Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Bombarding... too many failed artillery attacks and bombing runs?

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #16
    Bombardment rocks.

    30 Arty, protected by an Infantry or mixed-defense Army... click, one one thousand, click two one thousand, click, etc.

    Sit back, have a smoke, and watch steel rain do its job... yeah, there are some misses, but in two or three turns you can take a metro down to a town, and generally ruin somebody's day.
    The greatest delight for man is to inflict defeat on his enemies, to drive them before him, to see those dear to them with their faces bathed in tears, to bestride their horses, to crush in his arms their daughters and wives.

    Duas uncias in puncta mortalis est.

    Comment


    • #17
      I would have to say that bombardment rocks.

      Its of questionable effectiveness until artillery for taking cities, but mixed stacks with catapults or cannons can't be beat for skirmishing or blighting the countryside. I've blunted enough assaults with a few well placed catapults for them to show their worth.

      I've had cases where even as few as six cannons made a difference in taking a capital city, but they need to be used in concert with other operations and they need to be used in mass.

      Comment


      • #18
        Originally posted by Sava
        The only real good use for bombardment that I have found is that it is good to bomb tile improvements and cut off supply lines and reinforcements. This allows me to isolate enemy cities, stop resources, and prevent my invasion forces from being overwhelmed by dozens of units.
        This is exactly where bombardment is most effective. While it seems that 3 out of 4 times bombardment will not succeed, that fourth time is crucial. Heck with bombarding cities--hit the terrain improvements (esp. mines) thus reducing the city's shield production. Cause a significant amount of damage to units moving over the roads coming to the city yer about to invade. Heck--get rid of the roads.
        Effectiveness of bombing depends on the unit. Frigates are useless. Ironclads mostly useless. Destroyers not much of an improvement, but better at it. Battleships good (have 2 or 3) AEGIS forget it (on land). Fighters (inc. jets) don't bother--use for air recon. Bombers--good. Stealth--it gets better.
        Cruise missles work well (if you have a lot). You can bombard the hell out of a city you want with them and then pretty much waltz in.
        The point is--if you are going to use bombardment, prepare for a lot of it--estimate your needs and then overcompensate. Guarantee (sp?) you won't complain later.
        "We may be in a hallucination here, but that's no excuse for being delusional!." K.S. Robinson, 'The Years Of Rice And Salt.'

        Comment


        • #19
          Originally posted by Theseus
          30 Arty, protected by an Infantry or mixed-defense Army... click, one one thousand, click two one thousand, click, etc.
          Theseus...

          30 Arty is a lot of shields I could have put into tanks instead. I guess I just don't have the patience for arty. Maybe if the radar artillery had a movement of 2 I'd use them but they just can't keep up with the tanks and later MA and I'm not gonna wait for the artillery to get in place and then pummel a city down to a village. I feel one of the biggest advantages of tanks and MA is their ability to move quickly from city to city. Artillery just slows them down. Those extra tanks will more than make up for not bombarding a city first. But then again, that's my opinion and play style and to each his/her own.

          BigD
          Holy Cow!!! BigDork's Back!

          BigDork's Poll of the Day over at MZO. What Spam Will It Be Today?

          Comment


          • #20
            Big Dork:

            I am the first to admit that I hate artillery but sometimes they are necessary. They are slow, yes, but while you are moving them towards their target (say it'll take 3 turns) you can always pummel the city with bombers in the meantime.

            In the end it's a trade-off: few artillery + lots of tanks = lots of casualties. lots of artillery + a decent share of tanks = slower victory. It all depends on what you are aiming for (no pun intended)
            A true ally stabs you in the front.

            Secretary General of the U.N. & IV Emperor of the Glory of War PTWDG | VIII Consul of Apolyton PTW ISDG | GoWman in Stormia CIVDG | Lurker Troll Extraordinaire C3C ISDG Final | V Gran Huevote Team Latin Lover | Webmaster Master Zen Online | CivELO (3°)

            Comment


            • #21
              Shock and awe.
              "We may be in a hallucination here, but that's no excuse for being delusional!." K.S. Robinson, 'The Years Of Rice And Salt.'

              Comment


              • #22
                MZ...

                I usually use bombers if I need to bombard. I'm a big fan of air power(heh, after all, I am in the Air Force). Bombers have a decent range and usually about 10 of them will get the job done quickly enough. And the great thing about bombers is they can cross a continent or an ocean in turn and be ready to go on a different front where with artillery you need rails to get that done.

                But like I said, it's a matter of play style.

                BigD
                Holy Cow!!! BigDork's Back!

                BigDork's Poll of the Day over at MZO. What Spam Will It Be Today?

                Comment


                • #23
                  BigD

                  I actually prefer bombers too. For some reason (purely coincidence I guess), I seem to get better results from Bombers against cities than Artillery even though in theory Artillery has greater bombardment 12 vs 8.

                  Problem is of course if the AI has a good number of fighters. In that case, it would be too much a waste and artillery would be a better if not slower option.

                  I still don't understand why Firaxis gave just 1 movement point to Radar Artillery, after all it is a tracked unit. You can always mod it to 2 to make it catch up with your other mobile troops. On the other hand, bombers are unrealistically "rebaseable". It would have been better to give them much greater range (possible in PTW) and a re-base range equal to that.

                  -MZ
                  A true ally stabs you in the front.

                  Secretary General of the U.N. & IV Emperor of the Glory of War PTWDG | VIII Consul of Apolyton PTW ISDG | GoWman in Stormia CIVDG | Lurker Troll Extraordinaire C3C ISDG Final | V Gran Huevote Team Latin Lover | Webmaster Master Zen Online | CivELO (3°)

                  Comment


                  • #24
                    MZ...

                    Usually if I run into fighter problems I will send in my own fighters first. Sure I lose some but then I'm not losing my bombers.

                    I too agree that the Radar Artillery should be a 2. I know I can change it in the editor but I usually play the AU mod and well, it's not changed there. Well at least I think it's changed there. Seeing as how I've never built them I guess I shouldn't say. I could look it up but I'm just too dang tired right now.

                    BigD
                    Holy Cow!!! BigDork's Back!

                    BigDork's Poll of the Day over at MZO. What Spam Will It Be Today?

                    Comment


                    • #25
                      I made Radar Artillery move 2. Not to touch on too much of a potentially sore subject, but you don't see the M109A6 Paladins or M270A1 MLRS (which is what the CivIII default Radar Artillery unit is) having any trouble keeping up in their columns in western Iraq right now, do you?

                      Comment


                      • #26
                        Originally posted by Master Zen
                        ... I seem to get better results from Bombers against cities than Artillery even though in theory Artillery has greater bombardment 12 vs 8.
                        ...
                        Artillery: bombardment 12, RoF 2
                        Bomber: bombardment 8, RoF 3

                        They are statistically of equal strength (24)!

                        Comment


                        • #27
                          Well as I've to agree with you that Artillery sucks in this game I tend to build them because I like this weapontype. Think of all this cool cannons hurling round of round of shells against the enemy. I produce dozens of them and get very good results it's all a matter of numbers.

                          Comment


                          • #28
                            You could always just edit atillary to the way you want. Increaded move rate for exampe? You dont have to strick with the default rules
                            I have walked since the dawn of time and were ever I walk, death is sure to follow. As surely as night follows day.

                            Comment


                            • #29
                              Originally posted by Jaybe

                              Artillery: bombardment 12, RoF 2
                              Bomber: bombardment 8, RoF 3

                              They are statistically of equal strength (24)!
                              Statistically, they are possible of inflicting an equal amount of maximum damage. The first number is the effectiveness. The second is the amount of times damage is applied. They are not equal.
                              To us, it is the BEAST.

                              Comment


                              • #30
                                Originally posted by Master Zen
                                BigD

                                I actually prefer bombers too. For some reason (purely coincidence I guess), I seem to get better results from Bombers against cities than Artillery even though in theory Artillery has greater bombardment 12 vs 8.

                                Problem is of course if the AI has a good number of fighters. In that case, it would be too much a waste and artillery would be a better if not slower option.

                                I still don't understand why Firaxis gave just 1 movement point to Radar Artillery, after all it is a tracked unit. You can always mod it to 2 to make it catch up with your other mobile troops. On the other hand, bombers are unrealistically "rebaseable". It would have been better to give them much greater range (possible in PTW) and a re-base range equal to that.

                                -MZ
                                Firaxis was asked this question in a chat when PTW was being unveiled; their reply was "thats what the editor is there for"

                                Personally I haven't played vanilla CIV3 or PTW in a while (excepting PBEM games that I'm in) If you don't like the effectiveness of ARTY then mod it, Building and Citizen defense is too high? Mod it. Movements are too low? Mod it.....

                                The rebasing is a pain, I rather liked the CIV 2 model for airpower more than the CIV 3 model.
                                * A true libertarian is an anarchist in denial.
                                * If brute force isn't working you are not using enough.
                                * The difference between Genius and stupidity is that Genius has a limit.
                                * There are Lies, Damned Lies, and The Republican Party.

                                Comment

                                Working...