Artillery too powerful?

[Frodo_05]

Hello,

I believe Artillery is too powerful, as you can bombard enemy troops until destruction. In regular CIV4 there is a cap on how much damage you can apply by bombardement, but in RTW you can destroy everything if you have enough big guns. A dozen of artillery units will even utterly destroy the Maginot line, making it utterly pointless. While of course if you attack it you will be creamed by it.

While I like the possibility to "field bombard" in this scenario, having no damage cap is way too powerful IMO. Can we PLEASE apply the bombardement cap here as well?

Regards, Frodo_05

 

[vidimce]

I agree. 75 % cap sounds good.

 

[Chip56]

I would say shoot them down to 60% in cities/forts, 50% in woods/hills and 30% on open field.
If thats possible.

 

[Dale]

I've tweaked artillery bombardment. They can still kill, but much weaker.

 

[nemt]

Artillery was one of the most effective and deadly types of weaponry in both World Wars, and pretty much every war since then.

 

[Bombardment]

The ai don't know how to handle the bombardment except reducing the defense. But since BtS it knows how to raid cities with artillery spam and to use it as tank killer.

 

[PinkPallin]

Hey! Your first post, your name is Bombardment, and you talk about artilllery....

(I know, it's a useless post, but it was beyond my control)

 

[N35t0r]

Except for the russians (due mainly to their lack of skilled NCO's), artillery amounted for over 50% of casualties inflicted, and even in the case of russia it was still over 40%, so limiting arty damage to no less than 25% would be a Good Thing. Also, if possible, terrain modifying this cap would be very woo indeed. Something like open field -5%, hills +5%, forests +10% and cities a non-cumulative +25% (effectively capping bombard damage in cities to 50%).

Also, bombing damage is currently capped at 50%, if it could be changed to 40% + defending unit's fortify bonus (so 40%-65%), it'd be a bit more realistic, but I fear it's not that easy to implement...

Also, I'm feeling that infantry should get a small (say, 25%) native city combat bonus, and tanks either a penalty or no access to the city raider line of promos (or both)

 

[Bombardment]

Also, I'm feeling that infantry should get a small (say, 25%) native city combat bonus, and tanks either a penalty or no access to the city raider line of promos (or both)

This would make tanks useless, you could only use them if the ai is stupid enough to send a single tank or infantry outside of a city. Quit expensive pillage interceptor unit .

 

[kuldiin]

Artillery has really been annoying me lately since BTS.

I stack 20-30 units defending in a city, the AI comes along with a crazy amount of artillery and its boom boom boom boom until they as good as walk into my city.

Ive tried filling cities with Machine guns, tanks, Infantry, and these units are at level 6 straight out of my capital! lol

 

[Tboy]

Except for the russians (due mainly to their lack of skilled NCO's), artillery amounted for over 50% of casualties inflicted, and even in the case of russia it was still over 40%, so limiting arty damage to no less than 25% would be a Good Thing. Also, if possible, terrain modifying this cap would be very woo indeed. Something like open field -5%, hills +5%, forests +10% and cities a non-cumulative +25% (effectively capping bombard damage in cities to 50%).

Also, bombing damage is currently capped at 50%, if it could be changed to 40% + defending unit's fortify bonus (so 40%-65%), it'd be a bit more realistic, but I fear it's not that easy to implement...

Also, I'm feeling that infantry should get a small (say, 25%) native city combat bonus, and tanks either a penalty or no access to the city raider line of promos (or both)

While some of those ideas do make sense, it over-complicates the game, and confuses newcomers. Remember, this scenario is meant to be a fun game that simulates WWII, not a perfect historical simulation.

I reckon artillery is pretty good as it is - quite powerful in bombardment, but requires support.

 

[vidimce]

I suggest for the artilery to be more expensive to build. That way it will somewhat reduce the number of artilery for both yourself and the AI.

 

[Ghandi Khan]

I didn't know that. I've been playing the scenario and up to this point artillery seemed pretty pointless since tanks are stronger and faster and air and naval power is a much better way of reducing enemy fortifications. If I had known, getting through the Maginot line would have been easier, but I still did it just used bombers to reduce them to 50% then threw a bunch of tanks at them until I got through.

 

[Tboy]

Yes, but bombers can be intercepted on their runs, whereas artillery cannot. Still, a good airforce is usually superior to artillery.

 

[krille]

Personally, I think bombardment damage should decrease with decreased target HP. Damage should be relative to the target's current HP. Let's say, for the sake of example, we want the bombardment to cause (a maximum) of 10% damage. Then if the target has 100HP (full health) it will lose up to 10HP (maybe less, but never more). But, if the target has 30HP it will lose a maximum of 3HP (maybe less, but never more).

This is somewhat realistic, as a high density of enemy forces in a target area will suffer more casualties (in absolute numbers) than a smaller force would.

 

[obliterate]

What about reducing the strength of artillery from 15 to 5 . I think that'd be a better way rather than reducing bombardment.


Dale, when are you going to give Australia unique units?

 

[Dale]

You know how many times I've considered that? Heaps! Though there ain't too many models for our stuff.

 

[obliterate]

You know how many times I've considered that? Heaps! Though there ain't too many models for our stuff.

I think I remember seeing some somewhere. Could've been you mod. Anyway all you need to do is change the name and add 20 to them.

Have you ever thought of having ships named? For instance Australia's first ship could be HMAS Sydney (or something), and the next one HMAS Victoria. And if HMAS Sydney gets sunk the next one you build will be HMAS Sydney to replace it. Just a thought.

 

[westamastaflash]

Nothing compares to a boatload of fighters though... I'm in 1939 with the Turks, and I've conquered the Middle East, the Balkans, Italy, and most all of Italian Africa. 30 fighters kill anything defending a city. Granted, I'm playing on Noble (nice I was turkey..), but fighters kill much more effectively than artillery (but my army basically consists of artillery and fighters, since artillery nets you a Str 15, Move 2 unit for less hammers than Str 5 infantry!) Stacks of AI units go boom....