Poll: bombardment

[Jaybe]

Originally posted by Yanghead
...
But I agree artillary units should have some defence. Even 1!...

Given the mechanics of Civ, where it basically takes 1 offensive unit (other than blitzers) to take out 1 defensive unit, giving defense to artillery types doesn't work. Imagine defending a city with JUST artillery units: You could assure the city's survival by just outnumbering the attackers with defending artillery! Who is going to hold the front lines?

[Panag]

Originally posted by Albert


yes, the modern day 160m Ohio giant US sub might carry whatever they want, but the more common subs for defending countries usually wait deep down and don`t have that option.

What I mean is that when you get your productive coastal cities up running and it takes two turns for a battleship, and one for a cruise missil, one for destroyer (that moves almost as long as a cruise missil anyway), one for sub, I don`t see the point in cruise missiles any more.

My point: a slow,but almost invisible sub, with lethal bombardment option on other naval units would give a lot to naval defense tactics, making the attacking vessels afraid of entering an aerea without hordes of destroyers babysitting for the bigger units.

I dont mind if this is done by some sort of missil, torpedo or just bombardment, but subs is in the modern world the best naval defense for weaker countries, because of the hiding possibility and the extreme amounts of explosives it carries.

but then again, what the developpers do is whats important. I would just like to see some sub changes

hi ,

huh , what about Jericho , exocet and harpoons being launched from small 45 meter diesel subs , .........

not to mention the fact they have 6 or more SEAL's on board , .......

there should ba small modern diesel sub in CIV III that can hold a foot unit and a couple deadly rockets for ships , .......

have a nice day

[Centauri18]

I agree. And Gatling gun units? Maybe? SOmetime in the late (or possibly early) Industrial Age?

[Panag]

Originally posted by Centauri18
I agree. And Gatling gun units? Maybe? SOmetime in the late (or possibly early) Industrial Age?

hi ,

the helicopter gunship would be very intresting , .....

so would the machinegun foot unit be , ......

a mobile mortar unit would be intresting also , .....

have a nice day

[TacticalGrace]

Originally posted by Yanghead


In civ3 Waterloo would have been a fight between 2 armies with the french stacked on top of a cannon. The artillary always fires first when attacked in a stack.

In my example I was talking about British guns, not French. Concepts which are "abstracted out" in civ:


(1) At Waterloo the French could have spiked the British guns and retreated without having to defeat the infantry. This couldn't happen in civ if the inf was stacked on the cannon.

(2) The cannon could have been destroyed at Waterloo, but not captured (due to adjacent infantry). No distinction in civ.

(3) At waterloo the cavalry charge would have been successful if it had been followed up by cannon + infantry. cavalry is good at breaking a defensive line and chasing down broken troops but unsupported it is ineffective against a tight fortified formation. There is no notion of this in civ: a unit has an attack rating and a defense rating and that's it (Call to power II had a better stab at this)

But I agree artillary units should have some defence. Even 1!, After all as you say the standard practice was to spike the guns before abandoning them.

actually I don't think this is the answer. Under some circumstances it should be possible to capture enemy guns, not just destroy them.

I do think that undefended cannon should still get in a shot against an attacker. I also think that cannon should get 2 shots in against slow units.

[TacticalGrace]

Originally posted by panag
the helicopter gunship would be very intresting , .....

Do you think this should be an air unit or a land unit with high movement rate?

so would the machinegun foot unit be , ......

I've always assumed that infantry units have a few machine gunners with them.

a mobile mortar unit would be intresting also , .....

very high attack and low defence? Should they have bombard? Does sound interesting.

[Panag]

Originally posted by TacticalGrace

Do you think this should be an air unit or a land unit with high movement rate?

I've always assumed that infantry units have a few machine gunners with them.

very high attack and low defence? Should they have bombard? Does sound interesting.

hi ,

helicopter should be a special mix or so , .....

, it might be a bit difficult to work it out be it should be possible , .....

the first heli unit should be able to see sub's and attack them , the second should be great against tanks and mech infantry only , .....

machinegun , high attack rate , thats for sure , .... defense only high against foot units , it should cost a lot , .....

mortars , very effective against foot units , no defense ( almost )

have a nice day

[Kramerman]

Originally posted by TacticalGrace

Do you think this should be an air unit or a land unit with high movement rate?

I've always assumed that infantry units have a few machine gunners with them.

very high attack and low defence? Should they have bombard? Does sound interesting.

at first i made gunships ground units with abilty to treat all terrain as roads. but it pissed me off that they couldnt cross seas or lakes, as a helicopter should, so i went back and changed it to an air unit. I gave it a very high attack, lower defense, a bombard range of zero, and made it very expensive

ive never made a machine gunner unit for this same reason. ive never known large troop organizations (regiment, brigade, division, etc) of purely machine gunners.

kman