Using Modern Units - Page 2

debeest · December 12, 2003, 19:54

Monk, thanks -- you just tested some things I had wondered about.

Correction re Carolus' suggestion: if I'm not mistaken, air units cause barbs to disappear, so I don't think you'd be able to use a helicopter to round up barb kings.

Correction re JSB: it doesn't prevent disorder, it just shifts two citizens from angry to content. If you support a bunch of bombers from a city, JSB will only do a little bit to keep the city from going into disorder.

debeest · December 12, 2003, 19:54

Say -- doesn't this belong in the sadly neglected strategy forum?

Bloody Monk · December 12, 2003, 20:16

Quote:

Originally posted by debeest
Say -- doesn't this belong in the sadly neglected strategy forum?

Perhaps. I thought about it a little. The decision tipped in favor of General because of the succession game that triggered the questions in the first instance.

Monk

Ben Kenobi · December 12, 2003, 22:21

When confronted with a large AI navy, you will need bombers to float over the air units. This renders your ships immune from AEGIS cruiser attacks.

The Nuke idea works well, but if all you want is to shuttle a few boatload of howitzers, this is probably the cheapest way to do so.

Also, the AEGIS cruiser works well with carriers, since the carrier will attract cruise misslies that fare quite poorly against AEGIS cruisers.

Six Thousand Year Old Man · December 13, 2003, 00:03

Quote:

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi
When confronted with a large AI navy, you will need bombers to float over the air units. This renders your ships immune from AEGIS cruiser attacks.

I think you mean Cruise Missiles?

Gatekeeper · December 13, 2003, 02:59

I use the Macintosh version of Civ II, so keep that in mind when I offer the following tips:

1. In the RULES.TXT file, I changed the cost of cruise missiles to 40 shields apiece. The AI now uses them not only against ships, but seaport cities as well. Armored divisions, spies and other units are also targeted by AI cruise missiles. Furthermore, since it's using them, it's not storing them. Before I made the change, I'd oftentimes pound away at a city, having to take out six to 10 cruise missile units before finally occupying the city. Now, there's usually no more than two or, at most, three cruise missiles per major city.

2. I do build helicopters from time to time. They're great for use against enemy cities that are isolated from road and rail networks and aren't along coastlines.

3. I've taken some of the "extra" units (those not normally used in a game, but for certain scenarios only) and made it so they are usable in a real Civ game. I've created a "shock troops" unit, a "stingray" unit (a stealth transport capable of carrying four units), and an "dirigible" unit (used in medievel times, outdated by gunpowder). The AI makes use of them as well, and targets the shock troops and stingrays with the cheaper cruise missiles.

Gatekeeper

Jaguar · December 15, 2003, 01:23

Modern sea war in civ2 is just a cruisemissilefest, IMO.

Six Thousand Year Old Man · December 15, 2003, 01:57

Quote:

Originally posted by Jaguar Warrior
Modern sea war in civ2 is just a cruisemissilefest, IMO.

That's probably pretty realistic, based on the Falklands war.

Ben Kenobi · December 15, 2003, 08:15

Quote:

This renders your ships immune from AEGIS cruiser attacks.

Nope. If you have negligible naval forces, this is the cheapest way to counter massive AEGIS patrols. The AI usually does not target boatloads with cruise missiles, just Battleships.

Scouse Gits · December 15, 2003, 11:03

Has not the bomber stack been outlawed as an exploit?

Stu

duke o' york · December 15, 2003, 11:24

I don't think this is an official discussion. It started off with a reference to a SXN game, and of course a stack would earn a lengthy spell at the Institute, but when playing on your own, you needn't worry about such things, unless you're planning to submit it here (or elsewhere for that matter).
If you tried a Xin Stack of Doom in a SXN, then you wouldn't really have enough time to amass all the necessary units before it was someone else's turn so stacking wouldn't matter there, but the use of bombers in stacks is a pretty poor show with the witless AI. Just not the done thing!

Six Thousand Year Old Man · December 15, 2003, 11:39

Quote:

Originally posted by Scouse Gits
Has not the bomber stack been outlawed as an exploit?

Stu

In some games, it has. But not all... it's not as blatant as some other exploits.

Besides, there are nuances to it. Obviously most people who feel that it's an exploit object to the stack-bomber-over-BB trick that lets you kill hanging cruise missiles. It's not really fair to use it to cover exposed Howitzers that you've attacked twice with, either.

Is it ok to use bombers to 'cover' tiles to prevent partisans from forming, or is this an exploit?

How about 'accidental' bomber stacks? For example, I attack an AI city with a Bomber and win. Now, if I want to attack with Artillery, is it an exploit if I stage my Artillery attacks from the tile with the Bomber on it?

How about if I move Mech. Inf. units under my exposed Bombers?

duke o' york · December 15, 2003, 11:45

I never use bombers to avoid partisans - I always use Stealths and then move them into the city at the end of the turn. As far as I'm concerned then you could attack under a bomber if you would have done anyway. If the bomber has attacked over the railroad and you pile in your attacking armies along there then all well and good. If you circle the city to ensure that you attack from underneath the bomber then that'd be unsporting.

Six Thousand Year Old Man · December 15, 2003, 11:54

Quote:

Originally posted by duke o' york
As far as I'm concerned then you could attack under a bomber if you would have done anyway. If the bomber has attacked over the railroad and you pile in your attacking armies along there then all well and good. If you circle the city to ensure that you attack from underneath the bomber then that'd be unsporting.

I think this is impossible to adjudicate. I mean, attacking from any tile is all the same for a Bomber. Obviously if the Bomber attacks from a rail tile, though, other units can benefit from the 'shield' better. How can anyone tell if this is intentional? Given that the AI rails everything.

duke o' york · December 15, 2003, 12:03

In that situation the AI is toast anyway.

I was thinking that if you had an airbase/carrier on one side of the city and a railroad with a couple of artillery on the other, then using a dip to get the artillery around the city to attack from beneath the bomber is underhand and an exploit. Attacking from a fortress would be fairer, but as you said, you can't legislate for it so it's best to just have it on trust. I could easily put together a case for having an airbase handily positioned on a hill within my city boundary, but honour dictates that this is cheating.

Julius Brenzaida · December 16, 2003, 11:17

I agree helicopters are quite expensive and way too fragile. But, if I am not wrong, they're the only air unit that can capture a city. As they have a long range, it can be quite useful to occupy cities that have been attacked by your bombers and are not linked to railroads.

I know it's not the best strategy, but I like an aircraft carrier or two to go with my transports. Bombers are very efficient and helicopters patrols around a convoy are a very good way to spot the ennemy from far away. Then the bombers take business.

I've played quite a lot of SP games with Gigamaps and small continents ...

Six Thousand Year Old Man · December 16, 2003, 13:26

Quote:

Originally posted by Julius Brenzaida
I agree helicopters are quite expensive and way too fragile. But, if I am not wrong, they're the only air unit that can capture a city. As they have a long range, it can be quite useful to occupy cities that have been attacked by your bombers and are not linked to railroads.

I know it's not the best strategy, but I like an aircraft carrier or two to go with my transports. Bombers are very efficient and helicopters patrols around a convoy are a very good way to spot the ennemy from far away. Then the bombers take business.

I've played quite a lot of SP games with Gigamaps and small continents ...

The problem with taking a city with a heli is that the partisans that appear will crush the helicopter next turn. Now, if the heli didn't expend all its movement in taking the city, it would be a different story.

I need to devise some small continent/giga map games so that I can make carriers useful. Normally, it's easier just to use Engineers to build airbases.

Elephant · December 16, 2003, 13:50

You can follow the heli with some Fighters on one-way trips; clean up the Partisans and land in the new city, assuming you know it wont be taken back right away. Can you Para-transport into a new city without Airport, or do you have to drop next door and walk in?

-Jrabbit · December 16, 2003, 13:54

Drop in adjacent and walk in.

I always thought it odd that one couldn't parachute into a city, but then again Civ2 planes can't do flyovers, either -- they must land or attack.

Six Thousand Year Old Man · December 16, 2003, 14:09

Are you sure? I could swear that an undefended city could be captured by paratroops by landing directly in it.

gunkulator · December 16, 2003, 14:12

Yes, you can paradrop into an empty city. You can also march all around them too, i.e. empty AI cities do not generate ZOC.

Old n Slow · December 16, 2003, 14:48

Quote:

Originally posted by Scouse Gits
Has not the bomber stack been outlawed as an exploit?

Stu

News to me -- but then I was willing to rehome caravans until I was told that is 'just not done'.

-Jrabbit · December 16, 2003, 16:07

Quote:

Originally posted by gunkulator
Yes, you can paradrop into an empty city. You can also march all around them too, i.e. empty AI cities do not generate ZOC.

I could swear this was among my early learnings (like, first time I got paratroops, building them to see what they could do)...

But I'm old and, lately, of frail mind...

Will confirm during upcoming turnset.

Scouse Gits · December 16, 2003, 16:19

Could be a Mac-thing bunnyman - you most certainly can paradrop into empty enemy cities and any friendly city in range ...

Stu

Elephant · December 16, 2003, 16:59

Quote:

Originally posted by Old n Slow

News to me -- but then I was willing to rehome caravans until I was told that is 'just not done'.

That's your "bad habits" from CFC GOTM shining through...

-Jrabbit · December 16, 2003, 19:23

Quote:

Originally posted by Scouse Gits
Could be a Mac-thing bunnyman - you most certainly can paradrop into empty enemy cities and any friendly city in range ...

Stu

Probably just another Senior Moment.

Nice avatar, Stu!

Bloody Monk · December 16, 2003, 20:33

Quote:

Originally posted by Six Thousand Year Old Man
I need to devise some small continent/giga map games so that I can make carriers useful. Normally, it's easier just to use Engineers to build airbases.

Six, et all,

Could you expand on this, please?? How to use airbases?? Thanks

Monk

Gatekeeper · December 16, 2003, 21:14

It's a "senior moment," -Jrabbit.

I've always been able to parachute directly into evil enemy cities that have had their defenders blown out of existence.

Gatekeeper

duke o' york · December 17, 2003, 05:49

There is a bug in Civ 2 that means you can paradrop into a city and then paradrop again immediately afterwards, without using up your movement point.

Bloody Monk · December 17, 2003, 11:38

Quote:

Originally posted by duke o' york
There is a bug in Civ 2 that means you can paradrop into a city and then paradrop again immediately afterwards, without using up your movement point.

Which version, Duke?? Have you changed anything??

In my Civ242 and MPGE this is not the case.

You would get a box saying, "This p'trooper has already moved this turn. A p'trooper may only p'drop at the beginning of its turn."

One really must strive to use the current versions don't you think??

Monk