Bombardment in 1.17f

[simwiz2]

"As I said in another thread: I would like to be asked what I want to bombard. It shouldn`t mean that I`ll hit that, be should give me better odds at hitting what I want to hit."

Thats a great idea. Its always frustrating to be bombarding a capital far from the frontlines with ships and hit only units, while the arty at the front hits only improvements (the ships in this case are supposed to decimate capitals production, the arty are to damage troops) I think all units should have a preference, or "aim", where you can choose to aim at either units, pop, or buildings (not getting to choose specific building/unit) Then radar artillery, and artillery when firing at adjacent squares, should get a sort of precision bombing option when improvements are selected to choose which one, and their "aim" (choice between pop/unit/buildings) should be 100% accurate. This is because missiles from radar artillery are guided, and should be accurate at full range, and WW1 artillery was accurate at close range IIRC.

 

[dowski]

Well, I don't know what to think about now after reading this thread. In my current game, I have just about given up on bombarding with *any* unit. Gladly, I didn't even bother with catapults or cannon. But now, I am in the modern era, and my bombers and artillery are practically useless against cities defended by riflemen.

For example, I have 4 vet bombers making runs every turn against a single city. It is not uncommon for only 1 of the 4 bombers to actually do *any* damage. More often then not they seem to kill citizens.

I have also had a heck of a time destroying some improvements. I had an elite ironlclad trying to knock off a road in a mountain. after 7-8 turns, i gave up! the ironclad was not at full health, but I didn't think that made a difference.

anyhow, i'm glad that at least i'm not crazy, noticing all of this messed up bombarding units stuff.

combine this with the unified research-trading action of the AI, and I'm switching back to the 1.16 patch (the one that works with Win2k, not the botched attempt).

dowski

note: why can't they have people from these forums playtest these patches???

 

[Zachriel]

Originally posted by dowski
For example, I have 4 vet bombers making runs every turn against a single city. It is not uncommon for only 1 of the 4 bombers to actually do *any* damage. More often then not they seem to kill citizens.

Four bombers? Try 20 or so.

 

[Ironikinit]

Yeah, four bombers isn't jack. And that brings us to a problem: successfully using bombard requires a lot of units and therefore can be tedious. Stacked movement helps there, but further group commands such as wait, fortify, and skip would help more.

 

[Zouave]

Originally posted by Ironikinit
Yeah, four bombers isn't jack. And that brings us to a problem: successfully using bombard requires a lot of units and therefore can be tedious. Stacked movement helps there, but further group commands such as wait, fortify, and skip would help more.

EXACTLY!

Even by pressing 'B' we still have utter TEDIUM in bombardment, especially with almost useless catapults and cannon (unless you edited up their values as I did).

We need a STACK BOMBARDMENT function patched in. All bombardment units in a stack fire at the same time and cause all their damage (if any) immediately.

 

[jimmytrick]

TWENTY BOMBERS!

I am having a hard time understanding the opposing POV. If anyone thinks its okay to have to use 20 bombers or 15 artillery to do some serious damage they clearly have a screw loose.

Can someone comtemplate the damage 20 bombers worth of tanks would do to a city?

My God, are you folks unable to see that the units need to have some sort of balance.

Artillery and bombers should be the most powerful destructive forces on the battlefield as they are and were in real life. Tanks have punch but its their mobility that makes them shine. Infantry is the best defense in all but the most open terrain. In real life.

In Civ3 things are plainly out of whack.

One cannon represents a lot of cannon. It is a strategic abstract. You should assume that an infantry unit includes some artillery support factored into its values. An artillery unit represents massed cannon, two should be a powerful force to be feared, and a stack of five the Angry Fist of God!

I think what is happening here is a total ignorance of the impact artillery and bombing support has had in combat over the years.

The disparity between Federal and Southern artillery, especially in the early years of the war, was a large reason that folks in my parts are singing the Star Spangled instead of a more pleasant tune.

The entire doctrine of the Red Army has and still does revolve around massed artillery. It was good enough to stop Hitler.

Since the Spitfires wrestled with Goring's Luftwaffe in the Battle of Britain, control of the skies has lead to victory on land, and yet we have bombers in this game who can't hit the ground and artillery that is even worse.

Unless I am missing something here the smallest chunk of time we are dealing with is one year. Going to my oft quoted example of eight cannon firing over eight turns and hitting only 15 times means that while they did manage to miss 77% of time about six years of eight. Six years.

And that is being too kind. I think the turn increments were probably 5 years so that was more like 30 years of pure ineffectiveness.

Silly. Lame and silly.

 

[Ironikinit]

Nobody knows just how big the units are supposed to be in Civ. The particulars have intentionally been left vague, to say the least. Is a legion 4000 guys? If a legion is as big as an actual Roman legion, then a player is likely to support a lot more legions than the historical Rome ever did. Not that it matters, the game isn't about recreating history closely.

If it helps sooth your frustrations, try thinking of artillery units as rather small compared to infantry and tanks.

 

[Lt. 'Killer' M.]

one fo the bhig problems with stacking hundreds of Bombers (and that`s what you end up with if you have a border 7 towns wide) is unit maintainence. They cost just hilarious amounts of money compared to Tanks and Modenr Armour if you take the actual damage into account. I`ve shifted to few Bombers to damage ships, someitmes cut roads and so on, and then use another 6 or so on one town after another. If I have the patience to do that for 5 or 6 turns, in 1.16 I can expect to knock most defender to 1 or 2 HP, since Improvements will be all knocked out (except in real monster cities).

Now with 1.17 the improvements live a lot longer, thus turning that into maybe a 20 turn wait - not worth the money!


Give me the chance to choose what to target, with a 70% chance that if I hit something, it`s the one I wanted, and it`s OK again! But well, Firaxis screwed up Precision Bombing.....

 

[Zouave]

Bombardment units in Civ III (especially the early ones) are too weak, unless you Edit them. And frigates did NOT have the firepower to destroy improvements. That is another crock.

But the Germans bombed the hell out of Leningrad in 1942 and it had very limited effect on the troops defending that city - too imprecise.

 

[Zachriel]

Here is a typical stack in the early Industrial Age. It includes 8 cannon, 4 riflemen, 4 cavalry, and a cavalry army led by Ramses.
http://www.crowncity.net/civ3/Attack.htm

In the late Industrial Age with factories, having 20 bombers is certainly not out of the question. (Where did the hundreds come from? You don't need 20 in every city.) Typically, you can have an income of 100-500 per turn in the late Industrial Age, so supporting 20-30 bombers is well within reason. They are mobile, even across continents and very powerful.

Considering most players have 50-100 ground units, this is certainly not a "silly" ratio.

 

[Zachriel]

Originally posted by jimmytrick
TWENTY BOMBERS!
Can someone comtemplate the damage 20 bombers worth of tanks would do to a city?

Yes.

I think what is happening here is a total ignorance of the impact artillery and bombing support has had in combat over the years.

Thank you. Keep in mind that you are the one who has impotent cannon.

The entire doctrine of the Red Army has and still does revolve around massed artillery. It was good enough to stop Hitler.

Thank you for your specific use of the term "massed artillery." In game turns, the Germans had dozens of armored units, dozens of infantry. Certainly dozens of artillery would be appropriate to represent "massed artillery."

Unless I am missing something here the smallest chunk of time we are dealing with is one year. Silly. Lame and silly.

Oh, Silly. The time element is abstract, of course.

How many infantry and armor do you normally stack? And how many artillery would you consider appropriate for that stack?

Historically, the value of artillery has varied considerably. To Napoleon, cannon were paramount, and he used them in generous quantities. In WWI, despite their greater firepower, despite years of bombardment, despite the fact that they were massed in huge quantities to attack a single point on the line, the trenches refused to budge.

 

[Lt. 'Killer' M.]

Originally posted by Zachriel

In WWI, despite their greater firepower, despite years of bombardment, despite the fact that they were massed in huge quantities to attack a single point on the line, the trenches refused to budge.

because both sides used it, and because there was practically no countermeasure to machine guns. In civ, trying to run into Infantry (even seriously damaged) with unarmoured units (Cavalery, Infanrty, Riflemen) is way difficult, too

 

[Zachriel]

Originally posted by Killer
because both sides used it, and because there was practically no countermeasure to machine guns. In civ, trying to run into Infantry (even seriously damaged) with unarmoured units (Cavalery, Infanrty, Riflemen) is way difficult, too

That would be historical, then.

 

[Lt. 'Killer' M.]

Originally posted by Zachriel

That would be historical, then.

so I guess it wouldn`t really hurt to have a little more damage from Bombarding, after all? Since the fact that arty can`t kill, only damage would actually represent the WWi scenario pretty well???

 

[Zachriel]

Originally posted by Killer
so I guess it wouldn`t really hurt to have a little more damage from Bombarding, after all? Since the fact that arty can`t kill, only damage would actually represent the WWi scenario pretty well???

Artillery is plenty powerful as it is. (Not that I am against anyone modifying the values in the editor.)

 

[simwiz2]

it seems that one of artillery's problems is that you need so many of it to accomplish anything, it gets tedious pressing b 20 times. Currently it is inexpensive and weak, so i made it more expensive and stronger. Now an artillery unit really represents a mass of it, and it is less tedious.

 

[BillChin]

Originally posted by Zachriel


Artillery is plenty powerful as it is. (Not that I am against anyone modifying the values in the editor.)

I agree. Some players know how and when to use bombard units and some players clearly do not. Bombard is not the magic wand in every assault, but even in modest numbers they help in 80% of cases. Citing the other 20% does not eliminate the 80% of the time that bombard is useful. That includes catapults, cannons, artillery, bombers, and even fighters.

Times that bombard units are not very useful include cities on a hill and cities with weak garrisons with a population six or below. Catapult attack rating is 4 so defenders in a hill city will rarely be hit. However, most cities are not built on a hill. Ground troops often take heavy casualties storming a hill, but few complain about worthless swordsmen. Against weak garrisons (conscripts) there is little need to continuously bombard. Calvary stacks can roll over conscript riflemen and obsolete units such as Longbowmen and Knights have a decent chance.

There are plenty of players on every thread that want the game made easier, often much easier. I concede that some have valid points, others I see as whiners and ranters. Many players seem to get along with the values as is, and learn tactics to use their units effectively instead of making them into magic wands.

 

[Zachriel]

And nothing wrong with a massed cavalry charge either (depending on the position)!

 

[Ironikinit]

I think simwiz has a good idea with increasing bombard unit strength and also increasing cost. Cost should be bumped up a few percentage points more in comparison to strength perhaps to reflect the savings on upkeep.

In most wargames that I've played, artillery is expensive if not straight up available only in limited quantities. In Civ (not a wargame but a valid comparison) bombard units are cheap, but not awesomely powerful.

 

[Lt. 'Killer' M.]

Originally posted by simwiz2
it seems that one of artillery's problems is that you need so many of it to accomplish anything, it gets tedious pressing b 20 times. Currently it is inexpensive and weak, so i made it more expensive and stronger. Now an artillery unit really represents a mass of it, and it is less tedious.