Artillery and Unit Death

[The Andy-Man]

I think, that maybe bombardment after the invention of gunpowder should have a small chance (increased if elite) of killing a unit, IF that unit is in open terrain, and not in a fortress. the chance should also increase if the artillery is on a mountain/hill.....

[SpencerH]

Whether a foot unit could be "killed" by artillery would depend on the size and make-up of the unit, how much artillery is fired and for how long, and what terrain or defenses were available for defensive cover. If you consider CIV3 units as divisions of 10-20,000 personel, then there is no way for artillery to kill it. Even smaller units such as regiments or battalions would could not be wiped out except possibly by extremely heavy artillery fire that doesnt happen for logistical reasons. The most important facet of defensive artillery fire is its ability to slow down advancing units, sometimes to a crawl. As we now know, this and many other features of realistic combat are not included in CIV3 (much to my and others irritation). On the offensive side, artillery allows your attacking forces to approach closer before being fired upon by defenders since they are supposed to "keep their heads down". Strangely, I think that the best chance of virtually wiping out a unit in the open with artillery would be a mechanized inf battalion attacked with a lot of ICM (improved conventional munitions).

[Zachriel]

Originally posted by The Andy-Man
I think, that maybe bombardment after the invention of gunpowder should have a small chance (increased if elite) of killing a unit, IF that unit is in open terrain, and not in a fortress. the chance should also increase if the artillery is on a mountain/hill.....

Bombard can almost never kill well-fortified and prepared infantry. Consider the current conflict in Afghanistan. The Allies have the best bombard in history. They still need ground units. The Allies have the best infantry in history, best prepared, best trained, best equipped, and they are still having a terrible time of it. They will win, but a price will, as always, be paid by the foot soldier.

[Tarquelne]

I think it'd be more _fun_ if all bombardment units have a chance of killing a 1 hp unit.

Hey - that gives me an idea for something to do with Great Leaders - "attach" them to units to give the unit a special ability. Bombardment units might gain the ability to kill... fast units might get increased movement, or assured offensive-retreat.... there are many possibilities.

[Rotten999]

As the English at the Somme could tell you, it doesn't really happen.

One hp is dead for all practical purposes. I can't imagine a change to this rule increasing the fun, quite honestly.

[kailhun]

Besides having a lot of 1hp enemy units standing around gives you the chance to go for a leader with your elite units.
For some reason elite units seem to be more vulnerable then mere veterans, so artilley is great for setting up a leader creating opportunity.

Robert

[notyoueither]

Rotten999 has a point.

Artillery is the god of modern war, but it does not destroy units. It softens them up.

Now ships and aircraft...

Salve

[Spook42]

Originally posted by Rotten999
As the English at the Somme could tell you, it doesn't really happen.

One hp is dead for all practical purposes. I can't imagine a change to this rule increasing the fun, quite honestly.

That's because the British at the Somme did it all wrong. They used smaller-than-average artillery calibers, many shells were defective, and the barrage fire was "distributed" all along the front instead of concentrated at select points.

Artillery technology has advanced quite a bit from those days; never quite to the level to easily "kill" a unit (where the "killing" or "neutralization" should be interpreted in a multitude of ways), but still with much higher probability to do so.

It doesn't have to be a sizable chance to take out that last hp (similar argument for bombarding ships). But having SOME chance to get the final "kill" has some merit to argue over.

[SpencerH]

Artillery technology has advanced quite a bit from those days

The biggest advances since WWI have been self-propelled artillery and, much more recently, effective ICM that enable artillery to kill armoured vehicles. For the most part though, artillery remains unchanged since that time.

It doesn't have to be a sizable chance to take out that last hp (similar argument for bombarding ships). But having SOME chance to get the final "kill" has some merit to argue over.

While it's interesting to discuss, I think the argument for allowing artillery (or airstrikes) to "kill" a unit is weak. I think the best game improvement would be to halt units that have taken point losses from ANY bombardment in place for one turn. In addition, it might be reasonable that units that have taken massive point loss in that way would retreat and could be eliminated if there were no friendly unit beside it (if memory serves there were similar types of rules in many of the old board war games).

In reality, smaller units have been decimated by bombardment to the point where they refused to fight etc and were essentially "hors de combat". A good example would be the Iraqi republican guard units. Those divisions weren't "killed" by the massive B52 and other airstrikes, but they were neutralized by them. I guess it all comes down to whether you consider units like the repulican guard "killed". In my experience it still takes guys on the ground to "kill" a unit.

[Spook42]

Originally posted by SpencerH


The biggest advances since WWI have been self-propelled artillery and, much more recently, effective ICM that enable artillery to kill armoured vehicles. For the most part though, artillery remains unchanged since that time.

Incorrect.

Today, beyond ICM, "smart shells" are built with internal computers and guidance means to seek out vehicles and hit them from their topside armor.

But even considering WW2, the changes in artillery effectiveness from WWI were at least one order of magnitude, if not more --- in spotting, retargeting, "Time on Target" (US) or "Victor Target" (UK), shell drift, proximity fuzing, etc.

While it's interesting to discuss, I think the argument for allowing artillery (or airstrikes) to "kill" a unit is weak.

No, it is not weak; no more weak than the counter-argument that they shouldn't. Let's not pretend that Civ3 is trying to simulate "artillery effectiveness" by any realistic measure. Rather, in terms of gameplay, the debate should be to QUALIFY if "bombardment" can "kill" a unit within the scope of the game model.

With earlier bombardment units, I think the chance to "kill" should be extremely small, nearly zero. But with enough technology advancement, this should increase. The question is to what degree. But let's just say that I think a sustained bombardment with modern artillery will have greater chance to "kill" a unit than one or two cruise missiles.

I think the best game improvement would be to halt units that have taken point losses from ANY bombardment in place for one turn. In addition, it might be reasonable that units that have taken massive point loss in that way would retreat and could be eliminated if there were no friendly unit beside it (if memory serves there were similar types of rules in many of the old board war games).

Yes, that's one example to "qualify" how to "kill" a unit, and that's certainly reasonable to suggest.

In reality, smaller units have been decimated by bombardment to the point where they refused to fight etc and were essentially "hors de combat". A good example would be the Iraqi republican guard units. Those divisions weren't "killed" by the massive B52 and other airstrikes, but they were neutralized by them. I guess it all comes down to whether you consider units like the repulican guard "killed". In my experience it still takes guys on the ground to "kill" a unit.

In Civ3 terms, I regard a unit "killed" when for all intents and purposes, it reaches zero-percent combat effectiveness. And at Civ3's level of abstraction, there are a host of ways at which this can happen without making every soldier in the unit killed, wounded, and captured.

It's an open argument to me on how effective should bombardment units be at "killing" units, moving on up through unit types and tech levels. But that doesn't invalidate that some chance for a "kill" still be argued for. And as is present, defense modifiers could still reduce a "kill" chance to near-zero anyway, depending on the defensive terrain. The RG units pounded by B-52's, as you cited, didn't just sit in the open, they "dug in" where they could, especially the tanks.

[The Andy-Man]

nobody read my post, bout afghan thing and WW1. THEY ARE/WERE HEAVILY ENTRENCHED. i said in my post that fortified units shouldnt get killed.


i just said there should be a % chance a unit in open ground and not in a fortress should be killed by artillery attack as they are in open terrain and very visible, ie, no where to hide.

i also said that cannns/catapults shouldnt kill.

[Tarquelne]

Originally posted by SpencerH
While it's interesting to discuss, I think the argument for allowing artillery (or airstrikes) to "kill" a unit is weak.

and

In reality,

With all due respect (and that's not an inconsiderable amount):
**** "in reality."
The Civ3 combat system is very, very, very, very, very unrealistic. (1..2..3..4..5 "very"s. Yeah, that's enough.) Allowing the occasional unit to be destroyed via bombardment isn't (I say) going to have a significant impact on the reality/unreality of the combat system. There's always the

essentially "hors de combat".

explaination... if you really want to appeal to reality. Heck, let me rephrase that: That's the way we should think of (non-ship) bombardment anyway. After a unit has been reduced to "1 hp" and it then takes another couple dozen "hits" from bombardment... well, If I were one of those little virtual men making up the unit _I'd_ certainly start thinking seriously about going AWOL.

But I think gameplay/balance is far more important a factor, as long as the system doesn't do something wildly unrealistic. At the scale/level of abstractness of Civ3 I don't think having a few units "disappear" due to bombarment markedly unrealistic. (I find the concept: "It doesn't matter how much bombardment a unit suffers, it will NEVER loose that last hitpoint." to be unrealistic.) How about a, say, 1/20 chance of bombardment destroying a unit? (Or 1/20, modified by bombard vrs. Defense.) That's less than the chance of getting a GL, isn't it? I think it'd be fun to say "Woo hoo!" occasionally as an enemy unit was destroyed by bombardment. (And even more fun - but no woo hoo - if the AI actually got it's act together to produce a bombardment heavy enough to destroy something.)

1/30 would be fine with me... so would 1/50... I'd probably be happy with 1/100... whatever the proper figure turns out to be to make it happen "occasionlly" (just a little bit more often than "rarely.")

On bombarment kills resulting in fewer "easy" Great Leaders: Good!

On other changes to the combat system: Showing the interdictive effect (beyond the destruction of roads/RR) of arty would be nice - but at least some code for allowing a bombard unit to destroy units already exists, it would add little/no "complexity" to the game - I think it's a change that has a relatively high chance of actually happeneing.

[Zachriel]

Originally posted by The Andy-Man
nobody read my post, bout afghan thing and WW1. THEY ARE/WERE HEAVILY ENTRENCHED. i said in my post that fortified units shouldnt get killed.

i just said there should be a % chance a unit in open ground and not in a fortress should be killed by artillery attack as they are in open terrain and very visible, ie, no where to hide.

i also said that cannns/catapults shouldnt kill.

Still not historical. Units are only destroyed when you destroy their ability to communicate, i.e. organize. Artillery cannot do that. The remnants can still regroup. This was one of the many mistakes in Vietnam. The U.S. applied huge amounts of bombardment, but could never destroy the ability of the enemy to reorganize. Under bombardment, foot soldiers just hunker down. They hide. That is what the Serbians did under U.S. attack. Only when the Albanian ethnic infantry was deployed did the attacks succeed. The Serbs had to leave their bunkers to defend against the attacking infantry -- then they were blasted. In this case, we are talking a much more sophisticated bombardment with computers, smart bombs, etc. and they still weren't successful without infantry support.

[Spook42]

Originally posted by Tarquelne

With all due respect (and that's not an inconsiderable amount):
**** "in reality."
The Civ3 combat system is very, very, very, very, very unrealistic. (1..2..3..4..5 "very"s. Yeah, that's enough.) Allowing the occasional unit to be destroyed via bombardment isn't (I say) going to have a significant impact on the reality/unreality of the combat system.

That's my whole point, Tarquelne. Too many people are dismissive of the "Let bombardment get an occassional 'kill' " argument by citing "reality." Among the more ludricrous is the "reality" argument that "planes can't sink ships" because "planes can't wipe out a task force"; without thinking about a set of conditions where it COULD happen, or the historical cases where it did.

So per your point, let "reality" be no more than a guidepost, and recognize that this is the Civ3 world. For example, in my Civ3 "world," I don't regard tanks or modern armor to be made up ONLY of tanks, my own outlook is that such units are "armor-heavy" in their makeup, but could be allowed to have some infantry & smaller artillery also mixed in.

And in my added viewpoint, I think that yes, if a sizable enough bombardment is applied to a unit in a given region in the Civ3 world, then yes, there should be a CHANCE to "kill" that unit, however small. Arguing that there should be NO chance, by invoking historical precedents alone, doesn't suffice. And given that we haven't established what such "kill chances" should be, then arguing about gameplay or game-balance is premature.

(To play the game on "historical invocation," by those still saying that "elimination by bombardment" is impossible, try studying Operation Epsom [June '44] or Operation Cobra [July '44]. By the level of abstraction in Civ3, those are most certainly examples of "unit elimination.")

As to the rest of your post, Tarq, I can concur with your reasoning.

[SpencerH]

This is getting interesting

Today, beyond ICM, "smart shells" are built with internal computers and guidance means to seek out vehicles and hit them from their topside armor.

While todays "smart shells" may be superior than earlier versions of ICM but they are fundamentally similar in concept in that they allow artillery to engage armored vehicles in ways that conventional munitions could not. I did say that I thought the best chance for artillery to "kill" a unit was against a mech battalion in the open.

in spotting, retargeting, "Time on Target" (US) or "Victor Target" (UK), shell drift, proximity fuzing

I'm not an expert on artillery (but I have directed its use and been around it when it went off) so I'll accept that there were improvements in the uses of fuses etc but I doubt that those differences resulted in a 10 fold increase in gun effectiveness from WWI to WWII. Spotting, retargeting, and Time on Target are all factors of training and experience not technology (until you get to SP guns) so they are not era dependent.

Of course combat in any game is unrealistic. Does that mean that CIV3 wouldn't be better if it included more complexity that better simulated combat? I think it would, others disagree. CIV2 was more complex than CIV. Part of the improvement with SMAC/SMACX over CIV2 was the complexity of building your own units and governments. I've seen many posts where it was hoped that CIV3 would have a similar feature. I disagreed with that, but I think any complexity that increases my immersion in the game improves it for me. Overall, I think that is whats missing in CIV3. Its only taken a few months to lose that immersiveness wheras in previous versions it took much longer.

As you say, allowing artillery to kill units (very occasionally) would be a small change (and less of a pain than galleys sinking battleships) but lets not go back to CIV2 where the most effective "killing" unit was the howitzer.

[Spook42]

Originally posted by SpencerH

As you say, allowing artillery to kill units (very occasionally) would be a small change (and less of a pain than galleys sinking battleships) but lets not go back to CIV2 where the most effective "killing" unit was the howitzer.

I never played Civ2, but I accept your outlook that one should avoid making overpowered units (like killer howitzers) where it SEEMS inconsistent to do so.

[The Andy-Man]

This was one of the many mistakes in Vietnam. The U.S. applied huge amounts of bombardment, but could never destroy the ability of the enemy to reorganize. Under bombardment, foot soldiers just hunker down. They hide.

erm, again i am repeating myself, I SAID IN OPEN TERRAIN!!!!!

the above examples where all in defensive terrain, a unit cant hide in the open as easy as in a forrest of a jungle. so for grassland/plains and possible(very slight chance)tundra and desert and unit MIGHT get killed.

as for Civ2, a vet artillery and hopwitzer were way to powerful i agree, but there power as a bombardment unit in Civ3 may be more realistic, because heavy heavy bombardment by a modern military unit will do a decent amount of damage, if not to units (look at the fileds and villiages in WW1, swampland even today).

[Zachriel]

I could see having artillery kill armored units in the open. That would help balance the overpowering tanks during the blitz era. Bombers too, perhaps.

[Encomium]

Originally posted by SpencerH
Whether a foot unit could be "killed" by artillery would depend on the size and make-up of the unit, how much artillery is fired and for how long, and what terrain or defenses were available for defensive cover. If you consider CIV3 units as divisions of 10-20,000 personel, then there is no way for artillery to kill it. Even smaller units such as regiments or battalions would could not be wiped out except possibly by extremely heavy artillery fire that doesnt happen for logistical reasons. . .

A unit does not have to be wiped out to the last man to be "destroyed". It can be destroyed as a combat effective unit even with many survivors especially if its morale breaks.

But unit destruction by artillery or air attacks should be less common than in Civ II. But what is unforgiveable about Civ III is rhe inability of bombers to sink any warship. Absurd.

[SpencerH]

A unit does not have to be wiped out to the last man to be "destroyed". It can be destroyed as a combat effective unit even with many survivors especially if its morale breaks.

I agree, except for the Iraqi republican guard (which would have been destroyed by CIV3 standards), I'm not aware of any division size unit or larger being wiped out as a combat effective unit solely by artillery.

Anyway, as has been pointed out CIV3 is a game. The target units could be battalions, the arty units could represent corps ARTY resources with modern munitions. If a new patch allows artillery to kill other units I'll try it. If I dont like it, I'll change it back (if I can).

[Zachriel]

Originally posted by Encomium
A unit does not have to be wiped out to the last man to be "destroyed". It can be destroyed as a combat effective unit even with many survivors especially if its morale breaks.

That is right. A unit is defined by its cohesion. Once cohesion is permanently lost, the unit is destroyed. So a large number of men fleeing in panic is a destroyed unit. And a small number of men who refuse to run represent a unit which has yet to be destroyed. That is exactly why bombard is not normally capable of destroying infantry. You can kill lots of soldiers, but the command structure remains.

[Zachriel]

Originally posted by SpencerH
I agree, except for the Iraqi republican guard (which would have been destroyed by CIV3 standards), I'm not aware of any division size unit or larger being wiped out as a combat effective unit solely by artillery.

The Allies had plenty of ground troops in Iraq to force the republican guard out into the open where they could be destroyed. There were plenty of infantry and armor encounters during the battle, as well a generous bombard.

One more thing. The republican guard was not destroyed. They were allowed to escape and regroup.

[SpencerH]

There were plenty of infantry and armor encounters during the battle, as well a generous bombard.

Having B52's and other aircraft bomb you continously for 30ish days is certainly a "generous bombard". The ground force encounters came afterward.

The republican guard was not destroyed. They were allowed to escape and regroup.

Maybe I wasnt clear, I know they weren't destroyed by that bombardment. That's the point! The example of the republican guard is why bombardment shouldnt kill units in CIV3.

I think the rules should be changed so that in CIV3 units that have been bombarded down to 1HP should retreat or be eliminated if they cant. Units that have lost (some variable number of) hit points by bombardment shouldn't be able to move. I guess a simplification of these rules would be that units that have taken HP losses by any means that turn should not be able to move the next turn.

[Zachriel]

Originally posted by SpencerH
I think the rules should be changed so that in CIV3 units that have been bombarded down to 1HP should retreat or be eliminated if they cant. Units that have lost (some variable number of) hit points by bombardment shouldn't be able to move. I guess a simplification of these rules would be that units that have taken HP losses by any means that turn should not be able to move the next turn.

That would add a little tactical feel to the encounters, as would allowing the destruction of armor units by bombard.

(Keeping in mind that Civ3 is a strategy game played over years and hundreds of miles, yet the genius of the game engine has always been able to also create, to a limited degree, a tactical feel. These suggestions, while not essential, would probably be fun additions to the game.)

While you're at it, make it so that armor is not so effective in rough terrain, and archers more effective in rough terrain.

[SpencerH]

While you're at it, make it so that armor is not so effective in rough terrain, and archers more effective in rough terrain.

Yes, I think we should be able to include (and edit) combat modifiers. For example, pikemen should have a defense advantage against horse units but a disadvantage against archers and bombard units. It was there in civ2, where did it go?

[The Andy-Man]

but civ2's combat was pefect. pikemen are just spearman with bigger spears, that rendered cavalry obsolete for a long while.

[Thrawn05]

Why should I spend shields on a unit that can't kill?

[Thrawn05]

Why should I spend shields on a unit that can't kill?

Just put a checkmark box in the editor that says this unit can kill with bombardment (default is unchecked).

End of story, that will make everyone happy. Next topic....


(Sorry about that, the server was busy I tried to post a couple of times, I guess it posted twice. Feel free to delete my post above Ming (it seems I can't))

[SpencerH]

pikemen are just spearman with bigger spears, that rendered cavalry obsolete for a long while.

I would say that the pikeman unit (and hoplite) incorporates the concept of fighting in formations while spearman are more of a loose "gaggle".

Just put a checkmark box in the editor that says this unit can kill with bombardment (default is unchecked).

End of story, that will make everyone happy. Next topic....

That wont make me happy. I'm hoping for a little more complexity than that.

[Akaoz]