Why is bombardment so useless?

[Larz Smith]

I just wanted to agree with the idea that bombardment is VERY usefull. It just so happens its usefullness is most apparent in the later stages. One of my latest games I repeatedly had to goto war with an agressive Roman nation. To my advantage though, there was a thin land front between our countries, and they could only come after one city. Thus everytime an army appeared on my territory I could bomb away on their approach before finishing them off when they got within range. Or I would have if they didnt run away to heal up half the time.

[Azeem]

Bombardment seems to work more on larger cities with more improvements. So bombarding big, highly developed cities is much more useful than a tiny little undeveloped town. They're also good for destroying tile improvements, which could starve enemy cities, or destroy transportation networks.

[Pyrodrew]

Yes, I would rather starve a city down then destroy all the improvements (police station, courthouse, etc.) that I could have used after conquering it. And as mentioned, is very effective against enemies entering your territory.

[piratebrun]

I generally bomb all the roads leading to the capital, then blockade it (if it has a port) and bomb the city until the harbor and airport are gone. Then I leave the enemy capital alone (unless I *NEED* to take it). This cuts off all trade with foreign empires, thus causing them to suffer unhappiness from no luxuries, and no trade.

I also destroy all their road connections to their own internal luxuries and resources.

Bombard may have a high failure rate, but is MOST effective. Just use lots of artillery and bombers. I use anywhere from 20-50 per city

[Fried-Psitalon]

Sometimes it helps to give a small nod to the realism of history. Catapults and the like were never very accurate... so you use a lot of them. Repeatedly. The term "siege" didn't get that name by accident.

Personally, I'm not a big fan of any unit that can't defend itself.... I'd rather have two rifles guarding a square than a rifle and cannon. Sure, I lose some offensive capability, but if one rifle dies in the first example, I'm not out my other unit. The only real exception in my mind is the Hwach'a, which arrives so early with such a high attack value as to make the Koreans *almost* worth playing.

(Now if only they had lethal bombardment like Civ3.com says they do.... THAT would be a cultural unit worthy of use.)

[DuncanK]

Artillery is a must for me. When my opponent rushes me, I bombard them and then hit them with my calvary. After they have tried this a few times I go in for my own attack.

[Coracle]

Originally posted by Fried-Psitalon
Sometimes it helps to give a small nod to the realism of history. Catapults and the like were never very accurate... so you use a lot of them.

Civ 3 is very inaccurate in terms of history and realism.

Catapults are an example. The game left out the much better and more effective trebuchets. Catapults, and all SIEGE weapons were built on or near the site of the siege. They were not built in a friendly city and then dragged all over the map, nor were they used in open field battles against troops. They were primarily against city walls, in reality. But reality has nothing to do with Civ 3.

[Mad Bomber]

Bombardment is almost useless now, because the defensive bonuses in cities have been increased in each of the last 3 patches, while bombardment values themselves have stayed the same. The result is that you often need 20 cannon to reduce 3 defenders to 1 HP in a Metropolis. The answer is to reduce the defensive bonuses and to increase the bomabarment strengths and Rate of Fires in the editor.

[Panag]

Originally posted by DuncanK
Artillery is a must for me. When my opponent rushes me, I bombard them and then hit them with my calvary. After they have tried this a few times I go in for my own attack.

hi ,

and that is one of the best tactics around

counter strike backed with artillery , it even works against a far greater enemy

have a nice day

[TacticalGrace]

Originally posted by panag


hi ,

and that is one of the best tactics around

counter strike backed with artillery , it even works against a far greater enemy

have a nice day

And a very low risk way of getting great leaders.

Do you like great leaders? I like great leaders...

[Panag]

Originally posted by TacticalGrace


And a very low risk way of getting great leaders.

Do you like great leaders? I like great leaders...

hi ,

, why risk of losing your units when you can first knock an hitpoint away from your enemy , .....

great leaders emerge even from killing an enemy unit with one hitpoint left , .....

have a nice day

[SpencerH]

Massed arty for attack and counter-attack is the key element for effective use of small numbers of units against the AI.

Try this with say 15 arty firing at a well defended city. Fire your stack repeatedly in order to demolish the enemy defenses. You'll see groups of 5-10 hits (for example) followed by 5-10 misses (for example) instead of truly random results i.e. miss-miss-hit-mis-hit-miss-miss-miss. This is the pattern that has vexed many of us with unit combat, but is hard to 'prove' since the sample is too small. The numbers used to decide hits may be 'random' but they're linked to each other so that results are clustered.

[Panag]

Originally posted by SpencerH
Massed arty for attack and counter-attack is the key element for effective use of small numbers of units against the AI.

Try this with say 15 arty firing at a well defended city. Fire your stack repeatedly in order to demolish the enemy defenses. You'll see groups of 5-10 hits (for example) followed by 5-10 misses (for example) instead of truly random results i.e. miss-miss-hit-mis-hit-miss-miss-miss. This is the pattern that has vexed many of us with unit combat, but is hard to 'prove' since the sample is too small. The numbers used to decide hits may be 'random' but they're linked to each other so that results are clustered.

hi ,

, and risk shooting everything to rubble in side the town or city , ...... no then its better to draw them out and pick them out one by one , .....

have a nice day

[SpencerH]

I do it because I dont care about whether the cities I conquer have anything or anyone in them. You should do it to test what I say

[Panag]

Originally posted by SpencerH
I do it because I dont care about whether the cities I conquer have anything or anyone in them. You should do it to test what I say

hi ,

done it before and found it no good , the risk of destroying to many things at a later stage in game simply is not worth it , ....

there is more fun in drawing them out and picking at them

have a nice day