Fun With Bombardment...

[Ijuin]

"Bombardment failed" basically means that you missed your target. The reason that you seem to get more failures than the strength of the enemy defense implies is because game chooses what target you will attack (citizens, improvements, or units) without regard to whether or not there are actually any valid tergets. Thus, if there are no citizens to kill (i.e. a size one city), and the game selects "attack population", then you get an automatic failure. The game does not check whether or not there is anything to kill before deciding what should be attacked.

As for killing civilians being an atrocity, consider that as recently as WWII it was considered to be standard practice in war to demolish entire cities. It is only since then that the general populace has expected that attackers should deliberately minimize collateral damage--in earlier wars, attackers often considered MORE collateral damage to be desirable.

[Shogun Gunner]

yes, and Japanese towns/cities were routinely firebombed to start raging fires designed to spread. Same in Germany (Aachen, Leipzig, etc)

[Dis]

Originally posted by MartynC
What I don't like is when it says "bombardment failed” I can understand not succeeding when up against SAMs etc, but if the opposition doesn't have them?
Could you imagine the US sending B-52's over Peking (Beijing) in the coming SINO-US War (over Taiwan) of 2008; & the President being told that not 1 bomb hit ANYTHING!!!
Just think of Viet-Nam, the carpet bombing there was massive!

hate to break this to you, but the U.S. will never attack Beijing.

[Solomwi]

Originally posted by MartynC
What I don't like is when it says "bombardment failed” I can understand not succeeding when up against SAMs etc, but if the opposition doesn't have them?
Could you imagine the US sending B-52's over Peking (Beijing) in the coming SINO-US War (over Taiwan) of 2008; & the President being told that not 1 bomb hit ANYTHING!!!
Just think of Viet-Nam, the carpet bombing there was massive!

Uh, massive bombardment rarely, if ever, fails in the game, though individual sorties quite often do. That's why, just like in the real world, you send wave after wave of bombers. It's a numbers game, in both cases.

[MartynC]

Originally posted by Solomwi


Uh, massive bombardment rarely, if ever, fails in the game, though individual sorties quite often do. That's why, just like in the real world, you send wave after wave of bombers. It's a numbers game, in both cases.

My point is that it you sent 1 B-52 or 10 over a city & dropped their payload(s), ALOT is going to be destroyed. I understand some may get shot down, but it they don't have air defences (e.g. new town, only ground units created so far), then I expect the village/town/city to be almost destroyed & every attacked succeed, due to the type of attack. Could you imagine saying a nuclear missile failed to destroy a city like the bombing does?

[Petrus2]

MartynC, many buildings, etc may be destroyed by a bomber, or 10. But from the point of view of an entire city, that may, in fact, be insignificant. Depending on the type of bombing mission, usually a specific target(s) is selected (this is what the US 8th AF would do in Europe...each aircraft would have a specific factory building as a target). So a given building may be hit multiple times, since it takes a fair amount of damage to DESTROY a factory. But that doesn't mean the city itself is crippled. And often, due to flak, fighters, wind, error, duds, etc, the factory would be operable anyway.

True, more modern bombers are more accurate, but there haven't been any 1000 bomber missions since WW2 !

[Solomwi]

Originally posted by MartynC


My point is that it you sent 1 B-52 or 10 over a city & dropped their payload(s), ALOT is going to be destroyed.

Yes, assuming they actually hit the city, which isn't a given.

I understand some may get shot down, but it they don't have air defences (e.g. new town, only ground units created so far), then I expect the village/town/city to be almost destroyed & every attacked succeed, due to the type of attack. Could you imagine saying a nuclear missile failed to destroy a city like the bombing does?

Nobody's talking about nukes or shootdowns accounting for in-game failure. The simple fact is that even with smart bombs, every attack doesn't succeed. That goes doubly for WWII-era bombers and even B-52s. Your expectations are unrealistic, whether it be in the real world or in the game. Bombers miss sometimes. As Petrus2 said, sometimes they miss, but still hit something unimportant, like a neighborhood (pop reduction). Sometimes they miss altogether and nobody's killed, nor is anything important destroyed.

[conmcb25]

Scorching your enemies territory is a way of life.

Drop pop below 12 or 6 so they dont get the defensive bonus.

Scorch the earth around cities to cut off lux's and reduce the food available for further pop resources crashing,

Scorch the earth to deduce both sheild and commerce production.

I LOVE atrocities. And it becomes so efficient in the latter ages

[Solomwi]

Hmmm, now I know that, for the good of the innocent Python citizens, we can not end the Great Monkey War until you are incapable of such atrocities.

[Shogun Gunner]

Originally posted by Petrus2
MartynC, many buildings, etc may be destroyed by a bomber, or 10. But from the point of view of an entire city, that may, in fact, be insignificant. Depending on the type of bombing mission, usually a specific target(s) is selected (this is what the US 8th AF would do in Europe...each aircraft would have a specific factory building as a target). So a given building may be hit multiple times, since it takes a fair amount of damage to DESTROY a factory. But that doesn't mean the city itself is crippled. And often, due to flak, fighters, wind, error, duds, etc, the factory would be operable anyway.

True, more modern bombers are more accurate, but there haven't been any 1000 bomber missions since WW2 !

And a "factory" in Civ3 isn't just one building! At least in my mind, it represents a city adopting industrialization. Think Pittsburg versus Missoula, MT.

[Petrus2]

Really if you look at the historical effect of bombers, I'd say Civ 3 OVER rates their effectiveness. I don't have a problem with this, because it is a game, so who cares? But look at the massive strategic bombing offensive in Europe in WW2, and calculate how much effort went in and what effect was truly felt. (the same comment holds for artillery, it's over powered IMHO).

But hey, I enjoy using the tools the game designers provided, so it's all good.

Shogun Gunner, I agree with your point, it puts an important view onto what you are really destroying. BTW, looks like you live fairly close to me! (I'm in the Fredericksburg vicinity).

[conmcb25]

Originally posted by Solomwi
Hmmm, now I know that, for the good of the innocent Python citizens, we can not end the Great Monkey War until you are incapable of such atrocities.

You might actually want to continue the war before discussing ending the war

[Solomwi]

Originally posted by conmcb25


You might actually want to continue the war before discussing ending the war

Trench warfare at its finest, only we don't get to shoot across no man's land.

[Dis]

Originally posted by Petrus2
Really if you look at the historical effect of bombers, I'd say Civ 3 OVER rates their effectiveness. I don't have a problem with this, because it is a game, so who cares? But look at the massive strategic bombing offensive in Europe in WW2, and calculate how much effort went in and what effect was truly felt. (the same comment holds for artillery, it's over powered IMHO).

But hey, I enjoy using the tools the game designers provided, so it's all good.

Shogun Gunner, I agree with your point, it puts an important view onto what you are really destroying. BTW, looks like you live fairly close to me! (I'm in the Fredericksburg vicinity).

interesting post. when Civ3 came out, people complained very heavily about how underpowered they were. they of course, were comparing them to civ2 bombers- which were very powerful.

I do not think civ3 bombers are overpowered. I think they are just about right in C3C (with the ability to sink ships).

And remember, even though ww2 bombers were innaccurate, that is not the case today. Air power is the reason why Gulf war and Iraq war were cakewalks. And afghanistan, Serbia thing in 98, etc.

[Petrus2]

Originally posted by Dissident


interesting post. when Civ3 came out, people complained very heavily about how underpowered they were. they of course, were comparing them to civ2 bombers- which were very powerful.

I do not think civ3 bombers are overpowered. I think they are just about right in C3C (with the ability to sink ships).

And remember, even though ww2 bombers were innaccurate, that is not the case today. Air power is the reason why Gulf war and Iraq war were cakewalks. And afghanistan, Serbia thing in 98, etc.

I'm not saying Civ 3 bombers are too powerful, I'm saying they are more effective than their real-life counterparts. But since this is a game and not RL, it's ok.

As for the use of air power in wars over the last 10-15 years, these have been applications of tactical air power and not strategic bombing campaigns against a country's infrastructure. Sure, some infrastructure was targeted, but the concerted effort was against military units not factories. Also, they were in a situation where air supremacy was enjoyed, which certainly enhances what aircraft can do. (Not to mention, the 'cakewalks' were due in large part to the skill, professionalism and equipment of our ground forces, not just airpower)