Using Modern Units

[debeest]

Monk, thanks -- you just tested some things I had wondered about.

Correction re Carolus' suggestion: if I'm not mistaken, air units cause barbs to disappear, so I don't think you'd be able to use a helicopter to round up barb kings.

Correction re JSB: it doesn't prevent disorder, it just shifts two citizens from angry to content. If you support a bunch of bombers from a city, JSB will only do a little bit to keep the city from going into disorder.

[debeest]

Say -- doesn't this belong in the sadly neglected strategy forum?

[Bloody Monk]

Originally posted by debeest
Say -- doesn't this belong in the sadly neglected strategy forum?

Perhaps. I thought about it a little. The decision tipped in favor of General because of the succession game that triggered the questions in the first instance.

Monk

[Ben Kenobi]

When confronted with a large AI navy, you will need bombers to float over the air units. This renders your ships immune from AEGIS cruiser attacks.

The Nuke idea works well, but if all you want is to shuttle a few boatload of howitzers, this is probably the cheapest way to do so.

Also, the AEGIS cruiser works well with carriers, since the carrier will attract cruise misslies that fare quite poorly against AEGIS cruisers.

[Six Thousand Year Old Man]

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi
When confronted with a large AI navy, you will need bombers to float over the air units. This renders your ships immune from AEGIS cruiser attacks.

I think you mean Cruise Missiles?

[Gatekeeper]

I use the Macintosh version of Civ II, so keep that in mind when I offer the following tips:

1. In the RULES.TXT file, I changed the cost of cruise missiles to 40 shields apiece. The AI now uses them not only against ships, but seaport cities as well. Armored divisions, spies and other units are also targeted by AI cruise missiles. Furthermore, since it's using them, it's not storing them. Before I made the change, I'd oftentimes pound away at a city, having to take out six to 10 cruise missile units before finally occupying the city. Now, there's usually no more than two or, at most, three cruise missiles per major city.

2. I do build helicopters from time to time. They're great for use against enemy cities that are isolated from road and rail networks and aren't along coastlines.

3. I've taken some of the "extra" units (those not normally used in a game, but for certain scenarios only) and made it so they are usable in a real Civ game. I've created a "shock troops" unit, a "stingray" unit (a stealth transport capable of carrying four units), and an "dirigible" unit (used in medievel times, outdated by gunpowder). The AI makes use of them as well, and targets the shock troops and stingrays with the cheaper cruise missiles.

Gatekeeper

[Jaguar]

Modern sea war in civ2 is just a cruisemissilefest, IMO.

[Six Thousand Year Old Man]

Originally posted by Jaguar Warrior
Modern sea war in civ2 is just a cruisemissilefest, IMO.

That's probably pretty realistic, based on the Falklands war.

[Ben Kenobi]

This renders your ships immune from AEGIS cruiser attacks.

Nope. If you have negligible naval forces, this is the cheapest way to counter massive AEGIS patrols. The AI usually does not target boatloads with cruise missiles, just Battleships.

[Scouse Gits]

Has not the bomber stack been outlawed as an exploit?

Stu

[duke o' york]

I don't think this is an official discussion. It started off with a reference to a SXN game, and of course a stack would earn a lengthy spell at the Institute, but when playing on your own, you needn't worry about such things, unless you're planning to submit it here (or elsewhere for that matter).
If you tried a Xin Stack of Doom in a SXN, then you wouldn't really have enough time to amass all the necessary units before it was someone else's turn so stacking wouldn't matter there, but the use of bombers in stacks is a pretty poor show with the witless AI. Just not the done thing!

[Six Thousand Year Old Man]

Originally posted by Scouse Gits
Has not the bomber stack been outlawed as an exploit?

Stu

In some games, it has. But not all... it's not as blatant as some other exploits.

Besides, there are nuances to it. Obviously most people who feel that it's an exploit object to the stack-bomber-over-BB trick that lets you kill hanging cruise missiles. It's not really fair to use it to cover exposed Howitzers that you've attacked twice with, either.

Is it ok to use bombers to 'cover' tiles to prevent partisans from forming, or is this an exploit?

How about 'accidental' bomber stacks? For example, I attack an AI city with a Bomber and win. Now, if I want to attack with Artillery, is it an exploit if I stage my Artillery attacks from the tile with the Bomber on it?

How about if I move Mech. Inf. units under my exposed Bombers?

[duke o' york]

I never use bombers to avoid partisans - I always use Stealths and then move them into the city at the end of the turn. As far as I'm concerned then you could attack under a bomber if you would have done anyway. If the bomber has attacked over the railroad and you pile in your attacking armies along there then all well and good. If you circle the city to ensure that you attack from underneath the bomber then that'd be unsporting.

[Six Thousand Year Old Man]

Originally posted by duke o' york
As far as I'm concerned then you could attack under a bomber if you would have done anyway. If the bomber has attacked over the railroad and you pile in your attacking armies along there then all well and good. If you circle the city to ensure that you attack from underneath the bomber then that'd be unsporting.

I think this is impossible to adjudicate. I mean, attacking from any tile is all the same for a Bomber. Obviously if the Bomber attacks from a rail tile, though, other units can benefit from the 'shield' better. How can anyone tell if this is intentional? Given that the AI rails everything.

[duke o' york]

In that situation the AI is toast anyway.

I was thinking that if you had an airbase/carrier on one side of the city and a railroad with a couple of artillery on the other, then using a dip to get the artillery around the city to attack from beneath the bomber is underhand and an exploit. Attacking from a fortress would be fairer, but as you said, you can't legislate for it so it's best to just have it on trust. I could easily put together a case for having an airbase handily positioned on a hill within my city boundary, but honour dictates that this is cheating.