Air Units
- Thread starter Sogat
- Start date
1. Yes, that seems to be the case.
2. No, but you'll notice that your area of vision increases with air units
3. Range of rebasing does seem to be limited. I don't run into this often on small maps. It can obviously be an issue on large/huge if you're trying to produce units in only one city.
2. No, but you'll notice that your area of vision increases with air units
3. Range of rebasing does seem to be limited. I don't run into this often on small maps. It can obviously be an issue on large/huge if you're trying to produce units in only one city.
Lexicus
Deity
Civ 3 air units were perfect--infinite stacking, ability to destroy improvements, and you could do city bombing that would take out a destroy a building or a citizen. They should enable bombers (and Artillery) to destroy things in a city, and also bombard improvements.
Destroying key improvements would be a nice feature, but I think the ability to snipe buildings in cities would be more irritating than anything else. There would have to be some sort of probability of failure, and a quick way to repair buildings, otherwise a decent fleet of bombers could completely cripple a production or culture city unless you filled it with fighters or surround it with AA instead of a land army.
In the late game buildings are utterly crucial to a city's output.
In the late game buildings are utterly crucial to a city's output.
Except the missing feature is the land invasion force. You could completely ignore any ground forces and pester your enemy from an aircraft carrier, crippling them significantly.
It's true that if you have loads of bombers, why not just take the city, but that makes the ability to bomb buildings fairly moot anyway.
Given the current system, if you have enough air superiority to worry about bombing buildings, you can probably take the city with 1 melee unit. This is a very common strategy for me in the late game.
Get 3 SB's with logistics. Pummel a city and take it in one turn with a tank. Wash, rinse, repeat. Raze as needed. Total Annihilation complete.
Get 3 SB's with logistics. Pummel a city and take it in one turn with a tank. Wash, rinse, repeat. Raze as needed. Total Annihilation complete.
This is neither ahistorical nor bad gameplay. The primary use of strategic bombers historically was to devastate the opposing war effort, NOT to bomb troops (though that's effective too).
What's the problem?
HammerandSickle
Warlord
Sounds like instructions for a washing machine.
This fellow has the right idea. Give 'im a beer on the house!
binhthuy71
Emperor
For me, when CiIV did away with Fatal Bombardment, along with the ability to destroy tile improvements, it took the fun right out of Air Units, as well as much of the fun of Artillery and ships. I'm not a stickler for historical accuracy in Civ but, for Goodness' sake, the purpose of bombardment is to blow stuff up. Incoming ordnance does not pause and think "Oops! That's a road so I won't detonate." It just goes "Boom!" If the idea is to keep bombardment from being overpowered then nerf the damage.
Lexicus
Deity
Well, clearly. You couldn't in Civ IV, though.
Agree whole-heartedly. Civ III had a perfect bombardment system. Obviously the combat in Civ V is vastly superior to the combat in Civ IV (even if the AI does suck more at it, if it were even possible) but I still like the Civ III bombardment system the most
This is true, but you also have to keep in mind that CiV massively massively under-represents the effect of the industrial revolution (necessarily, for balance). In history, this is the effect that counterbalances the effects of bombing. Accurately representing the economic side of bombing presents far-reaching problems.
To a lesser extent, the fact that units repair without any economic cost contributes to the problem as well.
binhthuy71
Emperor
Nice observation. Modelling the effects of the industrial revolution in detail would probably require a game unto itself. The same can be said for the Protestant Reformation and the discovery and exploitation of the New World. Old timers will recall a game titled "Machiavelli" whose sole purpose was to model trade during the Renaissance.
You would need 1/4 infinite aluminum.
Nah, he can just stack 'em all as Guided Missiles, ad infinitum.
I'm not sure what you mean by counterbalance. World War 2 hit Europe so hard that it took massive overseas capital investments to recover from the devastation, and that it catapulted the United States from a reasonably powerful nation (a status it had achieved in the wake of WW1) to a superpower simply because the United States had not been bombed out. This was achieved largely due to strategic bombing.
If anything, industrialization exacerbates the impact of strategic bombing by creating strategic targets. In a feudal/medieval economy, production of things like bows is decentralized; you can target an individual bowyer but the impact will be minimal. In an industrial economy, tanks are produced at gigantic factory facilities. Bomb that factory and production will be massively set back.
So why doesn't civ v allow for strategic bombing on resources such as oil or aluminum?
