Bombardment

[Zoid]

I like it The sad part is that it´s too good of a concept to be introduced into Civ4

[Grandpa Troll]

Originally posted by Dr Zoidberg
I like it The sad part is that it´s too good of a concept to be introduced into Civ4

I know in Call To Power one has SLIC capabilities I just wonder if maybe we could in CIV4 but that would be like way beyond my meager computing capabilities

[Xorbon]

I like artillery in Civ 3 over Civs 1 & 2. Sure they do miss a lot, and you need to take half a dozen or more of them with you on attacks, but the big benefit of them is you suffer zero casualties while bombarding. (Except for air missions where you might get shot down by enemy AA.)

In addition to offense, I like artillery for defense as well. When the enemy approaches your cities, artillery can be used to take hps off of offensive units. Since the AI doesn't like to have damaged units within your territory, they'll often try to retreat those units. This can really slow down an AI offensive. And you get more time to muster a counter-attack.

[realpolitic]

Originally posted by Dr Zoidberg
The autocensor doesn´t seem to be working in the Civ4 forum...

Unfortuantely, you probably missed the autocensor when Al Gazzera had a forum. Any word with itch in it was automatically censored, words were censored that were legitimate parts of the sentence and not something a human censor would stop were routinely censored, so you couldn't understand the sentence. It was hilarious!

[Zoid]

Like Dick van ****?

[Max Sinister]

I have to try the catapults-against-muskets trick the next time. Too sad there are no real-world examples for that. (Or are there?)

[Grand Stone]

Bombardment is improved in civ 4

-fact (?) A catapult will now damage (or try to damage) ALL units in the square. Ie, helps a lot.

[Gen. Atkinson]

Originally posted by Grand Stone
Bombardment is improved in civ 4

-fact (?) A catapult will now damage (or try to damage) ALL units in the square. Ie, helps a lot.

You have proof of this?

[Grand Stone]

Originally posted by Gen. Atkinson


You have proof of this?

I thought I have read it under the facts thread or somewhere else? I was just hoping someone could tell me right or wrong

I hope it's done that way.

So you have an army of 10 horsemen coming my way in one big group. Then you have to pass my fotress before coming to my little town. You choose: either ignore my fort and be hit by my two catapult, reducing ALL horsemen hit-points by 2 , or attack my fortress defended with 2 spearmen Either way, my defence concisting of spearman AND catapults will be far supperior to the 'only spearman' defence. And maybe forts become more important

[curtsibling]

ALL bombardment should always do some kind of damage.

Even if minor.

It needs to be restructured.

[Fake Boris]

Bombardment units should be tied to military formations.

[Myrddin]

This is OLD Civ3 thinking - Civ4 combat looks to be be very different in the previews.

So what was a problem in the past won't be a problem in the future - there will just be different problems

[Zoid]

Originally posted by curtsibling
ALL bombardment should always do some kind of damage.

Even if minor.

It needs to be restructured.

Well, you can miss with bombardment. But if you have a fully built infrastructure and sprawling metropolises, the chance that bombardment fails should be non-existent.

[Zoid]

Originally posted by Oncle Boris
Bombardment units should be tied to military formations.

Like in "no separate bombardment units"?

[Fake Boris]

Originally posted by Dr Zoidberg


Yes, I´ve seen pictures of Dresden and Tokyo circa 1945. No infantry needed there

We get your point, but infantry entrenched in ruins can be quite lethal.