Firaxis: Metropolis ruins affect combat!

[Jaybe]

Inspired by the vision of ruins in PTW, I'm finally letting this out:

Especially in modern combat, it is well known that the ruins of a large city (metropolis) generally only increases the defense benefits. All the brick, twisted steel, snipers hiding in the rubble, and blocked streets.

It is contrary to RL to want to reduce a metropolis to a town so it would be easier to defeat the defenders. (Out of hate for the residents is totally OFF TOPIC).

Therefore, I suggest that when bombardment kills off population and a metropolis becomes a city, or a city becomes a town, that it's defense bonus NOT be reduced.

Use of a metropolis size graphic (w/ruins) could be used as a convenient indicator, etc.

[Capt Dizle]

I see your point but here is mine. Did you ever think why they set up the defense bonuses like they did? Think about it a second and scroll down..
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
To aid the AI. Logically you would expect a series of defensive improvements that would step up urban defense. But its hard to program the AI to know when it needs to build defense and what priority to put on it. So, dumb the game mechanics down, institute a built in defense step up implemented by something that occurs naturally, growth. (which we all know the AI can do).

Design decisions like this is why I hate the game and why I continue to post about it. I hope someone hears me and these guys are not allowed to do anymore games I might want to play.

jt

[notyoueither]

Great idea Jaybe.

We bombard cities to weaken defenders and reduce the city size. The AI doesn't usually, and never in concentration (that I've seen).

This idea would help the AI in SP and the surprised defender in MP.

[Capt Dizle]

It would help the AI in SP to give all their units triple hit points. It would help the A in SP if they got double movement, double production, and double research! Lets do it!

[Tuberski]

The whole point is that, while the AI can Bombard- it doesn't. So changing the way metroplois bonuses work wouldn't really affect them when they are doing it. But, it will make the AI a little tougher because it will affect a PLAYERS bombard ability. When you get to MP both sides would have the same advantage.

Even if the AI did bombard it would still benefit. Because it would keep the metro bonus.

[Adm.Naismith]

Originally posted by Tuberski
The whole point is that, while the AI can Bombard- it doesn't. So changing the way metroplois bonuses work wouldn't really affect them when they are doing it. But, it will make the AI a little tougher because it will affect a PLAYERS bombard ability.

Oh, c'mon! Probably it will simply change the usefulness of bombard: if bombarding I'm risking to help the defender, I'll simply avoid it (if not when I have a hundred of artillery and can probably destroy every citizen 'till the last one is fresh meat ready for my infantry.

I like the idea of a graphic change (reduced city=town surrounded by ruins), but I don't think we shoul add a defensive bonus.

Look, we know in real life urban combats have special rules, but ruins aren't necessary good for enhance defense of/from armies.

They are goods to add some cover to snipers, but you can't win a battle by snipers, while the most cover effect for common troops is not more (sometimes really less) of a good entrenched line with some fort/bunkers.

We have some example in history of good defense in city, but usually the most quoted is WWII Stalingrad defense, a very special situation (and a defensive blood bath, until the Russian were able to counterattack).

In fact a city defense suffer from a logistic point of view: in country terrain you can have good cover from forests, hills, mountains and still be able to receive more food than in a city under siege. We should also add the mess of civilian management in a sieged town, a fact that can't be managed at a strategic level as in Civ III.
More often than not, cities were left behind from defenders in WWII (while town and villages are sometime well defended because they are relevant point for communication, as main route crosses or relevant train tracks junctions.

Forts were the real backbone of a defense, in medieval age, and Firaxis should tune up a bit more their ZOC effect, IMO.

Regarding to ruined town defense, better left this part of the game as is, IMHO.

[notyoueither]

As it is now, bombard is a one way ticket to defeating the AI. Even if the city never lost the defence bonus, you could still bombard all the defenders to 1 or 2 HP and then take it.

I normally focus 16 to 20 Artillery and 8 Bombers on a large AI city. Rarely, if ever does it take more than 1 or 2 turns to turn the city and it's defenders into goo that can easily be mopped up. If the large city did not lose its bonus, it would cost more to mop up the remnants, that's all.

[zulu9812]

Originally posted by Adm.Naismith
Oh, c'mon! Probably it will simply change the usefulness of bombard: if bombarding I'm risking to help the defender, I'll simply avoid it

Absolutey: I would expect mass bombardment to reduce a city's defenses.

[notyoueither]

It does. It weakens the defenders. It does not reduce the defensive value of the terrain. In fact, it enhances it IRL.

[Jaybe]

I was only suggesting that the defense bonus not be lowered as its population flees or is mutilated.

Another thing we could discover is a rationale and mechanic for having battles for major cities OUTSIDE them as often (but by no means always) occurs.

[Myrddin]

. I hope someone hears me and these guys are not allowed to do anymore games I might want to play

[Coracle]

Re: Firaxis: Metropolis ruins affect combat!

Originally posted by Jaybe
Inspired by the vision of ruins in PTW, I'm finally letting this out:

Especially in modern combat, it is well known that the ruins of a large city (metropolis) generally only increases the defense benefits. All the brick, twisted steel, snipers hiding in the rubble, and blocked streets.

It is contrary to RL to want to reduce a metropolis to a town so it would be easier to defeat the defenders. (Out of hate for the residents is totally OFF TOPIC).

Therefore, I suggest that when bombardment kills off population and a metropolis becomes a city, or a city becomes a town, that it's defense bonus NOT be reduced.

Use of a metropolis size graphic (w/ruins) could be used as a convenient indicator, etc.

All of which is totally TRUE.

But I hope you appreciate the adsurd irony of how a single unit with just one hit point left can "raze" a metropolis instantly turning it into a grassland and processing all those corpses (into cat food, perhaps??). Not even a pollution tile is left!

THAT nonsense, dumber even than Culture Flipping, has to be ended before even your suggestions.

[MarkG]

yeah, and when you win a battle you dont leave any corpses behind you. civ is so unrealistic....

[Cyclotron]

Re: Re: Firaxis: Metropolis ruins affect combat!

Originally posted by Coracle
All of which is totally TRUE.

But I hope you appreciate the adsurd irony of how a single unit with just one hit point left can "raze" a metropolis instantly turning it into a grassland and processing all those corpses (into cat food, perhaps??). Not even a pollution tile is left!

THAT nonsense, dumber even than Culture Flipping, has to be ended before even your suggestions.

Ah, the joy of irrelevant, off topic, meaningless posts repeated endlessly...

[Jaybe]

SNARG!!
I wish people would stop quoting that Coracle drek! Because of the "great" value of his posts he's on my ignore list, and then people not only reference them, but quote them.

JB