Bombers do not work...

[mintaka_au]

Hi

I don't want this to be too much of a rant, and I am wrong, someone please tell me (politly!), but...

Stealth Bombers can't sink ships. The ships get down to thier last health point, then when I get the next bomber ready to deliver the coup de gra the game refuses to let me bomb it. I have to send a Battleship or Destroyer to finish it off. As anyone who has studied the Pacific in WW2 will atest, planes CAN sink ships. Note to Faraxis, planes CAN SINK ships. Coral Sea, Pearl Harbour, Midway are just some of the examples of sea battles when the main fleets never saw each other. The damage and SINKING (sorry, but I expected better) of ships was done by carrier aircraft.

I can understand why a bomber can't totally destroy a land unit, as it rarely happens. But, aircraft CAN and DO sink ships! Fraxis please fix ASAP!!!

Other than that:

-The AI is much harder - Good
-Resources - Dissapointing. I was looking forward to the feature, but it is such a game breaker (who ever fought a war aver something as common as Aluminium!?!?)
-Interface - very minimal and I feel it will be good when I get used to it, but there should be a File Edit windows type drop down menu bar for beginers.
-Auto workers - dumb as ever, so back to managing them manually - painful in big games.
- No units linked to cities -Yes - The whole empire sopports the units - as in reality.
- No Celts!!! - Boo Hoo (guess I will just have to use the editor!)
- Map Editor - Can't understand all the grumbling about it on the boards - seems good to me.

I may put in a further 2 cents later if anyone is interested.

Thank you for letting me go on.

Damien

"Swark, flip flip, Honk, HOnk!" - Swark - Conversations with Penguins.

[GodSpawn]

This has already been talked about many times. Try doing a forum search for more information.

This is not a bug, it is a decision Firaxis made for game-balancing purposes. Whether you agree with it or not is a different matter...

(For the record, I don't have a problem with it.)

[mintaka_au]

Godspawn

Sorry to bug everyone, I didn't relise how extensivly it had been talked about. I just got mad, Iwanted this game to be so good. It has spoiled a very large part of the sort of thing I expect from a Civ type game. Overall, Civ3 seems a step back from SMAC and (God forbid I even say it!) CTP II.

Damien

"Thy breath in vain!" - Sheakspear.

[Johnny_Was]

*bump*

Fabulous Thread!!

[Wrong_shui]

Id say it was more laziness than balancing, they just decided to use the bombardmant crap

[kmj]

The purpose of leaving it like that for ships, according to Soren I believe, was that they felt in order to achieve naval dominance, a player should at least have some kind of navy. Hence, you should make some ships to go out and clean up the messes your bombers leave behind.

[mintaka_au]

ello all...

Have read the many many comments on this subject now it seems clear to me that Farxis just made the wrong choice. The advent of the carrier in modern naval warfare completely changed the way navy's and nations approached sea warfare and defense. That is just a fact.

I accept the fact that in Civ 2 carriers and bombers could be abused, but that was more down to the AI being unable to use them effectively. So what to do? Well, the air units as handled in Civ 3 is a better idea. They are no longer superfast ground units that hang around for a year. And reducing the number of aircraft per carrier is also a good idea.

Maybe what's needed is a Carrier Strike aircraft. A unit all on it's own. Can only operate from Carriers or sea cities and can only completely destroy sea units, not land units. These would better reflect the situation for many island and small costal nations (such as my home, Australia and nations like Japan etc.) It works like a Jet or Stealth fighter in all other respects.

Can't afford carrier's? Fine. Your destroyers should gain a level of anti-air defence when you get the missile tech. Same with your battle ships. AGEIS cruisers can be added to your fleet for the late game. This would reflect nicely the development of naval weapons over the last 100 years without making things overly complex.

Some other things I've noticed being talked about;
- Sub V any wooden hulled ship - should be walk over for sub, no question about it.
- Sub V unescorted transport - See above. (I think this has already been suggested.)


(As you can guess, I like modern battles rather that ancient. I tend not to battle the AI until I have tanks, bombers etc. I do like the AI to have the same weapons though. My tanks V AI spearman isn't that exciting. (Or shouldn't be, but thats already been discussed to death.))

On a slightly different note, I was shocked to find that my mechanised units couldn't use the AI railways. "WHAT THE ****! How dare they, I mean it's it's ..." That was my initial reaction. However, on reflection (and a good nights sleep :-P) this is a good improvement. Makes sense as the rolling stock would be destroyed, workers missing, signals out etc. However, it seems as if you can't use the AI's roads either. Can somone confirm that? Would be very silly if that's the case.

For those how say "The games not supposed to be realistic, etc" I disagree. One of Civ's big attractions is that you can recreate history. (It was the only thing SMAC lacked) Therefore I expect things to work similar repeat similar to history. It dosen't have to be 100% true to history, but that should be the aim so long as it's fun too. So while I don't expect to redo Midway or Coral Sea or Leyte Gulf in every detail, not being able to sink ships with bombers is NOT fun.

Again, I thank one and all for indulging me.

Damien

"Ford, you turning into a Penguin. Stop it at once!" - Arther Dent, Hitchhickers Guide to the Galaxy.

[Venger]

Originally posted by mintaka_au
On a slightly different note, I was shocked to find that my mechanised units couldn't use the AI railways. "WHAT THE ****! How dare they, I mean it's it's ..." That was my initial reaction. However, on reflection (and a good nights sleep :-P) this is a good improvement. Makes sense as the rolling stock would be destroyed, workers missing, signals out etc. However, it seems as if you can't use the AI's roads either. Can somone confirm that? Would be very silly if that's the case.

My exact sentiments - rail gauges are often different in different nations. And I can take out a railway with a crowbar and about 5 minutes. But the roads...ugh.

For those how say "The games not supposed to be realistic, etc" I disagree. One of Civ's big attractions is that you can recreate history. (It was the only thing SMAC lacked) Therefore I expect things to work similar repeat similar to history. It dosen't have to be 100% true to history, but that should be the aim so long as it's fun too. So while I don't expect to redo Midway or Coral Sea or Leyte Gulf in every detail, not being able to sink ships with bombers is NOT fun.

Preaching to the choir baby...

Venger

[Altuar]

Originally posted by mintaka_au
"Thy breath in vain!" - Sheakspear.

Ok, I dont like being a ***** but - OH MY GOD, my good man, please check your spelling.

[Simpleton]

Originally posted by Altuar


Ok, I dont like being a ***** but - OH MY GOD, my good man, please check your spelling.

Isn't it Shickespire?

PS: Bombers are pretty lame in Civ3. I haven't decided if this is a good or bad thing yet. I need more games under my belt first.

[BigNick]

Guys,

On a related note, has anyone been able to get Precision Bombing working? I've built the Stealth Bombers, I've acquired the Smart Weapons technology and I'm ready to start causing some havoc.

The Precision Bombing icon appears at the bottom of the screen, and when I select it a target grid appears. When I try to click on a city that's within target range (and locked in the industrial era, so they don't have any weird defences), I get presented with the 'no' symbol (circle with a diagonal line through it). I can bomb the cities without problem, and espionage has shown me that they have bombable improvements, but I can't get the precision bombing working.

Anyone got any ideas?

[PGM]

Originally posted by BigNick
has anyone been able to get Precision Bombing working? I've built the Stealth Bombers, I've acquired the Smart Weapons technology and I'm ready to start causing some havoc.

It's a small bug. Just press "P" while selecting the target city and it will work fine.

[mintaka_au]

Originally posted by Altuar


Ok, I dont like being a ***** but - OH MY GOD, my good man, please check your spelling.

Opps! I wrote that at 2 am in the morning after playing all night. Thates mi xcuse an' Im sticcin' too itt, maate!

Damien

PS. I havn't been able to get Precision Bombing working either dispite following PGM's suggestion.

Man 1 "Will your dog bite me?"
Man 2 "No."
Dog bites Man 1 "CHOMP!"
Man 1 "Youch! I thought you said your dog wouldn't bite me?"
Man 2 "It's not my dog."

[Cavalier_13]

Originally posted by Altuar


Ok, I dont like being a ***** but - OH MY GOD, my good man, please check your spelling.

Talk about the pot calling the kettle black...........

Don't, not dont.

That is all.



Cavalier

[kruton]

Total agreement on the original point. In fact, I'm going to call bullsh!t on the arguement that it was a "game balance" decision to not let bombers sink ships. I think they ran out of time and just cut and pasted the code for artillery bombardment for bombers.

That is why bombers always move during the beginning / bombardment phase of the turn (at least in my games). That is also why the air superiority doesn't work. I think they knowingly had to cut this corner in order to get the game done in time, and the "game balance" comment was just to save face.

Hey Firaxis, if you want naval superiority to require more ships, let the ships damage the bombers. I'm fine with that. But as it is, one of the most important and *FUN* concepts of the game is largely neutered.

[mintaka_au]

Originally posted by kruton
I think they ran out of time and just cut and pasted the code for artillery bombardment for bombers.

I think they knowingly had to cut this corner in order to get the game done in time, and the "game balance" comment was just to save face.

Unfortunatly, I think your right.

Hey Firaxis, if you want naval superiority to require more ships, let the ships damage the bombers. I'm fine with that. But as it is, one of the most important and *FUN* concepts of the game is largely neutered.

Couldn't agree more.

Damien.

[Deathwalker]

I hate to point this out, but air power has caused some of the greatest naval military disarters. E.G. Pearl Harbour, HMS Repulse. Both times ships were sunk by air power. Yet in Civ 3 the ships are magical and can not be sunk, what a pick of ****, and there excuse sucks

[codemast01]

I like all the changes made to aircrafts, except for that stupid bombardment cannot kill units rule. In fact, it is totally ridiculous that a cruise missile can kill units when any other bombardment cannot. All bombardment should be able to kill. Prehaps artillery can have a lower kill rate than bombers to keep the game balanced. Aside from that I like the redesign of the air units. However, these units should be able to takeoff from one location and land at another location. (ex. bomber takesoff from a carrier, strike its target, and lands in a nearby friendly city) This would slightly extend the range of air units and also add some realism to Civ3.

[sachmo71]

Maybe what's needed is a Carrier Strike aircraft. A unit all on it's own. Can only operate from Carriers or sea cities and can only completely destroy sea units, not land units. These would better reflect the situation for many island and small costal nations (such as my home, Australia and nations like Japan etc.) It works like a Jet or Stealth fighter in all other respects.

Good idea, but it would insult the "realism" that so many people seem to want. Most carrier/naval attack aircraft are perfectly capable of attacking land targets.


On a slightly different note, I was shocked to find that my mechanised units couldn't use the AI railways. "WHAT THE ****! How dare they, I mean it's it's ..." That was my initial reaction. However, on reflection (and a good nights sleep :-P) this is a good improvement. Makes sense as the rolling stock would be destroyed, workers missing, signals out etc. However, it seems as if you can't use the AI's roads either. Can somone confirm that? Would be very silly if that's the case.

Not so silly (again with the realism!). I have to check on this, but I'm pretty sure that your movement is reduced while inside enemy borders. Think of it as roadblocks, ambushes, etc. You can't go crusing along in column formation when you are expecting to make contact with the enemy, unless you want to die.


For those how say "The games not supposed to be realistic, etc" I disagree. One of Civ's big attractions is that you can recreate history. (It was the only thing SMAC lacked) Therefore I expect things to work similar repeat similar to history. It dosen't have to be 100% true to history, but that should be the aim so long as it's fun too. So while I don't expect to redo Midway or Coral Sea or Leyte Gulf in every detail, not being able to sink ships with bombers is NOT fun.


I agree that airpower should be able to sink ships, but for simplicity sake I would be happy with it the way it is. If you change this, there would be others who would argue that a bomber should be able to destroy ground troops. I don't think that a bomb strike has ever destroyed every man in a unit, but a concentrated strike can reduce a unit's combat effectiveness to zero, rendering it ineffective for a period of time. Both sides have a point, so why not keep it the way it is?

[Howling Chip]

One reason I like the bomber rule, is the AI will never build waves of bombers that totally obliterate all your ground units.

Like a lot of things in CIV III's ruleset, I find the inhibitions the rulesets place on the AI tactics well worth any realism issue. So far in my two weeks of play, the balance and fun aspects do justify the game changes.

[klesh]

Originally posted by Howling Chip
One reason I like the bomber rule, is the AI will never build waves of bombers that totally obliterate all your ground units.

I wish they would. That way iI can couter with my fleets of interceptor/fighter aircraft to shoot them down.... oh, wait...

-FMK.