Is "Bomber Shielding" a legitimate tactic?

Scouse Gits · March 22, 2002, 16:22

I think it's a cheat - but what does the community say?

This from a man who thinks that Airbases are legitimate city improvements - but can't use them 'cos You say not!

ColdWizard · March 22, 2002, 16:27

against the AI, there are no cheats

in MP or comparison games, then i consider it a cheat unless it's specifically agreed upon to be allowed

DrSpike · March 22, 2002, 17:20

SG I voted yes, and have to say the wording of this poll is hardly unbiased.

rah · March 22, 2002, 17:29

Agree with CW, and will discuss to see how it should be handled in RAH rules. See the thread in MP.

RAH

Smash · March 22, 2002, 17:49

hehehe..if a mp game ever got that far...

why not?..ever hear of air cover?...a bomber stack can be attacked and destroyed.I say use it...just not against me

ColdWizard · March 22, 2002, 18:30

actually, i've encountered this in an MP game. it was back in my zone days, me and another guy were MPing the standard WW2 scenario. he was using an alpine troop to infiltrate my territory and ended up fortified next to one of my cities. a few turns later he happened to bomb me from the same square that the alpiner was on. imagine my surprise when i couldn't attack him

. we discussed it briefly and decided to disallow bomber stacking.

air cover doesn't prevent you from using ground troops to attack other ground troops, it just makes the assault more exciting

Scouse Gits · March 22, 2002, 20:19

Quote:

Originally posted by ColdWizard
air cover doesn't prevent you from using ground troops to attack other ground troops, it just makes the assault more exciting

That says it all ...
______________
The SGs in Red

Blaupanzer · March 22, 2002, 21:31

I voted "yes," but would add the codecile that if fighters nail anyone in that stack, you do lose the bomber too. It's just one more wierdness in a game with planes but no AA guns or missiles.

Deity Dude · March 22, 2002, 23:34

i voted yes, it just seems like another dimension to the game.

On a broader subject, I think, in general, the default should be that things are legal unless specified as illegal prior to the game. I hate when I am playing a game, and for example, bribe someone, then they quit and send me an angry message. If the game allows it and u dont want it part of the game you should specify that ahead of time.

BTW, I am in favor of most of "RAH rules" except i prefer 1x1x, huts only, city bribe allowed.

Smash · March 22, 2002, 23:34

well there is the solution right there.Make an AA unit.Can that be done?..should be able to.Might make a nice replacement for marines or something.....

DrSpike · March 22, 2002, 23:41

A ha. More people voting yes, which is good since it was 4-1 earlier when I looked. At Rah's request I posted my reasons for voting yes in the MP thread about RAH rules, and I hope others that posted here will do the same.

Six Thousand Year Old Man · March 23, 2002, 00:57

I think it's OK. The AI cheats like crazy, and I can rationalize it as air cover. Besides, if the opposition gets in a lucky attack with a fighter (or more likely, a stealth), then you run the risk of losing all your stacked attackers rather than just one. To me, if there's a risk to the 'cheat', then it doesn't seem like as much of a cheat.

STYOM

Smash · March 23, 2002, 01:47

I voted yes.As far as MP goes,as long as it is the same for everybody..thats the main thing.It could be a thing that takes some fun out of MP game.Thats no good.Although I think landing a few x packs smack in the middle of someone's civ could be great fun.

Thoth · March 23, 2002, 20:15

I think it's a little dodgey, even if it was the Civ I AI that taught me the trick.

debeest · March 23, 2002, 22:42

I guess I have to vote yes; the AI does it to me, so I've learned to do it to the AI. I still haven't played multi-player, but I don't see any reason why it should be different there. I agree that in general, things not prohibited by the program or the official rules should be considered legal; but I also agree that these dicey areas should be agreed on beforehand by MP participants in any particular game.

The info in the manual is inadequate; it clearly states that you can't attack the stack with ground troops, but it doesn't tell you that if you attack with air units you'll be fighting the ground units. What a surprise it was to run into that until I figured it out. It's nonsensical, but I don't think it's a bug, so I think it's OK to use.

Marquis de Sodaq · March 29, 2002, 10:57

Quote:

Originally posted by debeest
The info in the manual is inadequate; it clearly states that you can't attack the stack with ground troops, but it doesn't tell you that if you attack with air units you'll be fighting the ground units. What a surprise it was to run into that until I figured it out. It's nonsensical, but I don't think it's a bug, so I think it's OK to use.

It isn't nonsense, it just that the computer doesn't differentiate between unit domains when calculating who the primary defender is. Bomber def=1, armor def=5, end of calculation. "They" should have added a simple check to allow the air unit to attack the bomber without wiping out the whole stack if it wins.

ColdWizard · April 16, 2002, 11:53

i still see it as an unintended side effect from fighters being the only units able to attack bombers. use of bomber stacking in MP gives a huge advantage to the first player to discover advanced flight, especially if they have any significant tech lead.

Quote:

guess I have to vote yes; the AI does it to me, so I've learned to do it to the AI. I still haven't played multi-player, but I don't see any reason why it should be different there

the ai can't defend worth a ****, would you like to see a bomber stack and have your fighters attack it, only to find multiple mech inf inside an insta-fort underneath (and possibly on nice defensive terrain)?

-Jrabbit · April 16, 2002, 13:55

If the AI can do it to me, then it's just a question of fair play.
If it's Xin Yu planning an assault, then it's clearly unfair.

So to me, it's SP-yes, MP-no.

Straybow · April 18, 2002, 03:17

Yes, it's a cheat. The AI is so poor at planning assaults it needs to cheat to be a challenge. It is unsporting to use it against the AI.

Thoddy · April 19, 2002, 07:49

Quote:

Originally posted by Marquis de Sodaq

It isn't nonsense, it just that the computer doesn't differentiate between unit domains when calculating who the primary defender is. Bomber def=1, armor def=5, end of calculation. "They" should have added a simple check to allow the air unit to attack the bomber without wiping out the whole stack if it wins.

Or if the primary defender shoot at the fighter, he shots also the shielding bomber down, because the bullits doesnt differentiate betwen own and enemy airplanes.

debeest · April 19, 2002, 15:35

Quote:

would you like to see a bomber stack and have your fighters attack it, only to find multiple mech inf inside an insta-fort underneath

Heh. I've learned not to attack a bomber stack. Even a fortified rifleman on open terrain has even chances against a fighter.

Like I said, though, I haven't played MP yet. I could easily go along with Jackrabbit -- SP yes, MP no.

Gatekeeper · April 27, 2002, 04:51

About the only time I get irked with AI bombers are when they're blocking an invasion route(s) into an enemy nation. Geez! I have 60 divisions of howitzers, armor and Marines ready to flood in, and a single pesky bomber sitting over a rail line just scrapped that war plan! And it always seems to be "just out of reach" of your own fighters (if you even brought any along for the invasion).

Gatekeeper

bellisaurius · April 27, 2002, 16:47

I don't think it's a cheat simply because the tactic to fight it is relatively simple. Fighters may be short range, but if you attack with combined arms, a bomber shield is not only ineffective, but dangerous to the troops it's shielding

EdwardTKing · April 30, 2002, 18:27

Bomber and Ground Unit Stacking are difficult to defend
against; but combine that with a Pre-Worked Engineer!

The pre-worked engineer moves up next to your capital
and builds a fortress; all in one turn. Your opponent
moves two good defensive ground units like Alpines or
Armour in the fort and then the entire enemy bomber
air force turns up and stack bombs your capital!

If you ever play WW2 as Russians, I strongly recomend
that you ban either or both pre-working and
combined bomber & ground unit stacking.

On deity I use Battleship (or Aegis) and Bomber
stacking against AI Coastal Cities a lot myself.