Splash Damage...

[aiya]

I think there should be a unit (artillery type) that can do splash damage.

Stacking units has it's advantages, but it should have disadvantages too. It is similar to formations. If you have a tight formation and a boulder from a catapult falls onto your formation/stack, then more damage should be done.

I'm glad that they took out the lose-one-lose-all in a stack, but at least give us the one-hit-damage-many option.

What do you think?

 

[Gnarlyhotep]

I disagree. The combat system is regimental scale, splash damage wouldn't be appropriate imo. One unit on the map represents a large amount of bodies, not just one person (or even one platoon).

Killing stacks at a time was one of the big drawbacks of Civ II. It allowed one unit to effectively control a swath of land.

Imagine trying to take that bottleneck...if you had a mass of units, and one other unit managed to (effectively) kill them all. Quite unbalancing.

Good idea, though.

 

[aiya]

Well, I didn't intend for the splash attack to affect every unit in the stack. If this can be done, it was run the same combat calculation for each unit, and decide which unit will be harmed and which wouldn't.

For example, lets say if you have 3 defenders and 2 attackers in a stack. This stack was hit by an enemy "splashing artillery". The result is that 1 attacker and 1 defender loses 1 hp, and the rest remained unharmed.

Having this splash effect will also discourage people from always forming one giant stack. So and instead, they will need to decide whether spreading out or stacking up will be the better strategy for that time.

I can immediately think of a new unit for this case... the flamer thrower infantry. I know that a unit can mean a group of soldiers, but when you mix a unit of archers with a unit of swordmen. A volley of flaming arrows into that stack can and will injure maybe 1/5 of the group of archers and maybe 1/4 of the swordmen.

 

[Buecephalus]

I agree with Aiya, just as one unit represents many troops, one artillery unit represents a battery of artillery. Therefore, some sort of sliding scale of damage could be introduced where all or most of a stack take some damage, maybe one of them taking a majority of the damage dealt. After all, the system is set up so that you cannot destroy ANY unit through bombardment, a significant and IMHO unrealistic change from Civ2. I'm not saying that artillery bombardments should always destroy, but never?
C'mon.



"do or do not, there is no try."

 

[Dillo]

I agree as well. A little realism wouldnt be bad.

 

[BigBirdZ28]

I agree with Gnarlyhotep. The way it is now is great.

 

[Mr Spice]

After all, the system is set up so that you cannot destroy ANY unit through bombardment, a significant and IMHO unrealistic change from Civ2.

I think artillery bombardment works fine the way it is, when it comes to land units. The idea of artillery whiping out an entire division of infatry is plainly absurd. This applies to air bombings as well.

The picture is a bit different when it comes to naval units, however. Cannons and airplanes are fully capable of sinking ships, and I think that this should be reflected in the game.

 

[Gnarlyhotep]

I still don't like the idea of artillery doing damage to more than one unit. I think they're plenty powerful already, adding this will only make them more powerful and unbalancing.

I have to agree with the point of planes vs ships. Planes should be able to sink ships on their own, without support.

Cruise missles need to be adjusted. They do splash damage, and will outright killa unit in a city (seen it myself But a movement of 2 per turn, and only over land is plain silly. I mean, they launch the things from battleships and subs for pete's sake.

 

[aiya]

I hope Firaxis is listening.

For ground based units, at least let the cruise missle do some splash since they are a one time deal.

For naval units, yes, I agree that we should be able to completely destroy these after several rounds of artillery and air strikes. Land units can hide underground, naval units are always out in the open.

And yes, grounding cruise missiles totally sucks!

 

[eyrei]

Cruise missiles do have a relatively short range, though I do agree it should be 'air' range not ground. If you could load these onto ships they would be far more useful, and more realistic.

 

[BigBirdZ28]

Originally posted by Mr Spice
The picture is a bit different when it comes to naval units, however. Cannons and airplanes are fully capable of sinking ships, and I think that this should be reflected in the game.

Agreed. Boats should be able to be sunk through bombard.

What do you guys think of the Cruise missile being the only bombard unit to take out mech ground units & naval units ? That way, marines will have a bit more use seeing as how cruise missiles cant decimate people.

 

[Jim]

I believe naval bombardments of land units does "splash damage". Not sure on on other naval units.

As for land units I am almost certain I have seen artillery do damage to more than one unit with a successful hit. Not 100% certain tho. I'll check on that though as I'm in the middle of wiping out the Japanese.:rocket3:



Yeap! I did a bombardment of two regular spearmen(3/3) with a battleship. One took two damage and the other took one damage.
Perhaps the bombardment is performed, damage computed then ssessed. So in this case the bombing did three points of damage, two to the one unit, since bombardments cannot kill a unit the third point of damage went to the second unit. If the units had been veteran or elite then only one unit would have taken three points of damage. I usually use artillery in groups of 3 or more maybe I saw the same type of thing with them.

 

[Galen Dietenger]

Good point Aiya, Splash damage from artillery(properly scaled) would be neither 'unrealistic overpowerd or 'unbalanced'. SMAC featured arterillery Splash damage and it didnt wreck AC at all!
Fact is artillery is less effective against units that are
-Fast moveing
-dug in (ie fortified)
-dispersed(in games terms wed see less units stacked per hex to simulate this)

Also a fact -tightly concentrated units would be MORE succeptable to artillery attacks-not less, or to put it more plainly, you should get a lot more bang for you buck bombarding 20 stacked units than attacking only 2. And no, artillery or bombing should not be be able to destroy ground units 100% either-that is realistic from both a gameplay and 'real world' angle

 

[jaguara]

Well, I am for splash damage from artillery attacks. But I like the way that artillery cannot kill a unit. Bombers should be able to sink ships, as should cruise missiles.

Regarding stacks...
1. There should be a limit to the number of units on a stack. Yes, this would create traffic jams in some cases...GOOD, thats the point. I should not be able to set up my 10 artillery, 2 mech inf and 5 modern armour on that one mountain square next to the enemy capital...
2. Artillery attacks should have a small chance of hitting multiple targets in the stack - the punishment for over-massing troops
3. I like the way that a standard attack from a standard unit will only kill one unit in the stack. This WAS unbalancing in the previous games.

Well, would it allow one unit to control an area...not really, even if backed by massive artillery and guarding a narrow pass - each of the attacking units cannot be destroyed - only damaged. He would need a strong defensive unit or two, massive artillery, and a few good offensive units to guard that pass...and that IS realistic. (I would serve you right for massing your units in a narrow pass...)

Jaguara