Bombardment

[Zoid]

So, will the bombardment be the same in Civ4 as in Civ3? Because that sucked ass... Catapults and Trebuchets are utterly useless. What´s the point of dragging big ass machines over half a continent just set them up and then miss more than half the time? Huge waste of time and money IMO. And the bombing runs? How the hell can they miss? If you drop a ****load of bombs they´re bound to hit something, right? Same goes with naval bombarment.

[Zoid]

The autocensor doesn´t seem to be working in the Civ4 forum...

[Elda king]

Well, I think that bombardment really miss to much. And what is the utility for it? If you bombard a city, or you destroy improvments, kill the population (these both are terrible when you want the city) or you damages a unit, but unless you destroy it in the same turn, it recovers in the next turn (if there are many defenders, you fight many but not the one you damaged) ! And you can't send artillery alone, because any unit can capture it. Yes, this needs to be changed, but how?

[Zoid]

Bombardment is fine when you´re fighting an equally strong opponent and just want to trash his infrastructure. You know you can´t really invade ´cause it´ll take an insane amount of troops, so you try to bomb him back to the stone age. In earlier eras catapults and trebuchets are formidable siege weapons, but besieging isn´t something you really want to do in Civ3 because it ties up the momentum of your advance and gives the opponent a chance to consolidate his position by bringing in more troops from other parts of his territory. Thus bombardment in ancient and medieval times is useless. This should either be changed or taken away. Changing it could mean giving catapults a defence value of 1, so it´s not utterly helpless but still needs protection and backup.

[Donegeal]

You two have GOT to be kidding!!!

Catapults and trebuchets are one the most important and useful weapons available to a human (more so on higher levels). If your opponet is technologicly advanced to you, how do you think you are ever going to beat them? Imagine you have Swords and your opponnet has Muskets. You send in a stack of Swords/Spears/and a crap load of Cats. You bomd the crap out of the Muskets defending a city until each defending unit only has one HP, then attack with your vet swords. You only need to knock one HP of the unit to win the fight. Rinse, repeat. The AI doesn't stand a chance!

Back on-topic, I think the bombardment from civ III was excellent. Leave it the same. The only change I would make to bombardment would be to try to improve the AI's use of it.

[Grandpa Troll]

It would be neat if you could have a choice for the bombardment as in do I bomb a barracks (building) or a group of soldiers?

In real life an F.O (Forward Observer paints targets be the buildings or troop movement

Just a thought is all

Gramps

[Zoid]

My point is that you have to wheel up such an insane amount of catapults to your opponents city walls to make up for the fact that they keep missing more then they actually hit. Other than that the strategy is good

[Grandpa Troll]

Originally posted by Dr Zoidberg
My point is that you have to wheel up such an insane amount of catapults to your opponents city walls to make up for the fact that they keep missing more then they actually hit. Other than that the strategy is good

I agree with you as well Dr Zoidberg

Kinda frustrating to bombarb to soften and then next turn they are healed

[Zoid]

Originally posted by Grandpa Troll
It would be neat if you could have a choice for the bombardment as in do I bomb a barracks (building) or a group of soldiers?

In real life an F.O (Forward Observer paints targets be the buildings or troop movement

Just a thought is all

Gramps

This is hard to do with catapults, those things are hard to aim as it is But for bomber command and naval it would be a neat feature. First and secondary targets, and missed targets that cause damage. You can imagine bombing the crap out of a city to conquer a wonder or something, and you miss the barracks and troops and accidently hit the Statue of Zeus or something. Oops...

[Zoid]

Originally posted by Grandpa Troll


I agree with you as well Dr Zoidberg

Kinda frustrating to bombarb to soften and then next turn they are healed

I´ve never actually conquered a city or metropolis with just bombardment and then mopped it up with the infantry and cavalry. I usually suffer a bit of casualties even with quite heavy bombardments.

[Grandpa Troll]

Originally posted by Dr Zoidberg


This is hard to do with catapults, those things are hard to aim as it is But for bomber command and naval it would be a neat feature. First and secondary targets, and missed targets that cause damage. You can imagine bombing the crap out of a city to conquer a wonder or something, and you miss the barracks and troops and accidently hit the Statue of Zeus or something. Oops...

exactly

like you have early units with certain abilities and later advanced technolgy would allow this

maybe even like we have an army with a general we could have a unit called an F.O. and he "loads" artillery and then they allow the artillery better target acquisition. maybe make the F.O. vulnerable and needs a strong Military unit to defend?

Just thoughts is all

Gramps

[Grandpa Troll]

Originally posted by Dr Zoidberg


I´ve never actually conquered a city or metropolis with just bombardment and then mopped it up with the infantry and cavalry. I usually suffer a bit of casualties even with quite heavy bombardments.

I also agree which kinda in y books diminishes the actual theory behind bombardment..

I am a former military and if you ever saw what exactly bombardment does then you would understand the frustration I see with the CIV concept applied here

I understand it is a game and yes a very interesting one at that

Just saying bombardment could be tweaked

Gramps

[Zoid]

Originally posted by Grandpa Troll


exactly

like you have early units with certain abilities and later advanced technolgy would allow this

maybe even like we have an army with a general we could have a unit called an F.O. and he "loads" artillery and then they allow the artillery better target acquisition. maybe make the F.O. vulnerable and needs a strong Military unit to defend?

Just thoughts is all

Gramps

You mean like a leader you get when your elite troops win a battle? I´d like that

[Zoid]

Originally posted by Grandpa Troll


I also agree which kinda in y books diminishes the actual theory behind bombardment..

I am a former military and if you ever saw what exactly bombardment does then you would understand the frustration I see with the CIV concept applied here

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

[Grandpa Troll]

Originally posted by Dr Zoidberg


You mean like a leader you get when your elite troops win a battle? I´d like that

yes thanks

The "Leader" unit concept but with it being a Forward Observer and he has say something along the lines of a Spy vision whereas he could see into the city area and "select" a target or area

I mean in real life a SEAL unit or Ranger goes in, hides out "Paints" a target for an aircraft or calls in artillery strikes say the bombardment is landing in a canal they simple adjust to take out a bridge and then the city is for all intents and purposes slowed down in regards to resupply or even initial response.

Gramps