Bombers are too powerful.

[Ridgelake]

The overpower of leathal land bombardment was shown admirably in the Scouting Sid succession game. The team was able to bomb its way into capturing the UN. And yes, they were well behind the AI in tech.

Lethal land bombardment is too powerful and should be removed. I can see sea bombarbment being reasonable and realistic. Lethal land is neither.

 

[dexters]

Bombing is not too powerful. Get AA.

I've seen a moderately AA defended city. (i believe 2 or 3 flak) take down 5 bombers in the same turn.

Players who like to play borderline exploitative games by having a stack of 100 artrillery or 100 bombers can certainly pull off highly lop sided attack results. For most of us, having an airforce is simply to augment our military.

In that sense, you can make anything overpowered. Arty has been the biggest thing for a while now. Bombers are just fine. leave it be. People who want to abuse a certain unit will always find some feature to do so.

 

[dexters]

Originally posted by Greyhawk1


Ah but you see I've already been at the sharp end in a Regent game as I've pointed out previously. I've been the victimiser and victim with Bombers here

In both situations the advent of Flight rendered the rest of the game moot. Whether I have it or the AI has it (even if they are less able to use them effectively) the result is the same in my book.

I have to ask myself "why is artillery - a unit supposed to be there to maim and destroy land units unable to wipe out a unit whereas a carpet bombing plane flying at 50,000ft can?" Especially when its been proven in every world war with Bombers in them that carpet bombing is pretty much ineffective against troops. Especially when they are dug in.

First of all, Civ3 is not a simulator. I stop reading an argument when people start trying to use logic and "real history" to justify the correction or removal of a feature. Any similarities to reality is an added bonus. Given some constraints of course. We certainly don't have flying Roman lergions, but the details of what these units can or cannot do should be left in the realm of game balance.

On that note, I disagree with your assesment. You've said yourself you've been victimized, so it sounds like the AI code isn't broken. If you don't like it because you lost cities or units, too bad. Air power IMHO has been expanded greatly in depth with their lethal capacity. Building an airforce was barely something I or the AI would do and any bombings on their part were a pure farce. They can get my units down to 1 hp but i'll just move them to a city with barracks to heal. The human gets the advantage. Lethal bombard in the higher difficulty levels can become a threat and you will be analized if you don't prepare countermeasures.

As I've noted, minimal anti air has worked wonders against bombers. Multiply that by a factor of 2 and add in fixed defenses such as SAM batteries or air superiority and a well prepared player can fend off an AI force without resorting to cheating, exploits or pulling out that stack of 100 artys. Conversely, the AI will also develop decent (not good, but decent) anti-air, and that's the way it ought to be.

 

[Sark6354201]

Lethal land bombardment was put in to provide more balance to the game. Without it, Air power isn't as large a factor as it should be, and even then you need a large force to really start slaughtering armies whole scale.

Modern armor loosing to a regular tank is a far greater historical/realism issue (as well as other examples) then bombers killing off units.

Without lethal bombardment you would never be able to fully model or represent a large scale war like WWII where air power was THE deciding factor.

 

[storealex]

I think the problem is that you can build unlimitted numbers of all units. As all ready suggested by some one, the amount of bombers you can build should depend on how many Airports you had, or something.

Also, recurses should deside how many units you could bouild. You got oil? Sure, you can have tanks, but if you have more oil, you can build more tanks.
________
Toys Tubes

 

[Greyhawk1]

Wahey - its good to know people dont read your posts. As I've also said I am on top in my current game and using Bombers as the AI used them against me. I've seen both sides of the coin and I dont like either of them.

I think its unbalanced (in my opinion). I dont mind people disagreeing, thats always going to be the case. Thankfully, its not a factor now since now know you can remove it in the editor anyway, which is what I'm going to do next time I play.

I only brought the history in to underline an existing point rather than to make a point in itself. I mean Civ isnt going all out for realism really is it...

I agree that, with an effective air defence, Bombers are really vulnerable. Its just that an effective air defence usually means the defender also has a tech level on a par with the aggressor and would probably have flight anyway. So bomb for bomb, both civs get badly mauled if they are the AI or the Human completely obliterates the AI since the Human is a gazillion times more effective at using them. (Hence the imbalance - to me at any rate).

I'm getting RSI in my fingers typing all this so I'll just shut up and open the editor

 

[Sarevok]

Bombers are fun

 

[player1 fanatic]

Lethal sea is counterbalanced with AA stat for some sea units.

On the other hand lethal AA is counterbalanced by flaks in cities (and monsterous defensive bonuses).

But land on open is death ground.
And that's true for artillery too, not just bomber use.

 

[Longasc]

I played on a while and levelled some Persian cities.

My observations, around 25 bombers are stationed there plus 7 fighters:

They have no Flak, but they still are hard to kill. First, the Bomber reduce defending units to 1 point, then they attack the next if they are not lucky and wipe them out instantely.

They might even miss.

What is much better now is the craters - strategic ressource bombarding really rocks, the Ottomans have no longer oil, funny to behold.


At this stage of the game I can say, I am so advanced and have numerical advantage that even Tanks could do the same. It would really not slow down my advance, I am already too powerful.

Finally, I do not think that Bombers are too unbalanced in unit killing. They tend to destroy improvements rather quickly, thats probably even worse for the AI. If you conquer the city afterwards, for you too - you then have a rebellious pile of rubble without any major improvements.


Still, MY SUGGESTION:

Prevent lethal bombing of land units in fortresses or cities. Think of them as bomb shelter. They may still be reduced to 1 HP however.

 

[bonscott]

Ok greyhawk, I see your point. You've seen both sides of the coin. I have too But it sounds like your games have been pretty one sided. I mean I don't see how you expect to have a successfull invasion against an AI that is in the modern era when you are stuck back with frigates and galleons. That game is probably a lost cause. And if you are so far ahead in tech that you can carpet bomb someone back to the stoneage then I'd say that game is over too.

My current Monarch game: 6 civs left. 4 of us are superpowers in the modern era. All of us have flight. We are in a world war, 3 a side. I went to war against the Spanish as soon as I saw then rolling out Flak like crazy. They have no oil, thus no air force, but the Flak they had already shot down a couple of my bombers. They will pay. Ottomans helping me also have bombers everywhere. It's slow going with the two of us against the Spanish 150 infranty and 65 gurilla.

Vikings are in league with the Spanish. So's I send over my fleet to their coast along with a carrier with 3 bombers and 1 fighter. After a couple turns of good attacks they whip out the bombers and sink 3 detstroyers. Luckily my carrier has a battleship and crusiser escort along with that 1 figher on air sup. Shot down 3 of 6 bomber attacking that stack. But I don't have enough. So I'm pulling back the fleet to just out of range and will build at least one more carrier, maybe two. Get at least 4-5 fighters on air sup on those carriers and I should be able to absorb his bombers long enough for me to bomb his resources away.

So it's all about your situation. If you are so far ahead or behind then it's obvious that you will win or lose most times. Lethal bombardment isn't helping or hurting you any more then you already are. But if you are on par/even with the AI which I have noticed at Monarch and above, then it's a fair fight and you must counter the AI as they will certainly counter you. Makes for a funner game in my book.

Good luck!

 

[Admiral_Tarton]

Yes, If CIV3 was supposed to copy RL bombers would pummel cities to dust, they would be completely destroyed.

 

[rychan]

Originally posted by dexters
First of all, Civ3 is not a simulator. I stop reading an argument when people start trying to use logic and "real history" to justify the correction or removal of a feature. Any similarities to reality is an added bonus.

I wholeheartedly disagree with that. I think that civ shows a real attention to history. Every game concept is given some basis in history. A delicate balance is made between having fun gameplay and identifiable history, tactics, and simulation even.

I never liked Alpha centauri. I couldn't figure out why, at first, but then I realized there's nothing to identify with. Who cares if your little buggy thing is now blue instead of green or has a bigger number beside it. On the other hand, if I get to wheel out a cannon on an opponent who's using catapults, I feel like the man. I think that the gameplay of civ would be extraordinarily uninteresting without the attention to history.

Likewise any time someone says "I wish you could do this really interesting thing that happened a lot in real history" I like to listen. I like to imagine that the game could be structured some how as to elegantly encompass all sorts of real life strategies without adding too much complexity. The balance should not be between realism and gameplay, it should be between complexity and gameplay.

 

[Oddible]

Nice discussion. I've always found Bombers to be an incredibly powerful unit and am very happy for the addition of Flak and Mobile SAM to the inventory. IMHO they compensate for the lethal bombardment, though the AI doesn't build nearly enough of them. It doesn't take too many turns for a city with 2 AA to reduce my bomber fleet - in fact, if I find a city has AA, I don't bomb it - I send in conventional troops (or better yet, air drop units to take out resources). Also, I guess I disagree that the 'bomber' unit in Civ is modelled after carbet bombing - I see it as more general - like most Civ units. In the WWII scenario you get a seperate unit for marauders, but not vanilla, so 'bomber' equals fighter bombers / dive bombers / carbet bombers - the whole class.

Maybe others play a different style than I, but I never go for domination, I usually struggle for a science, diplo or points victory. If a game gets so lopsided that I'm looking like the clear winner, I don't finish - boring. If I have a real, valid nemesis that I think can give me pause, then I'll stick around and fight. I don't pick on the little guys except to get their resources or to force them to peace - in fact, I give them free techs all the time so they don't get waxed by my enemies. I used to just build giant stacks of artillery or bombers and just obliterate my foes, but that just doesn't do it for me anymore, I prefer a more tactical style than brute force. Balance is one of the goals of my games and I play to try and keep it. (a jungle starting location can happen to anyone).

However, I like the following suggestions that have been brought up and repeated over and over (of course, much of this is probably modable, but vanilla is mostly so well balanced that once you start tweaking, you're involved in a perpetual balancing act).


1.) As soon as a civ discovers Flight, all other nations can build FLAK.

2.) no more lethal bombardements of any land units in shelters: cities with civil defense or fortresses

3.) do not let bombers deploy to cities without airports (helicopters ok)



As far as those who have sent in stacks of doom only to have them obliterated by AI bombers - why no AA?!?

 

[Civslayer4sure]

I think bombers are great as is. Without them, what would we do with jets? They suck at bombiing and would have nothing to protect against.

If your bombing cities to oblivion it's usually because your ahead in techs and very close to enemy borders. (small maps maybe)
Try a more competitive level that keeps you comparatively at equal techs and a larger map. Regent on large maybe.

 

[dexters]

One sided games can be used to prove any number of units is unbalanced and should be nerfed. I could make a claim that Cavalry needs to be weakened because if I'm no #1 and can produce 30 of these guys and steam roll a poor AI still stuck defending with Muskets, then it must be the fault of Cavalry.

I suggest playing at higher levels of difficulty.

Air power's lethal vs. sea and land makes for very interesting games when the AI and the human players are evenly matched and everyone is on the same level. You really have to watch out who you make enemies with and they bring in as an alliance partner. Bomber's range makes it difficult to judge if they can hit your cities or not. Usuaally, they can hit you somewhere and they will go for a pearl habour style attack.

If you have a city housing your navy, expect it to get hit if it is within bomber range.

 

[dexters]

Originally posted by rychan


I wholeheartedly disagree with that. I think that civ shows a real attention to history. Every game concept is given some basis in history. A delicate balance is made between having fun gameplay and identifiable history, tactics, and simulation even.

I respect your position, but the problem is, the developers don't see it at a simulator either, and this has generated a lot of false threads suggesting fixes that sound nice historically but would make the game into something else. Historical accuracy is not the point of this game. Yes, it drawns on history, but it doesn't simulate history nor does it want to or aim to.

Subtle but important differences.

 

[Bluemofia]

isnt Civ an alternate history game?

 

[Sark6354201]

1.) As soon as a civ discovers Flight, all other nations can build FLAK.

I'm sorry, but this is just a dumb idea. Are you saying that because Im in the tech lead that a nation just discovering rifles will be able to produce tons of flak to shoot down my planes? Or that backward nation that isnt even industrialized can build them?

Civ is not a historical simulation it is a historical representation that has to have game balance to make it enjoyable. If civ was completely historically accurate in more ways you wouldn't want to play the game. That's what happened with Call to Power, it got too realistic and a lot of times became frustrating (like telling nations to quit polluting.. which does nothing and then suffering because of them).

 

[Greyhawk1]

I have to say I didnt expect this level of interest in this

The thing with Civ, when I play at least, is that slim chance of a miracle comeback in an otherwise lost game. When you are down the tech ladder and struggling, the fun starts when you are trying to outfox the AI and survive their superior weaponry to end up winning. Those are games to remember and produce some amazing stories in that forum.

Even if the enemy has MA you can outwit them and hopefully stay out of a major combat by using guile and diplomacy. Then go on to steal whatever tech you can get your hands on!

But I think my morale would sink to abandoning the game if, for all my efforts, my units end up six-feet under and there is literally nothing at all I can do about it. Nothing whatsoever. Even if I try to cut off their Oil, a fleet wouldnt survive the journey. Now if Bombers hammer my units down to 1 hp I can do some tricksy stuff like move fresh units in while the others heal up to stave off the damage. If the unit is dead - well that kind of puts paid to that idea.

Abandoning a game is an anathema to me. I hate having to do it, I try to play them all to the bitter end. Conquests was the first time I abandoned a game half-way through, entirely due to Bombers.

To me, it was a bad decision. However it was a darn good decision to be able to disable it in the editor . I can now play Conquests and enjoy this otherwise excellent expansion.

Interesting discussion though...

 

[Aussie_Lurker]

Not having C3:C yet, I have only ONE question, can you designate SOME units as having lethal bombard, and some with non-lethal bombard? If so, then I don't think there is a problem at all! Simply make standard bombers non-lethal bombard, then have some kind of 'dive-bomber' unit which has lethal bombardment, but is perhaps more susceptible to anti-air attack! This way, you can use the former for strategic bombing runs, and the latter for tactical air support!
I do agree, though, that it should be hard to hit units, in a city, from the air-collateral damage (both human and improvements) should still be a major factor of land and air bombardment. Actually can someone clarify, for me, if bombing cities has a chance of hitting civilians or improvements in C3C

Yours,
The_Aussie_Lurker.