shouldn't Tanks have the ability to bombard?

[Minmaster]

ok, catapults can bombard a square within 1 tile radius, and obviously tanks can shoot projectiles further than catapults ever did (i might be wrong). so shouldn't tanks have bombard ability? it seems like a long time for the bombardment unit artillery to get its next upgrade, radar artillery. we either need an artillery upgrade sometime between artillery and radar artillery, or it would be sweet to have bombarding tanks. what do you guys think?

[Flight]

Personally im comfortable with the current set up - it may not be accurate but it works in the context of the game and i dont bombard much anyway.
Can you set bombard ability of units in the editor?

[Willem]

Originally posted by Flight

Can you set bombard ability of units in the editor?

Yes you can.

[Jaybe]

Historically, in World War II the U.S. sometimes used tanks in a bombardment role. But that was because there was nothing else for them to do at the time. Their small caliber (75mm) meant that they were not that effective and had relatively short range (4-5 miles?). Most bombardment artillery at the time was 105mm or higher. The U.S. also used tanks in the same way sometimes in Vietnam, and then their guns were 105mm. Overall, I would say they were not significant.

If you were to give them a bombardment capability, I would recommend a '4' or '6'. There is also the factor that tanks are designed as a "direct fire" (line of sight) weapon, not as an "indirect fire" (the weapon cannot see the target) weapon as is implied with artillery and later bombardment units.

The logistical tail (all that ammunition) needed for artillery to be effective largely justifies artillery's small movement in the game.

[Uncle Thade]

Uh, unless bombardement is fixed there really isn't any point in talking aboutit. Bombardment should be able to kill units and oh yeah that bomber things also needs to fixed so it kills units.

[Willem]

Originally posted by Uncle Thade
Uh, unless bombardement is fixed there really isn't any point in talking aboutit. Bombardment should be able to kill units and oh yeah that bomber things also needs to fixed so it kills units.

When has bombardment ever solely been used to win a battle? It's always played a support role to soften up the defences so the ground troops will have an easier time of moving in and mopping up.

[Barnacle Bill]

Originally posted by Uncle Thade
Uh, unless bombardement is fixed there really isn't any point in talking aboutit. Bombardment should be able to kill units and oh yeah that bomber things also needs to fixed so it kills units.

Naval units - yes. Bombardment from aircraft or big guns obviously sinks ships in real life.

Ground units - no. On the scale of the Civ games, a ground unit is no smaller than a division. No division-sized unit was ever eliminated solely via bombardment, neither by artillery or from the air. What bombardment does to ground units in real life is to weaken them so that your own ground units can mop them up without taking too many casualties themselves. Bombardment of ground units in Civ3 works correctly.

What works incorrectly is that air units bombing modern naval/ground units are immune to return fire by the AA-capable weaponry integral to such units. There needs to be an "air defense factor" for ground/naval units which (code-wise) "bombards back" when they are under attack. Pre-modern units would have a value of 0. The value would go up during the modern era to reflect increasingly capable AA, peaking with the Aegis Cruiser.

[Uncle Thade]

I beg to differ. Ground based bombardment is good to a point but it should also be random generator value where as it kills units at random and not often. I am well versed in ancient and modern combat and softening targets up has always been a good thing, but it has also made many units a dead thing. Bombers same thing. Remember, London, Dresden and so on.

Simply bombardment should have the potential to kill units. But at random. Wouldn't it be a sweet thing when a hard won battle comes down to a bombarment killing that last nasty modern armor unit poised outside your city.

[Willem]

Originally posted by Uncle Thade
I beg to differ. Ground based bombardment is good to a point but it should also be random generator value where as it kills units at random and not often. I am well versed in ancient and modern combat and softening targets up has always been a good thing, but it has also made many units a dead thing. Bombers same thing. Remember, London, Dresden and so on.

Simply bombardment should have the potential to kill units. But at random. Wouldn't it be a sweet thing when a hard won battle comes down to a bombarment killing that last nasty modern armor unit poised outside your city.

Keep in mind that the units in Civ are more like regiments rather than individuals. That's one of the underlying concepts that perhaps doesn't get explained well enough. Reducing the hit points with bombardment means the regiment is getting smaller, rather than just wounding a single soldier.

In Civ II, the endgame Artillery was ridiculously powerful. It was all you really needed to run through someone's entire empire, except of some defensive units to hold the city. That's why this new rule is in place, and frankly it makes more sense this way.

[Jumping Choya]

One thing about artillery that bothers me just a bit is that it's sooooo sloooww when you've got modern armor and mech infantry. I think that there should be a Motorized Artillery unit in the game, or move Radar Artillery back (I hardly ever end up researching robotics before I win) and give it a movement of two. Sure, there are supply lines, but they'll be using trucks and stuff at that point, so they'll be able to move faster than the ancient catapults.

(BTW, I'm aware that this is an editable feature, so I have changed it - just thought I'd bring it up)

[GePap]

Tanks in Civ should not bombard, since this takes away from what tanks, and artillery, are supposed to represent in civ. The role of tanks is one of strike, attacking and dislodging enemy forces from their positions. That of artillery, or cannons, or catapults, is one of indirect fire or of siegecraft. Why do catapults bombard while tanks don't even though tanks do, in real life, have longer ranges? because one used catapults to lay siege to a city, not to role them into the town to combat enemies, while one does use tanks to rush into cities to take them. As I said elsewhere, Civ3 is not a wargame, it is a strategy game that simulates all of human history. In land warfare there have been three main types of units, offensive units (most of the time fast), defensive units, and siege weapons. Tanks don't fit the last two categories, so they rightfully get lumped in the first.

[Unregistered]

Originally posted by GePap
Tanks in Civ should not bombard, since this takes away from what tanks, and artillery, are supposed to represent in civ. The role of tanks is one of strike, attacking and dislodging enemy forces from their positions. That of artillery, or cannons, or catapults, is one of indirect fire or of siegecraft. Why do catapults bombard while tanks don't even though tanks do, in real life, have longer ranges? because one used catapults to lay siege to a city, not to role them into the town to combat enemies, while one does use tanks to rush into cities to take them. As I said elsewhere, Civ3 is not a wargame, it is a strategy game that simulates all of human history. In land warfare there have been three main types of units, offensive units (most of the time fast), defensive units, and siege weapons. Tanks don't fit the last two categories, so they rightfully get lumped in the first.

Lumped is right....

But your logic is spot on. As silly as it feels to take a city w/ tanks, that's what this level of abstraction does.

Cheers,