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

[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?

[GhengisFarb™]

I wasn't aware of this but then I've never had to utilize precision strikes.

[korn469]

GhengisFarb,

Precision strikes never attack units, it attacks buildings then population. I'm not as bothered by it as what I am normal bomardment, because there is nothing you can do to get around it.

[Jaybe]

I haven't got a problem with bombardment having no effect because a determined target in a city doesn't exist. It just means that the shells landed where it's already rubble -- they're already dead or demolished.

If you get suspicious that is the case and you have a spy in place, Investigate City.

[korn469]

Jaybe,

I don't suspect that this is the case, I'm positive that it is (was) so. Check out this thread from back in the day.

http://apolyton.net/forums/showthread.php?s=&threadid=43715

Why should a Level one city without any improvements cut the effectivness of artillary in half? If the same unit was beside of the city in an open space it wouldn't get this bonus.

[Dominae]

It's easier to hit stuff when there's a lot of stuff to hit (think big juicy buildings, helpless population and brave defenders).

It's harder to hit stuff when there's not a lot of stuff to hit (think a few scared defenders hiding among the rubble).


Dominae

[korn469]

Dom,

Smaller towns are easier to blast to smithereens than big cities.

I just think that this particular rule devalues bombard units in comparision with other types of units, and makes their use as seige weapons questionable. If there are a ton of viable targets in a city, why should the game force bombard units to go after targets that don't exist.

Also why can't you pick what to target (and include units) with Precision Strike? That'd be all the fix I'd need.

[Dominae]

Personally I think of bombardment as a cheat versus the AI. If you've blasted all the non-military targets in a city and are just waiting to knock HPs off the defenders, you're already in a pretty good position, right?


Dominae

[RobC]

I think precision strike should have more precision -- maybe not so much that they could target individual units, but you should at least be able to target a specific improvement (no guarantee you won't miss and hit something else, but at least you should get a higher chance of hitting the specific building you are aiming for -- or else why call it 'precision'?)

[ChrisiusMaximus]

Use Cruise Missiles if you only want to hit units

[Chieftess]

Originally posted by korn469
Dom,

Smaller towns are easier to blast to smithereens than big cities.

I just think that this particular rule devalues bombard units in comparision with other types of units, and makes their use as seige weapons questionable. If there are a ton of viable targets in a city, why should the game force bombard units to go after targets that don't exist.

Also why can't you pick what to target (and include units) with Precision Strike? That'd be all the fix I'd need.

If you had hundreds of buildings left, stretched over miles of land along with rubble, and smoke, then it'd not only harder to find them all (some might be small, and partially buried), your troops will be under attack trying to find them from the last remaining defenders. Personally, I've never used air missions much, then again, I've never gotten to flight before the game was won. Once rails come, artillery, infantry, and cavs (yes, cavs) pretty much win it for me.

[Saint Marcus]

Use Cruise Missiles if you only want to hit units

which is pretty stupid. Cruise Missiles aren't used to attack infantry units on the ground, but rather the buildings in a city.

[Panag]

Originally posted by ChrisiusMaximus
Use Cruise Missiles if you only want to hit units

hi ,

if you have increased the range , .... the range they have now is to short and unrealistic , .....

tacticals are great for te stopping of invasion forces and such , again the range is to short

have a nice day

[player1]

Yes, that is one serious flaw in bombardment.

That automaticly means that in cities you get 50-66% miss chance to hit units, which together with defensive bonuses that city gives to units makes bombarding on open way much better then bombaring cities.


It becomes pretty unbalancing.

On open Artillery almost obliterates the Infantry.
But, trying same on city is futile, exempt if having 4-5 times more of them, compared to attacks done on open.

[Jaybe]

But, trying same on city is futile, exempt if having 4-5 times more of them, compared to attacks done on open.

As it SHOULD be, especially in a city of rubble. As anyone with a military history background should know!