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

[RobC]

In C3C, bombardment was changed so that it only targets units in cities, and never hits improvements. Do you like this change? (see http://apolyton.net/forums/showthrea...hreadid=101166 for earlier discussion on this change)

[Catt]

I voted "No."

It's not terribly bad since we can self-impose limits on our own use of offensive artillery against the AI. If you don't self-impose limits, it seems to me that the disparity between the effectiveness of human use of artillery units and AI use of the same units just got even wider.

Catt

[vmxa1]

I am ambivalant, I vote yes anyway. I hate busted the cities down before capture, so I skimpped on bombardment, no I do not have to skimp.

[WarpStorm]

No, it's unrealistic and makes it too easy to beat the AI.

[Sarxis]

I'm still curious why this was changed.

[ChrisiusMaximus]

I wont vote until Ive seen for myself when I get my mits on conquests, but I think its been changed because most people said they did not like bombardment the way it was before.

Unless the AI uses it more effectively then it looks to be too powerful, but time will tell.

[Fatwreck]

where is the banana option ?

[Pyrkaige]

As someone who rarely used artillery at all in standard/PTW Civ3, I find this a very useful change. The main reason against it seems to be that it makes stacks of artillery too powerful, which really works both ways. As long as the AI makes the same moves (and it does seem to be using artillery itself a bit more), this is a non-issue.

Of course, ideally this would be a variable within the editor, so that everyone could have the level of damage to units, population, and improvements that they enjoy.

[WarpStorm]

Another thing I don't like is the inability to damage infrastructure if that was your intent. Say you were just planning on bombing a city with a barracks hoping to take out the barrracks with a lucky shot so that the defenders would stop healing. If they have more defenders that you brought arty, it can't happen now. So much for strategic bombardment.

At least Air bombardment works right anyway.

[Fosse]

No... I don't have Conquests yet, but I agree with the others that it makes artillery more unbalanced against the AI and is unrealistic... Plus... WS has it right, sometimes you just want to destroy infrastructure.

[asleepathewheel]

don't care for the change.

[G'Kar]

I'm still unsure but I voted no.

[Inverse Icarus]

ideally, there should be an option on what to target that you set globally, or per unit.

a little button that says "aim for buildings", or "aim for units". i mean, come on, did people really blindly fling rocks at dirt? and in the modern era, ww2-style artillery can't aim well enough to pick a target?

[Sarxis]

Ok, I'm not a big artillery stacker, so I didn't try it out yet. But does it:

when you fire 10 arty at a city with 3 defenders, after the 3 defenders have each taken a hit, does it then go for infrastructure if there are leftover arty?

[vmxa1]

WarpStorm I am not sure I understand what is unbalanced as compared to PTW or CivIII. If you are coming with a large stack of arties, you are also coming with a lot of troops. At that point the AI is toast anyway, so all we are talking about is wither it is worse to bust up the city or the units first? Am I missing something.

I mean when the humans sends stacks of arties and gets to the civs city, that city is gone. The only issue is how much will be captured and how much will be lost to capture it.
Often players will raze the city and move on or drop a settler in place.