Precision Strike is useless

[Wjousts]

I think the precision strike in the game is pretty much useless as it currently stands. The problem is that it doesn't make sense to send in my stealth bombers to take out my enemies marketplace when if their city is close enough to one of mine that I can hit it with an air strike, I'm probably gearing up to invade it, in which case I need a precision strike against the defenders and not the buildings which I might actually like to have standing when I'm done. Precision strikes should be against military targets shouldn't they?
Using air stikes to take out buildings would only be useful if the bombers actually had sufficient range that they could strike deep into enemy territory, where destroying a marketplace might actually be useful in a strategic sense instead of counter productive. I think what is needed is long range heavy bombers that have intercontential range so you can reach out and strike your enemy's captial even if they are way too far away for you to invade and time soon. For this not to unbalance the gameplay, I think the air defence would have to beefed up a bit. There should be a chance for a long range bombing mission to be intercepted if there are fighters on patrol anywhere on the flight path to the target (same goes for SAM batteries), so deep strikes would be difficult and costly if they fly over other well defended cities on the way. Also, flying through somebody else's airspace on the way to the target shouldn't be allowed without the agreement of the other civ, forcing you to go around them and limiting your range in that situation.
Currently using air power to soften up a city doesn't work right. I've attacked cities with 10+ bombers prior to attacking with ground forces and I'll I've managed to do is destroy every building and reduce the population to 1, the defenders are often hardly scratched.

[Captain]

You're spot on the mark.

People keep posting about this problem (and not only precision strike but also bombardment in general) so I hope Friaxis fixes this in the next patch.

BTW, all bombardment should have an "aim" capability instead of the random way it is now. Precision bombing should just increase the aim so tha it hits the right target.

[Tarquelne]

The game's Precision strikes would work well if there was some kind of "Limited War" diplomatic state, and it'd work well on no-nationality bombers (which you could use when you have no intention of attacking with your regular ground units)... without either of those things, yea, Precision strikes aren't so good. There are times when I want to more or less lay waste to another civ but not invade with ground troops (This happens to me on Arch. maps where I'm on a small island or two and someone (well, either the Persians or the Russians, it seems) has a large continent. - Pre. strikes are usefull then.... but buildings are hit a lot even without Pre. strikes. I'd by far rather Pre. strikes allowed me to consistantly hit ground units.

[DarthVeda]

I happen to think Aircraft in general in Civ3 are useless the way that they are modled.

I mean, precision strikes that miss 80% of the time? The military would give up laser guidance forever! Even dumb bombs are smarter than that.

[GePap]

Agree

I completely agree that the point of precicion bombing should be destroying the enemy defenders, not the civilian infrastructure- that is the point of precision bombing, since the reasons you bombard in the first place is to weaken the defenders. I disagree with Captains point about other types of bombardment though- I think that their inaccurtate, higly destructive nature makes modern war feel right- it makes it a hugely destructive meat grinder that annahilates all in its path- very well done.

[Dida]

True, bombardment in general is useless.
Better spend your money building more and more tanks.

[mmike87]

I think air power in general is a little messed up in the game. Don't get me wrong, I LOVE this game, but I miss being able to "reach out and touch someone" (namely naval targets) using my long range bombers. I seem to recall the range being a bit longer in Civ 2 - perhaps I am mistaken.

Not being able to attack naval units is a travesty. I do not agree with this as being necessary to balance gameplay. Simply provide some naval unit that have excellent AA capabilities.

I could defend my entire coastline using long range bombers to recon for and sink emeny transports who wished me ill will. It was a good, sound, and realistic strategy. I frequently endured air onslaughts from the AI so it was not one sided.

This is probably my single biggest *itch with the game, and I wish they would "fix" it.

The argument that this makes a navy "necessary" to balance the game has no merit. Long range aircraft could be expensive to build, and countered with AA and fighters. Balence could have easily been achieved.

Maybe is the range of the bombers were a bit longer I could be appeased.

[Tarquelne]

Originally posted by mmike87
IThe argument that this makes a navy "necessary" to balance the game has no merit. Long range aircraft could be expensive to build, and countered with AA and fighters. Balence could have easily been achieved.

All of those changes, and making bombers work differently from other bombard units, would make the game a little more complicated.* Firaxis was clearly going for as "simple" a Civ game as they thought they could get away with. I wish it was more complex/"richer", you, I bet, wish the same. I imagine a Firaxian, though, might point to Civ3's sales record and say "No, I think we got it just right." (Or, possibly, a Infogrammes marketing weasel, seeing yet another copy of a game-show PC game get purchaced, might be pressing Firaxis to make the game even simpler.)

My point? What you or I see as a place when the game design "fell down", and should be improved, Firaxis might be perfectly correct in defending as just fine, given their criteria.

Hopefully they'll feel they can sneak more complexity into the game via patches or with an expansion.

Maybe is the range of the bombers were a bit longer I could be appeased.

I think they _should_ make this possible via the editor.


*Some people don't even like having _options_, let alone being called on to cope with more complexity than the bare minimum.... if not a little less. I've decided to start calling these people "voters."

[mmike87]

I disagree with the game being more complicated, as this was already modeled in Civ2 to a degree. The AEGIS cruisers had superior air defence, plus we had AA units as well. I lost many an expensive aircraft in an a strike and do not feel that they destabilized the game at all, but offered yet another possible strategy for the player to utilize.

Civ3 is NOT a simple game by any means. It's easy to play but not easy to play well, as the game is involving on so many levels. But handicapping the air force is a historical travesty to say the least.

Granted, Civ3 is not a history lesson ... but not being able to sink ships with aircraft? Come on.

I play the game a lot of love it to death, but this is really the only thing that really bugs me. It WOULD be great to have this option enabled in the editor.

[Barchan]

I have to agree that Precision Strike is fundamentally flawed. The whole concept of precision munitions is that you can accurately hit a specific target. Let me repeat that last bit: a specific target. It's not "well, just lob a few LGBs downtown and let's see what happens."

In Civ3 you should be able to designate the target you are trying to hit. Once you pick a target, the mission runs and either succeeds or fails. Frankly, though, you should be able to do this once you get Stealth units; Precision Strike should dramatically increase the probability you actually hit and destroy the intended target.

BTW, I also agree that units should be a possible target, although IRL precision munitions are less effective on military units, particularly infantry and artillery, than on structures. They are quite effective against armor and naval vessels, though.

[planetfall]

couple comments

select precision strike target-- what a simple and great idea. This would definitely make the game more interesting.

bomber range-- agreed we need to be able to increase range way beyond 8 tiles. 16 or 24 would be a good limit.

precision strikes miss 80% of time-- you are playing wrong. Success/failure is based on seed number calculated off some date/time function. You are getting poor results because the time interval between selecting target and bombing is staying within too small of a window. Firaxis did a good job and reinitializes the seed number with each bombardment attack.

Just change your timing and watch the effect on bombing success. You will need to experiment to find the optimal bombard rate. Key is to:
1. select target
2. count to X numbers
3. click bombard

If count to 5 fails twice in a row, change to another number. Each number will have its own success/failure ratio. You are trying to find a number with a higher success rate. Granted you may need more than 12 units to find the current right number. But even if it takes 6 attacks to find the current better number, and the last 6 have a greater than 50% success ratio, you are ahead of using the same timing interval.

Also note your bombard success rate will be strongly effected by editor values. I have yet to have a fighter bomb work. Their strength is just too small, much like trying to use a catapult in the modern era.


Defenders are hardly scratched-- huh? if going for defenders use normal bombing not smart bombing. Problem with defenders is they will regain power in one turn. {Even with barracks destroyed. Doesn't seem right but that is how the game plays on warlord}

The only way I have found to soften defenders is to use regular bombing and in the same turn attack via ground. Maybe you are not using enough bombers. Last game used 40+ on carriers to reduce 24 pop city with improvements and defenders to less than 10. City was too close to capital and had to be razed anyway. Hated losing the wonders, but armor had easy time with city and enough strength for next city with very little loss of hit points.

The problem here is the tedium of bomb, after bomb, after bomb. Need a group all bomb at once option, like the stack goto option.

Finally, said forget air. So what if I lose more armor. The game goes much faster without having to set all those missions.

[jabroni154]

Why not let the editor set the range to a much higher value? The default game could still be left to 8 or (hopefully higher) but the mod packs could make the long range bomber with a 100 square range or whatever.

Personally, I think the range is quite weak on all bombers. It should be doubled at a minimum if not tripled. That would add a lot more of the reach out and touch you factor which I think would add quite a bit to the game with no real penalty.

Why not in the late game, my stealth bomber takes off and precision bombs their capital (a continent away) and blasts their nuclear reactor into bits and pieces, sweet..... Now that is what I'm talking about

[Solver]

I see Bombardment OK, but I do also agree that the Precision Strike is flawed. We should be able to choose a target for the strike. Acually, I though it is that way, before Civ 3 got released.

All bombing should have a bit larget chance of succeedding.

I'm fine by Bomber range of 8, but the Stealth Bombers, as Precision Aircraft, should be really able to strike targets that your conventional forces couldn't reach yet.

Also... I've only conducted the Precision Strikes one, with F-15, when playing as Americans. I am yet to get the Stealth technology - it just comes too late. If I get the Diplomatic Victory, it's far off from Stealth. If Spaceship, I usually finish it just about when ready to discover Stealth. I don't though think that the best solution is putting Stealth earlier - no. I still think the best solution is to actually give us modern age.

Finally, I repeat that I lose Bombers, and use a lot - standrard Bombardment is fine by me.