Still focusing on getting functional Stand-Off Attack Rules

[Jon Shafer]

Phew, long posts. I'll address this topic once I have more time to elaborate, but basically, I feel there should be some sort of balance. The nature of bombardment is that it's not always 100% accurate. With that being said, you are after all, aiming at something (unless it's blind bombardment, but you can always see units in Civ III, so that's not an issue in this game). So basically, it should be easier to hit the target you're aiming at (not necassarily the top unit on the stack). This should be the case with every attack.. it shouldn't always hit the top unit on the stack. Not very realistic, but hey, that's the Civ III battle system for you.

[IthacaMike]

Originally posted by cracker

The reality is that bombardment aims at inflicting damage to targets in areas and as such one of the first things to get damaged is structures and improvements. You do not kill, maim, demoralize or otherwise disrupt the GI Joes in a farmhouse without doing substantial and almost irreversible damage to the farmhouse.

You have generalized damage to _a_ farmhouse to damage to _all_ farmhouses.

Originally posted by cracker

I will personally send you $1,000 greenback American dollars if you can fire a standard artillery shell at any rap star of your own choosing while that rap star is standing in the middle of any road in the world, if you can kill that rap star with the artillery shell without doing damage to the road.

This most clearly demonstrates what I think is the mistake. Damage or destruction of a road within a tile is not the same as damage or destruction of the road net within the tile.

Localized colateral damage is not the same a systematic destruction of the infrastructure.

Mike G

[cracker]

Originally posted by IthacaMike

This most clearly demonstrates what I think is the mistake. Damage or destruction of a road within a tile is not the same as damage or destruction of the road net within the tile.

Localized colateral damage is not the same a systematic destruction of the infrastructure.

Mike,

Your argument is entirely why it is appropriate for the improvements to have a defensive strength value that enters into the calculation of combat success when it is compared to the bombardment power of the unit that is engaging in a standoff attack.

Your logic for arguing that the road network in a given terrain tile should not necessarily be destroyed by a single hit, only serves to provide stronger support for statistical engagement. The current system makes it impossible for you to hit the road network if there is even one meager defender in the square. You have to blast the defender into the MASH triage category before you have any chance of damaging the road network. You have to damage all the defenders to the maximum extent allowed before you can have any chance of hitting the improvements.

I would add further that the improvement damage sequence is predetermined to be Railroads - Roads+MorI - then finally Fortifications.

So try to come up with a valid and logical argument that supports an engagement sequnce that says "kill all the military people first, then damage the railroads, then remove the mines and irrigation, and finally destroy the fortifications while leaving all the artillery and non-combatants untouched."

I agree with you that standoff engagements are not just random potshots (in the big picture) but what we are striving for is some element of simulated effect that includes both the risks and the benefits of this type of engagement.

I think you would agree that firing artillery into a square with a transportation network has some chance of hitting and disabling the roads (hit a key bridge or intersection, cause debris to block the road, topple trees or telephone poles. etc.) even if that chance is remote.

Another key point is the nature of the event that is being simulated when roads are "destroyed". At the point in time in the game when artillery and planes are present, it takes an average of 4 bombing run turns to destroy undefended roads and railroads. The enemy workers can reconnect the road network in almost the same number of equivalent worker turns. An industrious worker (China, America, etc.) can rebuild the railroads in a square even faster than you can you can blow them with artillery or bombers.

[wrylachlan]

Originally posted by cracker

I agree with you that standoff engagements are not just random potshots (in the big picture) but what we are striving for is some element of simulated effect that includes both the risks and the benefits of this type of engagement.

Here's an idea:

Collateral Damage and Precision Bombarding

Collateral Damage would simulate the... well collateral damage. There is a percentage chance that units or improvements not specifically targeted by an attack will recieve collateral damage, the more units in a stack the greater the chance will be that one or more will be hit. Obviously this must be balanced so that no one shot can knock out a whole stack.

Precision Bombarding would be just that, when you PB a tile an option menu pops up and you can choose which member of a stack, or improvement you want to attack. There is no guarantee you will hit that unit or improvement, but that's who you are targeting.

PB does not take the place of Standard Bombardment, so after you PB the fortifications and cannons you can use SB (which is easier - less clicks) to finish off the units. PB could be toggled on and off so that if you don't want the "Advanced" = "Complicated" features to be available in a game, you don't have to have them.

I would also change the order of SB targetting to units, artillery, fortifications, improvements.