some questions and thoughts

[aalibey]

why is it that default rules do not permit any unit with bombard ability to have lethal sea or land bombardment. Is it not unrealistic and frustrating? Sometimes I really shout in anger and want to have a serious chat with civ3 designers. In my opinion that makes air power and artillery useless in game.

Civilopedia says that F15 and Jet Fighter have radar ability, so that they see two squares. However if you check civ3mod.bic in 1.29f it is simply not checked. What does it mean? Do they have that ability or not?

I will also appreciate some thoughts about custom units. Some of them really look nice and you want to have them in your game. But does AI use them as "intended"? eg. you have mech infantry A/D/M 12/18/2 cost shields 110. now you add humvee (nice unit must have) 10/16/3 with blitz, cost 100. Does AI now build only humvee?

 

[sabo]

as far as your first question you can change artillery and ships to lethal bombardment in the editor,

as far as your second question you'd rpobalbay get a better response in the creation and cusomaztion thread

 

[Willem]

I think most people would agree that having Artillery destroy an entire brigade, which is what one unit represents more or less, would be unrealistic. Bombardment has always been used to soften up troops, so that the the infantry etc. will suffer less casualities when they finally move in. If you don't like it that way, you can go into the editor and change it.

 

[Padma]

aalibey,

while you are correct that a given artillery piece can effectively destroy a given non-artillery piece (bomber sinks ship, cannon kills warrior), if you look at the situation closely, it is very rare for a unit (battary, squadron, whatever) to actually destroy an opposing unit (regiment, fleet, etc.) They do render them virtually ineffective on the battlefield (1 HP left in game terms).

The other side of the coin is game play. They decided the game was more balanced and playable if bombardment was not lethal, never mind "historical accuracy".

 

[aalibey]

I must agree with previous posts, however in game play, is it not frustrating to have your bombers (many of them) attack enemy unit (units) deep in their territory, only to have those same units regenerate to full health a couple of turns later?

So your thoughts, lethal bombardment or not (at least for air power)?

 

[Padma]

Yes, it can be very frustrating.

But, think about it. When is the last time that air power alone really made any difference to enemy ground units? Even in Kosovo, often touted as the showpice for the supremacy of Air Power, air power was almost ineffectual against units on the ground.

Air power against infrastructure is great. Air power against ground units without backup of friendly ground units is worthless. Real Life as well as in game terms.

 

[Willem]

You just have to time it properly, just like they do it in real life. Have your ground troops etc. waiting to go in while the Artillery is doing it's thing. When you figure the enemy is softened up enough, send them in before they have a chance to recuperate. It's not complicated. You'll find you'll need a lot less units if you use bombardment effectively.

 

[DaDoo]

I thinK I know where you are coming from. I think firaxis purposely made artillary the way they are so that they aren't being used as stand-alone unit wreaking havoc like in civ2. Now artillary is strictly a support unit like how it should be.