Bombardment in Civ3 has a serious flaw, did they fix it Conquests?

[playshogi]

I was hoping this discussion would be about the failure of the AI to bring artillery with its attacking stacks. Has the AI been taught to use artillery to break down the defenders before using its other ground units?

[Jaybe]

Originally posted by playshogi
I was hoping this discussion would be about the failure of the AI to bring artillery with its attacking stacks. Has the AI been taught to use artillery to break down the defenders before using its other ground units?

We'll see. It has been stated that they will offensively bombard with them, even if they don't take them out of their cities.

[Panag]

Originally posted by playshogi
I was hoping this discussion would be about the failure of the AI to bring artillery with its attacking stacks. Has the AI been taught to use artillery to break down the defenders before using its other ground units?

hi ,

the AI does use them , but not enough , ....

lets hope thats changed in Conquests

have a nice day

[Gunter]

Re: Bombardment in Civ3 has a serious flaw, did they fix it Conquests?

Originally posted by korn469
For those of you who don't know, before carrying out a bombard in Civ and Ptw, the game uses a rng to determine if the bombard will attack units, buildings, or population. I don't remember if it was an even 1/3 chance for all three or if one had a 50% chance and the other two had a 25% chance. Anyways, those chances remain even when a target doesn't. It is most pronounced when attacking units defending a size one city that doesn't have any buildings in it. Because of that there is an automatic 50-67% chance of getting "bombardment failed" in those circumstances. With Precision Strike it is even more flawed. In a size one city without any buildings there is a 100% failure rate when trying to attack units.

Did conquests fix this? I hope so. It is one of the most frustrating little things for me. Simply ruling out a target when it doesn't exist would make me happy (if no units are in a city then bombardment doesn't attack units, or if the city is only size one it doesn't attack pop, or if the city doesn't have any improvements then bombardments don't attack buildings). Any word though?

I fully agree about your statement and it is necessary to have an official answer about that. Thanks Jeff or whomever dev.

Gunter

[Traelin]

Re: Bombardment in Civ3 has a serious flaw, did they fix it Conquests?

Originally posted by korn469
For those of you who don't know, before carrying out a bombard in Civ and Ptw, the game uses a rng to determine if the bombard will attack units, buildings, or population. I don't remember if it was an even 1/3 chance for all three or if one had a 50% chance and the other two had a 25% chance. Anyways, those chances remain even when a target doesn't. It is most pronounced when attacking units defending a size one city that doesn't have any buildings in it. Because of that there is an automatic 50-67% chance of getting "bombardment failed" in those circumstances. With Precision Strike it is even more flawed. In a size one city without any buildings there is a 100% failure rate when trying to attack units.

Did conquests fix this? I hope so. It is one of the most frustrating little things for me. Simply ruling out a target when it doesn't exist would make me happy (if no units are in a city then bombardment doesn't attack units, or if the city is only size one it doesn't attack pop, or if the city doesn't have any improvements then bombardments don't attack buildings). Any word though?

Hrm, I use Precision Strike all the time and wasn't aware of this. Although it does make sense, because once I've done 3 turns worth of sorties, the number of "Bombing Failed" messages increases dramatically. You're absolutely right in that this needs to be addressed. American laser-guided bombs can target buildings with precision measured in inches, so in no way can I allow my imagination to run wild and chalk up numerous failed missions to the amount of rubble already existing in the city, or whatever.

[Panag]

hi ,

why would the precision strike system be changed , its there for buildings only , the regular bombs are for troops , ......

have a nice day

[korn469]

Even if P-strike doesn't change, regular bombard should. You can justify it all you want but I think that this is a rules oversight instead of the guys at firaxis saying "hey you know what, I think that ruined cities should provide extra cover for land units, lets make 50% of air strikes on size one cities always fail."

If you think that ruined cities should provide cover, then shouldn't towns, cities, and metros get a defense bonus increase, instead of the bombardment failed? Also remember turns are at least one year long, and that it doesn't take that long to completely dismantle an enemy. Take a look at the length of a few historical air campaigns

Linebacker II: about 1500 sorties flown in 11 days crippled North Vietnam

http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/ops/linebacker-2.htm

Gulf War 1: about 42,000 strike sorties flown in a little over a month and a half which severly damaged the Iraqi military

http://www.danshistory.com/operations.shtml#storm

Kosovo: about 10,000 strike sorties in two months, forced the serbs to accept allied demands

http://www.danshistory.com/operations.shtml#storm

Gulf War II: 12,000 strike sorties dropping 21,300 munititions 70% of which were precision, in about a month and a half...the iraqi army collapsed and put up little resistance (yes now it is turning into what looks like a full blown insurgency, but the actual war was a cake walk)

http://www.af.mil/news/opscenter/swa_ops.shtml

As far as I know the only successful major combat operation that didn't involve air superiority was North Vietnam's final assault on the south.

[Jaybe]

If you think that ruined cities should provide cover, then shouldn't towns, cities, and metros get a defense bonus increase, instead of the bombardment failed?

Yes, I always found it strange that as a metro was reduced to a town that it LOST defensive value. For the rubble to not be of defensive benefit, it would all have to be bulldozed and trucked away, still leaving basements to serve as bunkers.

I suppose it's for playability (and perhaps the designers were not hard-core military historians). Where was James Dunnigan when Sid needed him??

[korn469]

Jaybe,

In the game the rubble doesn't provide any defensive benefits, land units don't suffer any penalties for attacking units in a size 1 city, nor do air or bombardment units, when the rng actually selects to attack units. It is only when the rng incorrectly decides that the air or bombard unit is going to attack a building or unit of population, does the defending unit get an indirect defense bonus. That is why it is a rules oversight to me.

Also I know that urban combat is much tougher than fighting on an open plain for example, but I think you are overrating the cover provided against airpower and artillary. When the attacker has no regard for collateral damage they can simply level a city, and basically destroy most of the defenders in it. Russia has employed this tactic in its second war with Chechnya, and it seems like it has worked well so far.

[player1]

The problem is that defensive bonus of city should represent chance to hurt unit, not some extra automatic 50% failure AND defensive bonus together.

I would much rather like that bombard targets units first and if misses then to give 50/50 chance to aim for buildings or population.

[korn469]

player1

exactly! air and bombard units suffer the same 50% penalty when attacking units in towns, cities, or metros, and it doesn't matter if there has been an attack before. At least when you attack a metro full of pop and buildings you have the chance of destroying them, but when they aren't there to attack, your units still target them, resulting in those annoying Bombardment failure reports. Hopefully firaxis will fix this.

[vmxa1]

It is not a simulation, so it does not have to be realistic. Choices that were made, may be wrong, but were hopefully done for play balance. A resemblennce to reality, is a bonus.

[TechWins]

Choices that were made, may be wrong, but were hopefully done for play balance.

Korn is implying that there was not a choice made on this, yet it was a simple oversight on it. Read his quote below...

You can justify it all you want but I think that this is a rules oversight instead of the guys at firaxis saying "hey you know what, I think that ruined cities should provide extra cover for land units, lets make 50% of air strikes on size one cities always fail."

[Kuciwalker]

I agree with korn - both that it was probably an oversight, and that the it should be changed.

[Tiberius]

It may be realistic to hit rarely when there's not a lot of stuff to hit, but it kills all the fun. When I have 10 arties out of 20 missing (or planes), I think that I better should have built tanks instead.

If they make me build twice the number of bombardment units to have half of them hit a city, then they should better double the cost and give them a 90% chance to hit; at least if I built them I wouldn't be so frustrated, instead of having fun. Hell, they didn't even help us with a stack-bombardment command.

As a personal opinion, I think there are too many random calculations in civ3. There is one thing to play against the AI, where you can compensate bad luck with superior strategy, and another to play against humans, where a few bad RNGs could ruin your game.