Can bombarding kill units?

[Civ Dave]

I found that no matter how much I bomb a unit, it will never lose that last hit point....

anyone know why this is?

[Grumbold]

Because that is both historically accurate and a game balancing feature. You might kill 80% of a unit with a massive bombing attack but there will always be survivors. When the opposition are well dug in and prepared, bombardment is singularly useless at doing much more than stopping them from sleeping.

Even with ships, while bombs can sink them there has never been entire fleets sunk as a result and on the macro scale of Civ it is unlikely that 1 unit = 1 ship any more than 1 armor unit = 1 tank. It makes you have a balance of forces and not just rely on one tool alone.


(Edit..) This post is in answer to Civ Dave's. I have no idea why it is appearing first (end Edit)

[Orlando]

If you bomb a city down to size 1, it will never be destroyed if bombing runs are continued on that city.

[Sarxis]

Re: Can bombarding kill units?

Originally posted by Civ Dave
I found that no matter how much I bomb a unit, it will never lose that last hit point....

anyone know why this is?

Bombarding/bombing can't kill units- only wound them to their last HP.

That is why.

[wervdon]

I like it that way in cities, but for units in the open I dont

Im hoping they add an editor option (per unit not general) to make lethal bombardment/bombing missions for just that unit so if someone wants to change the rules they can.

[AuraSeer]

The complete lack of lethal bombardment is just silly, IMO.

Say I'm attacking a heavily-defended enemy capitol. The transports with all my attack units got sunk, leaving me with only artillery and defense units. So, while my home cities build some replacement attackers, I entirely surround the capitol and start bombarding it with eight artillery per round.

This doesn't help me in any way, for what should be obvious reasons.

Since bombardment can't kill units, all the defenders are obviously still in place at the end of the turn. They're down to one hit point, but because they're in their friendly city, they get 100% healed every turn as long as they don't move.

So I pummel this city from now until doomsday. I destroy the barracks and the factory and every single city improvement. I kill off the population wholesale. Eventually all that's left is a bunch of soldiers, in a little village with few people and no facilities. YET, those soldiers still manage to repair their weapons, and rebuild destroyed tanks, and train replacements for their (Elite!) dead comrades, healing unit strength faster than I can hurt it.

Just plain silly, that.

[Dida]

combardment cannot kill units, and half the time, it fails to do any damage.

[siredgar]

Bombarding should kill!

If you can't kill a unit by bombardment, how are you supposed to take over a small island until you get Marines??? Hellooooooo!

[Barchan]

I have to agree with Auraseer, to a point.

I also was dismayed that air units could not destroy land/sea units. But I got over it. It is more realistic that way. I'm not aware of any aerial bombardment in history has completely eliminated an entire army or fleet (which, more or less, is the scale of the units in the game).

But the Barracks thing seems to have been a good idea that wasn't fully though out. When combined with non-lethal air and artillery and single-attack-only units, the barracks can make taking over a city nearly impossible without amassing a stack of units of biblical proportions.

I also find fault with the "elite replacement" ability of barracks. This might be too much detail to correct, but, ITRW, replacements are usually anything but elite....

Perhaps if barracks only healed two points instead of all of them it might not be as much of a problem. But as it is now, good God do you need a lot of artillery for a sustained assault on a city. And there ain't ***t left standing by the time you're done....