Lethal Bombardment

[Jon Shafer]

What do people think of lethal bombardment? I've recently modded my game so that all kinds of bombers have lethal bombardment. Pretty devastating on ships.

[Nakar Gabab]

Option not listed: All units should have lethal bombard (that can bombard, that is), but the AI should know how to use this.

[BigDork]

Hi all...

I voted all should but I don't necessarily feel that. I think that some of the early units should not but that later ones should. Modern ships, planes and artillery definatly should but ancient age units should not have the ability.

And dang it, why don't radar artillery have 2 movement points. They do have wheels you know.

BigD

[Jon Shafer]

I think only Aircraft should have lethal bombardment, but that's stretching things. With enough units you can basically make entire armies evaporate with 0 risk, and especially given the AI's inability to do the same, it unbalances things pretty badly.

[BigDork]

Originally posted by Trip
...and especially given the AI's inability to do the same, it unbalances things pretty badly.

And that is the main reason I haven't modded any of the units. It's just not fair for the AI. Yeah it sucks and all but it makes the game more of a challenge. The AI can't use bombard units the way they are now effectively they sure as heck aren't if you make them more powerful.

BigD

[alva]

and especially given the AI's inability to do the same, it unbalances things pretty badly.

That's all that needs to be said indeed, below deity I stopped building (and using) Artillery all together (games usually end when planes becomes availlable in sufficent numbers) as it becomes to easy to take the AI on.

Since there aren't any anti aircraft units, even in MP lethal combat could be a very imballancing modification.

[Catt]

I played a few games with various forms of lethal bombard enabled shortly after the option was made available in the editor. Unbalanced the game tremendously. Very limited forms of lethal bombard seem less so -- I believe the AU Mod gives fighters, but not bombers, lethal bombard . . . perhaps only against naval units.

Until the AI gets better with bombard I find it unbalancing. Even with a superb AI, I'm not convinced that it would be a good idea. I can envision industrial age slugfests consisting of huge armies of artillery and later airborne units -- like the card game "War," it could be laborious bombarding followed by a mop-up of the player with superior numbers.

Catt

[bongo]

The only spot where I feel lethal bombard would be good is against naval units. But I don't want it in until the AI is capable of using it.

[CerberusIV]

I give bombers, jet fighters and F-15's lethal sea bombardment. The AI does use bombers against ships so I feel this is reasonable.

I also allow F-15's and stealth fighters lethal land bombardment. The AI isn't really able to use this but since a game is pretty much decided by the time these units become available it just allows me to finish off damaged AI units easily rather than changing the outcome of a game.

I would never give artillery units (of any type) lethal bombardment because it just makes it much too easy for the human player.

[Arrian]

What others have said: the AI can't deal with it. Non-lethal bombardment is already a human advantage.

-Arrian

[AJ Corp. The FAIR]

Lethal bombardment: yes!

But Firaxis then sure must take care of AI using them properly.

We could also consider giving some units leth bomb, others not.

But generally, yes! In real life you die when a grenade is fired upon you. (ok, now units in civ representlarger numbers and that civ3 is not real life, so don't start about that )

AJ

[GarP2]

Agree that it would unbalance the game, but also, I wouldn't want it to be risk-free And lethal. As for naval units, they can attack directly as well as bombard, so they have a lethal mode.

GarP

[PLATO]

Destroyer, Battleship, and Aegis with lethal bombard against land targets. Arty and Radar Arty with lethal bombard. These would be good to see.

[Jon Shafer]

Originally posted by Catt
Until the AI gets better with bombard I find it unbalancing. Even with a superb AI, I'm not convinced that it would be a good idea. I can envision industrial age slugfests consisting of huge armies of artillery and later airborne units -- like the card game "War," it could be laborious bombarding followed by a mop-up of the player with superior numbers.

Catt

How is that different from how it is now?

[Catt]

Originally posted by Trip

How is that different from how it is now?

Not tremendously different, if one chooses to play it that way.

But, with lethal bombard (versus the current situation) a human player with the capacity to build / upgrade 30 or so artillery shortly after RP would have won the game. As it stands now, a mass of artillery can defend successfully, and supported by a small supply of foot units, can often conquer worlds; but at least AI civs will focus on unit building during war -- and unless you go out and kill bombarded units after artillery barrages, they'll come back at you when healed, beefed up by the reinforcements built by the AI. With lethal bombard, building a small mass of artillery would enable destruction of AI civs without fail -- the "smart" move in such a game would be to build a mass of bombard units and disband virtually all other units (eliminating upkeep). After having done so, the human could still choose between economic wins and military wins. Though not much better today, at least a focus on an economic win injects some risk into the equation -- a psycho, communist AI civ invades with 100+ units and manages to start taking cities. And a focus on a military win injects risk (primarily a diplo, and to a lesser extent a SS win).

Bombard is already a human advantage in the game; enabling lethal bombard widens that advantage.

Catt