So Bombardment is all right or have ppl at Firaxis not decided for a change yet?

[Atahualpa]

Sometimes I just simply do NOT want to build up a navy, but instead rely on the fact that I can sink enemy ships with my bombers too.
But I can have 10000 of bombers these ships make it to my coast anyway because the bomber refuses to kill the unit.
Bombers should be able to sink ships!!!! There has to be a choice wether I want to build up a navy or not!!! I dont like being forced in such descisions.

Also I think land units standing in open terrain (grass, plains) should be able to be killed with bombarding. Where tanks should have a greater chance to be killed than infantry has.

AND MOST IMPORTANT OF ALL: Tiles that were bombarded in the last round should NOT be able to be worked on by workers. Any worker currently working on a tile that is bombarded should immediately stop working and lose all his work he has done so far on this tile.In addition modern units should not be able to be finished when the resource is not available. Currently, they can be finished, but not be chosen to be built anymore, which is kind of pointless.

I mean you simply cannot stop a civ building modern units when you cut their only resource of oil on a plane. They simply move 3 workers over there and have built up the road again every single turn. So this kind of strategy is totally useless, where I think it would be a real useful strategy if only the game was modelled right.

Then next: The AI should realize that when I bombard some of their tiles over and over with bombers they should start building fighters!
Yes I had a game where I had 3 carriers with 3 bombers and 3 fighters and over and over I bombed his cities. He seemed not to be keen to do something against it.
Ok, it was on Warlord but hell that game really was tougher than my last on prince.


mfg,
ata

P.S.: The retreat thing in v1.17f looks good! Now infantry in defense is a LOT more useful!!! Btw, does it depend on the delta-experience (exp_attacker - exp_defender) or solely on the experience of the attacker. I would think the delta-experience would be better solution.

[player1]

SUGGESTION:
You can use CRUISE miss. to destroy ship units.
Cruise mis. can easily KILL 1hp enemy ship.

In fact, I think that it's a MAIN role for Cr. missiles after the patch.

If only they could have bomb. rage higher then 2 tiles.

[wervdon]

Ive actually given this a good bit of thought since the game come out...and I actually agree that bombardment shouldn't be lethal, as that would allow artillery a primary role in ground combat.

Thing is I dont view bombers as artillery and I think they should be different. The main problem is the game views them as bombardment and nothing but fighters on air superiority can really attack back, so if they was lethal they'd be too powerful.

Here's how I think bombers should work personally, but I doubt even part of this happens even as an editor option for mod makers

Air vs Air in civ3 works fine as is except that fighters should automatically scramble to defend if the city there in gets bombed That or air superiority should be like fortify and stay active (maybe cost gold in upkeep or something over time)

Air vs Sea
First bombers should be able to sink ships, and they should get a big bonus chance to do so if the ship is at port (in a town). However, some ships (those equiped with anti-aircraft guns and missiles) should have a chance (maybe a very good one) to bring the bomber down. If the unit can't fire back it should be treated as bombardment but allow lethal, but if the unit can strike back it should basically be a normal combat or a bombardment with a dice roll for if the bomber is shot down. Possibly this effect should even include units within the area of effect, say a cruiser has a semi-air superiority role and can protect its fleet somewhat.

Air vs Land
It should work as it does now when the units are in a city. It makes sense parts of divisions of land units can hide in buildings or such and avoid total anhilation. Likewise units in a fort (gives them more of a purpose too) should receive similar protection from lethal bombing hits.

Units in the open should be able to killed or not based on terrain. Bombers should be most effecitve at eliminating entire divisions in deserts and the least in hills or forests.


Also some land units might should also have the ability to fire back at bombers, not sure. Maybe just a settable unit attribute "can attack air units" or something like that.

[Atahualpa]

cruise missles: as you said bombard range of 2 is kind of pointless

I have done a bit search and found that the Tomahawk Cruise Missle has a Range of 1000 Statute Miles which are 868.4 Nautical Miles or 1644.38 kilometres

source: http://www.raytheon.com/es/esproduct...wk/dssthwk.htm

The B17 bomber had an operational range of 3,400 miles
source: http://www.geocities.com/idf_squadron/history/b17.htm

But the Bomber has bombard range of 8 so I think the cruise missle could have a bombard range of 3 or 4.
Still wouldnt be perfect for sinking ships but well at least a bit better.


mfg,
ata