This is great news for 1.18f!!

[Dida]

This is good additon to the game.
However, it will surely unbalance the game if some ships are not given the ability to shoot down air plane.
Another badly needed improvement is, when bombing cities, bombers should hit units most of the time, and only accidentally kills citizens and buildings.

[godinex]

And what will happen with the cruiser missiles?

[Gramphos]

Originally posted by Dida
Another badly needed improvement is, when bombing cities, bombers should hit units most of the time, and only accidentally kills citizens and buildings.

I think it should depend on the government of the bombarder. If a low level government it should be more destructive, on other then military units and buildings, but the more humane the government is the more focus on military units and improvements should the bombard have.

[laurentius]

Does the f in 1.18f stand for finnish?

[Gramphos]

Originally posted by laurentius
Does the f in 1.18f stand for finnish?

f in all the versions stands for finalized, and b for beta.

[ACooper]

Sure it's not for "f"ed up?


Sorry, couldn't help it.

[Dida]

Originally posted by Gramphos

I think it should depend on the government of the bombarder. If a low level government it should be more destructive, on other then military units and buildings, but the more humane the government is the more focus on military units and improvements should the bombard have.

I disagree.
We are talking about combat here. And how combat is carried out does not depend on the humanity of the invader.
No Nazi or Japanese will knowingly waste their bombs on citizens and buildings, if there are more important things(military units) to bomb.
Carpet bombing, or bombings that are aimed to kill civilians are of different matter.

[notyoueither]

Originally posted by Dida
I disagree.
We are talking about combat here. And how combat is carried out does not depend on the humanity of the invader.
No Nazi or Japanese will knowingly waste their bombs on citizens and buildings, if there are more important things(military units) to bomb.
Carpet bombing, or bombings that are aimed to kill civilians are of different matter.

Well, hmmm. You mean like when the Luftwaffe switched to bombing civilian targets in 1940 during the BofB? Or what they did to Warsaw in 1939? And Rotterdam in 1940? How about the Japanese bombing of (d*mn, can't remember the name of that city in China) in 1937(?)? How about the bombardment of Bilboa during the Spanish civil war (by the Facists)?

And like how RAF bombing of Germany was almost exclusively at night, and aimed at transportation/industrial areas and the people who worked around them? How about the fire storms? Weren't they intentionally set to destroy entire cities and as many people in them as possible?

I do agree with you to a point though. It would be better if bombers could be given priorities that would effect the odds of hitting target types. Not precision, just guided. But I don't see it as too likely. Does the game really need it? Simplicity seems to be the watch word of the designers.

Salve

[player1]

Just one observation:

When Allies bombarded Belgrade in 1944 there was more civilian casualties then when Nazi bombarded Belgrade in 1941.
(they were huge in both cases)


Bombs don't know ideology.

There is only decicion: bomb or not to bomb.

[Goatguy]

Wow...this is hot topic...i guess its just a thing that everybudy wants...its great that fixaris staff is watching forums and making changes based on the masses

I agree with Sinapus..ships need to have a defence against planes. But in real life today, a plane usually never sees a ship that it attacks. Its the missle that dose the mission. Dog fights will never happen again, becuase missles make it "easy" .

But what is the most powerful unit in modern warfare? Aircraft Carriers are only part of the answer. Its PLANES that could wipe out hoards or ships, returning unscathed (sorry dac ). The united states could wipe out every navy in the world with carrier battle groups, and most of its planes would come out unscathed! Today in the news, you hear reports of 1 or 2 men dieing. When you think of the many people involved, that is very few people. Just compare it to trench warfare.

And Gramphos, making bombardment a government thing would be kinda krazy I mean, say your a monarchy...you could only bombard military units?? Or democracy could only bombard improvments?? That just simply wouldnt work. It needs to rely on chance, and i dont think there is any signifigant pattern in figuring out whats destroyed..except maybe units be4 improvments

But back to ship defense. A carrier full of planes is a real world defense to ANYTHING!! So do it in civ....loada carrier full of fighters and keep other ships close...all i can say on that topic

And toasty... when it said "leathal bombing", it meant that that unit COULD obliterate a unit. not that that unit could be obliterated itself. Battleships and artillery would now have the chance to kill a unit when bombarding. Infantry arnt bombard units, so they could now kill a unit by bombarding. But like any unit, it could be killed by bombardment by other units

Hope that helps...see u around in the forums

[OneFootInTheGrave]

YES YES WOHOOOO



LOVLEY IMPROVEMENT

[Grumbold]

Originally posted by Goatguy
I agree with Sinapus..ships need to have a defence against planes. But in real life today, a plane usually never sees a ship that it attacks. Its the missle that dose the mission. Dog fights will never happen again, becuase missles make it "easy" .

Missiles shoot planes down easy too, and ships carry LOTS of missiles. Even infantry carry missiles. Ships are bigger targets but they also carry shiploads of anti-missile defences and electronic countermeasures to offset that a bit. In reality its all about detection. Whoever identifies a target and fires first has a high probability of winning. If you want to play with missiles its probably best to stick with the cruise missile being lethal to everything and let it represent any modern missile fired from any platform with a warhead appropriate to the intended target.

[whosurdaddy]

Originally posted by notyoueither


Well, hmmm. You mean like when the Luftwaffe switched to bombing civilian targets in 1940 during the BofB? Or what they did to Warsaw in 1939? And Rotterdam in 1940? How about the Japanese bombing of (d*mn, can't remember the name of that city in China) in 1937(?)? How about the bombardment of Bilboa during the Spanish civil war (by the Facists)?

And like how RAF bombing of Germany was almost exclusively at night, and aimed at transportation/industrial areas and the people who worked around them? How about the fire storms? Weren't they intentionally set to destroy entire cities and as many people in them as possible?

I do agree with you to a point though. It would be better if bombers could be given priorities that would effect the odds of hitting target types. Not precision, just guided. But I don't see it as too likely. Does the game really need it? Simplicity seems to be the watch word of the designers.

Salve

Do the Firebombings of Dresden, Tokyo, Berlin, etc. by the Allies ring a bell???
How bout Hiroshima and Nagasaki?

The fact is that both sides participated in these attrocities during WW2, because it was considered an acceptable tactic (known as targeting the "morale" of the enemy people).

[Coracle]

Originally posted by Dom Pedro II
Right now, I'd be more happy with having the option of making Artillery units Offensive units so the AI might actually be smart enough to use it in massed invasions... they NEVER use artillery in effective ways. They might actually stand a chance in the early early industrial period if they could bring down a city's defenses with artillery first and THEN chuck their cavalry at them...

You're right!

I once went into the Editor and told the French civ to build more artillery.

During a game I used the "multi.sav" cheat option to see what was going on, and despite the fact that my French allies were at war with my enemy, England, and the French were invading, EVERY ARTILLERY UNIT was left in the French cities! Some cities had six artillery units sitting there.

That stupid, stupid AI.

Patch 1.18?? As we continue to playtest Civ III, doing Firaxis' work for them at a cost of $45 each, I wonder what patch will finally get it right. Maybe 1.99?

[D.K]

well, i was going to mention the worst bombings in human history were by the americans ON the japanese, and yet the japanese were mentioned as though THEY were in some way inhuman.

but whosurdaddy got there first

[Coracle]

Originally posted by D.K
well, i was going to mention the worst bombings in human history were by the americans ON the japanese, and yet the japanese were mentioned as though THEY were in some way inhuman.

but whosurdaddy got there first

Actually, by sheer numbers the worst was by your countrymen in the U.K. on Dresden in February of 1945 - and it was also a totally useless and pointless atrocity. America's attacks forced Japan to make peace.

Britain's Bomber Harris, in charge of it all, was a true war criminal.

But hey, nothing like a little America-bashing from another Brit.

[Venger]

Great news, I think this may be the patch that gets me to retry the game.

Alas, as someone has said, there needs to be a mechanism that puts the attacking aircraft at risk during a bombing run - aircraft are at risk attacking nearly all enemy units in real life, let's make sure aircraft don't become too powerful.

If this is incorporated, then we will REALLY have a nice improvement to the feel of the combat system.

Steps in the right direction...

Venger

[notyoueither]

Well, here we go. Flames have commenced.

Step back people. Relax.

I replied to someone who said *No Nazi or Japanese will knowingly waste their bombs on citizens and buildings, if there are more important things(military units) to bomb*

I believe that his statement is false. I said so. I pointed out how both the Nazis and Japanese (and the Spanish fascists for that matter) chose civilian targets in several cases.

For balance I also pointed out an example of Allied targeting of civilians. Arguably, some of the worst were the fire storm raids conducted by the RAF late in the war which served very little useful purpose. Hence I anticipated the *yeah, but... the other guys were worse* responses and tried to head them off at the pass. Didn't work.

Deep breaths... Exhale. OK commence flaming if you wish. Just leave me out of it.

Salve

[Andrew Cory]

This is a _very_ welcome change. I am wondering if part of this change will bump units higher on the list of probbable hits (There seems to be some sort of assigned probabilty as to what gets hit in a bombardment, "nothing" having a higher weight, certain buildings tend to get knocked out first, and units (what I am usualy gunning for in the first place!) having the lowest priority of all)...

Right now, my tool of choice is the cruise missle. They are a bit expensive, but with them, I can take a city without dammaging any of it's infrustructure. It might be interesting to know if I will make the trade off between taking a city intact, and not having to spend the money over and over again for cruise missles...

In the end, however, this will kick ass-- carriers will finaly have utility...

[Thrawn05]

Originally posted by notyoueither
Oh yeah. I told them to get off their duffs and make sure the game runs AI turns on 256x256 maps with 16 civs in less than 5 seconds on a 386 running Win3.1 with 4MB of RAM. Hey, not all my people have joined the twenty-first century yet. Gotta look after them too.

I have an IBM hard card that has a 286 CPU, a 20MB HD, DOS 3.0, and a 5" disk drive (too little RAM to notice, I think about 512KB). Not to mention an EGA monitor and a dot-matrix printer a yard wide. When do you exspect Firaxis to make a patch to make Civ3 compatible with that?

[wervdon]

Definately an improvement.

As mentioned though we also need an air superiority switch for all units to go with it.


Another aspect ive not seen anyone mention is what about submarines and how they fit in. I can see bombers easily sinking ships, but submarines are a bit different (especially nuclear ones that can stay submerged indefinately)

[The Rook]

I hope they also give the AI more reason to build and utilize artillary. As others have already mentioned, the AI doesn't use it at all. If they make bombards more potent, it would just be giving the human player even more of an advantage.

[notyoueither]

Originally posted by Thrawn05


I have an IBM hard card that has a 286 CPU, a 20MB HD, DOS 3.0, and a 5" disk drive (too little RAM to notice, I think about 512KB). Not to mention an EGA monitor and a dot-matrix printer a yard wide. When do you exspect Firaxis to make a patch to make Civ3 compatible with that?

I'll tell them to get right on it. Prolly have to wait for the XP though. The IRL World Domination button is proving to be a bit tricky.

Salve

[notyoueither]

Originally posted by wervdon
Another aspect ive not seen anyone mention is what about submarines and how they fit in. I can see bombers easily sinking ships, but submarines are a bit different (especially nuclear ones that can stay submerged indefinately)

Sinking conventional subs is cake. Allied bombers broke the back of the UBoats in 1943 and 44. Conventional boats need to spend a lot of time on the surface. Once spotted the bomber can make its attack long before the sub can get deep enough to avoid the bombs in most cases.

Nuc Subs are a bit different. However, both the US and USSR (Russia) have effective ASW weapons for air craft (both for detection and destruction).

The Trident is the exception to the rule. It is a massively expensive ship to build and is the only ship that can elude detection for extended periods if I am not mistaken.

Salve

[=DrJambo=]

BUT..... will the AI be able to cope with the improvement/change?

That surely is the biggest question of all...

[dac]

I have to agree with Grumbold, look at the US Ageis class cruisers and destroyers and then see if you really think aircraft are going to get away attacking ships unscathed. Long range anti-ship missiles are by necessity relatively slow moving, and susceptible to the same anti-aircraft missiles that the planes would be. More "high-speed" anti-ship missiles have shorter ranges, exposing the firing plane to anti-aircraft missiles.

There also is the question of how the "far off" bombers will detect the ships and aim their missiles. Fly around with your radar on all the time, and somebody will make you a gift of a radar-homing missile. Most modern navies practice extensively with rigid EMCON rules, meaning no electromagnetic transmissions, no radio, radar, etc, so they can be very difficult to find with passive means.

I agree, however, that if my fleet is being attacked from the air, it would be nice to have some air cover of my own, but without aircover, modern warships are far from sitting ducks.

[Ozz]

Originally posted by DrFell
Another nice improvement. I wish the game had been delayed a few months to incorporate all of these improvements in the standard game. Now I hope right now Firaxis will delay MP until the SP game is perfected.

I wish i had delayed purchasing it a few months. This game is
still in development. I like the game, but I think it is an unfinished product, I hope Firaxis will finish developing it and deliver the standard game without endless patchs. That last patch certainly
changed the way the game plays (.17) and did not just fix some
minor bugs.

[Ghengis Brom]

I'm just wondering, is the toggle going to be in the editor or is it going to be part of the game options? I'm hoping the latter since I rarely ever use the editor.

[benjdm]

Tridents are not that much quieter than other nuc boats. It's just that their only job is to stay hidden for ~ 70 days at a time and nothing else. The fast attack boats get tasked with other jobs that require them to move faster and therefore make more noise.

[Goatguy]

Originally posted by DrFell
Another nice improvement. I wish the game had been delayed a few months to incorporate all of these improvements in the standard game. Now I hope right now Firaxis will delay MP until the SP game is perfected.

This could never happen Drfell. The peeps at fixaris need to hear consumer opionion to fix things. Play testing only goes so far. Take stack movement. Playtesters arnt gonna think of that one little detail.

Originally posted byGhengis Brom m just wondering, is the toggle going to be in the editor or is it going to be part of the game options? I'm hoping the latter since I rarely ever use the editor.

It will be in the editor. Sorry about that, but its a great reason to learn how to use it. If you cant figure it out, there are plenty of help topics in the forums