Lethal Bombardment Survey

[Killazer]

Lethal bombardment of any land units by any other unit would be a very bad idea. Think about it. You are invaded by someone with a number of 30+ unit stacks.... so what? You rail in all your 150+ artillery units and simply completely destroy all of his units with no danger or cost to yourself. The enemy would never have a chance to counter attack. You wouldnt even need a land army just some defenders and mass artillery. Its just like you are dropping nuclear bombs on them or something. You would be impervious to any land attack as long as you had a number of artillery pieces and airforce.

Land bombard as it is now is perfect. Sure, you can still bring in 150+ arty and air forces but the best you can do is reduce all of his land units to 1 hp each. Even so, you will still need to bring in at least an equal amount of your own land forces (until tanks then 1/3 at least) to mop up the enemy and most likely more. Even tho the enemy units are down to 1 hp you will still take damage attacking them and possibly will even loose some of your own units. This would give the enemy at least a chance of counter attacking with their own artillery and air force. Ships dont need to and shouldnt be able to anyway to lethal bombard land units. Neither should airforce.

Naval combat is different. Ships and carriers cant zip around the map with no movement cost. Air craft have an operational range. For naval combat I do think bombers should be able to lethal bombard naval units. It makes sense and it would work in the game.

One last thing... I also would hate lethal bombard because I love reducing enemy units to 1hp and then mowing them down generating great leaders. If I sit there lethal bombarding everything im never going to get leaders. Naval combat doesnt generate leaders so thats another reason lethal bombard works with and is most suited to naval combat in this game. Ship vs ship and bombers should be able to lethal bombard ships im fine with that.

[Killazer]

Also for any of you Napoleon lovers or historians or whatever. Please, you know that artillery has never in history completely destroyed an entire army, nothing saying of several armies and army groups. It simply couldnt happen. Humans are small targets and you would need trillion gazzillions of 155mm+ HE round howitzers to destroy an entire army. Yet, with lethal arty bombard, this would be routine in civ3.

Now, when I speak of armies, Im not talking about 400 guerilla fighters or 200 rebels or whatever, those arent armies. Im talking about a full blown army as created by world powers like Germanys in ww2. Each division was typically aprox 10000 men well equiped. Million men = aprox 100 divisions. All the arillery on the planet couldnt completely decimate all those 100 divisions and by the time they even killed 2 divisions they would be overrun and captured / destroyed. So, you shouldnt be able to kill 100 units in civ3 with just lethal artillery bombard. Stupid and unbalancing.

As I mentioned above naval combat is different.

[Zachriel]

Originally posted by steelehc
Artillery can destroy a unit's cohesion.

Very rarely. About as often as shore bombardment by subs.

Air power can do things you are leaving out. In WW2, the American and Filipino forces on Corregidor in the Philppines were not faced by ground troops. They were being constantly bombed from the air, however, and they surrendered.

An actual example. Good! However, Corregidor was actually a siege with no hope of relief. In addition, they were not destroyed, but surrendered as a unit. With hope of relief, they might have held out.

[Zachriel]

Originally posted by steelehc
Thats an interesting theory. I don't actually know enough about his OOB or the layout of the field to have an informed opinion about that.

Fascinating battle. Napoleon actually succeeded in positioning his cannon in the middle of the enemy lines.

http://www.pbs.org/empires/napoleon/...gn/page_7.html

PILE the bodies high at Austerlitz and Waterloo.
Shovel them under and let me work—
I am the grass; I cover all.

And pile them high at Gettysburg
And pile them high at Ypres and Verdun.
Shovel them under and let me work.
Two years, ten years, and passengers ask the conductor:
What place is this?
Where are we now?

I am the grass.
Let me work.

-- Carl Sandburg

[Zachriel]

Originally posted by Killazer
As I mentioned above naval combat is different.

Yes, I agree. Naval combat is different.

[steelehc]

Zacherial: Thanks for the Austerlitz stuff. I am fascinated by the Napoleonic wars, and I should know more about them.

Let me clarify my position and reasoning behind lethal bombardment. Artillery can not completely wipe out every single soldier in a large (division-size) unit. Never happened, probably never will happen. However, massed artillery fire can completely destroy such a unit's ability to fight. In my opinion, a single hit point in Civ does not accuratly reflect this situation. A 1HP tank can destroy other tanks. It still has fighting strength remaining. Artillery fire can take away this fighting ability, and can do so completely if used effectively. If a unit loses its fighting ability, I consider it destroyed, as it is of no further use.

Steele

[Akka]

Originally posted by Zachriel
Fascinating battle. Napoleon actually succeeded in positioning his cannon in the middle of the enemy lines.

Mmh, sorry to contradict you, but actually there were very few artillery used in Austerlitz, as it was essentially an infantry battle.
Except for on time, when Saint-Hilaire has to reppel a quite big counter-attack on the Pratzen, artillery had a very secondary role.

[Zachriel]

Originally posted by Akka le Vil
Mmh, sorry to contradict you, but actually there were very few artillery used in Austerlitz, as it was essentially an infantry battle.
Except for on time, when Saint-Hilaire has to reppel a quite big counter-attack on the Pratzen, artillery had a very secondary role.

That's right. It was primarily an infantry battle, as nearly all battles are. The use of cannon has been somewhat mythologized because Napoleon started in the cannon corps, but the phrase "all the cannon at Austerlitz" to mean total destruction was a common phrase in the 19th century.

The Battle of Austerlitz actually started with a shot from a cannon near a Chapel, and may have ended with cannon shot. One common tale from Austerlitz is how some of the enemy soldiers attempted to flee across a frozen lake. The French cannon pounded the ice drowning the fleeing soldiers.

Here is some typical comments you might find on line about French artillery at Austerlitz:

During the 1805 campaign, the tactics of the French artillery were still evolving and during the battle of Austerlitz, examples of both old and new were to be seen. An 18 gun foot battery reserve was placed on the hill dominating a part of the field of battle, as tradition would dictate, but 24 guns of the guard artillery were used as a mobile detachment. This mobile detachment was used at the height of the battle to plug a gap in the line between the troops of Generals Soult and Lannes.
Also, Austerlitz also taught Napoleon what the effects of the "massed battery" could be, when Lanne's corps suffered 800 casualties when faced a battery of 40 Russian guns.

The composition of batteries varied, but in general the Guard foot artillery comprised between four and eight 12 pounders (sometimes with 24 pounder howitzers).

The line foot artillery comprised of six 8 pounders and two 6 inch howitzers.

[notyoueither]

It's not a tale. Many Russians died trying to flee across an not entirely frozen body of water.

[Zachriel]

Originally posted by Akka le Vil
Except for on time, when Saint-Hilaire has to reppel a quite big counter-attack on the Pratzen, artillery had a very secondary role.

Which is the crucial moment in the battle. By using light-weight mobile cannon, Napoleon positions his forces in the exact crucial point then used that leverage to break his enemy's back. The French also captured 180 enemy cannon.

Absolutely brilliant.

[notyoueither]

Actually the crucial point was when Davout showed up with his corp after having force marched them a gawd-aweful distance.

[Zachriel]

Originally posted by notyoueither
Actually the crucial point was when Davout showed up with his corp after having force marched them a gawd-aweful distance.

Good point!

A lot of things had to work out just right for Napoleon to win. Napoleon had a knack for getting the most forces to the battle at the right time.

[Akka]

Originally posted by notyoueither
It's not a tale. Many Russians died trying to flee across an not entirely frozen body of water.

Only 200 deads in fact. But what made this tale starts was that Napoléon simply added two zeros at the end of the casualties report, and then announced there were 20 000 deads in the lakes

[notyoueither]

And professional historians have been fooled ever since?

[Akka]

Originally posted by notyoueither
And professional historians have been fooled ever since?

HISTORIANS were not fooled.
It's not historians that give birth to tales, however
I suppose that the idea of inflicting huge casualties with a single battery shot was epic enough to inspire people and carry on the legend.

[Venger]

If you set the bombard value low enough, it will take a number of guns to do the job. This accuratly reflects this type of gun. They did have quite the power to destroy formations. Ask Napoleon. Ask Clausewitz. Ask Robert E. Lee. Ask any one of the great generals from before the late nineteenth century.

It's very iffy. I'd opt out - at least initially. I think we'd have to see the gameplay implications. There are arguments for and against, initially, I wouldn't stampede to add the characteristic until I saw a need for it to balance the units abilities or make for a more realistic or balanced game.

I agree with you here, at least that artillery should not be able to destroy ships. Against land, though, artillery were used to great effect against land formations. Ditto radar artillery, except they haven't really been used very much.

This it what I was referring too - against ships. One could argue the artillery is a placeholder for coastal defense guns - which I will buy. It's the same argument as above - I'd leave it off unless navies became too powerful of a coastal raiding group.

Ironclad warships could easily sink many contemporary ships. Are you actually implying they could not?

I'm arguing that ironclads should sink ships through direct attack, not ranged bombardment. Ironclads ALREADY can sink ships - by attacking them. I don't think they need the ability to destroy land or sea units with bombardment, they really are closer in combatants.

I was on USS Antietam in the gulf. We launched cruise missile attacks almost every day for a week and a half. We killed a bunch of bunkers, and a couple tank laagers. The Antietam is a Ticonderoga class AEGIS cruiser.

Destroying a bunker is not the same as destroying a mech inf division. LCM's are not really designed for that, and as such, don't think they should have the ability to do so. The battleship of course CAN lay down the type of firepower to destroy dug in troops.

This I can sortof agree with. Unless you consider the P-51, P-47, P-38, and similiar planes to be fighters. Acting as attack planes, they caused great amounst of damage to German and Japanese formations alike in WW2.

They were much more effective again against larger units - halftracks, tanks, bunkers, railcars, etc. I think that unless you were to add a fighter-bomber unit, gameplay is best left with the fighter as anti-air only.

I disagree with this largely on principle. The Man-O-War sucks. You gotta give the English some kind of usefulness from their UU. Otherwise, its almost pointless.

The Man'O War sucks because it is underpowered - increasing naval strengths and their balance across the board is needed in this game. Korn did a good job of it. The key is to make the Man O'War undeniably the most powerful ship in an expanded age of sail.

I agree here. But then they should have longer range, which leads to more unbalancing (a sub parks in the middle of the ocean, and cruise missiles everything around it...)

I think the sub works okay without bombardment - it must close in to be effective, at knife range. The problem lies in the detection algorithm of the game - any ship can find a sub. That's gotta be addressed.

In WW2, a Japanese sub surfaced off Northern California, and started shelling the coast with its deck gun. It was driven off and sunk by the Coast Guard, but managed to damage a few houses, and put some holes in a road.

I purposefully didn't mention the deck gun because it really isn't effective as a land bombardment weapon - only to finish off surface ships and save the torpedos for fresh prey.

I completely agree with you here. That would add no more then the necessary level of complexity, while adding much mroe enjoyment.

It may be more than they can do at this point - but it's really the only way to give people the proper tools to make units reflect real life capabilities.

Sorry for chewing you out here. You just seemed to come off as arrogant, and your post needed to be replied to...

Don't worry, I understand the sheer force of my intellect breeds hostility...

Venger
P.S. Apparently sarcastic hubris is lost on this board...

[Zachriel]

Originally posted by Akka le Vil
HISTORIANS were not fooled.
It's not historians that give birth to tales, however
I suppose that the idea of inflicting huge casualties with a single battery shot was epic enough to inspire people and carry on the legend.

There are reasons the story has persisted. Austerlitz was a particularly bloody battle, and the French gave no quarter. The soldiers fleeing across the ice were no longer part of an effective fighting unit and presumably no longer a threat. Once dividing the Allied army, and trapping half of it, the French fell to slaughtering them to a man. This was not a normal part of warfare up to that time, which was a sport of the nobility, and gave Napoleon a reputation as a butcher.

To be fair to the French, they were outnumbered, and could not leave enemy forces in their rear and still be prepared to give chase and attack the surviving half, which would presumably reorganize and give battle another day. Once trapping half the Allied forces, the French completely annihilated them.

A new age in warfare was born.

[Akka]

Originally posted by Zachriel


There are reasons the story has persisted. Austerlitz was a particularly bloody battle, and the French gave no quarter.

?
I don't know what makes you think that, but Austerlitz was not a particularly bloody battle. Only 1300 deads for the French and about 15 000 for the allied. Compared to the 40 000 or so of Eylau, it's not that much.
There was not such things as "no mercy was given". In fact, French captured more than 10 000 prisonners, including the integrality of one of the three sections of the left wing of Austro-Russian army.

The soldiers fleeing across the ice were no longer part of an effective fighting unit and presumably no longer a threat.

False. They were part of the Doctorov and de Langeron sections, and were retreating but still had cohesion.

Once dividing the Allied army, and trapping half of it, the French fell to slaughtering them to a man.

As I said earlier, there were no such thing as slaughter (well, not slaughter that is unusual in a battle, I mean). The truth is, the ice of the lakes was already breaking BEFORE the french artillery fired on it. And Napoléon ordered to its men to capture the Russians that were in the water (hence helping them to get out).

This was not a normal part of warfare up to that time, which was a sport of the nobility, and gave Napoleon a reputation as a butcher.

It was three centuries that war was no longer the sport of nobility. Nobles were the officers, that's all (and not in French armies, which were carrying the habits of the Révolution, where the bravest men were promoted after a battle to replace the holes in the ranks of officers).

To be fair to the French, they were outnumbered, and could not leave enemy forces in their rear and still be prepared to give chase and attack the surviving half, which would presumably reorganize and give battle another day.

In fact, the right wing of the Allied forces fled the battle nearly intact, because Murat ordered to halt its forces. Would Lannes has been in command, the Russians probably would have had much heavier losses.
This halt was caused mainly because Napoléon was concentrating on the destruction of the destruction of the left wing.

Once trapping half the Allied forces, the French completely annihilated them.

A new age in warfare was born.

This "destruction" consisted mainly in capturing thousands of soldiers. Don't really get where you got your idea of "new age of warfare".

[Zachriel]

Originally posted by Akka le Vil
Don't really get where you got your idea of "new age of warfare".

Well, without trying to argue every one of your points (I've got a game going ), we'll take just one.

In another momentous bequest to the 19th century, and even to the 20th, Napoleon revolutionized the methods of warfare.
http://mars.wnec.edu/~grempel/course.../napoleon.html

The French Revolutionary and the Napoleonic periods (1789–1815) witnessed great changes in the methods of war —the revolution in society accompanying and reinforcing the one in warfare. . . . he completely transformed strategy as well as tactics.
http://www.britannica.com/eb/article...eon%20strategy
(requires paid subscription)

It was Napoleon I who, despite his mistakes, revolutionized the strategy and tactics of his time. Aided by a mass army, he made great use of the powerful shock attack, carefully planned in advance. He also introduced the loose formation, divisional organization, and the use of mobile, long-range artillery. Clausewitz’s On War (1832) was an outgrowth of his studies of Napoleonic campaigns;
http://www.bartleby.com/65/st/strategy.html

With Napoleon I, however, the age of modern warfare was born.
http://www.molossia.org/milacademy/strategy.html

And of course Clausewitz, who got his ideas for "absolute war" and the "annihilation-principle" from the Napoleonic wars.
http://www.history1700s.com/page1583.html

[Andrew Cory]

Originally posted by Oerdin


Actually the Jap sub shelled the ship docking oil pipeline complex at Coal Oil point near Goleta, California (which is in Santa Barbara County in southern California). To my knowledge the sub was not sunk but it was attacked by U.S. Army Air Corp fighter planes from the airfield that was about two miles away. I forget the old airfield's name but after the war the field was shut down and it became the Santa Barbara Regional Airport.

For four years I lived right next to Coal Oil Point (in Isla Vista) and the history of "the only foreign attack on the contintal U.S. since the war of 1812" had become part of the local lore.

Heh, just goes to show, in addition to SoCalians stealing all the watter they can, they attach too much import to a minor raid...

Durring the First World War, Mexico was in the middle of a revolution. A man named Pancho Villa attacked a town called Columbus, in New Mexico. Around a dozen Americans died, and General Pershing lead an 11 month sortie into Mexico, trying to find Villa, and kill him. They failed, though America got involved in WWI right around the time Pershing was pulled out.

http://www.nmt.edu/~breynold/pancho.html

BTW: The water theif comment was somthing of a joke, being a native Nor'Caler, I am legaly bound to take any potshot I can at Sothern California...

[Sarxis]

What I am curious about is how the AI uses, if at all, killer artillery.

[romelus]

here is the real reason we need lethal bombardment in civ3: organic and free healing of units!

real world situation: whatever fighting power, be it equipment or men, lost to bombardment is permanently lost. you do not get free replacement simply by sitting out the bombardment

civ3 situation: units, even when completly surrounded, get free replacements/heal even when bombarded every turn, thus somewhat nullifying the real usefulness of artillery/bombers

as you can see, even though it's true that artillery can't completely destroy ground units in the real world, they are underpowered without lethal bombardment in civ3 due to the organic nature of all units. if we had to pay for replacements, or had to park damaged units in cities to be repaired/replaced using production shields, then artillery is fine without lethal bombardment. right now we just need them to be able to cause permanent damage - like destroying a unit to prevent healing.

[Theseus]

Killazer said it above:

Lethal land bombardment = No GLs.

Even given the opportunity, I would never do it.

Ships, however, should be sinkable by bombardment.

Not that seas are worth vying for... one of my only complaints post-1.21f.

[Zachriel]

Originally posted by romelus
civ3 situation: units, even when completly surrounded, get free replacements/heal even when bombarded every turn, thus somewhat nullifying the real usefulness of artillery/bombers
. . .
as you can see, even though it's true that artillery can't completely destroy ground units in the real world, they are underpowered without lethal bombardment in civ3 due to the organic nature of all units. . . .

Individual soldiers are not necessarily killed when the hp are lowered, especially when hit by bombardment. Most of the time, they are just disorganized and demoralized. Given time, they can reorganize. You must hunt them down and destroy them.

I have had such good luck with artillery, I'm beginning to think it is way overpowered. That is probably just because the AI can't counter artillery tactics, though.

[Zachriel]

Originally posted by steelehc
Zacherial: Thanks for the Austerlitz stuff. I am fascinated by the Napoleonic wars, and I should know more about them.
. . . . If a unit loses its fighting ability, I consider it destroyed, as it is of no further use.

Steele

You are right that if a unit loses its fighting ability, it is destroyed -- even if not one soldier is killed. Generally though, artillery is not sufficient. Consider the Corrigedor example. If they had refused to surrender (and I am exaggerating!), and had continued to sustain bombardment for several more weeks. Nearly everyone is dead, but the survivors still have rank, still give orders, even if it is just a couple dozen guys and a dog. They'll still lay traps, still act as observers, and still defend the beachs, though certainly not very well being at 1/100th of a hp. But still a unified fighting forces, albeit very weak. The Japanese, of course, would eventually land anyway and destroy them, so . . .

The reason they surrendered is because they believed it was the right thing to do, under the rules of war as they understood them. There was no point in continuing to let the men suffer for no strategic purpose. The Japanese considered it the wrong thing to do, an act of cowardice, which explains their treatment as prisoners.

[Cort Haus]

Originally posted by Oerdin
.... I think it is reasonable to conclude that it was the Allied air attacks and not the UCK that forced the Serbs out of Kosovo.

Yes, but not the air attacks against the VJ. Despite NATO claims about how successful the bombing runs were at the time, wasn't it established afterwards that they only actually hit 13 tanks & 19 artillery pieces? Most of what they thought was hit were cardboard tanks, and logs over axles for artillery (plus a few tractors). The VJ did what the British did at El Alemain and used decoys to distract enemy fire. (hmmm there's an interesting UU - a decoy squad)

It was the city bombing that lead to capitulation. In Civ speak - bombard-destroying the factories, powerplants, universities, hospitals, aqueducts & marketplaces of Belgrade, Nis & Novi Said. Plus elimination of strategic resources (oil supplies) and 'pillage' of road, rail, industrial and agricultural 'improvements'. And a few hit points taken off military units. Faced with economic anihilation, the target civ said "enough, take the territory".

I agree that the UCK was not an effective army but a guerrilla force. In Afghanistan an effective army was needed (Northern Alliance) as there was no economic infrastructure to destroy.

[player1]

Originally posted by Cort Haus
Yes, but not the air attacks against the VJ. Despite NATO claims about how successful the bombing runs were at the time, wasn't it established afterwards that they only actually hit 13 tanks & 19 artillery pieces? Most of what they thought was hit were cardboard tanks, and logs over axles for artillery (plus a few tractors). The VJ did what the British did at El Alemain and used decoys to distract enemy fire. (hmmm there's an interesting UU - a decoy squad)

It was the city bombing that lead to capitulation. In Civ speak - bombard-destroying the factories, powerplants, universities, hospitals, aqueducts & marketplaces of Belgrade, Nis & Novi Said. Plus elimination of strategic resources (oil supplies) and 'pillage' of road, rail, industrial and agricultural 'improvements'. And a few hit points taken off military units. Faced with economic anihilation, the target civ said "enough, take the territory".

I agree that the UCK was not an effective army but a guerrilla force. In Afghanistan an effective army was needed (Northern Alliance) as there was no economic infrastructure to destroy.

I agree COMPLETLY!

NATO "peacekeepers" destroyed Serbian economy. (at leat what has left after 10year embargo)

P.S.
Cardboard tanks were very effective.
I know this in detal. My father was in army in that time.

[Jaybe]

Battleships: Lethal Sea (only)
I might consider Bombers - Lethal Sea, but arguments regarding no defensive antiaircraft fire has at least delayed that decision.

Battleships, representing a large naval force with a core of battleships, would have longer gunnery range than lesser naval units. I might also give them (and other 'modern' naval units) Blitz capabality and see if that gives them multiple bombards.

Needing at least 2 destroyers/battleships to destroy 2 frigates still gets my goat.

I DO appreciate Firaxis' choice to not make any default changes in bombardment lethality!

[romelus]

Originally posted by Zachriel


Individual soldiers are not necessarily killed when the hp are lowered, especially when hit by bombardment. Most of the time, they are just disorganized and demoralized. Given time, they can reorganize. You must hunt them down and destroy them.

I have had such good luck with artillery, I'm beginning to think it is way overpowered. That is probably just because the AI can't counter artillery tactics, though.

that's true, but at least some of the men, and more equipment (harder to entrench larger hardware such as tanks and trucks) are destroyed, permanently. men don't rise from the dead, and equipment don't repair themselves, not for free, and not without a route for resupply. right now in civ3 without lethal bombardment, you can bomb for a thousand years and not harm a single soul, because units heal themselves for free.

[notyoueither]

re Heal for free.

Well, I don't know about you guys, but my armies rarely suffer significant loses. Using bombard and a mix of units and the terrain, I can go through wars with 10 or 20 to 1 kill ratios. What's my point?

My victorious units heal for free. Same as units being bombarded once the bombardment stops. That's the structure of the game. You want it gone? Kill it with a ground unit, otherwise it will return to fight another day (for free).

Lethal bombardment of ground units would only serve to decrease the cost of war for me the player in SP. I don't know about you, but I'm looking for a better challenge. Not a cake-walk.