Tweet
When you bombard cities or land tiles with units who have a bombard range of 2, does it make a difference if you actually attack from 2 squares or 1 square? for example is there a greater chance i'll destroy a building, or land tile if i attack from 1 square away as opposed to 2?
-
-
I have never seen any differences in the amount of times my Artillery made 2 Damage, 1 Damage or no damage, between Attacks 1 or 2 tiles away.
But I never made any Statistics about it, so I can´t say for sureTamsin (Lost Girl): "I am the Harbinger of Death. I arrive on winds of blessed air. Air that you no longer deserve."
Tamsin (Lost Girl): "He has fallen in battle and I must take him to the Einherjar in Valhalla" -
It has IMHO no effect on how much damage is inflicted. And I must say: It should not be as well!
Member of Official Apolyton Realistic Civers Club.
If you can't solve it, it's not a problem--it's reality
"All is well your excellency, and that pleases me mightily"Comment
-
I'd like to see all units in the square being bombarded get the chance of being damagedEFR RPG GAME Designer, E.F.R. Forums The Coyn: Fantasy Mod for Civ3:ConquestsComment
-
Argh! Sure, this @ss-draggingly slow artillery can barely get to the enemy cities as it is... let's make their range-2 attribute pretty much worthless so they will have to move another tile!Originally posted by campmajor!
It has IMHO no effect on how much damage is inflicted. And I must say: It should not be as well!
Don't touch my range-2 weaponry! :P
On another note: I've seen bombardments that don't have any result whatsoever -no buildings/tile improvements/population/unit damage and no "bombardment failed" message either... I usually take it the bombardment has in fact failed -but I'd like to see the message!Comment
-
It is funny you ask this b/c just anecdotally it does seem to make a difference, but I doubt that is really true. It is probably just perception.Comment
-
well i think it SHOULD make a difference, the further you fire from, the less accurate your aim is. there should be a lower chance of a successful bombardment when firing from 2 tiles away.Comment
-
well I hope no one pays attention to elitepersian, that idea sucks worse than culture.Im sorry Mr Civ Franchise, Civ3 was DOAComment
-
The whole argument is something of a moot point, as bombardment is about as effective as chucking the enemy some cyanide pills and asking them to swallow...Comment
-
Slow artillery?? What are you doing, bypassing enemy cities to strike at their capital or something?! Wiping out (taking or razing) cities on the border is done to speed your troops along.Originally posted by Grim Legacy
Argh! Sure, this @ss-draggingly slow artillery can barely get to the enemy cities as it is... let's make their range-2 attribute pretty much worthless so they will have to move another tile!
Don't touch my range-2 weaponry! :P
On another note: I've seen bombardments that don't have any result whatsoever -no buildings/tile improvements/population/unit damage and no "bombardment failed" message either... I usually take it the bombardment has in fact failed -but I'd like to see the message!
I agree (game-wise) re leaving long range bombardment the same as adjacent bombardment. OTH, 'direct fire' (no coordinates to plug in, just sight through the barrel) has always been much more devastating. Maybe that would not be 'bombardment' though.
I have taken it on faith (or hope) that when you get no feedback on the effect of your bombardment, it is just that: something may have been hit, but you don't know what.
Comment
-
I think bombardment is very useful, but not until you have bombers or battleships. In my opinion, bombers are some of the best units you can have, and battleships come in handy when your opponent has a tile with a resource on it near the coast. I parked a couple battleships near my opponents only oil tile and kept blasting away all the roads around the tile. No more tanks for them!Originally posted by rid102
The whole argument is something of a moot point, as bombardment is about as effective as chucking the enemy some cyanide pills and asking them to swallow...Comment
-
As far as I can tell, if it doesn't say your bombardment failed but you can't see any effects, that means you've damaged one of the units defending the city (but not the one on top you can see).
Yet another problem I found the first time I put the CD in the drive...
Comment
-
And here it is, bombardment by artillary is useless, bombers are effective. So lets not piss about on bombarment modifiers when we should concentrate on making the game go faster, or basically just be BETTER.Originally posted by mr.buddylee
I think bombardment is very useful, but not until you have bombers or battleships. In my opinion, bombers are some of the best units you can have, and battleships come in handy when your opponent has a tile with a resource on it near the coast. I parked a couple battleships near my opponents only oil tile and kept blasting away all the roads around the tile. No more tanks for them!Im sorry Mr Civ Franchise, Civ3 was DOAComment
-
You're kidding, right? Even catapults are useful. Just don't expect to be successful using just one at a time.
Originally posted by Wrong_shui
And here it is, bombardment by artillary is useless, bombers are effective. So lets not piss about on bombarment modifiers when we should concentrate on making the game go faster, or basically just be BETTER.Comment
-
1. you never really know the effects of your bombardment 100% just looking from hills surrounding the cityOriginally posted by Andrew1999
As far as I can tell, if it doesn't say your bombardment failed but you can't see any effects, that means you've damaged one of the units defending the city (but not the one on top you can see).
Yet another problem I found the first time I put the CD in the drive...
2. you can fork out some cash and send in a spy to asses the damageComment
Comment