Offshore bombardment too powerful.

[The Last Conformist]

Having recently got on Isabella's bad side, I was besieging Toledo. The city's fall was much speeded up by the arrival of a single of my Destroyers, that bombed the city's defense bonus to zero in a few turns.

This just doesn't make sense. How can one warship (or a flotilla, if we think a destroyer represents that) that doesn't even mount heavy guns completely negate the defensive advantage of a major industrial city?

I think there should be a limit to how much of a defensive bonus can be negated by offshore bombardment.

 

[Steve2000]

How many turns did it take you? I did the same thing in my game last night, and the destroyer was only taking off about 3-5% (IIRC) per turn (about the same as an ancient catapult!). It took me about 7 turns to reduce the city to 0% defense. I was cursing that it was taking too long, and wishing I could reach my bombers to the city!

 

[Ubiquitous]

I think a small armada of 5 inch gun equipped destroyers would certainly ruin the day of any city in defensive mode. Not to forget that most modern destroyers have accurate land attack missiles, such as the TLAM on American ships.

I think the destroyer is just as powerful as it should be.

 

[Mercade]

How many turns did it take you? I did the same thing in my game last night, and the destroyer was only taking off about 3-5% (IIRC) per turn (about the same as an ancient catapult!). It took me about 7 turns to reduce the city to 0% defense. I was cursing that it was taking too long, and wishing I could reach my bombers to the city!

A catapult takes 15%. On second thought, that could be including default promotion(s).

 

[The Last Conformist]

How many turns did it take you? I did the same thing in my game last night, and the destroyer was only taking off about 3-5% (IIRC) per turn (about the same as an ancient catapult!). It took me about 7 turns to reduce the city to 0% defense. I was cursing that it was taking too long, and wishing I could reach my bombers to the city!

I believe it took seven turns. Rather bearable, considering it took longer than that to ship a decent number of Infantry there.

@Ubiq: They could ruin a city's day, yes, but flatten it to the point of making it no easier to defend than open grassland? I much doubt it.

 

[warpstorm]

There's an awful lot of kinetic energy in a 5 inch shell. 7 years of pounding...

 

[CashToday]

I guess no one was in Beirut, when under battlships fire....

 

[Eigenvector]

Actually I would argue that 7 years of pounding by 5 inch shells would make it harder to invade the city - echos of Stalingrad and Berlin come to mind.

 

[The Duff Man]

I view the +% to defense as boosted moral, courage and resolve of the defenders. Bombardment (be it by catapult or destroyer) would reduce those bonuses.

 

[Luv_Muffin]

Actually I would argue that 7 years of pounding by 5 inch shells would make it harder to invade the city - echos of Stalingrad and Berlin come to mind.

No no no. You have it all wrong. Don't you remember in history class?
John Wayne led the US marines to take the beaches of Stalingrad from the Japanese. After the bitter struggle, they raised the flag of Iwo Jima over the battlefield, and started to look for the WMD's. Shortly afterwards, Canada dropped the enola gay on Berlin, and the war was over.

 

[microbe]

Why doesn't it make sense? Bombardment from warships is very powerful. It's why British dominated the world a couple of centuries ago.

 

[Anima Croatorum]

No no no. You have it all wrong. Don't you remember in history class?
John Wayne led the US marines to take the beaches of Stalingrad from the Japanese. After the bitter struggle, they raised the flag of Iwo Jima over the battlefield, and started to look for the WMD's. Shortly afterwards, Canada dropped the enola gay on Berlin, and the war was over.

And back ontopic: If you have issues with naval bombardment, just remember Zanzibar. As for the realistic abilities of a destroyer to destroy military bunkers... not really, but they can do hell on civilian targets. Might lower morale, or push it up, depends on mentality.

 

[DaveDash]

While warship bombardment is powerful, in a city situation it would not - in fact - eliminate defenses with its cannons. Rubble actually creates excellent defensive positions.

It's more the precision strikes from missiles that would negate defensive positions.

I guess you could consider the 'Shock and Awe' attack as an example of modern naval bombardment (combined with air bombardment).

Does bombardment remove 'Fortifaction' bonuses? Because if it doesn't then the defenders still get a 'dug in' defensive bonus, which makes sense.

 

[logical_psycho]

Usually those ships carry tomahawk missiles, you wouldn't want one of those to land on you.

 

[The Last Conformist]

Well, given that I had not discovered Rocketry at the time, I'd say they did not carry tomahawks.

IIUC, the defenders still get the fortification bonus, yes. But they get that on open land too.

 

[logical_psycho]

Maybe they carried tomahawks which were delivered by carrier pigeons.

 

[TSteamer]

No no no. You have it all wrong. Don't you remember in history class?
John Wayne led the US marines to take the beaches of Stalingrad from the Japanese. After the bitter struggle, they raised the flag of Iwo Jima over the battlefield, and started to look for the WMD's. Shortly afterwards, Canada dropped the enola gay on Berlin, and the war was over.

Over? Did you say over? Nothing is over until we decide it is! Was it over when the Germans Bombed Pearl Harbor?

-TSteamer

Bonus points for the folks who can name the movie that line is from...

 

[Luv_Muffin]

Animal house.

 

[TSteamer]

Animal house.

Well done. I love that movie. +100 bonus points for you. Feel free to spend them however you like!