[GS] Questions about bombard type strength and anti air.

[NoOneCaresAboutTheName]

Is bombard type strength supposed to have a penalty versus naval units? The descriptions implies as much but my rocket artillery doesn’t suffer a penalty against enemy missile cruisers. Wondering if this is a bug or not.

Is anti-air strength supposed match up against an enemy aircraft’s melee strength or ranged/bombard strength for damage calculation? In game I see anti-air being compared against the ranged/bombard strength, though in the fandom wiki it says it’s supposed to be compared against the aircraft’s melee strength. Again, not sure if this is a bug or a feature. If it’s a feature, then Jet bombers are currently much better against naval units than the jet fighter, and land anti-air units are completely useless against non-damaged jets.

 

[Sostratus]

The civilopedia does a bad job at explaining some of the finer points of ranged vs bombard. Ranged attacks as in archers etc do less damage to ships and cities, bombard attacks from siege units do full damage to ships and cities, but less to land units.
Iirc it’s an inherent attribute of the unit class and not the actual attack action.
This is why something like a battleship APPEARS to be the best of both worlds- no penalties anywhere- but like archers, they suffer the -50% hidden wall resistance that “true” siege units don’t. (This resist doesn’t display in combat preview as a number.)

@Victoria would know more about Anti Air weirdness. I thought it was supposed to be using melee values.

 

[Galvatron]

Is bombard type strength supposed to have a penalty versus naval units?

This game has a thesaurus problem.

A few things aren't what they are. Bombard attacks aren't 'ranged' attacks. They're attacks. Made at range. Only ranged units make ranged attacks. Attacks made at range may or may not benefit from things that benefit ranged attacks.

This applies to 'melee' as well. There are 'melee' units and units that attack in melee.

If you find this confusing that's because it is. Take nothing for granite, and test everything out.

 

[Victoria]

would know more about Anti Air weirdness. I thought it was supposed to be using melee values.

not sure if this is a bug or a feature.

Is bombard type strength supposed to have a penalty versus naval units? The descriptions implies as much but my rocket artillery doesn’t suffer a penalty against enemy missile cruisers. Wondering if this is a bug or not.

Is anti-air strength supposed match up against an enemy aircraft’s melee strength or ranged/bombard strength for damage calculation? In game I see anti-air being compared against the ranged/bombard strength, though in the fandom wiki it says it’s supposed to be compared against the aircraft’s melee strength. Again, not sure if this is a bug or a feature. If it’s a feature, then Jet bombers are currently much better against naval units than the jet fighter, and land anti-air units are completely useless against non-damaged jets.

Bug, bombard strength should not be used for any defence but is.
The whole of air combat just stank from the beginning. I imagine because it was so late in the game and expensive it just was not tested well by a testing team. I really do not understand Firaxis testing procedures. I would be asking testing teams to test out certain mechanics individually for if it is working, usefulness, balance, enjoyment AND sanity.
It seems testing is more generic in approach. Since the early days many air issues have been ironed out but little bugs still exist and this is one. Before they upped air defence strength the bomber issue was not significantly so but as other things have become more correctly aligned this rears it’s head.
Bombers were useless against skinny naval boats while dive bomber and torpedoes by more fighter
Inked units were strong. This fighter promotion does make fighters strong against navy but bombers should be -17 regardless of the bombard strength which should also be fixed.

 

[Galvatron]

I really do not understand Firaxis testing procedures.

They test now?