Is "Bomber Shielding" a legitimate tactic?

[Scouse Gits]

I think it's a cheat - but what does the community say?

This from a man who thinks that Airbases are legitimate city improvements - but can't use them 'cos You say not!

[ColdWizard]

against the AI, there are no cheats

in MP or comparison games, then i consider it a cheat unless it's specifically agreed upon to be allowed

[DrSpike]

SG I voted yes, and have to say the wording of this poll is hardly unbiased.

[rah]

Agree with CW, and will discuss to see how it should be handled in RAH rules. See the thread in MP.

RAH

[Smash]

hehehe..if a mp game ever got that far...

why not?..ever hear of air cover?...a bomber stack can be attacked and destroyed.I say use it...just not against me

[ColdWizard]

actually, i've encountered this in an MP game. it was back in my zone days, me and another guy were MPing the standard WW2 scenario. he was using an alpine troop to infiltrate my territory and ended up fortified next to one of my cities. a few turns later he happened to bomb me from the same square that the alpiner was on. imagine my surprise when i couldn't attack him . we discussed it briefly and decided to disallow bomber stacking.

air cover doesn't prevent you from using ground troops to attack other ground troops, it just makes the assault more exciting

[Scouse Gits]

Originally posted by ColdWizard
air cover doesn't prevent you from using ground troops to attack other ground troops, it just makes the assault more exciting

That says it all ...
______________
The SGs in Red

[Blaupanzer]

I voted "yes," but would add the codecile that if fighters nail anyone in that stack, you do lose the bomber too. It's just one more wierdness in a game with planes but no AA guns or missiles.

[Deity Dude]

i voted yes, it just seems like another dimension to the game.

On a broader subject, I think, in general, the default should be that things are legal unless specified as illegal prior to the game. I hate when I am playing a game, and for example, bribe someone, then they quit and send me an angry message. If the game allows it and u dont want it part of the game you should specify that ahead of time.

BTW, I am in favor of most of "RAH rules" except i prefer 1x1x, huts only, city bribe allowed.

[Smash]

well there is the solution right there.Make an AA unit.Can that be done?..should be able to.Might make a nice replacement for marines or something.....

[DrSpike]

A ha. More people voting yes, which is good since it was 4-1 earlier when I looked. At Rah's request I posted my reasons for voting yes in the MP thread about RAH rules, and I hope others that posted here will do the same.

[Six Thousand Year Old Man]

I think it's OK. The AI cheats like crazy, and I can rationalize it as air cover. Besides, if the opposition gets in a lucky attack with a fighter (or more likely, a stealth), then you run the risk of losing all your stacked attackers rather than just one. To me, if there's a risk to the 'cheat', then it doesn't seem like as much of a cheat.



STYOM

[Smash]

I voted yes.As far as MP goes,as long as it is the same for everybody..thats the main thing.It could be a thing that takes some fun out of MP game.Thats no good.Although I think landing a few x packs smack in the middle of someone's civ could be great fun.

[Thoth]

I think it's a little dodgey, even if it was the Civ I AI that taught me the trick.

[debeest]

I guess I have to vote yes; the AI does it to me, so I've learned to do it to the AI. I still haven't played multi-player, but I don't see any reason why it should be different there. I agree that in general, things not prohibited by the program or the official rules should be considered legal; but I also agree that these dicey areas should be agreed on beforehand by MP participants in any particular game.

The info in the manual is inadequate; it clearly states that you can't attack the stack with ground troops, but it doesn't tell you that if you attack with air units you'll be fighting the ground units. What a surprise it was to run into that until I figured it out. It's nonsensical, but I don't think it's a bug, so I think it's OK to use.