Lethal Bombardment Survey

[steelehc]

Originally posted by Venger
Boy, where to start, so much genius to unleash...

Good thing Venger showed up, now we all know how stupid we are. Let me just say that I agree with Thrawn's use of lethality.

Remove it. Cannons really didn't have a general ability to destroy enemy formations, though grapeshot was a real bitc%.

If you set the bombard value low enough, it will take a number of guns to do the job. This accuratly reflects this type of gun. They did have quite the power to destroy formations. Ask Napoleon. Ask Clausewitz. Ask Robert E. Lee. Ask any one of the great generals from before the late nineteenth century.

A little iffy on artillery - but okay.

I agree with you here, at least that artillery should not be able to destroy ships. Against land, though, artillery were used to great effect against land formations. Ditto radar artillery, except they haven't really been used very much.

Remove.

Ironclad warships could easily sink many contemporary ships. Are you actually implying they could not?

Remove land from Aegis cruiser. It's not that type of ship.

I was on USS Antietam in the gulf. We launched cruise missile attacks almost every day for a week and a half. We killed a bunch of bunkers, and a couple tank laagers. The Antietam is a Ticonderoga class AEGIS cruiser.

Prop fighters shouldn't get it. I assume all torpedo and dive bombers exist under the bombers heading - they can destroy both.

This I can sortof agree with. Unless you consider the P-51, P-47, P-38, and similiar planes to be fighters. Acting as attack planes, they caused great amounst of damage to German and Japanese formations alike in WW2.

Remove.

I disagree with this largely on principle. The Man-O-War sucks. You gotta give the English some kind of usefulness from their UU. Otherwise, its almost pointless.

{QUOTE]Well, you could leave it in under the guise of the SLCM capability...[/QUOTE]

I agree here. But then they should have longer range, which leads to more unbalancing (a sub parks in the middle of the ocean, and cruise missiles everything around it...)

In WW2, a Japanese sub surfaced off Northern California, and started shelling the coast with its deck gun. It was driven off and sunk by the Coast Guard, but managed to damage a few houses, and put some holes in a road.

What the system REALLY needs is three values - vs. air, vs. land, vs. sea.

Venger

I completely agree with you here. That would add no more then the necessary level of complexity, while adding much mroe enjoyment.

Sorry for chewing you out here. You just seemed to come off as arrogant, and your post needed to be replied to...

Steele

[nationalist]

Originally posted by notyoueither
Nothing ever for land. Too imbalancing.

Am considering whether or not for sea. Without AA, too much potential for imbalance. Then, only for air craft.

I agree. Its not realisitc to think that artillery would kill evry soldier by itself. But, for me, non lethal bombardment wasn't a problem. I think that this will probably unbalance the game. (At least everything except for allowing bombers to sink ships. I like that.)

[Inverse Icarus]

it will unbalance the late game, espefcially in multiplayer. [FIRAXIAN VOICE]eventually[/FIRAXIAN VOICE].

think about it reasonably. late game, all you need for defence are bombers. the second you see something (a swarm of tanks, a fleet of battleships / transports) you can bomb the crap out of it before it even gets in range of attacking you. whats a bomber range? 8? 10? i'm not sure myself, but still. thats 4 or 5 turns that a tank takes to get there. 10 or 20 bombers could tear a stack to shreds.

and now people are talking about infinate movement for bombers (lol i said it) but it's even more unbalancing.

me and my friends are going to sit down sometime son and create a modded BIC file we can all agree on.

[Zachriel]

Originally posted by steelehc
If you set the bombard value low enough, it will take a number of guns to do the job. This accuratly reflects this type of gun. They did have quite the power to destroy formations. Ask Napoleon. Ask Clausewitz. Ask Robert E. Lee. Ask any one of the great generals from before the late nineteenth century.

Interesting you should bring up R.E. Lee. At Gettysburg, he utilized the largest single cannonade in history. This poorly conceived plan led to disaster. An excellent example of Napoleonic cannon was at Austerlitz. Once positioned (through a ruse) on the high ground, Napoleon raked the enemy with cannon. However, it was his infantry which massacred the enemy troops.

None of these military strategists believed the use of bombard was sufficient in and of itself. Bombard was always used in conjuction with infantry. During WWI, when ridiculous amounts of artillery were brought to bear, the infantry merely retreated behind hills or underground, only to reemerge once the barrage had ended.

The job is not to kill everyone in a unit, but to destroy their unit cohesion. If you can make them run away in disorder, you have destroyed the unit even if you didn't kill a single soldier. On the other hand, no matter how many people you kill, if Stonewall Jackson refuses to budge, then the flag offers a rally point to the survivors, and the unit survives.

In Afghanistan, with bombard far more lethal than anything depicted in Civ3, it took troops on the ground to force the enemy out into the open. Even then, the Taliban were surprisingly tough to destroy. As far as I know, the U.S. military plans on keeping infantry troops, and not converting to a 100% bombard army.

[notyoueither]

Originally posted by Flanker
Oh, so that means you could still hit cities? That´s too bad... Guess that good sub-idea won´t work out in that case. I haven´t have time to test this new lethal bombardment option so I didn´t know...

What do you mean? It's a great idea! Haven't you seen '1941'?

Of course, then we'll need the secretly developed ASW Grant.

[Zachriel]

One more point on this subject:

In Kosovo, the Clinton administration believed they might be able to force the Serbs to capitulate with nothing but bombard. They bombed Serb military units, bridges, rail, roads, convoys, factories, military hq, etc. This did not work.

They let the KLA irregulars attack, the Serbs were forced out of their bunkers, and into the open, in order to defend themselves against the ground assault. The Serbs started losing hundreds of soldiers to smart bombs and surrendered shortly thereafter. If the U.S. had just had those irregulars in action from the beginning, then there would have been no need to destroy the Serbian infrastructure.

These lessons were put to good use in Afghanistan.

[Dinner]

Originally posted by steelehc In WW2, a Japanese sub surfaced off Northern California, and started shelling the coast with its deck gun. It was driven off and sunk by the Coast Guard, but managed to damage a few houses, and put some holes in a road.

Actually the Jap sub shelled the ship docking oil pipeline complex at Coal Oil point near Goleta, California (which is in Santa Barbara County in southern California). To my knowledge the sub was not sunk but it was attacked by U.S. Army Air Corp fighter planes from the airfield that was about two miles away. I forget the old airfield's name but after the war the field was shut down and it became the Santa Barbara Regional Airport.

For four years I lived right next to Coal Oil Point (in Isla Vista) and the history of "the only foreign attack on the contintal U.S. since the war of 1812" had become part of the local lore.

[Dinner]

Originally posted by Zachriel
One more point on this subject:

In Kosovo, the Clinton administration believed they might be able to force the Serbs to capitulate with nothing but bombard. They bombed Serb military units, bridges, rail, roads, convoys, factories, military hq, etc. This did not work.

They let the KLA irregulars attack, the Serbs were forced out of their bunkers, and into the open, in order to defend themselves against the ground assault. The Serbs started losing hundreds of soldiers to smart bombs and surrendered shortly thereafter. If the U.S. had just had those irregulars in action from the beginning, then there would have been no need to destroy the Serbian infrastructure.

These lessons were put to good use in Afghanistan.

Zach,
I spent eight months in Kosovo as part of the Nato peace keeping mission back in 2000. As some one who was there six months after the fighting stopped let me tell you the UCK (Albanian for KLA) was never an effective fighting force; it really was a small, virtually ineffective, gorrila force that relied on sabotage and IRA style planted bombs.
On the other hand I did see the rusting remains of several Serb tanks and armored personal carriers that had be destroyed by Allied air attack. I also have saw several photos of whole serb collumns that where straffed and put out of action by Nato planes.
Thus I think it is reasonable to conclude that it was the Allied air attacks and not the UCK that forced the Serbs out of Kosovo.

[notyoueither]

Zack is arguing that bombardment alone does not destroy ground units. Yes, you can bomb or shell the snot out of them, but eventually you will need people on the ground to finish the job. He is right. Civ3 has this right. You can bomb them down to 1HP then send in your forces to 'mop up'.

Ships on the other hand...

[SpencerH]

Originally posted by Oerdin


Actually the Jap sub shelled the ship docking oil pipeline complex at Coal Oil point near Goleta, California (which is in Santa Barbara County in southern California). To my knowledge the sub was not sunk but it was attacked by U.S. Army Air Corp fighter planes from the airfield that was about two miles away. I forget the old airfield's name but after the war the field was shut down and it became the Santa Barbara Regional Airport.

For four years I lived right next to Coal Oil Point (in Isla Vista) and the history of "the only foreign attack on the contintal U.S. since the war of 1812" had become part of the local lore.

Are you telling me that was a real event? That was in the movie 1941 with John Belushi and Dan Akroyd.

[Zachriel]

Originally posted by Oerdin
Zach,
I spent eight months in Kosovo as part of the Nato peace keeping mission back in 2000. . . . Thus I think it is reasonable to conclude that it was the Allied air attacks and not the UCK that forced the Serbs out of Kosovo.

That's the beauty. They didn't have to fight. They just had to be there to provoke the Serbs into leaving their bunkers. (A similar situation occurred in Afghanistan.) The decisive battle in Kosovo was on Mount Pastrik. The KLA was advancing with mortars on the Serb position, and

It was by most accounts the deadliest NATO airstrike of the 11-week war -- a decisive blow by American B-52 bombers that dropped a heavy payload of cluster bombs on 800 to 1,200 Serbs massing on the Kosovo side of Mount Pastrik to repel the KLA offensive. The hulking, 6,523-foot peak marks the border between Yugoslavia and Albania.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/inatl/longterm/balkans/stories/pastrik062699.htm

I agree that smart weaponry is changing the battlefield and this "rule of thumb" may not have relevance much longer. But the bombardment in Civ3 represents traditional bombardment where the rule holds.

It takes ground forces to take ground.

[steelehc]

Interesting you should bring up R.E. Lee. At Gettysburg, he utilized the largest single cannonade in history. This poorly conceived plan led to disaster. An excellent example of Napoleonic cannon was at Austerlitz. Once positioned (through a ruse) on the high ground, Napoleon raked the enemy with cannon. However, it was his infantry which massacred the enemy troops.

At Austerlitz, Napoleon's cannon inflicted severe casualties on the Russian and Austrian forces. His infantry carried out the majority of the fighting, but without the cannon, it would have been a far more costly and difficult battle.

None of these military strategists believed the use of bombard was sufficient in and of itself. Bombard was always used in conjuction with infantry. During WWI, when ridiculous amounts of artillery were brought to bear, the infantry merely retreated behind hills or underground, only to reemerge once the barrage had ended.

The way you describe an artillery barrage is as an annoyance, like a fly to be brushed away, just duck under some dirt, and it won't hurt you. That's not quite accurate. Thousands of soldiers were killed by artillery in WW1, and even though this number pales in comparision to the other numbers, artillery fire did completely break entire divisions. In the second Battle of the Marne, a German division lost almost 80% of its effective strength to artillery.

The job is not to kill everyone in a unit, but to destroy their unit cohesion. If you can make them run away in disorder, you have destroyed the unit even if you didn't kill a single soldier. On the other hand, no matter how many people you kill, if Stonewall Jackson refuses to budge, then the flag offers a rally point to the survivors, and the unit survives.

If you destroy the cohesion of a unit, you have destroyed the unit.

In Afghanistan, with bombard far more lethal than anything depicted in Civ3, it took troops on the ground to force the enemy out into the open. Even then, the Taliban were surprisingly tough to destroy. As far as I know, the U.S. military plans on keeping infantry troops, and not converting to a 100% bombard army.

The Taliban fighters are for the most part guerilla fighters. They are not fighting the kind of pitched battle you would expect from a Civ game.

Actually the Jap sub shelled the ship docking oil pipeline complex at Coal Oil point near Goleta, California (which is in Santa Barbara County in southern California). To my knowledge the sub was not sunk but it was attacked by U.S. Army Air Corp fighter planes from the airfield that was about two miles away.

Thanks for correcting me. I was not aware of this. But are you sure it was the USAAC who dealt with the sub? In any case, submarines have shelled shore positions, as this example proves.

I apologize again for tearing into your post, but I take this strongly, and its hard to find a good debate to join these days.

Steele

[Zachriel]

Originally posted by steelehc
At Austerlitz, Napoleon's cannon inflicted severe casualties on the Russian and Austrian forces. His infantry carried out the majority of the fighting, but without the cannon, it would have been a far more costly and difficult battle.

Absolutely! I would even go further. Without cannon, Napoleon would probably not have won at all. (He was originally lieutenant of artillery, and as a soldier, very brave.)

The way you describe an artillery barrage is as an annoyance, like a fly to be brushed away, just duck under some dirt, and it won't hurt you. That's not quite accurate. Thousands of soldiers were killed by artillery in WW1, and even though this number pales in comparision to the other numbers, artillery fire did completely break entire divisions. In the second Battle of the Marne, a German division lost almost 80% of its effective strength to artillery.

Not an annoyance at all, indeed decisive. (In Civ3, I use artillery extensively.) In the second battle of the Marne, the German division did take huge casualties from artillery and infantry, were eventually forced to retreat, but maintained unit cohesion and were not destroyed. By the way, the Germans were on the attack, which is why they were so exposed to enemy bombardment.

If you destroy the cohesion of a unit, you have destroyed the unit.

Absolutely. It doesn't matter how many soldiers you kill as long as you destroy their ability or will to fight. In Vietnam, the U.S. killed plenty, but never destroyed the unit cohesion which made victory possible for the Vietnamese.

The Taliban fighters are for the most part guerilla fighters. They are not fighting the kind of pitched battle you would expect from a Civ game.

The Taliban did field regular uniformed military units. When confronted with smart weapons, they took the standard precaution of dispersement, camouflage, deception and entrenchment; meanwhile trying to inflict casualties through ambush. Everytime they struck though, their position was pinpointed and they were hit by bombard. However, without alliance troops on the ground, the Taliban would still be dispersed and hiding in Kabul.

I apologize again for tearing into your post, but I take this strongly, and its hard to find a good debate to join these days.

Why apologize? I have learned many things on this forum. And have had my mind changed, specifically on the "submarine bombardment" question.

By the way, we are not really that far apart on this issue.

[notyoueither]

Originally posted by steelehc
In the second Battle of the Marne, a German division lost almost 80% of its effective strength to artillery.

If you destroy the cohesion of a unit, you have destroyed the unit.

Yup. And you can bombard Civ3 units from 5 to 1 HPs. 80%. And it happens far more commonly in Civ3 than in any point of history.

As for destroying a unit by destroying it's cohesion... not quite. You can bomb them into the dark ages, but if you do not follow up with ground pounders the remnants will remain, recover and live to fight another day.

[steelehc]

Originally posted by Zachriel
Absolutely! I would even go further. Without cannon, Napoleon would probably not have won at all. (He was originally lieutenant of artillery, and as a soldier, very brave.)

Thats an interesting theory. I don't actually know enough about his OOB or the layout of the field to have an informed opinion about that.

Not an annoyance at all, indeed decisive. (In Civ3, I use artillery extensively.) In the second battle of the Marne, the German division did take huge casualties from artillery and infantry, were eventually forced to retreat, but maintained unit cohesion and were not destroyed. By the way, the Germans were on the attack, which is why they were so exposed to enemy bombardment.

I know it isn't an annoyance, but that is kind of how (exxagerated) you seem to be describing it. Many German divisions suffered extensive casualties from both infantry and artillery, but one in particular (I forget its name/number) suffered nearly 80% attrition primarily from artillery.

Absolutely. It doesn't matter how many soldiers you kill as long as you destroy their ability or will to fight. In Vietnam, the U.S. killed plenty, but never destroyed the unit cohesion which made victory possible for the Vietnamese.

Artillery can destroy a unit's cohesion. We agree on that. It should be enough to destroy a unit in Civ if it loses its cohesion, as there is no real way to show that.

The Taliban did field regular uniformed military units. When confronted with smart weapons, they took the standard precaution of dispersement, camouflage, deception and entrenchment; meanwhile trying to inflict casualties through ambush. Everytime they struck though, their position was pinpointed and they were hit by bombard. However, without alliance troops on the ground, the Taliban would still be dispersed and hiding in Kabul.

True. True. True. But you can't actually say that the Taliban would still be near Kabul. Air power can do things you are leaving out. In WW2, the American and Filipino forces on Corregidor in the Philppines were not faced by ground troops. They were being constantly bombed from the air, however, and they surrendered.

Why apologize? I have learned many things on this forum. And have had my mind changed, specifically on the "submarine bombardment" question.

I apologize because it seems to me like I am chewing you out for merely disagreeing with me. I have a short temper, and I try not to attack someone for no real reason. But I thank you.

BTW: Just because some subs have shelled shore installations does not mean that they were very effective at it. I would suggest a low bombard value, but a high rate of fire.

Steele