Bombard Range of Zero?

[Andrew_Jay]

Any ideas as to what a bombard range of zero does? Would it count regular attacks (i.e. moving a unit on top of another) as both a bombard and a bombard defense (like what artillery and the such does now)?
I was wondering if this would be a way to make battles that aren't resolved with a vistory and a dead unit in one turn.
e.g. move infantry onto infantry, they bombard each other, attacker loses 2 hp, defender one, they both go back to where they were and wait for the next round.

Or (probably more likely) should such an idea go into HazieDaVampire's list of things not to do?

[miccofl]

Why don’t you try it and see? The worst it will do is crash the game. Don’t give the unit a tech requirement, give it a movement rate of 20, give one to yourself at the start and go hunting. Although I should point out that this idea seems to be a bit like pointing the cannons straight up!

[Ed O'War]

I believe that an artillery unit with a bombardment range of one will only do defensive bombardment when it is stacked with another unit and is attacked. A zero-range bombardment unit might be good for something like an anti-tank gun unit, as such weapons are usually deployed in a defensive role anyways.

[Willem]

Originally posted by Andrew_Jay

Any ideas as to what a bombard range of zero does?

It gives the unit a free shot against enemy units that attack it, taking off one hit point if successful.

[Level]

It also lets you bombard the tile it is standing on destroing the improvements.

[Willem]

Isn't that called Pillaging?

[miccofl]

No. Pillaging is more accurate.

[W.I.N.T.E.R]

Why not make elite troops with the bombardment range of 0. I am also thinking modern rapid response units (Humvee) that are suposed to cover ground troops in the field: A first shot (and Zone of Control) against atacking units would be great

[W.I.N.T.E.R]

give this ability to modern ground support units, as in rapid response force (i.e. Humvee). It will not give the unit any attack advantage, yet simulate the difference between soft target and hard target units: U hit a soldier=he is dead/wounded/U missed.
U hit a Humvee= It gets the advantage for being fast, armored, etc = better defensive capability will result in the vehicle returning fire !!

[Willem]

Originally posted by W.I.N.T.E.R
Why not make elite troops with the bombardment range of 0.

Sorry, it can't be done, at least not without a program rewrite by Firaxis, which is probably unlikely at this point. That data is assigned to the unit as a whole, not just it's current status.

[W.I.N.T.E.R]

True, but would have been a nice thought... nevertheless a unit (as a whole) with such capabilities will surely be of use for escorting units in the field.

[Willem]

Yes, I've given it to a few of my units, Archers etc. in particular, and I like it. Though it doesn't really do a lot of damage.

[Kramerman]

Yeah, I've given al my units with ranged attacks a bombard of 0 with varying strengths. I see this as simulating defenders shooting at charging or setting up attackers. It doesn't really do much damage, but it has decided the difference between a win and a loss many a time for my units.

Kman

[Thoth]

I've been playing with the zero range bombard for awhile (adding it to missile troops). Units with zero range bombard will fire a defensive volley similar to that fired by regular artillery (catapults, cannon ect). This will remove up to one hitpoint per rate of fire from a unit attacking the stack. Each attacker will only be fired upon by one bombard unit, and each bombard unit can fire defensively only once per turn.

It makes that stack of 9 Babylonian Bowmen approching your boarders a *lot* more intimidating.

[Optimizer]

Exactly. Zero range bombardment is a realistic add-on to ranged infantry like archers, musketeers and riflemen. Like IRL, an attacker should take a lot of damage just by approaching an infantry formation.

[W.I.N.T.E.R]

Infantry u say ??? hmmm- are U sure it shouldn't better be given to vehicles with armour and initiative advantages (ground support) rather than exposed foot units ??

[Kramerman]

Originally posted by W.I.N.T.E.R
Infantry u say ??? hmmm- are U sure it shouldn't better be given to vehicles with armour and initiative advantages (ground support) rather than exposed foot units ??

Infantry are not exactly 'exposed'. They dig trenches and fox holes to give them protection from fire on top of having the ability to easily conceal themselves in most terrain to hide from attack and also for ambush purposes. And they also have a full array of anti-armor weapons such as mines (and depending on the era), various rocket launcher type weapons (panzerfaust, bazooka, modern LAW 5lbs plastic rocket launcher), and large calibre guns that can make them quite a potential threat too attacking armor.

There are, though, many curcamstances that can be argued for or against the idea, such as a surprise attack and therfore initiative for the attackers, but I for one, think its quite realistic to give a bombard value to all ranged units (from archers to hum-vees). Though my tanks ar gonna have a much higher bombard value than my infantry, who will have a much higher value than my archers, as well as rate of fire. In this way you can achieve a realistic balance, at least in my eyes.

Kman

[W.I.N.T.E.R]

Well, units can entrinche themselves anyway in civ1-3 and get a defensive bonus (plus fortifications)... but I think your idea about the balancing is top - perhaps sb could make a chart to c how well different units should defend with bombardment...

[Optimizer]

Maybe tanks and cavalry shouldn't be able to fortify.

[W.I.N.T.E.R]

I agree, but how to make that work??

[Optimizer]

Just uncheck the Fortify ability in the editor. I hope this doesn't cause problems with the AI players failing to fortify their tanks.

[Kramerman]

I could see why cavalry couldn't fortify, but why tanks? Both the US and the Soviets during the cold war developed many techniquws of reducing the profile (basically making the tanks a smaller target) of there tanks by entrenching them. They could allow them to act as immobile artillery, with earthen work trenches providing cover from enemy guns, and when in danger or needed for offensive action they could simpily back out of the trench and become a mobile weapon again. For this and alot of other reasons I think armor should be allowed to fortify, but I like the idea of disalllowing calvary to fortify. It makes since from a historical point of view. I could also think of other units that should have this penalty too.

Kman

[W.I.N.T.E.R]

I mean yeah, of course one can fortify a tank- Saddam Hussein had his tank dug in to be safe from airstrike, hidden, etc- basically that made them immobile artillery- what about humvees ??? U wouldn't want to dig these in as they are not able to fight then

Besides making a shelter for a tank is a bit more than just digging a hole in the ground- it would require to build a fort for having a place where your tank unit could fortify (i.e. enjoy a defence bonus) but this should be the one built by enginers- a tank crew CAN'T fortify its tank (U'd need pioneers for that).

I deduce that therefor fortify options for such units is unrealistic and should be replaced with the "0-bombardement capability"

[dunk]

Don't bombard units have to be fortified to get the defensive shot?

[Optimizer]

I don't think so. I never bother about fortifying them, and I still get the defensive bombardment.

Maybe ranged infantry units should be the only ones able to fortify. As a compensation, the fortification bonus could be greatly increased.

[Kryten]

Please forgive me for reviving this thread, but I seem to be having a bit of trouble trying to get defensive bombardment (with a range of zero) to work with the 1.29f patch.
Here's what I did....

Just as an experiment I gave the Warrior the following stats:-
attack 10, defence 1, move 3 (just to speed up contact),
bombard 10, range zero, rate-of-fire 1, lethal land bomardment,
cost zero, -2 HP bonus, offensive strategy (but I left the bombard special action unticked).

My plan was this - with an attack of 10 v 1 defence, and only one hit point, any defending Warrior will be smashed. However, with the lethal defensive bombardment hitting the attacker first, I wanted to see how often this experimental Warrior would prevail.

Well, imagine my suprise when I found that he lost EVERY TIME! After some 30 or 40 tries....a dead defending Warrior EVERY time!

So I tried ticking the bombard special action....no effect.
I then tried ticking the Artillery AI strategy....still no effect.
At last I tried staking them together....guess what....no effect.

So, does defensive bombardment actually work, and if so could someone please tell me how they have configured it in their own games?
And PLEASE say that it's because I've done something wrong! A couple of units that I have already created (the Horse Archer and the Peltast), as well as several more that I am currently creating (the Celtic Slinger, the Numidian Mounted Javelinman and the Roman Auxiliary) DEPEND upon 'defensive bombardment' to justify including them in the game!

Thanks in advance.

[Kuciwalker]

I think it's because a unit that bombards when attacked can't also defend.

[Ed O'War]

A unit needs to be in a stack to get a defensive bombard. Also, normally you can't bombard a unit that has only one hit point, so maybe that applies to defensive bombardment as well.

[Willem]

Sounds to me like you're expecting to much from it. It's not a bombard in the normal sense of the term, it's a free shot when attacked. Just like Zone of Control, only more reliable. If successful, and it isn't always, it will only take off 1 hit point. And, to my knowledge, a unit will never be destroyed by it, though I'm not sure of the effect lethal bombard might have. I haven't tried that yet.

It's mainly useful for a defensive support unit, that's stacked with an ordinary defensive unit. For instance, I've given it to my Archers, and I usually double them up with a Spearman. The Archer will soften the attacking unit up, before the Spearman gets attacked.

[Kryten]

Thanks for your help everybody.

I tried my little experiment again, this time with an attack of 2, a defence of 2, -1 HP (so all newly built units have 2 hit points), and an exaggerated defensive bombardment of 10.

2 v 2 should be equil, but if the defensive bombardment causes I hit on the attacker, then with 2 hit points versus 1 the defending stack should win.
And he does! (well....at least 75% of the time).

Just one more question: is the bomardment value and the defensive value of the target related? For example, if a defensive bombardment of 4 has 'X' chance of causing a hit on a unit with a defence of 4, then would a unit with a defence of 2 be hit twice as often while a unit with a defence of 8 only half as much?

Thanks again everybody.