A petition to fix bombardment

[Exel]

My biggest gripe with Civ4 is, by far, bombing and bombardment. The game has improved over Civ3 in almost every aspect, but in this area it has taken a huge step backwards. I would urge Firaxis to fix this issue as soon as possible, if not in a patch, then at least in an expansion pack that certainly is already on its way. The problem is, I believe, that Soren & Co. don't regocnize that the system is broken. So it is up to us, the fans, to create pressure on the designers to fix this issue, in the name of a more playable and seriously more fun game.

So if you agree with the following points, please sign in.

- Artillery. Bombardment of city defenses works fine, but why on earth do artillery units have to kamikaze in order to inflict damage to units? Collateral damage should go with regular bombardment, with more randomness added to both. This would not be unbalancing if the effects of collateral damage were reduced so that you'd need a longer bombardment with more units to achieve drastic results. Artillery is a support arm, firing beyond the enemy's reach, and it isn't called the Queen of the Battlefield for nothing.

- Navy. Naval bombardment is all but non-existent in Civ4. Ships can still bombard cities, yes, but why has their ability to bombard units on the coast been removed? Naval fire support has been a key factor in many battles throughout history, and should be brought back to Civilization as well.

 

[BeefontheBone]

This post is a COUNTERsignature to your petition - I like the new bombardment system. Civ isn't about realism but about gameplay and balance. If you take a major city after losing nothing but a couple of catapults, you've done ridiulously well out of it.

My only thought would be allowing artillery to reduce tile defence (to some extent, never entirely) rather than just city defence, but I just thought of that - haven't thought it through yet.

 

[MeteorPunch]

signed. they might fix the naval issue, but probably not artillary.

 

[XGustaX]

I agree change bombardment

 

[NHJ BV]

Well, it's a lot easier to hit a big city wall with a catapult than it is to hit actual troops. For the rest I think it's a balance issue, otherwise all you need to capture a city is a stack of catapults, three good defenders and maybe one or two attackers to finish the job.

 

[LauriL]

--signed--

 

[Ranos]

- Artillery. Bombardment of city defenses works fine, but why on earth do artillery units have to kamikaze in order to inflict damage to units? Collateral damage should go with regular bombardment, with more randomness added to both. This would not be unbalancing if the effects of collateral damage were reduced so that you'd need a longer bombardment with more units to achieve drastic results. Artillery is a support arm, firing beyond the enemy's reach, and it isn't called the Queen of the Battlefield for nothing.

For balance reasons, siege units can only work one of two ways.

1) Civ 4 style - as explained above, bombarding city defenses to remove defense penalties and when attacking a defending unit, the siege unit is at risk for being killed.

2) Civ 3 style - siege units attack from a distance of one or two tiles. They have no strength in combat, just a bombard value. They don't physically attack and if attacked, they are either captured or destroyed. They can bombard city defenses to weaken them.

Which one of the above methods is used depends on whether or not siege units can get promotions. If they can, then the first option must be used or a single siege unit could eventually wipe out an entire cities defenses almost single-handedly. If they can't get promotions, then the second option works. The siege units would need a ROF similar to Civ 3's siege units.

[EDIT] Either system would work for me. I like the current system except for having to build catapults all of the time, but as long as combat is balanced I can live with that.

- Navy. Naval bombardment is all but non-existent in Civ4. Ships can still bombard cities, yes, but why has their ability to bombard units on the coast been removed? Naval fire support has been a key factor in many battles throughout history, and should be brought back to Civilization as well.

As far as I know, naval bombardment/attack works the same as siege units except that the naval units can't take cities. If they don't work this way (I haven't used naval bombardment yet) then they should. It is the only logical thing to me.

 

[vingrjoe]

I agree, bring back the old bombardment.

Aircraft have an airstrike mission against units, so give warships a gunstrike mission against units.

 

[warpstorm]

Countersign. This type of bombardment actually requires strategy and thought.

 

[Rexflex]

Signed in oposition. Bombardment rocks as it is in Civ IV.

 

[Exavier]

I will sign in favor if only to have more use for Naval ships.

I am a fan of island maps with lots of naval options... With the current bombard options (though I like them for ground units) makes land and sea 2 seperate domains with no intermixing (exept for reducing city defences and carrying land units). If i sit 10 battleships off your island I should be able to crater the coast before landing troops.

 

[Psyringe]

Wouldn't it be easier to make a poll?

Given the two options you mentioned, I'd clearly vote for Civ4 style. Civ3 made artillery ridiculously overpowered IMO. That took a lot of strategy out of the game.

However, I'm still undecided whether I'd prefer the artillery from Civ4 or SMAC ...

 

[Suki]

My only thought would be allowing artillery to reduce tile defence

i have no opinion on the rest of this argument, but i'm with you on this statment.

edit:

SMAC

right with the long range artillery battles... those were cool. counter battery fire. artillery is the first to defend against artillery, i really liked that. it makes the civ 3 style more viable because you can defende against that incoming fire.

 

[Gibsie]

I'm not willing to sign it entirely myself, although I think it needs a bit of work. What really gets me, is that I'll kamikaze my catapults, and they'll ingure every unit in a city except the one that they were going for! Madness!

 

[Commander Bello]

I agree with the OP. Artillery units in Civ4 are unintuitive to use.
Having them as some kind of suicide fighters seems to be an attempt to counter their unproportioned strength, especially of catapults with a colleteral damage of six.
I could agree on a unit bombardment reducing (figures are for display purposes only) 5% of strength and inflicting colleteral damage to 2 units, though.
But having artillery type units attack directly is just ridiculous.

 

[ThERat]

we don't need to argue about realism. The Civ4 concept of artillery has nothing to do with realism and all with the AI's basic inability to use it.
All was done to limit the advantage of the human and the result is what we see.
Else, why can't you even lob some stones at units that siege your city? It only works if you throw the whole damn catapult including the stones onto the attackers...no wonder it has some collateral damage.

Anyway, this is a petition for a change not against, so no use here to counterpetition....

Anyway, I support the OP and also want the AI to be more competent at it...to even things out

 

[DemonDeLuxe]

Signed. The simplest way to have "real" artillery (they way it is is just plain WRONG, dangit!) balanced is to maked it much more expensive. After all, siege and artillery always HAVE been the most expensive military units in history (in modern times aircraft). Make a catapult cost 3-4 times as much as it does now and the problem of "siege stacks of doom" is gone.

Which one of the above methods is used depends on whether or not siege units can get promotions. If they can, then the first option must be used or a single siege unit could eventually wipe out an entire cities defenses almost single-handedly. If they can't get promotions, then the second option works. The siege units would need a ROF similar to Civ 3's siege units.

Not quite true. It all depends on WHAT promotions siege units can get. You could easily balance that.

 

[calyth]

Signed for boosting Naval bombardment. It's pretty ridiculous that a battle ship with 6 barrels that could probably launch a human 20 miles be unable to do more damage than artillery.
Counter-signed for changing the system back to the Civ 3 bombardment for artillery. I've alwasy disliked the old system, and there are times that a catapult doesn't have to die damaging a stack. I've done it against a city where they didn't have units capable of taking a catapult down, and the luck of the roll was on my side. I kept my catapult and have done damage to it.

 

[Bob1475]

Put me down as opposed except perhaps for naval. The game is a lot more of a challenge now. In C3C you knew that artillery would win the game for you becaue the AI never learned to use it. Now it costs and the AI uses it against you! A much better if a little more difficult game.

If it is a big deal for you someone will mod it but alas the AI won't get it.

You can always play C3C and use those 50 artillery piece bombardment.

 

[eg577]

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.