Combat Roles

[Txurce]

It was proven in WWII that bombers were not enough to kill cities. Bombers have the ability to turn the buildings themselves into ruins but as was proven in Stalingrad and Berlin among other places, if you have a determined enemy that wants to hold the city it doesn't matter how much you drop bombs on the city.

During operation Cobra, (Normandy break out), Bombers absolutely destroyed the German lines, as well as parts of the US lines. So they were very effective against individual units dug in. When they were accurate enough to get to them.

It was debated all through history if carpet and or fire bombing was simply a terrorist startegy to kill civilians and destroy production. (Production was simply moved to other hidden locations so it didn't really hurt that all that much either).

Aircraft should either kill tanks fairly easily or do nothing. 50/50 chance, (they were either on target or off). Perhaps make them invisible in trees and vulenearable in the open.

Tanks on the other hand were unstoppable unless you had some kind of anti tank capabilities. That is how they should play out in Civ. Infantry and Mech infantry should have to swarm tanks to kill them and should die in droves trying to stop them. Tanks should be very powerful!

IMHO Simply making tanks, (and the anti tank ability) much more powerfull should make them more viable to players.

If you ever saw the film Saving Private Ryan, the scene when the tanks are approaching and the ground is shaking and everyone is looking at one another wide eyed. Tanks are scary things. In Civ no one bothers to even build them. They need to be much more powerful, and an emphasis on Anti Tank boosted. Appropriately enough the tank is finally killed by a fighter as it tries to cross the bridge.

1. Bombers should kill population and buildings if used against cities, not effect the defendability of it.
2. Tanks should be all powerful, but vulnerable to anti tank ability.
3. Anti Tank should be a promotion choice all units of the era can take.
4. Fighters/Bombers should have anti tank abilities but somehow be inaccurate.
5. Modern Aircraft should be much more accurate.
6. Dedicated Anti Tank guns should be powerful vs. Tanks but useless against other types of units.
7. Anti Air Guns should be powerful against planes and bombers but useless against other types of units.

Again you could use promotions to make Anti Air good againsts tanks, (German 88). You could also make promotions to make Them good against infantry, (quad 50's).

You raise a lot of interesting points, some about realism, and others about game play. In RL enough bombers can redline infantry and kill tanks, but do not leave cities defenseless against a redlined scout (who seem to always take the strongest redlined cities). This approach would work in Civ 4, where cities were defended by stacks. Extrapolating to Civ 5, where only one unit can defend the city, the ideal would be for bombers to degrade the city defenses to redline, because augmentable "city defenses" can obviously be reduced to rubble. Bombers should have a harder time redlining the defending unit (if it's infantry). I don't think all of this can be accomplished with our present tools.

Going through your list, I agree that tanks should be more powerful, but disagree that:

* bombers can't degrade city defenses - otherwise the numbers are too high
* AT guns should be a ground-unit promotion, because it's too easily achieved

I also think that AT and AA guns should have some effectiveness vs melee, but strong "vs" bonuses.

Finally, keep in mind that fighters and bombers already have melee/armor promotions.

 

[Dunkah]

I don't think all of this can be accomplished with our present tools.

Going through your list, I agree that tanks should be more powerful, but disagree that:

* bombers can't degrade city defenses - otherwise the numbers are too high
* AT guns should be a ground-unit promotion, because it's too easily achieved

I also think that AT and AA guns should have some effectiveness vs melee, but strong "vs" bonuses.

Finally, keep in mind that fighters and bombers already have melee/armor promotions.

Alas, Yes it seems most of my suggestions are beyond the scope of what Civ mods can do.

I see your point about bombers needing to be able to do something to cities, just doesn't seem realistic. But if the bombers are going to in fact reduce defenses then they should also be reducing buildings and population to nothing. As well as the countryside surrounding it.

I would like to see an effect similiar to fallout where the city and surrounding countryside is made useless/ less effective for a time after bombing/ artillery/ battles take place.

AT promotions would represent infantry being issued, Bazookas or Panzer Faust/ Shreks, at the cost of not getting another promotion.

 

[Txurce]

I see your point about bombers needing to be able to do something to cities, just doesn't seem realistic. But if the bombers are going to in fact reduce defenses then they should also be reducing buildings and population to nothing. As well as the countryside surrounding it.

I would like to see an effect similiar to fallout where the city and surrounding countryside is made useless/ less effective for a time after bombing/ artillery/ battles take place.

AT promotions would represent infantry being issued, Bazookas or Panzer Faust/ Shreks, at the cost of not getting another promotion.

Bombers reducing population makes sense, although it can get tricky, since cities sometimes evacuate, meaning the population relocates to some degree.

Resistance time probably addresses your fallout suggestion!

I could see an AT promotion for Infantry that's a small boost - just not as much as what you were suggesting for AT guns (which can stop tanks cold).

 

[Dunkah]

I would love to see a massive refugee mechanic of some kind. That would be awesome! Where city population shifts massively from one city to the next as the wave pours over the borders causing massive food shortages in nearby cities. Another effect for Diplomacy as well. ("Your refugees are causing food shortages in my cities"/ "Your warmongering is causing food shortages in my cities due to refugees"). Some of those refugees could become resistance and appear as new units similiar to the effect of a captured city now.

When battles were fought over citys, whole countrysides were swept clean in some cases. Having a fallout/ battledamage mechanic would make larger battles effect more ground. Destroying crops and improvements over turns of fighting regardless of if the attacker wanted to pillage or not. So the victor would have to repair not only the city but the countryside itself. I imagine blackened hexes with craters and smoke, barbed wire, that would need to be cleared then another improvement built on top. Would make a great dynamic as far as fighting the battles in the enemies territory so yours doesn't get damaged. May also make human players less apt to adopt the "let the AI come to me so I can exploit and kill him tactics".

Early in WWII there was a nothing can kill anything dynamic where tanks were concerned. Guns were not powerfull enough to knock out enemy tanks. (Most had machine guns or 37mm guns on them). By the end of the war they figured it out and even the mighty Tigers/ ISU's were killed easily by 90mm high velocity guns, creating an anything can kill anything dynamic. I think that would easily be done by the use of promotions. During the Market Garden campaign German commander Von Der Hydte hid single soldiers with several Panzerfousts in fox holes through out the Allied advancing areas. They would wait for the Allied Tanks to drive by and pop. One less tank. Sometimes they would glog up road networks for hours.

Then think of the modern anti tank/ anti air weapons, capable of knocking out just about anything anywhere from a soldiers shoulder. It just gets worse. RPG's/ IED's taking out US helicopters, trucks, tanks etc.

 

[Txurce]

I would love to see a massive refugee mechanic of some kind. That would be awesome! Where city population shifts massively from one city to the next as the wave pours over the borders causing massive food shortages in nearby cities. Another effect for Diplomacy as well. ("Your refugees are causing food shortages in my cities"/ "Your warmongering is causing food shortages in my cities due to refugees"). Some of those refugees could become resistance and appear as new units similiar to the effect of a captured city now.

When battles were fought over citys, whole countrysides were swept clean in some cases. Having a fallout/ battledamage mechanic would make larger battles effect more ground. Destroying crops and improvements over turns of fighting regardless of if the attacker wanted to pillage or not. So the victor would have to repair not only the city but the countryside itself. I imagine blackened hexes with craters and smoke, barbed wire, that would need to be cleared then another improvement built on top. Would make a great dynamic as far as fighting the battles in the enemies territory so yours doesn't get damaged. May also make human players less apt to adopt the "let the AI come to me so I can exploit and kill him tactics".

Early in WWII there was a nothing can kill anything dynamic where tanks were concerned. Guns were not powerfull enough to knock out enemy tanks. (Most had machine guns or 37mm guns on them). By the end of the war they figured it out and even the mighty Tigers/ ISU's were killed easily by 90mm high velocity guns, creating an anything can kill anything dynamic. I think that would easily be done by the use of promotions. During the Market Garden campaign German commander Von Der Hydte hid single soldiers with several Panzerfousts in fox holes through out the Allied advancing areas. They would wait for the Allied Tanks to drive by and pop. One less tank. Sometimes they would glog up road networks for hours.

Then think of the modern anti tank/ anti air weapons, capable of knocking out just about anything anywhere from a soldiers shoulder. It just gets worse. RPG's/ IED's taking out US helicopters, trucks, tanks etc.

I would love a refugee situation along the lines of what you described.

I still think resistance results in an automatic process much like the "fallout" you describe, but wouldn't have a problem with repairs having to be performed manually as well.

The AT promotion is tricky in that, as you note, the situation tilted one way early in the war and the other by the end. Keeping in mind that the tank is ultimately replaced by Modern Armor, its window in Civ 5 is actually much bigger than in RL. The question is, at what point do you peg the strength of any AT promotion? I would say to base it solely on game play, since history will rationalize whatever choice we make. That's why I tilted toward a modest boost (keeping in mind we're not killing one tank but a multiple-tank "unit").

 

[Txurce]

Thal, could you explain the change to AT and AA guns? I'm more curious than critiquing.

It seems to be that they will do less damage to a city (good idea) but be much harder to kill (unnecessary) while being notably cheaper (AI spam potential). Why would we not lower their general value, but buff their "vs"bonus?

 

[Thalassicus]

Somewhere earlier in this thread I think we were discussing a buff for the AA gun as a way to reduce the power of bombers. I also realized I'd inconsistently changed units with vs-bonuses... anti-mounted units traded some vs-mounded for on-defense, but AA/AT guns didn't get the defense bonus. Tanks got buffed, so I figured a buff to AT-guns was appropriate too. It makes both units slightly more useful. If necessary I can buff tanks further later.

There's also the relationship of raw strength to average effective strength (with combat bonuses like a great general), and how it reduces the effect of additional bonuses. Overall the change between v9.7 and 9.9 for AA/AT guns is:

-10% average attack strength
+10% average defense strength

 

[Txurce]

Somewhere earlier in this thread I think we were discussing a buff for the AA gun as a way to reduce the power of bombers. I also realized I'd inconsistently changed units with vs-bonuses... anti-mounted units traded some vs-mounded for on-defense, but AA/AT guns didn't get the defense bonus.

Tanks got buffed, so I figured a buff to AT-guns was appropriate too. It makes both units slightly more useful. If necessary I can buff tanks further later on.

Got it, thanks. I'll be playing soon, so will keep an eye out for price-conscious spamming.

 

[Txurce]

Nobody's building pikes. They probably shouldn't be. Should we discuss how to give them more of a role? Maybe giving them a stronger "vs" bonus? I guess the real issue is that the AI wouldn't use them particularly well against a horse-heavy opponent...

...Although I have noticed them adding AA and SAM's to the mix when facing my planes!

 

[Txurce]

I continue to hate the "ignore borders" promotion. It's a cheap way to cut out a chunk of what little diplomacy there is in the game.

And as I've said elsewhere, the "ignore mountains" promotion ruins natural defenses and the mystery of the game. There's nothing wrong with having to wait for Optics to find out what's behind those mountains.

 

[bwoww78]

I continue to hate the "ignore borders" promotion. It's a cheap way to cut out a chunk of what little diplomacy there is in the game.

And as I've said elsewhere, the "ignore mountains" promotion ruins natural defenses and the mystery of the game. There's nothing wrong with having to wait for Optics to find out what's behind those mountains.

i have to agree. the last few games i've played smaller maps and it's particularly annoying the way the AI uses it as well. I had an Aztec scout on top of my coal resource for probably 30 turns before he decided to move. i was at the point of about to declare, but I didn't want to ruin a previous DoF.

I also agree with the RA as DoF nerf to like 1% (from 5%).

 

[Seek]

1. I continue to hate the "ignore borders" promotion. It's a cheap way to cut out a chunk of what little diplomacy there is in the game.

2. And as I've said elsewhere, the "ignore mountains" promotion ruins natural defenses and the mystery of the game. There's nothing wrong with having to wait for Optics to find out what's behind those mountains.

1. I played a hundred turns this morning and I have to agree. It's also unnecessary, since mutual open borders is almost always more profitable than selling OB, and most civs are more than happy to allow OB.

2. I didn't take that promotion with any units yet, but I'm very much inclined to agree here as well: The reason I love the Tectonics mapscript is the mountain chains and the diminished scouting options which result. Revealing the map is one of the most fun things about Civ, imo, and it should be drawn out as long as possible!

 

[Tomice]

Have to agree. I wouldn't want to give a final verdict about gameplay and balance aspects of the new "move everywhere" philosophy, but I just don't like it on an emotional basis.

 

[Dunkah]

Agreed for all the same reasons above.