Bombing Roads

[The keeper]

Why can't the airforce destroy roads.

The only way to destroy roads is to physically take a unit to the area and kill the road. It seems that realistically, planes would do better at destroying roads.

Is there an easier way to destroy roads?

[piawak]

Realistically it's very very hard to take out a road with a bomb or three. It's easy to make a single hole in the road that's alsy easily patched and makes very little military difference in the road's usability. The only really viable way to cut "roads" with air power is at a bridge or similar bottleneck and even then it's not an easy thing to do. Our AF with laser guided munitions is still only at a 70% success rate or so when it comes to dropping a bridge into the water on the first try.

[johnmcd]

Yeah, they could take out a runway for a matter of hours in WWII, imagine trying to destroy a road network!

[CiverDan]

It Veitnam. They bombed the hoh chi min trail repeatedly, but it never actually destroyed it.

[gmsh1964]

If I remember, Gunships take out roads.

[sovietwaffle]

Gunships, though they fly over land, aren't really air units. A fighter or bomber would be an air unit, but Gunships would more or less be the Super Cavalry of the modern age.

[Unimatrix11]

So can we agree that bombers should be able to take out bridges (as they did massively in France and Germany in 1944/45, thus slowing down german troop movements a big deal) ? That means roads and railroads next to rivers (maybe only if not covered by forest or jungle (vietnam)).

[bobshiznit]

How can a warrior with a club take out a road and a bomber cannot? Um yeah ... hmmm . . . doesn't make sense to me.

[snafuc4]

Originally posted by Unimatrix11
So can we agree that bombers should be able to take out bridges (as they did massively in France and Germany in 1944/45,

Umm.. /bombers/ were spectacularly unsucessful at taking out bridges (or any other sort of transport infrastructure other than collections, such as repair sheds, marshalling yards, sidings, or huge points collections) in WW2

Fighter/bombers (eg Mosquito) or even heavy fighters (eg Typhoon) started to make an impact (sic) towards the end of the European war with rockets (IIRC originally designed WRT air use as anti-tank weapons) but even then didn't make much impact (sic)

Tactics (& airframes) changed in the latter part of the war ('44-'45) when dive-bombing became more prevalent on the Allies' part to achieve accuracy, but by then the French front was pretty much won.. & the accuracy was still not really good enough; it was very much 'hit & miss', due mostly to the lay of the land. If you wanted a bridge genuinly (ie fully, not 'down in the day & built up by night) blown, you sent in the Maquis or whomever you could commandeer from engineering regiments (sappers, pioneers, etc) with (preferably) commando support

[snafuc4]

Apologies - wrong thread!

[Urban Ranger]

Originally posted by bobshiznit
How can a warrior with a club take out a road and a bomber cannot? Um yeah ... hmmm . . . doesn't make sense to me.

You can take out a road too if you spend 20 years doing it.

[Unimatrix11]

snafuc: So what do you suggest ? Should bombers be able to take out roads or not ? Maybe fighters ? Have a new unit called dive bomber ? I admire your knowledge about WW2, but i think you are shooting flies with cannons here and just want to show off, which makes me a bit angry. First you seem to disagree with my statement, and later on you seem to agree... what are you saying concerning the game ? - thats not the wrong thread, it's the wrong forum. Use a historical fact (like the ones you stated) to support a suggestion for the game, whether it is your own suggestion or someone else's, otherwise they are pretty useless in this forum (except if you wish to give a little lecture - i must admit you give interesting and well researched pieces of info in your post).

[Yosho]

Originally posted by bobshiznit
How can a warrior with a club take out a road and a bomber cannot? Um yeah ... hmmm . . . doesn't make sense to me.

(shrug) It was pretty common millitary tactics in ancient times to use dozens of logs, boulders, or caltrops on a road to slow down an opposing force. That would pretty much "destroy" the road, at least as far as usefuleness goes. I assume that's also why you don't get any gold when you "pillage" a road.

[The keeper]

I figure if a bomber can take out a gold mine, it can probably also take out the road connecting it. I mine/lumbermill/well/farm would take similar precision to destroy as a road would.

And yes, if a warrior can take out a road, then so should a plane.

Think about the roads of today. You would be hard pressed to destroy a road. If I gathered a bunch of my hunting friends, and we went out to try to destroy a road (riflemen), I dont think we would be able to do it. We could blockade it. But that would require us to remain there (rifleman sitting on the road). We dont have the machinery required to dig it up. I dont think shovels would cut it. I think that it would be almost impossible to make it impassable.

Bridges might be another matter. I think we could manage to bring a bridge down. There are bridges in many other places than just rivers. I have to cross a bridge to go to work every day - and I live 3 miles from where I work.

I think that a bomber could destroy either.

I agree that the accuracy of a bomber might not be great. But if a unit in civ 4 represents a whole squadron - a whold squadron of bombers would probably be able to destroy the road.

Even if there was a chance (50/50) it would be better.


A corollary to this is that intercepters should be able to defend the whole city radius. If my bomber is bombing the oil that is next to the city - your fighters should be able to intercept it. Same with SAM infantry. City borders are city borders.

[bobshiznit]

I will concede the fact that a warrior could make a road not usefull but still a bomber can do waaaaaaaaaaay more damage to a road.