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

[duxup]

I would have liked changes made to the bombardment for modern units to be a bit better at hitting units rather than the city.

However, if in fact now they never hit city improvments, then no, I do not like that change. Far too unrealistic.

[PrinceBimz]

Originally posted by 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's 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.

Nicely said. Exactly what I think.

[Arrian]

I haven't voted yet. I've played one game, not all the way out (I have a grand total of 1 cannon, heh), so I'm hesitant to judge. But it does sound like it makes things a bit easier.

-Arrian

[Jaybe]

I haven't had enough bombardment experience with C3C to form an opinion yet,

but I think the "realism" issue is a little specious. You just have to rationalize that the defenders are entrenched on the outskirts of the city rather than within it.

[Boris Godunov]

I don't have C3C, but I can safely say I don't like this idea. I, for one, agree with the notion of wanting to whittle down the city's population so a culture flip is less likely.

Since older bombarding equipment was less precise, it is much more realistic to have a lot of collateral damage. Only with an advanced technology (like, oh, precision bombing?) should the artillery be able to target troops specifically. This would also be in line with more modern sentiments of warfare in terms of avoiding civilian casualties.

Having pinpoint-accurate cannons is simply absurd. And if the AI continues to be artillery-stupid as it is in PtW, it will just give the player another exploit.

[player1]

And bomb to death (1 pop, 0 buildings), with most troops intact, like in PtW, is "soo realistic".

[Boris Godunov]

It's not entirely realistic, but it is moreso. Look at what happened in Afghanistan and Iraq. We could bomb the bejeezus out of cities, but the enemy forces can go underground and avoid the shelling, escaping with minimal damage. Military units can hide, buildings can't.

It would of course be better had they simply fixed bombardment so that there was a greater chance of hitting military units along with the destruction of improvements. For some reason, however, they didn't want to do that...

[Fosse]

Originally posted by player1
And bomb to death (1 pop, 0 buildings), with most troops intact, like in PtW, is "soo realistic".

True, but the stacks that people were using to shell AI cities often included a dozen or more artillery units for every handful of offensive ones shelling the city for several turns. I know Civ doesn't have any specific ratio of game units to real life representations, but it could be argued that the lack of realism found in 1 pop, 0 building cities was because of the unrealistic army compositions and extended periods of bombardment.

In truth, would like to see buildings most likely to be hit and destroyed (maybe 90% of successful bombardments), and the rest split between population and units.

This is because loss of life in cities under bombardment tends to be low compared to infrastructure destroyed. The deaths that do occur usually are because of loss of infrastructure... This would be represented well in Civ3 because Bombardment would destroy the infrastructure that keeps the city happy and working, which would eventually lead to too many citizens for the infrastructure to sustain so they starve to death.


However... I feel that the realism argument takes a big backseat to the fact that the change makes it much easier for the human without helping the AI. According to game balance, which should decide all, it was a poor idea.

[Fosse]

Originally posted by Jaybe
I think the "realism" issue is a little specious. You just have to rationalize that the defenders are entrenched on the outskirts of the city rather than within it.

You konw this is just "spearmen are actually carrying AK47s," right?

I'd agree with you, Jaybe, but the change does still make conquest even easier.

-Fosse

[player1]

Originally posted by Fosse
This is because loss of life in cities under bombardment tends to be low compared to infrastructure destroyed. The deaths that do occur usually are because of loss of infrastructure...

Don't forget that infrastructure also includes things like housing and other "non-strategic" buildings, which are not represented in Civ3.

So, even in new system, bombardment probably destroys some buildings, although not key ones (like Marketplace or Factory).

[Panag]

hi ,

maybe some people have not seen it yet , but check the editor out , " collateral damage " is great , ......


have an incoming day

[WarpStorm]

Except that collateral damage doesn't work for bombards It is only for melee attacks.

[Jaybe]

Yea, panag,
Collateral Damage looks great in the Editor. Too bad it's broken. It doesn't work in the way that the editor help says it does; in fact, it seems to do nothing at all.

[dexters]

Originally posted by Fosse
However... I feel that the realism argument takes a big backseat to the fact that the change makes it much easier for the human without helping the AI. According to game balance, which should decide all, it was a poor idea.

It is infact not easier for the human players, unless you consider cracking a size 12 city with entrenched defenders easy.

Taking a large city whole has few benefits. First few turns it's in chaos and resistance with be significant, forcing large number of troops to stay back to quell resistance or prevent flips.

Yes, you get lots of pre-builts buildings, but it's a trade off, not an advantage. Previously, you can just station artys on a hill to bombard a city to size one, and divert a cavalry from another stack to give the city a final 'coup de grace' kill. That's no longer possible pre-flight.

[Jaybe]

Originally posted by dexters
It is infact not easier for the human players, unless you consider cracking a size 12 city with entrenched defenders easy.
...

Oh, this is going to be SO much FUN!! ...
When I finish my current game and start a mod where the fortification bonus is 50% (up from 25).