Let me customize bombardment

[Solver]

Something I really want to see in PtW is customizing artillery bombings. Artillery is not useless as it is, but I'd like to customize the percent chance of misses and hits. Like, I don't want Cannons to miss about 75% of the time, making them slightly less useful.

Also, it would be good if the chance of hitting various stuff was customizable. Look, artillery bombing can hit: civilians (reduce city size by 1), improvements (improvement destroyed), units (unit weakened). IMHO, the chance of having a unit hit should be like 50% for conventional bombing, and this is usually the reason why I'd like to bombard - to weaken the city, making it easier to do a conventional assault. Eh?

I could imagine the first idea as parameter for each bombing unit (like hit chance), and the second one as a separate tab, like Bombing Chances, where you specify global settings, for what can be hit.

So, this is here because I'm sometimes annoyed by ridicilous miss rates of artillery. Anyone else?

[zulu9812]

I'd like to see a 'precision bombard', like the air mission. I can imagine near-future units having that capability

[Solver]

Precision bombing for ground units? Maybe, but none of the current real world units do it.

I have this, though, on for the Cruise Missile. In my mod, it's a nice powerful unit, and the Cruise Missile can Precision Strike with a range of 4... they're used that way.

[zulu9812]

It's just that it'd be noce for bombardment to prioritise on destroying units, then military improvements, then other improvements and finally population.

[Solver]

Hmm, improvement should be random, IMO, but yeah, units are the priority (should be).

[zulu9812]

Don't see why improvements should be random - the Americans are always getting in trouble for bombing civilian targets even though they have the capability to avoid them.

[HazieDaVampire]

lol, i want to see a 'Precision blow up wedding party' option!

EDIT: This is in protest of how big the American Friendly fire list is getting, not only local civilians, but Allies like in the gulf war when the A-10s were going around blowing away British Tanks.

[Solver]

Random improvements is right, you don't know what you hit... Americans sometimes want to hit armories, yet hospitals are hit.

I would though like Precision Bombing to be like a list from which you can select what to bomb. Just have the Military Advisor pop-up, and ask what improvement to target, but have a 5 or 10 percent chance of it going wrong and missing, hitting another target.

[Pevonian]

Hmm

Exellent ideas. I'd like to see more accuracy in Bombing, also Atom bombs would be a nice addition... oh and good nukes, like the Alpha Centuari kind. 50% chance of a kill is pathetic, it should wipe the city of the face of the planet, flattening all buildings.

I think Precision Bombing would be easier with Veteran Crews, with less chance of mishap, and conscripting Naval and Air units would be nice too, lots of chance of mishap then..

:0

[Panag]

Originally posted by Solver
Precision bombing for ground units? Maybe, but none of the current real world units do it.

I have this, though, on for the Cruise Missile. In my mod, it's a nice powerful unit, and the Cruise Missile can Precision Strike with a range of 4... they're used that way.

hi ,

, antitank weapons are very good the last five years , .....snipers also , ....

a cruise missile should have a range of at least ten or twelve , .....

have a nice day

[GeneralTacticus]

Exellent ideas. I'd like to see more accuracy in Bombing, also Atom bombs would be a nice addition... oh and good nukes, like the Alpha Centuari kind. 50% chance of a kill is pathetic, it should wipe the city of the face of the planet, flattening all buildings.

Do you really want to see your entire continent blasted off the face of the earth the turn after an AI declares war?

[Verto]

What about neutron bombs...

[Jon Shafer]

Originally posted by HazieDaVampire
lol, i want to see a 'Precision blow up wedding party' option!

EDIT: This is in protest of how big the American Friendly fire list is getting, not only local civilians, but Allies like in the gulf war when the A-10s were going around blowing away British Tanks.

You, of course, realize that instances of friendly fire in conflicts pre-1990 are much, much higher, correct? The media just wasn't swarming around the Battle of the Bulge, or the Marne to show it.

[Andrew_Jay]

yes, friendly-fire occured just as much if not more then, but the United States wasn't bragging about how much they care about protecting civilians and how great their technology is. At least then there was also cause for concern as they were fighting an enemy who actually could pose a threat. Fifty years or so ago it wasn't the arrogant assumption that:
A. those few guns firing must be the enemy and they must be be aimed at Americans and;
B. the completely insignificant threat that a few AK's firing, a few thousand feet below, (that may or may not even be aimed at Americans) pose to American lives is great enough to throw all caution aside and just drop bombs anywhere.
Anyway, I'm sorry, I don't want to make this into some big (and possibly ugly) argument. Just still bitter that that pilot was stupid enough and arrogant enough to assume a few muzzle flashes on the ground warrented dropping a bomb that killed 4 Canadians, and now there is this incident with dozens more Afghanis dead

[Jon Shafer]

I'm not defending their attitude, I'm only explaining the circumstances: the fact is that there was much more friendly fire in previous wars than there is now, only that's it more publicized now.