Lethal Bombardment Survey

[Killazer]

Lethal land bombard = bad idea

Lethal bombardment of any land units by any other unit would be a very bad idea. Think about it. You are invaded by someone with a number of 30+ unit stacks.... so what? You rail in all your 150+ artillery units and simply completely destroy all of his units with no danger or cost to yourself. The enemy would never have a chance to counter attack. You wouldnt even need a land army just some defenders and mass artillery. Its just like you are dropping nuclear bombs on them or something. You would be impervious to any land attack as long as you had a number of artillery pieces and airforce.

Land bombard as it is now is perfect. Sure, you can still bring in 150+ arty and air forces but the best you can do is reduce all of his land units to 1 hp each. Even so, you will still need to bring in at least an equal amount of your own land forces (until tanks then 1/3 at least) to mop up the enemy and most likely more. Even tho the enemy units are down to 1 hp you will still take damage attacking them and possibly will even loose some of your own units. This would give the enemy at least a chance of counter attacking with their own artillery and air force. Ships dont need to and shouldnt be able to anyway to lethal bombard land units. Neither should airforce.

Naval combat is different. Ships and carriers cant zip around the map with no movement cost. Air craft have an operational range. For naval combat I do think bombers should be able to lethal bombard naval units. It makes sense and it would work in the game.

One last thing... I also would hate lethal bombard because I love reducing enemy units to 1hp and then mowing them down generating great leaders. If I sit there lethal bombarding everything im never going to get leaders. Naval combat doesnt generate leaders so thats another reason lethal bombard works with and is most suited to naval combat in this game. Ship vs ship and bombers should be able to lethal bombard ships im fine with that.

[Killazer]

One more thing

Also for any of you Napoleon lovers or historians or whatever. Please, you know that artillery has never in history completely destroyed an entire army, nothing saying of several armies and army groups. It simply couldnt happen. Humans are small targets and you would need trillion gazzillions of 155mm+ HE round howitzers to destroy an entire army. Yet, with lethal arty bombard, this would be routine in civ3.

Now, when I speak of armies, Im not talking about 400 guerilla fighters or 200 rebels or whatever, those arent armies. Im talking about a full blown army as created by world powers like Germanys in ww2. Each division was typically aprox 10000 men well equiped. Million men = aprox 100 divisions. All the arillery on the planet couldnt completely decimate all those 100 divisions and by the time they even killed 2 divisions they would be overrun and captured / destroyed. So, you shouldnt be able to kill 100 units in civ3 with just lethal artillery bombard. Stupid and unbalancing.

As I mentioned above naval combat is different.

[Zachriel]

Originally posted by steelehc
Artillery can destroy a unit's cohesion.

Very rarely. About as often as shore bombardment by subs.

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.

An actual example. Good! However, Corregidor was actually a siege with no hope of relief. In addition, they were not destroyed, but surrendered as a unit. With hope of relief, they might have held out.

[Zachriel]

Originally posted by steelehc
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.

Fascinating battle. Napoleon actually succeeded in positioning his cannon in the middle of the enemy lines.

http://www.pbs.org/empires/napoleon/n_war/campaign/page_7.html

PILE the bodies high at Austerlitz and Waterloo.
Shovel them under and let me work—
I am the grass; I cover all.

And pile them high at Gettysburg
And pile them high at Ypres and Verdun.
Shovel them under and let me work.
Two years, ten years, and passengers ask the conductor:
What place is this?
Where are we now?

I am the grass.
Let me work.

-- Carl Sandburg

[Zachriel]

Re: One more thing

Originally posted by Killazer
As I mentioned above naval combat is different.

Yes, I agree. Naval combat is different.

[steelehc]

Zacherial: Thanks for the Austerlitz stuff. I am fascinated by the Napoleonic wars, and I should know more about them.

Let me clarify my position and reasoning behind lethal bombardment. Artillery can not completely wipe out every single soldier in a large (division-size) unit. Never happened, probably never will happen. However, massed artillery fire can completely destroy such a unit's ability to fight. In my opinion, a single hit point in Civ does not accuratly reflect this situation. A 1HP tank can destroy other tanks. It still has fighting strength remaining. Artillery fire can take away this fighting ability, and can do so completely if used effectively. If a unit loses its fighting ability, I consider it destroyed, as it is of no further use.

Steele

[Akka]

Originally posted by Zachriel
Fascinating battle. Napoleon actually succeeded in positioning his cannon in the middle of the enemy lines.

Mmh, sorry to contradict you, but actually there were very few artillery used in Austerlitz, as it was essentially an infantry battle.
Except for on time, when Saint-Hilaire has to reppel a quite big counter-attack on the Pratzen, artillery had a very secondary role.

[Zachriel]

Originally posted by Akka le Vil
Mmh, sorry to contradict you, but actually there were very few artillery used in Austerlitz, as it was essentially an infantry battle.
Except for on time, when Saint-Hilaire has to reppel a quite big counter-attack on the Pratzen, artillery had a very secondary role.

That's right. It was primarily an infantry battle, as nearly all battles are. The use of cannon has been somewhat mythologized because Napoleon started in the cannon corps, but the phrase "all the cannon at Austerlitz" to mean total destruction was a common phrase in the 19th century.

The Battle of Austerlitz actually started with a shot from a cannon near a Chapel, and may have ended with cannon shot. One common tale from Austerlitz is how some of the enemy soldiers attempted to flee across a frozen lake. The French cannon pounded the ice drowning the fleeing soldiers.

Here is some typical comments you might find on line about French artillery at Austerlitz:

During the 1805 campaign, the tactics of the French artillery were still evolving and during the battle of Austerlitz, examples of both old and new were to be seen. An 18 gun foot battery reserve was placed on the hill dominating a part of the field of battle, as tradition would dictate, but 24 guns of the guard artillery were used as a mobile detachment. This mobile detachment was used at the height of the battle to plug a gap in the line between the troops of Generals Soult and Lannes.
Also, Austerlitz also taught Napoleon what the effects of the "massed battery" could be, when Lanne's corps suffered 800 casualties when faced a battery of 40 Russian guns.

The composition of batteries varied, but in general the Guard foot artillery comprised between four and eight 12 pounders (sometimes with 24 pounder howitzers).

The line foot artillery comprised of six 8 pounders and two 6 inch howitzers.

[notyoueither]

It's not a tale. Many Russians died trying to flee across an not entirely frozen body of water.

[Zachriel]

Originally posted by Akka le Vil
Except for on time, when Saint-Hilaire has to reppel a quite big counter-attack on the Pratzen, artillery had a very secondary role.

Which is the crucial moment in the battle. By using light-weight mobile cannon, Napoleon positions his forces in the exact crucial point then used that leverage to break his enemy's back. The French also captured 180 enemy cannon.

Absolutely brilliant.

[notyoueither]

Actually the crucial point was when Davout showed up with his corp after having force marched them a gawd-aweful distance.

[Zachriel]

Originally posted by notyoueither
Actually the crucial point was when Davout showed up with his corp after having force marched them a gawd-aweful distance.

Good point!

A lot of things had to work out just right for Napoleon to win. Napoleon had a knack for getting the most forces to the battle at the right time.

[Akka]

Originally posted by notyoueither
It's not a tale. Many Russians died trying to flee across an not entirely frozen body of water.

Only 200 deads in fact. But what made this tale starts was that Napoléon simply added two zeros at the end of the casualties report, and then announced there were 20 000 deads in the lakes

[notyoueither]

And professional historians have been fooled ever since?

[Akka]

Originally posted by notyoueither
And professional historians have been fooled ever since?

HISTORIANS were not fooled.
It's not historians that give birth to tales, however
I suppose that the idea of inflicting huge casualties with a single battery shot was epic enough to inspire people and carry on the legend.