POLL: Do you like the change to bombardment (never hits city improvements)?

[Ijuin]

Hmmm how about bombardment goes the old way (randomly shoots at population, improvements, or units) in the early game, but when you get Radio (and hence radar), you get to choose which one to target? This would be sort of like how you get the Precision Strike capability in aircraft when you get Smart Weapons.

[Stuie]

If Arty only attacks units in cities, I think I'll be putting the "collateral damage" flag to use in the editor.

[nuther]

I voted Yes. Its better because you dont need 20 to 30 arty per stack now. That figure was way off base. It should help the ai and it should help preserve city population points, which will also preserve city defense multipliers. Going from size 20 to size 1 in a turn was just not right either.

Still, I like the idea of some cities turning into rubble a la Stalingrad. But that should be a rare occurrance. As long as bomber can damage stuff, then I guess its good. That makes planes worth more.

[Panag]

hi ,

even today with gps bombs etc , ..... they still get put in the wrong place , so the vote is NO , its unrealistic

have a nice day

[alexman]

I voted for the new system.

By the way, before C3C you had to destroy any walls (for land bombardment) or coastal fortress (for naval bombardment) before you could hit anything else. Is this still true? I hope so.

[Cookie Monster]

Wish there was a vote for undecided which is where I stand on the issue. I need more time with the game to see.

Anyway I do love the fact that archers now take a shot at you before you attack the main defender of the stack!

[Adagio]

I never used bombardment in Civ3, but with the new system I might start using it...

[WarpStorm]

Originally posted by Stuie
If Arty only attacks units in cities, I think I'll be putting the "collateral damage" flag to use in the editor.

Except that it doesn't do what you think it does.

It does an infrastructure bombard when your unit succesfully does a regular melee attack.

[JSRHINO]

How does C3C deal with Precision Strikes, are we given an option now to strike particular units or improvements, or is that still decided by the random selection despite being "Precision Strikes"?

[The_Aussie_Lurker]

Though I, obviously, don't have C3C yet-I still voted NO!!! I really liked the fact that bombardment was not as clear cut as it was in Civ2!! It was this philosophy in Civ2 which led to the boring 'Howie Rush' strategy of the late game!!!
Personally I think the best way to do things would be for early bombardment units-such as the trebuchet and catapult-to have a VERY high chance of hitting improvements, followed by units and then population (perhaps a 50%;40%;10% split, respectively). Cannons and Artillery, on the other hand, would have a slightly higher chance of hitting units, with perhaps a 40%;50%;10% split. Last of all-Radar artillery would have the BEST chance of hitting units, with a 70%;20%;10% split!!! These are just rough estimates, but would still make bombardment units useful in the capture of a city, whilst still incorporating the element of 'collateral damage' which still dogs military forces, in real life, to this day!!!

Yours,
Aussie_Lurker.

[Shogun Gunner]

I was a fence sitter, but opted for "yes" for the new system.

I do agree with several comments regarding the lack of choice in the target. You should be able to tell your artillery to target troops OR infrastructure. However....

targeting a barracks in modern warfare - YES. Realistic. Powerful bombs in a suprise attack could take out a series of buildings on a military base (that's a barrack, right?).

However, taking a catapult and hurling rocks at a "barrack" - NO. It doesn't seem to make as much sense to me when using rocks. Even if you did level a military building with big rocks....the Lead Pikeman tells all the other pikeman to meet in a different building or field to sharpen their pikes. Instant new barrack. heck, it could be a field for the warriors.

[Sarxis]

I'm still a little divided on the issue, but I'm starting to lean towards the current system more.

But I still think there's something better out there.

[Stuie]

Originally posted by WarpStorm
Except that it doesn't do what you think it does.

It does an infrastructure bombard when your unit succesfully does a regular melee attack.

Ah! Thanks for the clarification Warp.

I hadn't turned it on yet anyway. The new system is kind of growing on me.

[Cookie Monster]

Originally posted by WarpStorm


Except that it doesn't do what you think it does.

It does an infrastructure bombard when your unit succesfully does a regular melee attack.

Interesting. I think I could live with that.

[Fosse]

It seems to me that the new system has simply made human invasions even easier, with bigger, better bases and more troops left when the dust settles.

Unless the AI takes full advantage of this then it's a change that simply tilts the scale MORE in favor of the player. In addition to this, it is unrealstic and takes away a strategic option from the player....

Remember when you had to decide whether to take a city with its population and infrastructure (basically) intact, or whether you wanted to use arty and save a few more lives of your troops?

The new change...
1. Improves the player vs. the AI
2. Removes a strategic option
3. Less realistic


I know that not everyone plays the AU mod.. but these three are in EXACT contention with its mission statement... and I think that goes a long way to show how wrong minded it was.

edited for typo