Bombers do not work...

[mintaka_au]

Originally posted by kruton
I think they ran out of time and just cut and pasted the code for artillery bombardment for bombers.

I think they knowingly had to cut this corner in order to get the game done in time, and the "game balance" comment was just to save face.

Unfortunatly, I think your right.

Hey Firaxis, if you want naval superiority to require more ships, let the ships damage the bombers. I'm fine with that. But as it is, one of the most important and *FUN* concepts of the game is largely neutered.

Couldn't agree more.

Damien.

[Deathwalker]

I hate to point this out, but air power has caused some of the greatest naval military disarters. E.G. Pearl Harbour, HMS Repulse. Both times ships were sunk by air power. Yet in Civ 3 the ships are magical and can not be sunk, what a pick of ****, and there excuse sucks

[codemast01]

I like all the changes made to aircrafts, except for that stupid bombardment cannot kill units rule. In fact, it is totally ridiculous that a cruise missile can kill units when any other bombardment cannot. All bombardment should be able to kill. Prehaps artillery can have a lower kill rate than bombers to keep the game balanced. Aside from that I like the redesign of the air units. However, these units should be able to takeoff from one location and land at another location. (ex. bomber takesoff from a carrier, strike its target, and lands in a nearby friendly city) This would slightly extend the range of air units and also add some realism to Civ3.

[sachmo71]

Re: Bombers Carriers the sea ...

Maybe what's needed is a Carrier Strike aircraft. A unit all on it's own. Can only operate from Carriers or sea cities and can only completely destroy sea units, not land units. These would better reflect the situation for many island and small costal nations (such as my home, Australia and nations like Japan etc.) It works like a Jet or Stealth fighter in all other respects.

Good idea, but it would insult the "realism" that so many people seem to want. Most carrier/naval attack aircraft are perfectly capable of attacking land targets.


On a slightly different note, I was shocked to find that my mechanised units couldn't use the AI railways. "WHAT THE ****! How dare they, I mean it's it's ..." That was my initial reaction. However, on reflection (and a good nights sleep :-P) this is a good improvement. Makes sense as the rolling stock would be destroyed, workers missing, signals out etc. However, it seems as if you can't use the AI's roads either. Can somone confirm that? Would be very silly if that's the case.

Not so silly (again with the realism!). I have to check on this, but I'm pretty sure that your movement is reduced while inside enemy borders. Think of it as roadblocks, ambushes, etc. You can't go crusing along in column formation when you are expecting to make contact with the enemy, unless you want to die.


For those how say "The games not supposed to be realistic, etc" I disagree. One of Civ's big attractions is that you can recreate history. (It was the only thing SMAC lacked) Therefore I expect things to work similar repeat similar to history. It dosen't have to be 100% true to history, but that should be the aim so long as it's fun too. So while I don't expect to redo Midway or Coral Sea or Leyte Gulf in every detail, not being able to sink ships with bombers is NOT fun.


I agree that airpower should be able to sink ships, but for simplicity sake I would be happy with it the way it is. If you change this, there would be others who would argue that a bomber should be able to destroy ground troops. I don't think that a bomb strike has ever destroyed every man in a unit, but a concentrated strike can reduce a unit's combat effectiveness to zero, rendering it ineffective for a period of time. Both sides have a point, so why not keep it the way it is?

[Howling Chip]

One reason I like the bomber rule, is the AI will never build waves of bombers that totally obliterate all your ground units.

Like a lot of things in CIV III's ruleset, I find the inhibitions the rulesets place on the AI tactics well worth any realism issue. So far in my two weeks of play, the balance and fun aspects do justify the game changes.

[klesh]

Originally posted by Howling Chip
One reason I like the bomber rule, is the AI will never build waves of bombers that totally obliterate all your ground units.

I wish they would. That way iI can couter with my fleets of interceptor/fighter aircraft to shoot them down.... oh, wait...

-FMK.