Bombardment review

[gradea]

A simple question, how does everyone feel about bombardments in civ 4?

Note- Don't vote on the last two options if you dont think they should inflict damage to begin with.

Also note- No bannanas.

[Jaybe]

Other than the lack of artillery duels & counter-battery fire, I have no problem with how it is now.

[gradea]

My personal feelings are that the bombardments should be a bit more powerful and potentally lethal. Bombing an enemy from the air or using artillery both pins them before an assault (lower defense) and causes injuries. WWI is a great example of this.

[CerberusIV]

I am quite happy with bombardment of land units as it is. In reality artillery can weaken a ground unit but not normally destroy it. The same generally applies to air units making bombing attacks.

What does irritate me and I would like changed is that air units cannot destroy ships. This should be possible so that you don't have to build such a powerful navy just to defend your coastline.

[Adagio]

Keep it as it is...

[OssomTossom]

Originally posted by CerberusIV What does irritate me and I would like changed is that air units cannot destroy ships. This should be possible so that you don't have to build such a powerful navy just to defend your coastline.

Exactly what I was about to say

Although - how often is the coastline seriously threatened? Maybe in a multiplayer game (never tried those), but in all the games I've played, the AI never is much of a threat at sea.

[Blake]

Siege units should duel, and there should be a way for artillery (not earlier siege) to bombard ships, and battleships (not earlier ships) to bombard land. Otherwise it's fine.

[ben04]

How about requiering siege units to be fortified a few turns before they can bombard neighbouring tiles.

[Strategist83]

Re: Bombardment review

Originally posted by gradea
Also note- No bannanas.

#*#¤%&!

[eris]

I voted for as is.

But there are some issues.

As flexible as my roleplaying imagination may be, I have problems imagining how one can only half-kill an opposing unit with aerial bombardment. However, in Civ3 there was much whining for lethal bombardment and we got it. Then we proceded to abuse it as much as possible. I know I did. It was incredibly overwhelming. Even if the opposing side had fighters, you could still just overwhelm them with enough bombers. So, for game play, this works well. And if you can't kill ships by air, then you have to pay attention to your navy. This is a good thing, because it gives you more to worry about.

City Defense is another concept difficult to role-play imagine. Defense values based on culture? What is happening? Are my people hiding in the Temples and the Academy? I generally see it as the population being inspired by all the culture and going along with civil defense drills, etc. Also, the troops are more inspired to protect the valuable and beautiful assets of the city. Hey, it works for me.

However, thousands of years of culture and population brainwashing go away in a moment when faced with a bombardment from a stack of catapults. How can my modern city even be reached by catapults? It's a sprawling metropolis that doesn't even fit in one tile! The only suggestion I would offer to bombardment is that when an opposing civ is either industrial or modern, siege weapons must be artillery to have an effect. Voila!... an actual reason to research Artillery.

[Badtz Maru]

Originally posted by eris
I voted for as is.

But there are some issues.

As flexible as my roleplaying imagination may be, I have problems imagining how one can only half-kill an opposing unit with aerial bombardment. However, in Civ3 there was much whining for lethal bombardment and we got it. Then we proceded to abuse it as much as possible. I know I did. It was incredibly overwhelming. Even if the opposing side had fighters, you could still just overwhelm them with enough bombers. So, for game play, this works well. And if you can't kill ships by air, then you have to pay attention to your navy. This is a good thing, because it gives you more to worry about.

City Defense is another concept difficult to role-play imagine. Defense values based on culture? What is happening? Are my people hiding in the Temples and the Academy? I generally see it as the population being inspired by all the culture and going along with civil defense drills, etc. Also, the troops are more inspired to protect the valuable and beautiful assets of the city. Hey, it works for me.

However, thousands of years of culture and population brainwashing go away in a moment when faced with a bombardment from a stack of catapults. How can my modern city even be reached by catapults? It's a sprawling metropolis that doesn't even fit in one tile! The only suggestion I would offer to bombardment is that when an opposing civ is either industrial or modern, siege weapons must be artillery to have an effect. Voila!... an actual reason to research Artillery.

The way I "role-play" my battles is based on a very abstract view of what the units represent. Particularly, I don't see obsolete units in modern times as representing the units as they were when they were new. I see them as less expensive modern units.

For instance, let's say that there is a backwards country in modern times that is still building catapults for siege because they don't have the tech for cannon or artillery. I don't see this country as actually building catapults, but instead assembling units of similar cost and relative effectiveness as catapults with their very limited resources. They may not be able to manufacture their own cannon or artillery in large numbers, but since they are still a relatively large nation in a modern world, they should be able to buy SOME modern or slightly obsolete weaponry from arms dealers. What the catapult represents is a siege unit which is nowhere near as effective as one produced by a nation that can manufacture it's own artillery or cannon, but it does have weaponry of the range to damage the defenses of large cities and do some damage to modern units.

So, in modern times, I'd see it as this:

Catapult - a couple of dozen old cannons, with a few rocket trucks and black market scuds and maybe a modern artillery piece or three.

Cannon - a hundred or so cannon, with maybe a dozen modern artillery pieces or rocket launchers to supplement them.

Artillery - a fully modern artillery unit, with all modern equipment.

For a real-world example, look to the tribal warriors of modern Afghanistan. Their leaders do not have the tech to assemble modern weaponry, but they do have enough of it to shoot down a helicopter here and there, and they can provide some resistance to modern infantry. I would not represent them in-game as modern units, despite their having modern weapons, as they are nowhere near as effective as forces fielded by modern armies...in a scenario I'd give them the same abilities as Grenadiers, Musketmen, or maybe Longbowmen. In large numbers they could definitely slow down and weaken modern forces, but without a numerical advantage they are pushovers unless they hold really strong terrain advantages.

[gradea]

Hmm, some very good points, mabye they should get their own thread? :P

PS Strategist83 can go join lordshiva on a rake :P

Also, remember, with support costs and a low gold income, it isn't easy to build flights of bombers and "abuse" lethal bombardments anymore.

And the reason air units SHOULD be able to target ships is because that would force navies to make anti air ships to counter that, like in real life :P

[CarnalCanaan]

I believe all the ships have anti-air capabilities, making aerial assault on navies risky already.

My biggest gripe (since Civ III) is a lack of grand air battles (a la the Battle of Britain). So far as I know, the only way you can have this is bombard your enemies with fighters and hope they'll respond AND hope you'll win AND hope they'll be silly enough to put their weakened fighters back out on defense.

Maybe I'm alone in this.

[MasterDave]

Only destroyers in Civ4 have a chance to intercept incoming bombers. You can bomb or strafe other ships with impunity (although not beyond 50% of their initial strength). The exception would be an aircraft carrier carrying fighters set to intercept missions.

[Commander Bello]

Originally posted by CarnalCanaan
I believe all the ships have anti-air capabilities, making aerial assault on navies risky already.

My biggest gripe (since Civ III) is a lack of grand air battles (a la the Battle of Britain). So far as I know, the only way you can have this is bombard your enemies with fighters and hope they'll respond AND hope you'll win AND hope they'll be silly enough to put their weakened fighters back out on defense.

Maybe I'm alone in this.

Unfortunately, you only have a chance of 25% to damage the defender. But you will completely lose the attacking fighter in 50% of all cases. In the remaining 25% the attacker will be damaged, what - btw- seems to be dependant on the city defense.

Air fights have not been implemented properly.