Ekmek
on steam: ekmek_e
dp - long delay
I'm surprised they haven't added ranged bombardment yet!
- Thread starter THARN
- Start date
SpiderMinky
Chieftain
What we really need is a game-within-a-game like in Master of Magic.
Now that is another microprose game I would love
to see an update for 
I still have the old DOS version of that and it is still fun to play even with the ancient graphics, imagine that with a diecent AI and newer graphics.
Back on topic it really is the counter battery fire that would be nessecary to ahve arty do long distance colateral damage, and I would take it a step further than the SMAC version as I recall that did not allow the arty doing the bombarding to be destroyed only damaged, if this is going to do colateral damage to everything in the square being bombarded then the counter battery fire needs to ahve a chance of destroying the bombarder.
Well actually this style of bombardment is in the Civ Defense mod (or is it civ survival?) that is part of the BTS content. And it is WAYYYYY to overpowered. It can attack units from like twenty tiles away (yes twenty, it's glitchy and easy to exploit) and if it does enough damage it kills the unit. Plus while it bombards the stack it also does tons of collateral damage so if you set up a bit of siege you can take out dozens of enemy units without even engaging in actual combat! (very easy to do)
Roland Johansen
Deity
Allowing counter bombardment would balance ranged bombardment a little, but it would still remain an unbalanced game element.
When 2 stacks meet one another and one has artillery type units, then this stack can weaken the other stack and mop up with normal units. So both stacks will employ artillery type units and a bombardment-counter bombardment battle will insue. But then the stack with the most artillery type units will win this bombardment fight and the normal units can again mop up the survivors of the other stack.
Now, the biggest stack wins is a normal thing in civilization IV (as long as both stacks have an equal level of technological development and are fairly balanced in the units that they've employed). So, the change to the biggest stack of artillery type units wins isn't necessarily that bad (although a bit more boring), but the biggest problem is that the winning stack will typically have very few losses. In most models bombardment and counter bombardment are not lethal and thus the surviving stack won't lose units during the bombardment phase. And during the mop up phase by normal units, the winning side will also not suffer losses as the weakened opposing units have very low chances of victory. So such a model would allow you to defeat a somewhat smaller stack of units without serious losses which would of course lead to an unbalanced model of war.
If the counter bombardment were lethal and thus a different form of bombardment than the original bombardment, then I think it would be fair that this counter bombardment would lead to a counter-counter bombardment and so on. So instead of normal units being able to defend and engage attacks by artillery type units (like it is now in civ4), only artillery type units would be able to do so and this would lead to an all out bombardment between both stacks. It would be smart for the attacker to first perform this all out bombardment phase and only afterwards add the normal units to the stack to mop up the survivors in the enemy stack. This way, they wouldn't be wounded by the bombardment between both stacks.
I just don't see how a combat model with ranged bombardment from artillery type units cannot degrade the combat model to 'who has the most artillery units' wins and wins with low losses.
The situation of ranged artillery bombardment isn't similar to ranged bombardment by bombers for various reasons. Bombers can be counter attacked by the fighters of various cities and thus the defence against this type of attack is pretty strong. Bombers also have no realistic chance to beat fighters.
Furthermore, you can only station 8 airplanes (4 without airport) in a city which disallows the situation where you create an airforce which can be used to overpower the enemy locally.
If a similar limitation were used to the number of artillery type units in a tile, then a ranged bombardment model with artillery type units might work. But it would still be more powerful than the bomber-fighter model since the attacks of artillery aren't countered in an equally lethal way.
About realism again: The WW1 situation was brought up as a situation where artillery was dominant on the battlefield. That is probably true for this war. It was the first war where it was possible to create a continuous front line without gaps because of conscription of huge parts of the densely populated European lands and because of the power of the machine gun which could easily repel attacks from larger forces. Therefore, faster units like cavalry couldn't flank the other sides positions to attack the artillery. Strong units that could power through the front line to attack the artillery positions (tanks) only arrived very late in this war and were not very efficient machines of war yet. New units that could circumvent the front line and attack the artillery positions directly (bombers) also weren't efficient enough to heavily bomb these artillery positions. It was also the war where artillery increased its range dramatically so that it didn't have to be close to the front line.
It is true, in this war, artillery was very well protected from a counterattack from flanking units, units that could power through the front line or units that could circumvent the front line. It was a unique situation which only lasted for a decade or so. Before that time cavalry could flank the positions and attack low range artillery (cannon like artillery) directly, after that time, tanks could power through the front line to directly attack the artillery and bombers could attack them from the air. I don't think we should base a combat model of Civilization on this unique situation.
Artillery wasn't immune to counter attack during most of human history and therefore I don't think that a combat model where you can bomb the enemy during your turn where the enemy cannot counter attack these units would be a realistic combat model. In a real time combat simulation, you also don't let your units sit through a bombardment without an attempt to take out the attacking artillery units.
My preferred model was already explained in post 3 of this same thread.
I also loved Master of Magic. A great game in many ways and probably a bit ahead of its time. Still, I think its combat model would be a bit too detailed for Civilization. It would start to take too much time in the industrial and modern age to fight all of those battles by hand. I like the depiction of war in this model, but I do think it should be an automatic fight scene with the option to speed up time in this fight scene or completely skip it to speed up the game.
The Master of Magic combat model also had far more variables with magic spells, healing and all kinds of special abilities of the units. It might get pretty boring fast with the simpler units of Civilization.
When 2 stacks meet one another and one has artillery type units, then this stack can weaken the other stack and mop up with normal units. So both stacks will employ artillery type units and a bombardment-counter bombardment battle will insue. But then the stack with the most artillery type units will win this bombardment fight and the normal units can again mop up the survivors of the other stack.
Now, the biggest stack wins is a normal thing in civilization IV (as long as both stacks have an equal level of technological development and are fairly balanced in the units that they've employed). So, the change to the biggest stack of artillery type units wins isn't necessarily that bad (although a bit more boring), but the biggest problem is that the winning stack will typically have very few losses. In most models bombardment and counter bombardment are not lethal and thus the surviving stack won't lose units during the bombardment phase. And during the mop up phase by normal units, the winning side will also not suffer losses as the weakened opposing units have very low chances of victory. So such a model would allow you to defeat a somewhat smaller stack of units without serious losses which would of course lead to an unbalanced model of war.
If the counter bombardment were lethal and thus a different form of bombardment than the original bombardment, then I think it would be fair that this counter bombardment would lead to a counter-counter bombardment and so on. So instead of normal units being able to defend and engage attacks by artillery type units (like it is now in civ4), only artillery type units would be able to do so and this would lead to an all out bombardment between both stacks. It would be smart for the attacker to first perform this all out bombardment phase and only afterwards add the normal units to the stack to mop up the survivors in the enemy stack. This way, they wouldn't be wounded by the bombardment between both stacks.
I just don't see how a combat model with ranged bombardment from artillery type units cannot degrade the combat model to 'who has the most artillery units' wins and wins with low losses.
The situation of ranged artillery bombardment isn't similar to ranged bombardment by bombers for various reasons. Bombers can be counter attacked by the fighters of various cities and thus the defence against this type of attack is pretty strong. Bombers also have no realistic chance to beat fighters.
Furthermore, you can only station 8 airplanes (4 without airport) in a city which disallows the situation where you create an airforce which can be used to overpower the enemy locally.
If a similar limitation were used to the number of artillery type units in a tile, then a ranged bombardment model with artillery type units might work. But it would still be more powerful than the bomber-fighter model since the attacks of artillery aren't countered in an equally lethal way.
About realism again: The WW1 situation was brought up as a situation where artillery was dominant on the battlefield. That is probably true for this war. It was the first war where it was possible to create a continuous front line without gaps because of conscription of huge parts of the densely populated European lands and because of the power of the machine gun which could easily repel attacks from larger forces. Therefore, faster units like cavalry couldn't flank the other sides positions to attack the artillery. Strong units that could power through the front line to attack the artillery positions (tanks) only arrived very late in this war and were not very efficient machines of war yet. New units that could circumvent the front line and attack the artillery positions directly (bombers) also weren't efficient enough to heavily bomb these artillery positions. It was also the war where artillery increased its range dramatically so that it didn't have to be close to the front line.
It is true, in this war, artillery was very well protected from a counterattack from flanking units, units that could power through the front line or units that could circumvent the front line. It was a unique situation which only lasted for a decade or so. Before that time cavalry could flank the positions and attack low range artillery (cannon like artillery) directly, after that time, tanks could power through the front line to directly attack the artillery and bombers could attack them from the air. I don't think we should base a combat model of Civilization on this unique situation.
Artillery wasn't immune to counter attack during most of human history and therefore I don't think that a combat model where you can bomb the enemy during your turn where the enemy cannot counter attack these units would be a realistic combat model. In a real time combat simulation, you also don't let your units sit through a bombardment without an attempt to take out the attacking artillery units.
My preferred model was already explained in post 3 of this same thread.
What we really need is a game-within-a-game like in Master of Magic.
I also loved Master of Magic. A great game in many ways and probably a bit ahead of its time. Still, I think its combat model would be a bit too detailed for Civilization. It would start to take too much time in the industrial and modern age to fight all of those battles by hand. I like the depiction of war in this model, but I do think it should be an automatic fight scene with the option to speed up time in this fight scene or completely skip it to speed up the game.
The Master of Magic combat model also had far more variables with magic spells, healing and all kinds of special abilities of the units. It might get pretty boring fast with the simpler units of Civilization.
Bino
Warlord
By logic counterbattery would mean; attacking arty do normally what already do, soften some units in the enemy stack, maybe dieing in the process...if attacker survives defense arty shoot at it? would be weak gameplaywise...shoot at the attacker stack as a whole? Too powerful...is not that easy...
Maybe a logical thing would be to have the attacking artillery wait a full turn doing nothing before being able to attack, let's say they are preparing the cannons...so to give defence a chance, if they had arty already in place, to have a shot. That would give artillery a good defensive value to have it in all your border cities.
Maybe a logical thing would be to have the attacking artillery wait a full turn doing nothing before being able to attack, let's say they are preparing the cannons...so to give defence a chance, if they had arty already in place, to have a shot. That would give artillery a good defensive value to have it in all your border cities.
lord_graywolfe
Wolfman
i think if two stacks met, one of 15 tres and 5 mace and the other 15 mace and 5 tres for example that the one with the most mace is going to win that fight. the bombardment will soften the other guy up but unless you have more troops to attack with you cant win. with the current bombard or ranged bombard its still about who has the most troops. the only real difference with the way it is now is that the ranged units are counted with the troops since they can attack and defend. i much prefer the ranged units to having no defense and be able to capture them. its also much more useful with ranged bombardment to have a ranged unit in your city to counter attack naval attacks
Vladesch
Warlord
Duelling artillery doesnt seem all that realistic either.
Its not like the artillery are just going to fight one another.
I think Civ3 style artillery was realistic, but whats needed is a way to take out the artillery directly, and for that you're probably looking at some type of precision bombing, or perhaps some type of covert operation.
Its not like the artillery are just going to fight one another.
I think Civ3 style artillery was realistic, but whats needed is a way to take out the artillery directly, and for that you're probably looking at some type of precision bombing, or perhaps some type of covert operation.
Soneji
Prince and Great Steward
I would at least like naval units to be able to pick off targets inland, mainly improvements tbh.
Say 3-5 square attack range inland. The prevention of this? Build a navy and go fight.
Naval bombardments were devastating, however they were not used soley for reducing city defences.
Say 3-5 square attack range inland. The prevention of this? Build a navy and go fight.
Naval bombardments were devastating, however they were not used soley for reducing city defences.
TommyTankRush
Chieftain
I think I know the solution. I've been thinking about it and this really would allow ranged bombardment without screwing the combat dynamics.
Does anyone recall the shells crisis of 1915?
... No? It forced the collapse of the Asquith government in Britain at the start of the first world war. Basically, we were unprepared and our munitions factories were not producing enough shells to feed the guns on the Western front.
The thing with those barrages was that they involved an extraordinary volume of ordnance being laid down over a huge area.
The game could allow for this by requiring that in order to range-attack your artillary units have to be supplied by munitions-trains (supplying - say - 3 bombardments each). These could only be produced in cities containg munitions factories. They would have a low range of movement to represent the need for supply lines to be maintained.
Ranged attacks could be nerfed by giving defenders the option of 'digging in' when fortified, so they take less damage.
Does anyone recall the shells crisis of 1915?
... No? It forced the collapse of the Asquith government in Britain at the start of the first world war. Basically, we were unprepared and our munitions factories were not producing enough shells to feed the guns on the Western front.The thing with those barrages was that they involved an extraordinary volume of ordnance being laid down over a huge area.
The game could allow for this by requiring that in order to range-attack your artillary units have to be supplied by munitions-trains (supplying - say - 3 bombardments each). These could only be produced in cities containg munitions factories. They would have a low range of movement to represent the need for supply lines to be maintained.
Ranged attacks could be nerfed by giving defenders the option of 'digging in' when fortified, so they take less damage.
I think I know the solution. I've been thinking about it and this really would allow ranged bombardment without screwing the combat dynamics.
Does anyone recall the shells crisis of 1915?
The thing with those barrages was that they involved an extraordinary volume of ordnance being laid down over a huge area.
The game could allow for this by requiring that in order to range-attack your artillary units have to be supplied by munitions-trains (supplying - say - 3 bombardments each). These could only be produced in cities containg munitions factories. They would have a low range of movement to represent the need for supply lines to be maintained.
Ranged attacks could be nerfed by giving defenders the option of 'digging in' when fortified, so they take less damage.
that is adding more complexity to the game...
onedreamer
Dragon
only to make it even more unbalancing and powerful though. At least in Civ3 an artillery unit could only weaken one unit per turn......
Roland Johansen
Deity
Now at least the artillery units can die. In civ3, I barely lost units when fighting the AI. In all the games of civ3 I played, I never ever lost a single piece of artillery to the AI and yes I played at deity (and later sid) level.
Yep, only way to lose one wasif you left it unguarded and an enemy captured it, but it was never destroyed.
Collateral damage being expanded in civ 4 more then makes up for the loss of bombardment.
Jperkinson
Warlord
- Joined
- Jan 14, 2005
- Messages
- 100
We already have this in BTS in the form of airships...They don't have a counter for quite some time! And I don't see them as particularly game breaking or exploitable.
TommyTankRush
Chieftain
... I know it would add complexity - but only to the extent of adding a new unit. My solution does not require any sort of radical new concept.
We already have units that can only be built in cities with 'x' building (missionaries and monasteries without state religion), and we already have cruise missiles which can be fired once from a ship. Why not have shells that can be fired three times from an artillary unit?
It is important that the game reflects the importance of artillary. I remember hearing somewhere that it brings dignity to what would otherwise be a vulgar brawl ..?
We already have units that can only be built in cities with 'x' building (missionaries and monasteries without state religion), and we already have cruise missiles which can be fired once from a ship. Why not have shells that can be fired three times from an artillary unit?
It is important that the game reflects the importance of artillary. I remember hearing somewhere that it brings dignity to what would otherwise be a vulgar brawl ..?
Roland Johansen
Deity
The airship has a damage limit of 30% (they can't bring a unit below 70% of maximum health) and you can only station 4 of them in a city. Even though these limitations exists, there are several threads with complaints about this unit and the fact that no counter unit exists for it.
THARN
Warlord
remember- for ranged bombardment- this is not considering catapults and trebs.. only arty with high explosive rounds.
consider history/ as soon as artillery became prevalent on the battlefield- the human race- came up with other weapons to counter it- (tank) better aircraft} for ground strikes. Even setting up defensive artillery. (How about having that for a city build)
its not an actual unit but something the city can do for defense-arty strikes.
I know that adding this seems complicated but- it would make for a more realistic approach and for strategy guru's I believe would make the game alot more fun.
consider history/ as soon as artillery became prevalent on the battlefield- the human race- came up with other weapons to counter it- (tank) better aircraft} for ground strikes. Even setting up defensive artillery. (How about having that for a city build)
its not an actual unit but something the city can do for defense-arty strikes.
I know that adding this seems complicated but- it would make for a more realistic approach and for strategy guru's I believe would make the game alot more fun.
SwordofStriker
Prince
Perhaps not with modern day warfare, but if you look a ways back in history you would see that "duelling artillery" as you put it were a fact of life. The American Civil War is just one example where it was commonplace.
