Tank and Artillery Combat

[Urban Ranger]

Maybe giving units combined arms bonus would work. For example, if you attack with a stack containing an armour unit with an artillery unit, the attack value (or a percentage) of the artillery is added to that of the armour, simulating indirect fire. An infantry unit could add close combat bonus, etc.

The disadvantage of this is computer players just can't use these as effective as humans.

[Grumbold]

It shouldn't be impossible to give the AI preferred grouping styles. CtP managed it and the modmakers improved it further. After Med Mod II it is downright difficult to catch the AI with bad stack configurations, particularly when defending their own cities.

[TechWins]

Artillery should be more valuable in Civ3 given that they now have a farther range.

[MORON]

Artillery should be more valuable in Civ3 given that they now have a farther range.

I still don't know what kinds of artillery we have fires over 200miles......

T-64/72 had 125mm Gun !?...you learn something everyday.

Did fixis release more info on combat? Its hard to run on dry gas.

[Eternal]

The M107 has a range of 32.7 km, and that's the largest range of any conventional artillery I know. MRLS systems have more range than that, but definitely not 200 mi. Scuds could achieve that range, though, and they could count as a artillery for a simple combat system.

[Urban Ranger]

Grumbold,

Yeah, it's not a particularly complex or subtle challenge for the AI routines to handle. However some bonuses are only good for offenses, others only for defenses, and the rest for both. Artillery fire should be only good for attacks, but infantry close support bonus should be good for both attacks and defenses.

Originally posted by MORON

I still don't know what kinds of artillery we have fires over 200miles......

There was a gun/cannon that could fire a long ways.. I saw it on the History Channel. I think the guy was American who was trying build it. Iraq was building one. They dug a big hole in the ground and had the gun about 50% to 75% complete when we found it. Sadam was aiming it at Israel. This gun is not mounted on any vehicle. It look like a water or oil pipe line laying on the ground, only its length is several hundred yard long. The gun has several "Y" joints in it. As the shell passes each "Y" another charge goes off to increase the speed of the shell, so when the shell leave the barrel its going very fast, and reaches a target very far away. Sadam gun would have hit Israel for sure. That mean the shell fired from Iraq flying over Jordan and hitting Israel. The bad thing about this gun is that once built, it cannot be move. All you can do is change the charges so the shell will not fly at far or add more charge to increase the range of the shell. If this is not making any sense, I understand. The gun would look like this.
I
I
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
I
I This example is upside down. This gun would have 12 charges.
I

[Grumbold]

Originally posted by Urban Ranger
Grumbold,

Yeah, it's not a particularly complex or subtle challenge for the AI routines to handle. However some bonuses are only good for offenses, others only for defenses, and the rest for both. Artillery fire should be only good for attacks, but infantry close support bonus should be good for both attacks and defenses.

Artillery should be able to counter-battery fire but I agree that the mix of units for best defense or best attack would probably be slightly different. Just as long as you can't roll 5 howitzers up to a city with 12 howitzers, 10 fighters and 10 bombers inside and bombard with impunity because its "your turn". Thats why making the bombardment part of a stack attack rather than a solo option is so important.

The Iraqi supergun was a big scandal in the UK because a UK firm was responsible for exporting some of the (seemingly innocent) component parts. No-one could agree whether the Ministry of Defence had really known about it in advance and let the sales go ahead. They were trying to scapegoat the directors of the export company. In WWI/II there were a few big railway guns that could fire pretty long distances but of course rocketry made most of these ideas redundant.

[KrazyHorse]

The supergun was designed by a physics professor from McGill. He's known as our evil genius. I think the CIA (or someone else) killed him in a hotel in Buffalo, New York.

Originally posted by Grumbold


Artillery should be able to counter-battery fire but I agree that the mix of units for best defense or best attack would probably be slightly different. Just as long as you can't roll 5 howitzers up to a city with 12 howitzers, 10 fighters and 10 bombers inside and bombard with impunity because its "your turn". Thats why making the bombardment part of a stack attack rather than a solo option is so important.

The Iraqi supergun was a big scandal in the UK because a UK firm was responsible for exporting some of the (seemingly innocent) component parts. No-one could agree whether the Ministry of Defence had really known about it in advance and let the sales go ahead. They were trying to scapegoat the directors of the export company. In WWI/II there were a few big railway guns that could fire pretty long distances but of course rocketry made most of these ideas redundant.

The US had a 240 mm Atomic Cannon in the late 50s and Early 60s. It required two trucks to transport it. I have a model of the gun. The Army never downgraded the gun to non-nuc level. They just retired it. Germany has a new self-propelled big Gun. I have seen a picture of it, can not remember what MM it is.

If Firaxis used CTP 2 stacked method, both you and the enemy will have a change to win the battle. In your description above the city would win. So if you are the city you win. If you are the attacker you loose.

[MORON]

The M107 has a range of 32.7 km, and that's the largest range of any conventional artillery I know.

I think M110 or some 175mm artillery have a rame of 67km....

Artillery should be able to counter-battery fire

SMAC anyone?

[Eternal]

Well the M110 only has a range of 16.8km.

The Iraqi supergun was never completed, and it's builder was asassinated by the Israelis.

For more info on superguns, consult this page I found:

http://vectorsite.tripod.com/taspgun.html

[Urban Ranger]

Originally posted by Grumbold
Artillery should be able to counter-battery fire but I agree that the mix of units for best defense or best attack would probably be slightly different. Just as long as you can't roll 5 howitzers up to a city with 12 howitzers, 10 fighters and 10 bombers inside and bombard with impunity because its "your turn". Thats why making the bombardment part of a stack attack rather than a solo option is so important.

Here's what I said about ranged attacks in another thread:

Originally posted by Urban Ranger
A square is big but a unit can be anywhere within that square

So in fact your archers could be just a couple hundred yards away from the enemy in the next square

I think units with ranged fire capabilities should be able to use "ranged attacks" against adjacent units, given that:

• The attack strength cannot be greater than 50% of it's attack factor, preferably lower, with the exception of modern artillery units (including battleships and missile cruisers).


• These attacks are nullified by city walls and fortresses and ineffectual against fortified units. Again artillery units are better at this.


• It takes up resources to represent large number of ammo expended in these attacks.


• Only one attack per unit is allowed per turn.

[Grumbold]

Originally posted by joseph1944
If Firaxis used CTP 2 stacked method, both you and the enemy will have a change to win the battle. In your description above the city would win. So if you are the city you win. If you are the attacker you loose.

The example I gave had the forces inside the city totally outnumbering the attacking army so it deserves to win. Maybe I misunderstand you but are you saying that something apart from the relative size of forces and defensive advantage predetermines a win by the city? The CtP style is the sort of thing I was referring to.

[Vrank Prins]

In CIV cannons and howitzer attack they don't bombard. That means they always get "into the line of fire" themselves. Which usually means they lose hitpoints.

CTP has made a few good points when it comes to using these kind of units.
In CTP there are a few landunits (catapults, cannons and artillery) which can bombard without actually attacking their target, so to say "from behind the lines". It's called ranged strength.
It's quite handy when you're beleaguering a city. First shoot (bombard !) all the defending units to pieces then move in (attack !) with the other units.
When you build up a stack in CTP to actually attack a target, these units, which have little defense, are usually lined up behind the units with more defensestrength (hitpoints). They then get the function to soften up the enemy-units which have more defensestrength for the units which actually have to attack. Building up a good stack can be become quite a challenge. I haven't reached my masterdegree there yet.

I would like it if tanks are given ranged strenght in CIV too (CTP doesn't have that). But the firepower should be rather low. Just enough to kill off a settler or antique units which are still running around.

[Urban Ranger]

I think certain units can be given the "ranged strike" ability, which means it can shoot things at enemy units without physically getting involved. These units include archers, catapults, cannons, artillery, battleships, missile cruisers, etc.

[Inverse Icarus]

stop being so real dammit.

so no tank / artillery shoots 200 km or miles or whatever.

they shoot farther than an infantry would, and this is how they chose to represent that.

deal.