A question of air superiority

[vee4473]

wow, so much perception is due to individual experience.

I have had many bombing runs fail. Granted, they are more successful than not, i'd put my experience at around 70% success/30% fail.

Hopefully all this will find it's way into a solution lurking in the minds of the programmers.

[Darkstar]

SMAC's bombardment seemed about right.

Now, I think conversations about the realism of bombing in Civ is not nearly as important as what's more fun. It would be boring to have uber kill units that you always have to be the first to have if you wanted to survive to some other win (you know, a peaceful trip to AC for instance). But, if you cannot do much with your bombers other then pick on your opponents tiles or maybe to inflict a touch of damage to a stack, then that doesn't seem like they'd be much fun either. A hard thing to find the best balance for fun.

[vee4473]

Originally posted by Darkstar
SMAC's bombardment seemed about right.

Now, I think conversations about the realism of bombing in Civ is not nearly as important as what's more fun. It would be boring to have uber kill units that you always have to be the first to have if you wanted to survive to some other win (you know, a peaceful trip to AC for instance). But, if you cannot do much with your bombers other then pick on your opponents tiles or maybe to inflict a touch of damage to a stack, then that doesn't seem like they'd be much fun either. A hard thing to find the best balance for fun.

Good point, my only real beef is that at least bombers, if not all bombard units, HAVE to have lethal bombard.

Find another way to balance.

That's how I feel.

[Aro]

Originally posted by vee4473


Good point, my only real beef is that at least bombers, if not all bombard units, HAVE to have lethal bombard.

Find another way to balance.

That's how I feel.

Agreed.

[Tassadar500]

I think a more important question is one of Naval superiority.

[Shogun Gunner]

I think I read in another thread about the potential of using the new "promotions" feature for air units. Once air units start gaining experience, they become stronger. This is conjecture, nothing the company has announced.

However, if this is so, that provides some variability between "too weak" air units and "uber strong" air units.

[Vince278]

Originally posted by The diplomat
With the new 3D graphics, I am hoping the nuclear mushroom is really cool!

Like to see nuke promotions too.

[Minodrin]

Couldn't we have it so that it's the bombarded unit, not the unit airplane, that has a lethal-bombardment flag. Say infantry could never be fully destroyed by air power, but tanks, SAMs, Catapults, ships and so on could be destroyed...

[Addled Platypus]

Originally posted by vee4473


For instance, i think units hiding in mountainous tiles should have gotten more of a defense boost than they did.


Could just be my bad luck though..

non air units right ?

originall posted by Lord Nuclear
I think a more important question is one of Naval superiority

does not the AI have to use it first ?

[patcon]

Originally posted by Minodrin
Couldn't we have it so that it's the bombarded unit, not the unit airplane, that has a lethal-bombardment flag. Say infantry could never be fully destroyed by air power, but tanks, SAMs, Catapults, ships and so on could be destroyed...

Good point. Units which are concentrated are more susceptible to being completely destroyed by bombardment than units which are dispersed. There could be two flags: one for the bombarding unit which allows lethal bombardment; and one for all units which makes them susceptible to lethal bombardment. These flags could be effected by promotions.
There could even be a third flag for terrain, so that LB is less likely in wide-open spaces such as grasslands, plains, and oceans; but more likely in areas where your forces are more concentrated and confined such as mountains, forests, and coastal waters. This would make for an interesting tactical decision - do I put my forces on a mountain where they get a big defensive bonus against attack, but where a successful bombardment might be lethal?

When bombardment is attempted, first resolve whether or not the bombardment is a hit or miss, based on unit strengths. (I think that 's the way it's done now.) Then determine how much damage is done and whether or nor the bombardment is lethal.
3 LB flags - high probability of lethality
2 LB flags - medium probability of lethality
1 LB flag - low probability of lethality
0 LB flags - extremely low (but not quite zero, there is such a thing as a "lucky hit") probability of lethality
The probability could be the result of adding factors for each flag - attacker ability (starts at 20% and works up to 40% maximum via promotion), defender (starts at 40% maximum and works down to 20% via promotion), and terrain (from 0% for wide-open spaces up to 20% for confining terrain - remember these terrains already give a defensive bonus which lessens the likelihood of a successful bombardment in the first place, now we're talking about what happens if the bombarbment is successful).
0% - grassland, plains, oceans
10% - forests, hills, tundra, seas
20% - jungles, mountains, coastal water
There could even be a factor based on how many units are in a tile. After all, if there is a 50-unit SOD in a tile, those units would have to be more bunched up, so that a bombardment would be more likely to take out a complete unit. This could help put an end to the ridiculous notion of these huge stacks of units the AI is so fond of.
This may seem "complicated", but it would be behind the scenes and not something the normal player would have to deal with except at the end result level.

[CarnalCanaan]

Originally posted by vee4473

CarnalCanaan:

They got the jet engine? What exactly are you referring to?

I just meant that they [the AI Ottomans] had researched rocketry (or whichever it is) sooner than I'd expected so my plans had to be "adjusted".

[sophist]

A simpler way might be to have the likelihood of a hit be proportional to the number of HP left. A unit with 5/5 HP will thus be 5 times more likely to get hit when bombarded than a unit with 1/5 HP. You could still have lethal bombard, of course, but it wouldn't be a separate category of thing. That would also make artillery more consistent with its real life use in softening up defenders.

[CarnalCanaan]

Originally posted by vee4473
CarnalCanaan:

By the way, everytime I see a post by you, I think of Louis Jordan's villain in the James Bond movie Octopussy....Kamal Khan, or however you spell it.

ha!

That is the greatest compliment anyone's ever given me.

[CarnalCanaan]

I think I'd rather see a "lethal bombard"-type system remain if only because it makes it possible to lead an "air campaign" vs. a "land campaign". For what it's worth I'd also like to see earlier amphibious-type units to increase the threat of a "naval campaign". As it is now, they're barely more than cannons which you don't have to defend, but naval power decided many wars and overpowered many supposedly superior forces (think Trafalgar, the the Spanish armada or the Opium Wars... all English naval victories... hmm. Keep an eye on them bahstahds).

As for naval superiority, it would be enhanced by a good air combat simulation - especially in that elusive late modern age - when aircraft carriers replace battleships as the primary craft of the fleets.

[Tassadar500]

Originally posted by Platypus Rex
does not the AI have to use it first ?

That's exactly what needs to be changed. There needs to be benefits for having a naval dominance, and if you are at war, a large hinderance. Speaking of which, hopefully colonies have been expanded to something a bit more usefull.