Some qusetions about game mechanic (Soren, you could help)

[Arrian]

Good work, Korn. I wonder, though, if it should be changed. Part of me says that a city that you have bombarded down from a size 12 to a 1 will be a big pile of rubble (ala Stalingrad) offering the defenders all sorts of cover from your bombardment. Another part of me says, yeah, but what about a city that is size 1 prior to bombardment (a small town)? Why should it be hard to hit the defenders there? It shouldn't, it should be easier.

-Arrian

[korn469]

Arrian

remember though in a size 1 buildingless city 66% of air bombardment will AUTOMATICALLY fail, then the 33% of the time that the bombardment doesn't automatically fail, then it will still have to go through normal combat proceedures

for example:
a jet fighter in civ3 would have about a 14% chance of damading a fortified spearman in a size 1 city on grasslands while it would have about 43% chance of damaging a fortified spearman on a normal grasslands square

and in case your wondering it has about a 4% chance of damaging a fortified infantry man in a size 1 city no buildings city

[Arrian]

Hmm... that does seem to be a bit off, doesn't it. Well, personally, I'd like to see bombardment be adjusted to a spot halfway inbetween 1.16 and 1.17. It was a bit too easy to break things with artillery in 1.16, but the failure rate is too high in 1.17.

-Arrian

[player1]

Originally posted by korn469
Arrian

remember though in a size 1 buildingless city 66% of air bombardment will AUTOMATICALLY fail, then the 33% of the time that the bombardment doesn't automatically fail, then it will still have to go through normal combat proceedures

for example:
a jet fighter in civ3 would have about a 14% chance of damading a fortified spearman in a size 1 city on grasslands while it would have about 43% chance of damaging a fortified spearman on a normal grasslands square

and in case your wondering it has about a 4% chance of damaging a fortified infantry man in a size 1 city no buildings city

What about Spearmen on irrigation?
Is there a 50-50% (tileimp or unit)?

[player1]

What would I like to see:
-to have bombardment automaticly aim unit, if it's not hit then calulate collateral damage (50-50% pop or building)
-exept for barracks, then they should be targeted first, before units (if not hit target 33:33:33% unit, other building or pop)

I don't think that tweaks like this would be problem.


Just becuse artillery was hitting buildings and pop too often, Firaxis incresed bombard defense for them 4 times (from 4 to 16).

That's not the right way, they should have chaged probablities for chooseing a building or pop.

IMO.

[korn469]

personally, I'd like to see bombardment be adjusted to a spot halfway inbetween 1.16 and 1.17. It was a bit too easy to break things with artillery in 1.16, but the failure rate is too high in 1.17

Arrian

until a city runs out of buildings and pop (when the bug occurs) the bombardment success rate in 1.17 is half of what it was in 1.16f, which is half of what it was in 1.07f, so until you run out of a class of targets the success rate seems fine, only then does it go from good to outrageously low

player1

i'll do more testing and see if i can find out for you

[Bleyn]

Originally posted by player1
What would I like to see:
-to have bombardment automaticly aim unit, if it's not hit then calulate collateral damage (50-50% pop or building)
-exept for barracks, then they should be targeted first, before units (if not hit target 33:33:33% unit, other building or pop)

IMO.

Hmmm.... I dunno. Early bombers weren't exactly that precise. Even with the Norden bombsight, Allied bombers in WW2 couldn't reliably hit small targets. I seriously doubt they would have been able to reliably target military units in urban environments. Its too easy to for them to spread out over an entire city and effectively present no real target to bombardment.

And despite the improvements of the last 50 years, I'm not sure modern bombers could do much better.

I will give you however that fighter-bombers, even in WW2, proved to have a much better accuracy than the larger bombers. Though in urban environments, they would still run into the problem of ground units presenting very little in way of good targets. IIRC, the only force in WW2 to come close to solving this dilemma was the US Marine Corp, who perfected close air support to a high degree.

I would say that the best compromise would be to have fighter units acting in a bombardment role target units by first preference, then buildings, and have bombers targetting buildings first, maybe with some collateral damage potential to units if a building is destroyed.

It would also be nice if when using the precision strike option we could actually select a targetting preference. As it stands now, I haven't ever really seen precision strikes to be of any use. And I am one who does find bombardments to be quite handy at times.

[player1]

Remember that this logic is bad:
X chance to succesfully bombard unit on grassland

X/3 chance to succesfully bombard same unit in unwalled city on grassland.

That makes the Catapult & Cannons better as field units instead of Seige units.

Neither to say that city with barracks makes units INVUNERABLE to SEIGE (bombardment in multiple turns).

Pretty unhistoric.

I liked CTP model more:
Bombard targets unit (noone said it will be hit), but there is always small chance to do collateral damage.

[player1]

Hmm...

I'll ask this again:

Is there anything about bombard in so called "Civ3 Strategy Guide"?

What is bombard defense bonus (City Walls and Coastall Fortress)?

[Gen.Dragolen]

The Rules of the Game

Player1,

Look in the Rules in the Civ3 Editor. Everything you ever wanted to know but didn't figure you would find.

D.

[player1]

???

I don't think that editor gives any answers to asked questions.

It just gives even more unanswered questions.


P.S.
Soren said in one of recent chats that chances for targeting untis while bombarding city is 50%, 25% for pop and 25% for buildings.

At least that's something.

[The Eliminator]

If you knew the answer, why did you ask?

[player1]

Thread was started at 1-03-2002

I didn't knew anything then.

Now I know A LITTLE more.

I know that 50/25/25 thing and retreat chances

And still need other answers.

As anybody else on these forums.