Bombardment cost?

[Urban Ranger]

Should there be a cost associated with bombardment?

In Civ 3 certain units can bombard. This represents a large expenditure in ammunition, thus the bombardment cost.

I think the cost should be proportional to the bomdardment strength of the unit.

[Jaybe]

re: bombardment costs

As long as defensive units/fortifications have an opportunity to actively defend themselves, I think that one movement point per bombardment should do fine.

As I recall, coastal defenses (I forget what they were called) open fire as soon as an enemy naval unit even moves adjacent!! There ought'a be a warning (or are they going to hold their fire until they get nice and close)?

[DarkCloud]

I believe that there should be no bombardment contest- If only for the reason that a cost for bombardment would make the game harder to manage.

[Akron]

I want my grapefruit!

Isn't the cost of units covered in support?

[Pembleton]

I'm not sure what is meant exactly by cost. Do you mean money? At first I thought it had something to do with movement or something, which obviously bombardment does take up.

Anyway, isn't the ammunition negligible to the actual cost of something like say, a battleship?

[Inverse Icarus]

if you bombard a fast unit (say a tank) does it have the chance to run and take only minimal damage?

:glares at dan:

[Mihai]

No cost

Infantry units that use gunpowder consume ammo too. IMO the cost of ammo should be included in the support cost of that unit.

An idea could be that in times of war units consume far more ammo than in times of peace and thus they cost more to support; or just those units that actually fight.

[Sabre2th]

The cost of bombardment is included in the unit support. Leave it alone.

[Madine]

In the ctp games you could adjust the readiness level of your military. This would reduce the support cost as well as the max health of your units.

Hopefully something similar to this will be in civ 3.

[Sava]

The problem is... how do you decide how much a bombardment actually costs. Ammunition is relatively cheap. I believe, according to my WWII almanac, that each 76mm shell costed about half a cent to make. Now, say a normal bombardment is a thousand shells, that's only 5 bucks. The other problem is defining how much bombarding goes on in a turn of Civ 3. If they are firing nonstop for a year period, that could be an enormous amount of ammunition.

It is too difficult an amount to assertain, and also it is too much of an insignificant cost to worry about. I say let it be part of unit cost.

[Sava]

Originally posted by UberKruX
if you bombard a fast unit (say a tank) does it have the chance to run and take only minimal damage?

:glares at dan:

The problem with that, Uber, is that what about a naval bombardment when you don't necessarily see who is bombarding you. Upon the invention of more accurate field artillery around the turn of the 20th century, bombardment was quite accurate. From 1,000 yards, a battleship could focus fire on a relatively small area with great success.

In WWI, artillery spotters gave positions for artillery to fire on, so instead of several different pieces of artillery firing on seperate targets, sometimes hundreds of piece of artillery would focus their fire on an area about 10,000 square feet. Anything in that focus of fire would not survive without being severely damaged/destroyed, or if it were personnel, killed.

In WWII, radio gave artillery spotters instant communication between the gunners and the spotters. So corrections were given immediately.

My great uncle was an artillery spotter for the 32nd artillery division during WWII. Most of my knowledge on this subject comes from him.

[Dauphin]

I think that the fiscal costs are included in maintenance costs and no additional costs should be included, but I would not be opposed to movement penalties.

For example purposes, how much US military spending is spent on ammunitions compared to their weapons maintenance? Surely the maintenance of a stealth bomber and its crews is more expensive than the payloads it delivers?

In cases were the weapon is more expensive than upkeep this is reflected by the weapon being a once-only weapons. Nukes and cruise missiles spring to mind.

[The Andy-Man]

one attack per movement point seems best, considering a tank can attack only the amount of movments it has left. Same with artillary, the only diffwerence is that further away it is less likely to hit.....

[jdd2007]

what a joke...dont u think ammunition is included in upkeep? why should it be seperate?

[Jaybe]

Originally posted by Madine
In the ctp games you could adjust the readiness level of your military. This would reduce the support cost as well as the max health of your units.

Hopefully something similar to this will be in civ 3.

There is something similar. It is that Peace/Normalcy/War status* which affect the costs of your units or improvements. The high anxiety part is that once you are in war status, you cannot get out of it until you're no longer at war!

Could become a real mess if other civs decide to rotate their warfare with you so that they overlap. If they knew you were at war status.

Not the same as in ctp, but should have the same affect overall.

*Peace: halves cost of improvements, doubles cost of units. War: halves cost of units, doubles cost of improvements. IIRC, this was production, not maintenance costs.