A Use for bombardment?

[BigDork]

Originally posted by yxhuvud
bigdork: You really don't need cavalry if you have artillery. Just a few infantry and a lot of artillery.

The attack power of infantry is more than enough, since it usually takes a few turns to grind down a city anyhow.

This is true. However I usually end up with a bunch of cavalry left over once tanks appear and this gives them something to do.

BigD

[badams52]

Originally posted by epics
Battleships may just walk away for 3 tiles from the shores and you can just say "Aloha" to them with your artillery.

Does any of you use fighters for bombardment? I don't, they can't make any damage neither to improvments nor units.

Did you notice I also mentioned using bombers? And sometimes, the battleships still end up hanging around too close.

I usually don't use fighters for bombardment. They're best for ruling the skies when the AI has bombers. But if the AI doesn't have bombers, can't let the fighters go to waste. 1 hit in every 5-10 fighters attack still helps.

[Theseus]

I've had some very tough games... KAI civs waaaay ahead of me, with both Infantry and Tanks well before me.

Arty = lifesaver.

[Sava]

I also start building my artillery/cannon/catapult regiments early in the game. By the time I can upgrade to artillery, I usually have close to 30-40 units of that type. It's much easier to just upgrade and carry over a force, rather than build up after you discover a tech.

[epics]

Originally posted by badams52


Did you notice I also mentioned using bombers.

Yes I did but just said that this strategy is useless in this situation. Many other players use it too.

[AJ Corp. The FAIR]

Originally posted by nationalist


Why no Nukes? Sometimes they can really save your ass, and can totally devastate a rival civ. The global warming isn't that bad if you have been managing your pollution levels and don't use hundreds of nukes.

I just don't like the kind of game it becomes when nukes are involved. I like cities to prosper, don't like nuclear ruining of major cities.

I actually never have experienced nuclear wars in civ3: or I've won the game already, or I prevent other civs building the Manhattan Project, by crippling and/or conquering the city set to build the wonder.

AJ

[Catt]

As much as I'd like to say I enjoy bombard units . . . I don't have a lot of use for them until artillery. I am unwilling to actually build catapults and cannons for an artillery upgrade unless I'm engaged in a drawn-out engagement as I approach Replacealbe Parts. A few cannons may be useful; and a few cats are useful in the rare circumstance; but in most games, bombardment units seem to me to be a bad investment of shields and gpt until artillery.

The big problem is that the AI overvalues bombardment pre-artillery, and dramatically undervalues bombarment post-artillery.

Airborne bombardment (bombers, fighters, and later stealth units) strikes me as too expensive to make sense in most games, though I readily acknowledge that there are instances when it is very valuable.

Catt

[badams52]

Originally posted by Sava
I also start building my artillery/cannon/catapult regiments early in the game. By the time I can upgrade to artillery, I usually have close to 30-40 units of that type. It's much easier to just upgrade and carry over a force, rather than build up after you discover a tech.

Maybe so, but I don't use catapults or cannons, so why waste the gpt on them. By the time artillery becomes available, I have at least a couple of cities that will be able to produce about 1 every 2 turns and eventually get to the 1 every turn phase, so building up artillery forces is quick. I'm also usually in peace (after conquering my own continent) till tanks (or MA) anyway. Cav vs. Inf wars

[Theseus]

Originally posted by Catt
Airborne bombardment (bombers, fighters, and later stealth units) strikes me as too expensive to make sense in most games, though I readily acknowledge that there are instances when it is very valuable.

Population reduction.

At the end of AU206, before I got crashed out of the game, I had set up a huge fleet in the western sea... 4 Carriers, umpteen Battleships and Destroyers, and many Bombers and Fighters.

I had full range to most enemy cities, and had a lot of fun with the repeat bombard feature... 12 Bombers, again and again, do an awful lot of damage. Next time I do it, I'll go with more... 20-30 Bombers in a stack.

Hmm hmm good.

[Catt]

Originally posted by Theseus


Population reduction.

At the end of AU206, before I got crashed out of the game, I had set up a huge fleet in the western sea... 4 Carriers, umpteen Battleships and Destroyers, and many Bombers and Fighters.

I had full range to most enemy cities, and had a lot of fun with the repeat bombard feature... 12 Bombers, again and again, do an awful lot of damage. Next time I do it, I'll go with more... 20-30 Bombers in a stack.

Hmm hmm good.

Though it sounds fun, that's a huge investment for relatively little battle damage - not just shields but also gpt. Pop reduction isn't usually high on my list of priorities (though occasionally it is), but when it is, a small stack of arty with proper defense (i.e., swap out battleships and destroyers for infantry) under seems to pack more power than a stack of bombers.

Catt

[Theseus]

Actually, what I left off saying was that there was a HUGE amount of AI naval power, and my fleet also destroyed dozens enemy ships...

Between that and the dramatic reduction in AI production power and defensive strength due to pop reduction, I felt the fleet was more than justified.

And yes, it was a LOT of fun!

[ShadowStalker]

I know a lot of people don't like to mod anything in thier games, but on the subject of getting the AI to use Artillary on the offensive is somewhat possible through the editor.

I changed archers, longbows, guerillas, and bowmen to all have a bombard attack, I flagged them offense and defense, and give them all zero range bombarb values.

The AI makes Archers, Longbows, and Guerillas, and uses them both as offense and defense, and when you attack a stack of them it is like them having artillary.

No, they don't bring artillary to your cities and bombarb them still down to red before attacking them (at least that I have seen), but they at least have some sort of artillary for defense in thier stacks that you will attack.

Just thought I would throw that out there for anyone interested.

[Catt]

Originally posted by Theseus
Actually, what I left off saying was that there was a HUGE amount of AI naval power, and my fleet also destroyed dozens enemy ships...

I do agree that air bombardment is valuable for countering large naval forces. In fact, IMHO, countering a much stronger AI navy is one of those instances where I think air bombardment can be worth it's investment.

But I'd still say that building a significant air bombard capability with a goal of enemy pop reduction in mind is inefficient compared to other tactics available.

Catt

[Jaybe]

Continuous Bombard (shift-b), whether from artillery (range at 2) or from bombers, works quite nicely and is really cool. EXCEPT when you keep on being prompted to move units that you want to move AFTER the bombardments!

[Chemical Ollie]

Re: A Use for bombardment?

Originally posted by Sava
...

This prevents reinforcements from getting to the front fast as well as hurts the collection of food...

Did you learn this from Saddam?