Thread Tools
Old April 23, 2002, 22:07   #1
Heartsurgeon
Settler
 
Local Time: 23:29
Local Date: October 31, 2010
Join Date: Apr 2002
Posts: 6
Artillery is strong enough
Adding lethality to bombardments really unbalances the game IMO. As it is, artillery is the most devastating unit in the game, given how early you can acquire it. Cavalry and riflemen can just be ground to hamburger by artillery. I had about 20 of them in a warzone where 3 other civs were attacking me. Every turn they sent 8-12 cavalry, riders, riflemen, etc into the zone, and all I had to do was pound these units with the artillery. Then my own cavalry just went out and whipped all these units that had only 1-2 hit points left. Over the course of 5-6 turns, I lost a total of 2 units, while my opponents lost close to 50. I built some more and invaded them. Their cities had no prayer. Conquest was achieved before the industrial age was over.

The advantage of artillery obviously wanes in the modern age, but making the unit even more powerful would probably prevent a game from ever getting that far.
Heartsurgeon is offline  
Old April 23, 2002, 23:10   #2
Killazer
Warlord
 
Local Time: 23:29
Local Date: October 31, 2010
Join Date: Apr 2002
Posts: 160
Yeah
I agree for artillery and sea vs land, air vs land. I do think lethal bombard should be added for ship vs ship and air vs ship tho.
Killazer is offline  
Old April 23, 2002, 23:18   #3
Theseus
PtWDG Gathering StormApolyton UniversityApolytoners Hall of FameBtS Tri-LeagueC4DG Gathering StormApolyCon 06 Participants
Emperor
 
Theseus's Avatar
 
Local Time: 19:29
Local Date: October 31, 2010
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: The warmonger formerly known as rpodos. Gathering Storm!
Posts: 8,907
As I'm often finding, I agree with Killazer.

I would add nukes though.
__________________
The greatest delight for man is to inflict defeat on his enemies, to drive them before him, to see those dear to them with their faces bathed in tears, to bestride their horses, to crush in his arms their daughters and wives.

Duas uncias in puncta mortalis est.
Theseus is offline  
Old April 23, 2002, 23:23   #4
notyoueither
Civilization III MultiplayerCivilization III PBEMInterSite Democracy Game: Apolyton TeamC3C IDG: Apolyton TeamApolytoners Hall of FameCiv4 InterSite DG: Apolyton TeamPolyCast TeamPtWDG Gathering StormC4DG Gathering Storm
Deity
 
notyoueither's Avatar
 
Local Time: 17:29
Local Date: October 31, 2010
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: of naught
Posts: 21,300
I agree with Killazer. Mostly.

I disagree with ship vs ship lethal. Ships already have a way of killing ships. Attack them. You win, or he does, one of you is going to the bottom.

If you add ship vs ship you are going to have to endure the occassional case of a stack of IronClads (or DDs) putting a BB to the bottom before the BB can respond. That would not be fun to hear about.
__________________
(\__/)
(='.'=)
(")_(") This is Bunny. Copy and paste bunny into your signature to help him gain world domination.
notyoueither is offline  
Old April 24, 2002, 08:58   #5
Zachriel
King
 
Zachriel's Avatar
 
Local Time: 19:29
Local Date: October 31, 2010
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: U.S.A.
Posts: 1,194
Quote:
Originally posted by notyoueither
I agree with Killazer. Mostly.

I disagree with ship vs ship lethal. Ships already have a way of killing ships. Attack them. You win, or he does, one of you is going to the bottom.

If you add ship vs ship you are going to have to endure the occassional case of a stack of IronClads (or DDs) putting a BB to the bottom before the BB can respond. That would not be fun to hear about.
I agree. But I think if the movement and sight of modern ships was increased, it would be unlikely the ironclads could catch the BB unprepared.
Zachriel is offline  
Old April 24, 2002, 13:10   #6
Akka
Prince
 
Akka's Avatar
 
Local Time: 00:29
Local Date: November 1, 2010
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: In front of my computer.
Posts: 512
I advise you to change the ROF of your artillery if you think it's becoming too powerful. As they gain the power to be lethal, they must be bring down in the amount of damage they inflict for each hit.
__________________
Science without conscience is the doom of the soul.
Akka is offline  
Old April 24, 2002, 14:28   #7
Random Passerby
Warlord
 
Local Time: 23:29
Local Date: October 31, 2010
Join Date: Jan 2002
Posts: 187
The problem is that while artillery can decimate cavalry, what you really need at that stage is something to beat infantry. And there artillery tends to fail; twenty artillery at a minimum is needed to make a reasonable dent in a city with 10 hp worth of infantry guarding it.

Though still, I don't see any need for lethal land bombardment for just about any units.
Random Passerby is offline  
Old April 24, 2002, 15:31   #8
Killazer
Warlord
 
Local Time: 23:29
Local Date: October 31, 2010
Join Date: Apr 2002
Posts: 160
Yeah
Yeah..you all make good points. In terms of this game and the way it plays the current bombard system works. Lethal ship vs ship and air vs ship seems more realistic, but would prolly cause problems in gameplay like the ironclad vs battleship deal. Thing is tho if you have enough ironclads to bombard a BB down to 1 hit you prolly have the right to kill it outright anyway.

As for air vs ship... i dont know but cant a carrier in a fleet run air superiority to protect the ships vs bombers? If not then I guess you better not move your fleet close to an enemy city if lethal air vs ship bombard was put in.. might be a bit unbalanced.

I dunno im gonna have to play a couple more games and use fleets more. Its a sensitive issue =D Im sure about the no lethal land bombard tho.
Killazer is offline  
Old April 24, 2002, 16:04   #9
Thrawn05
King
 
Local Time: 18:29
Local Date: October 31, 2010
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: Constantly giggling as I type my posts.
Posts: 1,735
Before 1.21f, bombardment units of any kind were useless and a waste of shields. Any units that can't kill is junk IMHO. Before 1.21f, I just removed the bombardment values and insert my own Attack/Defend values to make them of some worth.


Just remember, it's off by default, and you can turn it on if you want. If you download a scenario that has that enabled, then just disable it. That's why it's in the editor. Complaining about other people enabling this feature, or just the site of it, is stupid IMHO.

As far as I can see, it doesn't unbalance the game, so long you make sure which units should be able to use it and which couldn't.
__________________
I drink to one other, and may that other be he, to drink to another, and may that other be me!
Thrawn05 is offline  
Old April 24, 2002, 17:24   #10
Zachriel
King
 
Zachriel's Avatar
 
Local Time: 19:29
Local Date: October 31, 2010
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: U.S.A.
Posts: 1,194
Quote:
Originally posted by Thrawn05

As far as I can see, it doesn't unbalance the game, so long you make sure which units should be able to use it and which couldn't.
I don't agree with your interpretation of how bombard is used, but I'm curious. Does the AI use artillery properly in your mod?
Zachriel is offline  
Old April 24, 2002, 17:27   #11
Capt Dizle
ACDG3 Gaians
King
 
Local Time: 18:29
Local Date: October 31, 2010
Join Date: Sep 1999
Posts: 1,657
If multiplayer is going to work, it is crucial that the game be balanced.
Capt Dizle is offline  
Old April 24, 2002, 17:40   #12
notyoueither
Civilization III MultiplayerCivilization III PBEMInterSite Democracy Game: Apolyton TeamC3C IDG: Apolyton TeamApolytoners Hall of FameCiv4 InterSite DG: Apolyton TeamPolyCast TeamPtWDG Gathering StormC4DG Gathering Storm
Deity
 
notyoueither's Avatar
 
Local Time: 17:29
Local Date: October 31, 2010
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: of naught
Posts: 21,300
Air vs Ship is the whole reason I wanted lethal bombard to begin with. So I am happy to see it. Although without AA it goes a bit towards the imbalancing, I am looking forward to a Nimitz style of naval game in my next start.

I think I'll change a unit to Naval Air and leave it as the only lethal vs ship unit. Lower combat ratings than a fighter, but higher bombard. I don't want to be tempted (or able) to just use stacks of Bombers for coastal defence. Maybe I'll give lethal vs ships to Jet Fighters too. Oh well, I have a little time for debating.
__________________
(\__/)
(='.'=)
(")_(") This is Bunny. Copy and paste bunny into your signature to help him gain world domination.
notyoueither is offline  
Old April 24, 2002, 20:06   #13
Coracle
Prince
 
Coracle's Avatar
 
Local Time: 18:29
Local Date: October 31, 2010
Join Date: Feb 2002
Posts: 915
Catapults are too weak, though, and they should only be used against enemy towns and cities.

Ships before destroyers should never have the ability to destroy improvements by bombardment.

What we need is some sort of automated bombardment feature, along with stack bombardment to limit the tedium.
Coracle is offline  
Old April 24, 2002, 20:46   #14
Thrawn05
King
 
Local Time: 18:29
Local Date: October 31, 2010
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: Constantly giggling as I type my posts.
Posts: 1,735
Quote:
Originally posted by Zachriel


I don't agree with your interpretation of how bombard is used, but I'm curious. Does the AI use artillery properly in your mod?
I listed which units get what in a thread I made a few days ago (page 2 now I think). From what I can tell, the AI seems to use bombardment units just the same as before (still sending them without escort, but mostly using them for city defense). I did up the costs of the bombard units that had lethal land, so as to prevent the AI to overuse them.

I don't mind losing units in my mod to these lethal bombard units. It makes the game more fun and challenging.
__________________
I drink to one other, and may that other be he, to drink to another, and may that other be me!
Thrawn05 is offline  
Old April 24, 2002, 21:37   #15
Zachriel
King
 
Zachriel's Avatar
 
Local Time: 19:29
Local Date: October 31, 2010
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: U.S.A.
Posts: 1,194
Quote:
Originally posted by Thrawn05
It makes the game more fun and challenging.
That's the ticket!
Zachriel is offline  
Old April 25, 2002, 10:49   #16
Killazer
Warlord
 
Local Time: 23:29
Local Date: October 31, 2010
Join Date: Apr 2002
Posts: 160
bombard
The point of bombardment units isnt to kill other units its to weaken them so that they can be overrun by your offensive units. And I think they work fine. Some changes can be made for the realistic factor without unbalancing the game but changing artillery to just set attack pieces is pretty dumb. The largest potential area of change lies in the air/naval scene.

A couple well thought out changes in this area can be made permanent without unbalancing the game. Perhaps just air vs ship lethal although I dont see a huge problem with ship vs ship lethal. You have to think about bombard vs defense. Someone mentioned ironclads killing battleships with lethal bombard. It might happen but yer gonna need a helluvalot of ironclads. Having that many in the first place would prolly allow you to kill a battleship by just attacking it anyway. And then what happens? You use all yer clads to kill 1 BB and then the BBs tear your clads to shreds next turn.

As for catapults being too weak... Yes they are weak but they are only to be used in the very early game. Three or four catapults in a stack of a spearman and a few archers can prevent the loss of any of your units which might have otherwise been killed and thus the tide turned against you. This can be important in MP because you cannot save and reload constantly to avoid losing units and if an attack goes bad for you you are in serious trouble. Even if the catapults only take out 1 or 2 hits that can help you significantly. Six catapults and a couple defensive units plus five or 6 attackers can be a very difficult force to stop in the early game.
Killazer is offline  
Old April 25, 2002, 13:20   #17
Cyclotron
Never Ending StoriesThe Courts of Candle'Bre
King
 
Cyclotron's Avatar
 
Local Time: 18:29
Local Date: October 31, 2010
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: Cyclo-who?
Posts: 2,995
I find massed artillery to be very useful once railroads are in place... I recently fought a large air war/artillery duel with the Russians, my jets shooting down their bombers and my bombers pounding their cities, with a stack of 12 of my artillery in a fortress 2 tiles from their base. In the end, I brought 2 metros and a city all down to town size, sent them into civil disorder from building loss, cut off their mainland resources by bombing out their harbors, and brought every single unit (mostly mech inf and inf) down to 1hp before wiping out all 3 cities in one turn with only 5 tanks. Since at the time I had lost my only source of oil, throwing tanks at metros would have exausted my tank reserve quickly, so I relied on my artillery to win the war for me.

Artillery is quite useful when non-lethal, a must-have for large scale land warfare once railroads are involved. Catas and cannons are really only useful for coastal defense and long sieges, since they have no good railroad system to tote them around.
__________________
Lime roots and treachery!
"Eventually you're left with a bunch of unmemorable posters like Cyclotron, pretending that they actually know anything about who they're debating pointless crap with." - Drake Tungsten
Cyclotron is offline  
Old April 25, 2002, 14:08   #18
latenight
Settler
 
Local Time: 23:29
Local Date: October 31, 2010
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: San Francisco
Posts: 20
lethal bombing + precision bombing
I am in the early industrial period in my first game since updating to 1.21f, and have not yet had the opportunity to check out any changes to the bombardment issues in this patch. Can someone explain with what units and when lethal bombardment works? In addition, I would like to see lethal bombardment ability for subs, most modern ships, and certainly bombers & fighters against ships. Just makes sense to me. Also, I'd really like to see precision bombing against cities--specific targeting of city improvements or population centers. Maybe this capability could be available with stealth only but given today's smart bombs, it seems like a natural. Curious to know what others think about this...
latenight is offline  
Old April 25, 2002, 15:29   #19
Thrawn05
King
 
Local Time: 18:29
Local Date: October 31, 2010
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: Constantly giggling as I type my posts.
Posts: 1,735
Re: bombard
Quote:
Originally posted by Killazer
The point of bombardment units isnt to kill other units its to weaken them so that they can be overrun by your offensive units.
That's why I won't build any. Because ANY unit that can't kill is a total waste of my time and shields. I would rather have churned out other offensive units that CAN kill, then to have units that CAN'T and to top off, be captured by the enemy.

Think of it this way, when I use a bombard unit that kills another land unit, that unit is not dead, their just so moraly destroyed that they give up and leave the game.
__________________
I drink to one other, and may that other be he, to drink to another, and may that other be me!
Thrawn05 is offline  
Old April 25, 2002, 17:19   #20
Random Passerby
Warlord
 
Local Time: 23:29
Local Date: October 31, 2010
Join Date: Jan 2002
Posts: 187
I don't get this irrational hatred for units that don't kill things. I routinely build dozens of defensive units which will never ever kill anything, and for uber-empires this number could reach into the hundreds. Not every offensive unit I build is going to win all the battles it gets into; not only will these units not kill anything, but they will get killed themselves. If you're budgeting three offensive units for each up-to-date defensive unit (though this differs by era, this is still generally a dodgy ratio that's often prone to defeat and disappointment), then you're saying right off the bat that as many of two-thirds of your force is NOT going to be killing things. Of course this is inaccurate, as some of your attack force will be employed picking off stray counter-attacks, but the point remains: in conflicts where the opponent is at least roughly equal, you will be deliberately building offensive units knowing full well that they're just going to be spent wearing down the enemy so that other units can kill them. And if the conflicts aren't roughly equal, then in my opinion the entire friggin' game is a waste and it's time to restart.
Random Passerby is offline  
 

Bookmarks

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is On

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 19:29.


Design by Vjacheslav Trushkin, color scheme by ColorizeIt!.
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.2
Copyright ©2000 - 2010, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Apolyton Civilization Site | Copyright © The Apolyton Team