Tile resources...bomb bomb bomb away!

[Disgustipated]

No. It wouldn't add more dynamic. It would ruin what already exists. Bombers are already the 2nd easiest way to win the endgame wars, apart from straight up nuking a city and waltzing a fast unit in there. They do NOT need more power.

This would make fighters actually have a use. I fail to see how this is a bad thing. Obviously they'd have to program the AI to actually use fighters.

I do not agree a game should be programmed to be inferior because the ai could not "handle it". This is what Civ5 is. It's an inferior game because the AI cannot handle 1 UPT and other features.

Look at the best Civilization themed TBS out there- SMAC. Yes the AI could not handle many features of the game (especially advanced terraforming), but having that many options made the game way cooler than Civ5 could ever hope to be.

 

[hobbsyoyo]

I think the nays have it on this one, for the same reason we can't have so many other features in this game--the AI wouldn't be able to handle it.

In MP games this would add new levels of strategy to the end game, force players to build more varied defensive units, and all the other stuff that people are mentioning in favor of allowing tile bombardment. But in single player, the AI would suck at defending its tiles just as badly as it sucks at defending its cities, making it all the more easy to dominate opponents militarily in the end game. There are all kinds of rules/stipulations you could add in to make it appear more equitable, but in the end you'll still have an AI that focuses all of its units in an attack on an unimportant city state ally across the map while you sweep through with a stack of stealth bombers and wipe out every aluminum, uranium, and oil improvement in his territory.

Besides which, with aluminum now required to build spaceship parts the ability to destroy mines from a continent away does indeed become overpowered.

There's also an in-game example for why tile improvement destruction would work massively in favor of the human players. Citadels. The AI sometimes uses them, but they still fail to pillage enemy citadels regularly.

I agree with your post, the AI could not handle tile improvement destruction. It stumbles over abilities it already has.

I for one think it's futile to blame the AI for not implementing a feature like this. It's like a double fail for the devs.

"We're not capable of designing a better AI than this, thus we can't implement feature X, Y and Z because it would be overpowered in the hands of the human player".

Back in the days, game designers used to have a certain level of pride in the work they did, and designing an AI that constantly was improved upon was considered an art by itself.

TLDR: If the AI really is the problem here, why not improve it? I mean, the game would only become better. Win win

(And I agree, the AI is bad, but better than vanilla. Lets pray for awesome-AI in the next expansion)

I get what you're saying, but this discussion has been about adding features for a game we already have, not a future game with better AI. Better AI would solve many problems and open up the ability of other abilities like tile improvement destruction. But we're not going to get better AI in a big way for the forseeable future.

 

[AriochIV]

Although to appease the commenter above you, perhaps they could have it so roads aren't pillaged, only the other improvements (although bombing bridges was a common practice in WW2).

Railroads were a very common target in WWII. For those worrying that it would be overpowered, it doesn't have to have a 100% chance of succes; there can be a variable chance of success (scaling with more advanced units), just like it was in Civ IV.

And I don't get why people are saying the AI couldn't handle it, since the AI handled it just fine in Civ IV, and it's almost exactly the same set of calculations in Civ V. 1UPT doesn't really complicate the issue... it's just a question of picking targets on offense and allocating workers on defense.

 

[Disgustipated]

Speaking of railroads, you could have it so bombardment only destroyed railroads, not roads (railroads would turn into roads). It's hard to effectively bomb a road so it's unusable (except for bridges of course- but that's another matter), but railroads can easily be broken by bombardment.

And like the above poster said, saying the AI cannot handle it is not a viable excuse. We want a game that's fun dammit. If we go with that argument, why even have bombers in the first place?

There's a reason SMAC is still held in such high regard 13 years after it was released (I still play it occasionally). The game gave the player a myriad of options. Sure the AI couldn't handle it, but it was fun. If need be, they can always make the AI get more bonuses to even things out. Give us back some choices to make in the game.

The designers said they wanted to take battles away from the cities, so give it to us.

 

[whyidie]

I hate it when my critical resource gets pillaged. Typically it'll be some damn barbarian that ignores other AI controlled assets and beelines for my iron or coal. Nothing as frustrating as having to devote a resource to a handle a barbarian or CS pillaging my resources when I've got a massive AI army to deal with.

Frustration aside, it felt "right" when it happened. It forced me to pull my troops forward to protect my other critical resources that could have been threatened by the attacking Civ. Oddly enough the attacking Civ doesn't put much priority on my resources.

If it had the effect of focusing battles on critical resources rather than just the city that works it, that would actually add a welcome element to warfare. As is every war seems like a rush to get to the city.

 

[Lord Kid]

I hate it when my critical resource gets pillaged. Typically it'll be some damn barbarian that ignores other AI controlled assets and beelines for my iron or coal. Nothing as frustrating as having to devote a resource to a handle a barbarian or CS pillaging my resources when I've got a massive AI army to deal with.

Frustration aside, it felt "right" when it happened. It forced me to pull my troops forward to protect my other critical resources that could have been threatened by the attacking Civ. Oddly enough the attacking Civ doesn't put much priority on my resources.

If it had the effect of focusing battles on critical resources rather than just the city that works it, that would actually add a welcome element to warfare. As is every war seems like a rush to get to the city.

That's what I've found as well. If I'm defending from a civ, I don't even bother with defending the resources, just the city. Barbs, though will rape your countryside blind. I've seen them completely ignore AI civilians just to take out my luxes.

 

[PibbZ]

Better AI would solve many problems and open up the ability of other abilities like tile improvement destruction. But we're not going to get better AI in a big way for the forseeable future.

Agreed, unfortunately

 

[Frdmlover]

That's what I've found as well. If I'm defending from a civ, I don't even bother with defending the resources, just the city. Barbs, though will rape your countryside blind. I've seen them completely ignore AI civilians just to take out my luxes.

Somethign for another thread I guess, but the barbs 8 out of 10 games will make me the target of their rage and smile and hold hands with othe civs as they pass through the woods in broad daylight. Very frustrating, esp. when you are at war.

Frdm