I agree that ships should be able to bombard units.

 

[jeremiahrounds]

I think battleships should get a 1 square bombard to attack units that is essentially the fighter attack cept 1 square range. This means both weaken defenders and blowup improvements.

You should care if a battleship is off your coast.

Cannons though are dominating imo. Any improvement would have to come with some reduction of power. (IE a total switch back to civ3 so they couldnt be used as assault units). Also cannons upgrade to arty for 250gp which is really cheap. A formidable stack of stack attacking cannons can be turned into a formidable stack of stack attacking arty for just a couple turns gold production. I use my cannons like slow motion tanks to great effect. And that 25% withdrawal chance gives them better longevity.

So under this proposal:
1) Battleships get a 1 square bombard that can damage a unit to half or destroy an improvement. They should annoy you if you dont counter them.

 

[Renata]

The only thing I don't like about the way bombardment units work now is the surrealism of using them like melee units. It still gives me a "THIS IS SO WEIRD" feeling every time I do it. I'm not sure why I have such a hangup with artillery when other non-realistic aspects tend not to bother me at all, but there it is. I do very much appreciate that they were weakened in CIV, and I'd support a changed system only if that was retained.

I rarely used shoreline naval bombardment in CivIII, so I can't say I miss it now. In fact, before its use by the AIs was toned down, it used to be a major PITA to constantly be having to replace improvements.

 

[fuad]

the thing is that if they just programmed the AI to use the artillery, canon, catapults untis the way the human player does , with the civ 3 model....meaning stackin them bringing them along with other units and using them just for bombarding cities etcc.... they would have acheived both realism and game balance in the same time

 

[lifeaquatic]

I agree that this needs to be fixed...this thread should be a pole btw.

 

[Napo981]

I'm more than happy with the Civ4 style, and found the Civ3 version too over-powering. Consider me counter-signing.

BTW - its not a kamikaze against a city anyway - if you use them strategically, you can get them being quite powerful / effective - I once had a Level 5 catapult.

Tell us how please!!!

 

[Napo981]

Re: Artillery
I didn't like the C3 system, it's broken gameplay. I like the C4 system, but it's a tad unrealistic.

I also liked the SMAC system. For those unfamiliar with it, basically artillery are combat units (like Civ4). If an artillery bombarded a tile with an enemy artillery, they entered a "bombardment duel" where they shelled each other, and ending (usually) with the destruction of one or the other. In effect, it was a direct combat between the two artillery units (probably used the same algorithm to resolve as any other combat).

Perhaps a combination of the SMAC and Civ4 systems is the answer.

Wodan

I was wondering on that too. Beat me in speed

 

[gmaharriet]

Signed!!!!

 

[Oggums]

Countersigned.

Civ3 artillary was overpowered. Civ4 is fun.

 

[Crist2000]

I'm for naval bombardment. It IS NOT a fun to have a huge navy standing besides a raging groung battle. IT is just stupid!

Only good point to have a big navy behind ground troops is to attract an attention of enemy air force.

 

[Sullla]

You can sign all the petitions you like, Civ4's siege units won't be changing. The balance is much, much better than in Civ3, and that trumps realism any day in my book. If you want to play a game where the AI is totally clueless as to how to use its units, try playing Alpha Centauri.

PS You really do NOT need to use suicide artillery to take cities. That's an erroneous assumption. I almost never use them for that, personally; try going with City Raider-promoted swords/maces instead.

 

[Sorceresss]

If you want to play a game where the AI is totally clueless as to how to use its units, try playing Alpha Centauri.

"Totally" ?! This very subjective opinion contradicts the subjective admiration quite a few forum-posters have expressed towards SMAC.

 

[Artanis]

the thing is that if they just programmed the AI to use the artillery, canon, catapults untis the way the human player does , with the civ 3 model....meaning stackin them bringing them along with other units and using them just for bombarding cities etcc.... they would have acheived both realism and game balance in the same time

Easier said than done.

It's not as simple as adding "whore artillery" to the AI scripts. The AI would also have to know how MUCH artillery, how much non-artillery to cover it, how much non-artillery to take the city once it's worn down, which improvements to raze (if that's included as an artillery capability), how to tell which cities don't even need artillery (1 Warrior defending from 8 Cossacks means you don't need it), how much artillery should be dedicated to defending from enemy assault stacks vs. how much should be sent on the attack, what priority artillery should take over other units, buildings, etc., what priority they are for upgrades, etc. etc. etc. etc. etc.

The current system works just fine outside of a few "realism" complaints, and that's good enough for me considering how difficult it would undoubtedly be to improve upon an already-stellar* AI


*for an AI

 

[Sorceresss]

The current [battle] system works just fine outside of a few "realism" complaints, and that's good enough for me considering how difficult it would undoubtedly be to improve upon an already-stellar* AI [...] *for an AI

Stellar ?!

 

[MeteorPunch]

If artillary had range (2 tiles) it wouldn't be as hard to program.

 

[Ubiquitous]

I want my old bombardment back, dammit! If I could mod I would do it myself!

 

[Mercade]

Countersign to first point. Catapults can reduce city defense to 0 and function as super cruise missles afterwards. That's not powerful enough?

Agreed with second point. Navies are pretty irrelevant as is. At the very least naval ships should have a way to support troops that aren't asaulting cities. Maybe naval units could have civ3 style bombardment, but capped at reducing hp to 80% or so.

Agreed. I like cannons the way they are.

As to naval, I understand the point and support what I've read so far, although I have no personal experience with them.

 

[Exel]

You can sign all the petitions you like, Civ4's siege units won't be changing. The balance is much, much better than in Civ3, and that trumps realism any day in my book.

So you are saying that coding an AI that could use Civ3 style artillery even semi-smartly is physically impossible? Sorry, but I don't buy that. The AI in Civ4 understands to use artillery for bombardment of city defences. The AI in Civ3 understood to escort its settlers with other units. Combine the two and voila!

 

[Tholomeo]

Only good point to have a big navy behind ground troops is to attract an attention of enemy air force.

I perfectly agree!

 

[chewbaccad]

I'd countersign this as a whole, but I would like to see naval bombardment return. Artillery was WAY overpowered in Civ3, and I like the way it is represented in Civ4 much better, but I do feel that the battleships are nearly useless now...