Smart Weapons! Cool! Carpet Bombing?

[Jason Beaudoin]

Nope... that's the Ontario flag. Manitoba has a buffalo on theirs.

[Tjoepie]

Carpet bombing enemy cities to destroy improvements or even wonders and a few civilians would make it much more realistic compared to killing units only. I'd use more bombers if they could destroy production capability of an enemy as in WWII.
Having defending fighters would become essential.

And most of all an airwar would finally get more attention and realism in this game where a phalanx used to be able to hit a plane with "spears" !?!?!?!
I hope firaxis see's it this way ...

Being a professional pilot myself I'm frustrated that so little is known about how aircraft are used in civ3 , I hope they answer my askcivteam question about it.
Does anyone know how they move ( movementpoints/fuel?)

[jdd2007]

Does anyone know how they move ( movementpoints/fuel?)

i dont know, but it will be a new system
IIRC, "they will no longer be like superfast ground units"

[GaryGuanine]

Apparently area bombing doesn't really affect your culture rating, since we did it in WWII. History is culture, and the winners write it. It may affect the culture ratings of the bombees though, since lots of stuff is destroyed.

The only way that strategic bombing would be an option is if they could figure out a way to have a real "front". Too often you can just run the bombers over the terrain, bomb a city and then move in armor or howitzers. If there was an effective front, you would have to hurt their production by bombing, and of course a percentage chance of destroying improvements. Also, if there was a front, you wouldn't be able to get to cities far from it, and you could continue bombing the city to destroy improvements after the units were destroyed.

Of course then fighters are much more important, and they'd have to get together some kind of escort system together, or just beef up the bombers defense and say it's implied.

Then again, this could be too much thinking over one point.

Gary