If you bomb from the sea, it doesn't kill population, if you bomb from land, it does

[Tenochtitlan]

I noticed that it is not the nature of the attacking unit that decides whether or not the city takes a population hit (unwalled), but from where you attack it . From the sea no population lost, from the land, population lost. Try bombing a city from the sea, it will stay the same, try bombing the same city with the same bomber from the land and watch it go down.

 

[Dack]

Post some before and after screen shots, and some map & sve files.

 

[Agent327]

I noticed that it is not the nature of the attacking unit that decides whether or not the city takes a population hit (unwalled), but from where you attack it . From the sea no population lost, from the land, population lost. Try bombing a city from the sea, it will stay the same, try bombing the same city with the same bomber from the land and watch it go down.

Nuking at sea also doesn't give pollution, but kills any enemy fleet.

 

[Tenochtitlan]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1YvFVs3XqdE

I took a vid capture

I'll upload an example sve\map, but it doesn't matter, it works in every game with bombers

 

[Tenochtitlan]

Nuking at sea also doesn't give pollution, but kills any enemy fleet.

Yeah the sea nuke is a well established and well known fact, as seas don't take pollution, but I'm not referring to that happening in this thread.

 

[Agent327]

You tell 'em, boy!

Nuking at sea also doesn't give pollution, but kills any enemy fleet.

And it didn't get fixed in Civ2 either...

 

[Valen]

Nuking an enemy fleet adjacent to shore does pollute the shore though. (And kills anybody standing there.)

 

[Valen]

I had never noticed this with bombers before. I see bombers in a new light now. This gives you flexibility to choose whether you want to preserve popuation to capture a large city or simply destroy it if you don't think it will be defensible.