"your Stealth Bomber was destroyed by an enemy Pikeman"

I

ironoctopus

Chieftain
Joined
Feb 27, 2011
Messages
1
Ever since Civ introduced air power, this has bothered me. Even in Civ 4, when a Pikeman might randomly beat a tank 1/100 times, you could rationalize that maybe he was a very valiant Pikeman, who jumped on the tank, pried open the hatch, and went buck wild on the shocked driver.

But the Stealth Bomber operates at 30k feet, and used precision laser guided bombs to damage targets. Try as I might, I just can't see that Pikeman hurling his pike like a javelin and causing enough damage to bring it down, even if the bomber made a very low flyover.

I know you can rest the bombers and they recover, but why does everything have to suffer damage? If the AI can't get their act together, I should be able to smart bomb the everloving crap out of them with no damage to my fleet.

Agree?
 
I just read recently about the crazy amount of time planes are inspected and repaired (basically, they spend more time being inspected than flown). If it makes you feel better, just pretend the pikeman didn't actually do anything, the plane just needs routine maintenance.
 
I agree. Some say this is a "balance" thing, but if you are so technologically advanced over your enemy that you have air power and he does not, you should reap the full benefits of it.

If anything needs to be "balanced," it's the enemy's air force. As long as he has proper AA or an air force, there is no need for such silly scenarios as Pikemen causing damage to Stealth Bombers.

The only thing that might help you make this "believable" for yourself is to imagine the moderate damage from units that can't possibly hurt the aircraft as a form "maintenance" for your aircraft. Fly a mission, require maintenance for a bit. Fly another mission... etc.

/shrug

Edit: Damnit, Louis beat me to it.
 
ironoctopus said:
Ever since Civ introduced air power, this has bothered me. Even in Civ 4, when a Pikeman might randomly beat a tank 1/100 times, you could rationalize that maybe he was a very valiant Pikeman, who jumped on the tank, pried open the hatch, and went buck wild on the shocked driver.

But the Stealth Bomber operates at 30k feet, and used precision laser guided bombs to damage targets. Try as I might, I just can't see that Pikeman hurling his pike like a javelin and causing enough damage to bring it down, even if the bomber made a very low flyover.

I know you can rest the bombers and they recover, but why does everything have to suffer damage? If the AI can't get their act together, I should be able to smart bomb the everloving crap out of them with no damage to my fleet.

Agree?
Click to expand...


Very simple...
the slaughter of totally defenseless pikemen inspired rebels in your airforce to sabotage some planes
OR
because the pikemen were defenseless, bomber pilots went in unprepared and crashed.
 
ironoctopus said:
Ever since Civ introduced air power, this has bothered me. Even in Civ 4, when a Pikeman might randomly beat a tank 1/100 times, you could rationalize that maybe he was a very valiant Pikeman, who jumped on the tank, pried open the hatch, and went buck wild on the shocked driver.

But the Stealth Bomber operates at 30k feet, and used precision laser guided bombs to damage targets. Try as I might, I just can't see that Pikeman hurling his pike like a javelin and causing enough damage to bring it down, even if the bomber made a very low flyover.

I know you can rest the bombers and they recover, but why does everything have to suffer damage? If the AI can't get their act together, I should be able to smart bomb the everloving crap out of them with no damage to my fleet.

Agree?
Click to expand...
Then tack on the fact that it can take months or even years to repair the damage that pikeman caused... A man with a stick would have a hard time damaging a plane that badly if he were inside of it.
 
esemjay said:
Then tack on the fact that it can take months or even years to repair the damage that pikeman caused... A man with a stick would have a hard time damaging a plane that badly if he were inside of it.
Click to expand...

:lol:
 
I go with the mechanical breakdown/human error idea. An aircraft that crashes is just as destroyed as one that is shot down.

This goes with any machine-based unit. Soviet tanks in WW2 suffered heavy losses just driving to the battlefield and the German heavy tanks at Kursk also suffered terribly from mechanical breakdown.
Again during the Battle of the Bulge, many(most?) German tanks were abandoned due to lack of fuel rather than enemy fire.
 
Co-Pilot: "Woooow, look at this! This is one of these guys I saw in this '300' movie."

Pilot: "Aaaaaawesome. I just can't believe it. We are in the 20th century, mabe even the 21th. I can't tell. Where do guys like that come from? I need to see him a little bit closer. Noone is going to believe us"

Co-Pilot: "This is not close enough. Man, I MUST SEE that"

Pilot: "Yeah I know, what do you think I'm doing here? Hold on a second"

Co-Pilot: "Yeah, now we are talking! But Seargeant, that is enough. Lift the bird up again"

Pilot: "Sh*t, the machine doesn't respond. We are losing height too fast. We should have let the machine fully repaired, like I said before we started"

Co-Pilot: "Aaaaaaah"

Pilot: "Aaaaah"



end of story :king:
 
builer680 said:
I agree. Some say this is a "balance" thing, but if you are so technologically advanced over your enemy that you have air power and he does not, you should reap the full benefits of it.
Click to expand...

A stealth bomber can fly over vast distances, delivers heavy damage and can even avoid AA fire. Three stealth bombers can drop a decent modern city down to 1 HP in one turn with relatively low risk. I'd say you're reaping the full benefits of your investment.

Non-AA damage is maintenance. Walls/Castle/Military base improve aircraft healing rate so go nuts :)
 
Bibor said:
A stealth bomber can fly over vast distances, delivers heavy damage and can even avoid AA fire. Three stealth bombers can drop a decent modern city down to 1 HP in one turn with relatively low risk. I'd say you're reaping the full benefits of your investment.

Non-AA damage is maintenance. Walls/Castle/Military base improve aircraft healing rate so go nuts :)
Click to expand...

You and I have different definitions of the word "full," at least in this context.
 
Bibor said:
All air units follow these same mechanics. S. Bombers are worth their 800 hammers.
Click to expand...

I know they follow these mechanics you dimwit. I also know they're worth their costs. I just agree with the OP in that I don't believe they should take damage from ground units with no ability to hit them.

It's an imaginary workaround to just believe that it's maintenance. And it works well enough... but when the game tells you that "Your Stealth Bomber was destroyed by an enemy Pikeman," it's very jarring.

If they wanted the small amount of damage you take from every air mission to be thought of as maintenance, it would have been a simple thing to change the message to something like "Your Stealth Bomber has suffered damage/crashed due to insufficient maintenance (rest) between missions," instead of "was destroyed by an enemy who has no conceivable way of causing any damage to you."

I don't give a crap what you think. I THINK that aircraft should be able to run rampant over forces that have no air defense, and maintenance shouldn't be a concern. Turns have months/years between them, so you're never really doing missions right after another anyway.

The difference between me saying what I think, and you saying what you think, is that I don't get all up in your virtual grill and state stupidly obvious things like "this is how it works" and "they're worth their 800 hammers" as if they somehow support my argument and make you somehow wrong. We disagree, that's fine. But don't act like anyone who thinks otherwise is wrong, and presume that the way it is now is by defintion the "best way," or the only way it could be.

Moderator Action: You can disagree without being uncivil.
Please read the forum rules: http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=422889
 
Yeah, it's weird that a stealth bomber takes damage from a bombing run against pikemen when a bunch of archers can shoot them down at no risk. That's what makes it jarring IMO.
 
Anondod said:
Yeah, it's weird that a stealth bomber takes damage from a bombing run against pikemen when a bunch of archers can shoot them down at no risk. That's what makes it jarring IMO.
Click to expand...

That is true... you would think they would just make Aircraft use the same rules as regular ranged units when not being intercepted. (and allow cities to "intercept" when they are directly attacked... and let them intercept at a range with a Military Base)
 
It seems like before one of these patches, very advanced units would typically get away with destroying a very primitive unit without taking any damage. Now usually at least 1 damage is inflicted, even when it's something insane like mech infantry vs. a pikeman. Does anyone else have this recollection or is it just a happy fantasy of mine?

In any case, I like it better when 0 damage is common for extremely one-sided battles. I rarely see 0 damage battles, but I guess it's a matter of preference.
 
elthrasher said:
It seems like before one of these patches, very advanced units would typically get away with destroying a very primitive unit without taking any damage. Now usually at least 1 damage is inflicted, even when it's something insane like mech infantry vs. a pikeman. Does anyone else have this recollection or is it just a happy fantasy of mine?

In any case, I like it better when 0 damage is common for extremely one-sided battles. I rarely see 0 damage battles, but I guess it's a matter of preference.
Click to expand...

yeah, I complained about this some time ago. Hopefully they'll 'balance' the high CS vs. really old units at some point in the future.

OT:

I'm thinking air units really should be treated as ranged attacks; with the exception of interception and modern units that can shoot back. So anything from the modern era should shoot back but anything below that would just be treated like a normal ranged attack.
 
There seems to be a, "You always take at least one damage when you attack." rule. It does not make sense to me, but just know that you will always take at least one damage and don't use your stealth bombers when they are all beat up. Spend a turn or two resting them.

It always annoys me when the GDR or Advanced Armor takes one damage from rolling over insects!

I do not think air attacks should be treated as ranged since, until the advent of smart weapons, they actually had to get pretty close to hit anything. I just think there should be a much more realistic chance to take no damage if there is no real AA defense present.
 
MadDjinn said:
yeah, I complained about this some time ago. Hopefully they'll 'balance' the high CS vs. really old units at some point in the future.

OT:

I'm thinking air units really should be treated as ranged attacks; with the exception of interception and modern units that can shoot back. So anything from the modern era should shoot back but anything below that would just be treated like a normal ranged attack.
Click to expand...

Actually I disagree, Modern units shouldn't do damage to the Air units unless they have interception. Interception/AA should be the Only way air units take damage.
 
Krikkitone said:
Actually I disagree, Modern units shouldn't do damage to the Air units unless they have interception. Interception/AA should be the Only way air units take damage.
Click to expand...

Agree. The only exception to this would be helicopters, as they fly at a very low altitude compared to fixed-wing aircraft.

I suspect that this rule may have been implemented to slow the inevitable and crushing defeat you will inflict on the AI.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

need my speed
Wrath of the AI
Replies
7
Views
3K
Quintillus
Quintillus
Back
Top Bottom