1. We have added a Gift Upgrades feature that allows you to gift an account upgrade to another member, just in time for the holiday season. You can see the gift option when going to the Account Upgrades screen, or on any user profile screen.
    Dismiss Notice

Probability of successful bombardment

Discussion in 'Civ3 - Strategy & Tips' started by Mavtse, Jun 23, 2002.

  1. The Last Conformist

    The Last Conformist Irresistibly Attractive

    Aug 25, 2001
    Not on your side
    I've actually found a use for Catapults; I use them to soften up those high-defense troops the AI always sends with it's invasion forces. The UUs Legionary, Impi and Hoplite are particularly hard to take out when your offensive units are Swordsmen and Horsemen, but even ordinary spearmen can be pretty tough when moving on hills or mountains.

    (As Zouave'd said, this is of course a totally unhistorical use of Catapults.)

    Presumeably, you can use Cannon the same way against invading Riflemen. Knock 'em down to one HP and let your Cav mop up the survivors. Never really tried, tho' - perhaps the Cannon won't hit offen enough for it to work in practise.
  2. Axraxes

    Axraxes Chieftain

    Nov 1, 2001
    USA - Somewhere in the Midwest
    A thought on MirandaCore's last post regarding using tanks and only tanks. I guess if that strategy works for you, more power to you. It got me to thinking though, that historically, tanks have not been good units to attack cities with. They are great out in the open where they can maneuver and have line of sight on their targets.

    In cities, take WWII for example, they were often big, slow moving, easy targets for the enemy who had a gazillion places to hide in the mangled, bombed out ruins. Cities were taken by street to street fighting using infantry - tanks backed them up, but it would have been suicide to send in a battallion of tanks to take a city.

    In the old game, Panzer General, they were able to model this (somewhat) by using a feature called entrenchment. This entrenchment gave the defending unit a certain amount of added defense for the length of time it had been in the city. Basically, if the unit had a long time to "dig in" it was harder and harder to dig them out - especially using tanks to do it. The game basically forced you to use artillery, infantry, specialist units, and bombers to weaken the cities defenses before bringing in the tanks. Maybe I'm bringing in my experiences from playing that game into Civ3.

    It might be nice if Civ4 (there better be a Civ4!!!) could model something like this - of course, the entrenchment feature wouldn't carry over completely, since a spearmen whose been defending a city for 1,000 years would virtually be indestructible at that point I guess :)

    Perhaps a civ that is using units similar to yours should get a bonus for defending in certain sized cities (say above a population level of 10) against tanks. I know that already happens in general, but it would be a bonus above and beyond the normal one - specifically given when tanks attack. This would force the attacker to use Artillery, Bombers, Infantry, and Tanks, in a more historical fashion. (This does happen in a large city defended by Mechanized Infantry - almost impossible to take without softening up first).

    Anyway, I still prefer to fight using an army of units that help to balance each other out. I get angry (with myself) if I lose a unit and try to lower my chances of that happening as much as possible. To each their own though - that's why there is more than one way to play.

Share This Page