Air units suck

[civjunkie]

In fact the whole concept of bombardment is a waste of time. It does about what you could do with spies in civ2, i.e., randomly destroy things including hopefully city walls, except that city walls don't seem to mean much any more. So, if you're lucky, you do a bit of damage to the unit you're trying to clobber, and otherwise you just reduce the value of the city you're about to capture. Air power should be a decisive turning point, and it just isn't. Bring back civ2 Stealth Fighters, the best units in civs 1 2 or 3.

[vmxa1]

I am not going to say anything good about bombardment in general and air in particular, they miss way to often and are almost worthless. I will admit that arties are useful when invaders show up and you have RR's, if they hit anything.

[Wormwood]

Air units and artillery are meant to be used just as they are in reality: en masse. One bomber or artillery unit has little chance of causing much damage, 30 bombers and 60 artillery will obliterate anything in range.

[vmxa1]

Be that as it may, I am not about to click 90 times and find that having so many failures, makes it very tiresome.

[Inverse Icarus]

Originally posted by vmxa1
Be that as it may, I am not about to click 90 times and find that having so many failures, makes it very tiresome.

we were promised stack bombard... let see if we get it...

[Cyclotron]

Well, I have found bombers to be very powerful and useful. It depends on your tactics, I guess.

[PrinceBimz]

I find air units extremely versatile and useful, depending on your situation. They can be used to attack other air units, land and sea units. No other unit can be used in so many roles. I personally have had alot of success using them.

[Kingof the Apes]

If you dont like air units you could change them in the editor, increase bombardment maybe.

[Civer80]

I find Bombers very useful in depriving a rival civ of its Resources and Luxuries

[Demerzel]

re. artillery

on the attack i don't use them, unless its a seriously gigantic metropolis, whose population requires "thinning out" and i'm prepared to wait forty odd turns for the slow artillery to catch up with my fast moving attack units.

otherwise i can only see two good uses for artillery, one base defence - pound the bejeesus out of enemy units as they trundle up to my city. secondly, with a railroaded continent and enemy ships roaming my coasts, i just shift a couple of arty to where the enemy ship is and pound the b*stard into the ground and then if i have a ship nearby finish him off. repeat by number of enemy ships in range of artillery.

re. planes
i kinda like air units except for the awfully short range which generally means that on a true blitzkrieg style attak, except for the first round of fighting, they are always too far from the enemy lines to be of use. i have to keep re-basing them to find that the attack has moved on by then.

the only way around this is if the cities to be hit are coastal and i use aircraft carriers. however as observed above, you need to use bombers en masse to have any affect which requires you to have about 10 aircraft carriers to have a sizeable bomber force thanks to the damn 4 aircraft limit. this just leads to more micromanagement joy with all the ships that need to be controlled


so in general i dont use them and stick with the tried and tested tank rush. no finesse and a heck of a lot of micromanagement as the number of attack units goes over a few hundred but i generally dont enjoy shifitng a hundred or so artillery/bombers as well for the percentage striking power they give me in return.

[planetfall]

civjunkie--

Civ3 is a land based conquest game. Sea and Air are only used to support land, ala, pre WWII military tactics. There is no way to get good sea/air out of civ3 because of the programming limitations.

Best you can do is increase carriers load to 6, bomber range to 8 and bomber effectiveness by 2. {Slightly higher carrier capacity eliminates some micro management. Any higher and your advantage is too great as AI does not use carriers. Bomber effectiveness is just to eliminate having to build so many bombers. Don't worry the AI is good about building fighters to knock out some of your bombers.}

If you want an air game, try to find the old game of Luftwaffe and subsequent improvements. Again civ3 is not about air power, it is about:
culture
land armies
trading
tech races
scarce resources triggering warfare.

--PF

[vulture]

Originally posted by Demerzel

re. planes
i kinda like air units except for the awfully short range which generally means that on a true blitzkrieg style attak, except for the first round of fighting, they are always too far from the enemy lines to be of use. i have to keep re-basing them to find that the attack has moved on by then.

I've heard that said a lot, but it doesn't make sense to me. Say you start off a war with your air units in position to be useful.

Round 1: bombard with air units, then move tanks/MA in to attack, and take a few cities (hopefully).

Round 2: Attack same or other cities with tanks/MA, and at the end of your turn, rebase your bombers to the new front line (no bomber attack this turn).

Round 3: As per round 1 - use bombers first to weakan this turn's targets, then mop up with the armour.

Rinse and repeat. You can usefully use each bomber every other turn. Given that they are more effective en masse, it is probably better to use 1 large airforce that attacks every other turn than 2 smaller ones attacking in alternation, unless you really do have a lot of bombers.

[Demerzel]

well generally i aim to take at least one "row" of front-line cities per attacking turn but preferably two. The main pre-war aim is to build up enough troops that i can capture the front line cities and then in the same turn, use the territory gain as a springboard for the remaining to take a second row of cities.

thus if i say attacked with bombers in round one, then shifted them to the front line by round two, then i could use them in round three but generally I've pushed on far enough that they can't reach the new frontline.

that all only applies if i'm not facing stiff resistance of course. if that is true then generally the AI is at a similiar level of development and has enough fighters and tanks/mobile armour to make my bombers'/tankers lives hell, so I go with tanks supported by the "stupidlylargemassofartilleryusingsledgehammertacti csratherthanfinessetowin"(TM) manoeuvre to soften them up.

[Cyclotron]

You know, another great way to use bombers is with carriers. Carriers protect them from ground assault and CF, while preventing wasting turns with constant re-basing. Bombers become much more efficient and powerful when at sea.

[Apolex]

Originally posted by UberKruX

we were promised stack bombard... let see if we get it...

That's what I'M TALKIN' BOUT! Bombard is utterly tedious in it's current form for two reasons:

1) Takes FOREVER to click through the number of bombers, etc. to effectively do appreciable damage to a city.

2) I absolutely HATE waiting for 50 enemy Caravels, Ironclads, Destroyers to do their stupid worthless infrastructure bombarding on my shores.

Stack bombard would do wonders to make those game features more playable and enjoyable. WHERE IS IT????? Please give.

Oh yeah...

3) Why does a cruise missile have the same range as an 1800s era artillery unit? Stupid.

-Apolex

[Arrian]

CivJunkie,

You say "Air Units Suck" and "Armies Suckman" but it is fairly clear from your posts that you don't have much experience with the game, or at least not much experience with the units you denigrate. Is it possible, perhaps that YOU suck?

Just kidding, but seriously, I think the bombard units are just about right in CivIII. First off, the AI doesn't really know how to use them, so the more powerful they are the more of an advantage the human player has. Second, while they are only effective at beating up on units in cities if used en masse, they are pretty effective at beating on units out in the open, even in relatively small numbers. They are great for strategic defense, and for naval support. Third, the CivII stealth fighters you mention were indeed awesome - they were seriously overpowered (as were several units in CivII).

I will leave it to others to enlighten you on the subject of armies.

-Arrian

[PrinceBimz]

Another thing I must add is aircraft are very effective at bombing and destroying roads and improvements. This in turn slows down enemy units travelling to your cities. It really disrupts their movement. I truely HATE when the AI does this to me, talk about P.O. me. I have had times when the AI sends planes out from all directions bombing the living heck out of my improvements and it hurts. Causes starvation and everything else in my cities and thats just ONE thing it does.

[civjunkie]

OK, I admit it, I'm fairly new to civ3 ... was playing civ2 at Deity and maxing out (i.e. hitting the 311% bug) ... got civ3 when it first came out but my pc didn't have the hp to make it out of bc ... have now got a kickass game machine and have finally reached the modern era in 3. My basic civ2 strategy (build science like crazy while letting AI civs hack each other to pieces, then unleash a huge modern army on their pitiful 19th century defenders) still works a treat in civ2, so the differences don't seem too huge. I DO like: resources, culture, trade & diplomacy system. I kinda don't mind the waste/corruption: they key to racking up a mungo score is still to have lots of happy citizens, and you just have to get used to the idea that your outlying cities don't contribute much else. I DON'T like the new air combat system (if I'm going to build 60-70 bombers, I'd rather do 60-70 MA instead), and I still don't really see the point of armies. After all, a stack of mobile units will also each fight until they're down to 1hp and then withdraw, at least on attack; I guess there is an advantage on defence, in that you don't lose as many, but you could have built more units instead ....

IN my current game (still in 1824) having mashed 15 Iroquois cities in 1 turn, I have now signed a peace treaty with them before they got a chance to counter-attack, getting 3 more cities from them in the peace treaty in return for Refining and some cash per turn.
So none of my units had to defend anyway. Little
do they know I'm going to regroup, heal, happy up my citizens, and then mash them again before they get
to enjoy any of the cash ...

btw, the msg heading "armies suckman" came about because random letters kept popping up in the reply window while I was typing. Has that happened to anyone else?

[vmxa1]

No matter how you slice it bombardment is tedious. To say that and to say they often miss, is not to say they are not useful, just that they are annoying. Unless one finds it swell to send 5-6 planes to blow up a road and get no hits. I do not care about the miss/hit rate, just that it is a real drag. I seledom make massive numbers because of the lack of stacking. I would hate to send 25 planes and get 5 hits and that would be common. Yes there are jobs they are invaluable for and when they work it is nice, but over all if I am on a landmass, I would rather have more tanks.

[Wormwood]

I use art./air units because I am a slow, methodical player. I pound the hell out of cities with units that are relatively invulnerable because this minimizes the casualities of my ground forces. There is a decent chance that infantry units in a city will be able to fend off a tank assault. I would rather have my tanks facing an enemy that is down to one or two HPs. The price I pay for this is longer wars with more weariness, or shorter wars with fewer gains. It all depends on the situation, whether or not I bombard or blitz, and really, except for the opening turn of a campaign, it comes down to a choice of one or the other.

[civjunkie]

Again civ3 is not about air power, it is about:

And I appreciate all those things. But maybe civ4 could do air power a bit better. IMHO, you could scale down RRs so they only give you say 10 mps instead of infinity and on the other hand have air transports that instantly deliver say 8 units to a city (or an airbase a la civ2) or sow paratroopers along a path. All air units should also have more realistic ranges. The point is that airpower should be a breakthrough tech, maybe THE breakthrough tech, whereas in civ3 it is ho-hum at best.

Also why shouldn't air units move and show up on the map just like any other units, and as they did in civ2?
Another idea: tanker planes that could stay permanently airborne and could refuel other air units, extending their range.

[Jon Shafer]

Originally posted by UberKruX
we were promised stack bombard... let see if we get it...

Actually, if I remember reading what Jeff or Soren or Mike said correctly, there is no 'stack bombardment' button, per se, but a 'continuous bombardment', where you can set an artillery (or boat or plane) to bombard a tile every turn unless you order it otherwise.

[Arrian]

Originally posted by civjunkie
OK, I admit it, I'm fairly new to civ3 ... was playing civ2 at Deity and maxing out (i.e. hitting the 311% bug) ... got civ3 when it first came out but my pc didn't have the hp to make it out of bc ... have now got a kickass game machine and have finally reached the modern era in 3. My basic civ2 strategy (build science like crazy while letting AI civs hack each other to pieces, then unleash a huge modern army on their pitiful 19th century defenders) still works a treat in civ2, so the differences don't seem too huge.

I think you will find that, as you move up in difficulty level, the old CivII strategies really aren't that effective in CivIII. I started out on the lowest CivIII levels and did fine with my old CivII mindset (by the way, what the heck are you talking about 311% bug, I hit 1600% in CivII). But once I got up to Regent and particularly Monarch, the old ways no longer worked. Once the AI's shackles come off (Regent) or they actually get bonuses (Monarch and up), you aren't gonna manage CivII-esq dominance without adapting your strategy.

I agree with you that I'd rather have 60 Modern Armor over 60 Bombers - no doubt about it. I usually build only modest numbers of bombard units, sometimes I build none, only keeping and upgrading those I capture. Then again, I also rarely play into the modern age. The game is usually all wrapped up in the industrial age.

As for the range of air units... well, I play on standard size maps, and I think the range is fine. I think it's too little on huge maps, though. Same with ship movement. These things should be adjusted for map size.

Armies... well, I like an army of swordsmen in the ancient era because it makes a great nutcracker (not to mention allowing the Heroic Epic, which helps me get more great leaders). I really like armies of Samurai or Riders. Those guys get more than 1 attack (2 for the Samurai, 3 for Riders) and can keep up with the rest of your forces. Cavalry armies are perhaps the most powerful of all prior to Modern Armor, due to their 3 moves. Armies, kinda like artillery, help reduce casualties. They have enough hitpoints to take out a tough defender, so you don't lose 3 or 4 individual units trying to kill it.

-Arrian

[nationalist]

I never waste resources building them. If I am fighting an Ancient war I crank ou Swordsman and no Catapults, early medievil wars I crank out Knights, Late medieval I use Calvalry, no cannon. I fight Industrial wars with Panzers (I use Germany), and Modern wars with MA. I just don't find bombadment to be worth the production used on bombardment units.

[planetfall]

Originally posted by civjunkie


And I appreciate all those things. But maybe civ4 could do air power a bit better. IMHO, you could scale down RRs so they only give you say 10 mps instead of infinity and on the other hand have air transports that instantly deliver say 8 units to a city (or an airbase a la civ2) or sow paratroopers along a path. All air units should also have more realistic ranges. The point is that airpower should be a breakthrough tech, maybe THE breakthrough tech, whereas in civ3 it is ho-hum at best.

Also why shouldn't air units move and show up on the map just like any other units, and as they did in civ2?
Another idea: tanker planes that could stay permanently airborne and could refuel other air units, extending their range.

Great RFE for civ4. Think they ran out of programming time for civ3 and cripped air rather than fixing the problem. RR forever is dumb. Your idea of 10 tiles/turn would make much more realistic play.

-- PF

[civjunkie]

what the heck are you talking about 311% bug, I hit 1600% in CivII

You must have had a late version where this was fixed. There was a well known bug where when you hit 311% your score went negative and you went back to being "The Foolish". If you persevered, you could eventually get it back into positives again, but then when you hit 311% it would go negative again. At that point I gave up and decided to wait for civ3.

Anyway, I am playing out my first full game at Regent (where you say the AI is "unshackled") and having no probs dominating. Will try Deity next and see how it goes (hubris, or what?) Basically, though, civ is civ, and though there are new things to get used to, the same basic principles seem to apply: Inflation aka The Big Bang at the beginning, RRs as the breakthrough tech, keep your people happy, keep the peace and plow everything into science, leave the early Wonders except Pyramids to the AI and try to grab all the later ones -- seems to work for me so far.

Another thing: someone else commented that civ2 Stealth Fighters were "too dominant". I don't agree. Is the Queen too dominant in chess? The fact is that both players have one. If you could use certain technologies (SFs, paratroopers, sliding around on his RRs) to project power deep into enemy territory in civ2, by the same token he could do the same to you. Therefore you had to maintain defence in depth, whereas in civ3 I can leave my core cities wide open, secure in the knowledge that AI can't get to them. And let's face it, we all like big powerful units, because they're more fun, and because we're better at using them intelligently than AI is. His strength is beancounting, ours is big brains and opposable thumbs.

[Arrian]

civjunkie,

Sounds like you're doing well. You're right that Civ is still Civ, but there are enough differences between II and III to force me to change my strategy. For me, the biggest jump was Regent -> Monarch. I've played some Emperor, with mixed results, but not Deity. Monarch is the first level where the AI has production/science advantages over you. All of a sudden you are losing wonder races and are behind in tech (for a while, at least). Have fun on Deity... maybe you really are that good, but I have a feeling you're in for a beating The AI starts with 2 settlers, a bunch of units and has huge production and science advantages.

I (yes, using the Multiplayer Gold Edition, with no 311% bug) got to the point where I could waste the AI nearly every time in Deity. I could build nearly every wonder and lead the tech race, and eventually conquer the world with howitzers (and/or buy it with spies).

Playing on Monarch in CivIII, the only way to dominate the game like that is to kick ass early and often. So I have become a raging warmonger - totally different than my CivI and CivII style. I suppose it's all about your goals.

The basics, as you mentioned, remain the same: keep your people happy, build some key wonders, win the tech race.

The problem with the Stealth Fighter in CivII wasn't really the unit itself, it was the AI's inability to use it properly (or anything approximating "properly"). In addition, there was no "air superiority" in CivII, so as long as you used the SF to beat up on ground units, it had no effective counter.

I maintain that the Howitzer was overpowered, weak AI or no, because there simply was ZERO counter to a en mass Howitzer blitz. You could, using the enemy's rail system, annihilate entire empires in 1 turn taking only token casaulties.

-Arrian

[Theseus]

Originally posted by civjunkie

Anyway, I am playing out my first full game at Regent (where you say the AI is "unshackled") and having no probs dominating. Will try Deity next and see how it goes (hubris, or what?) Basically, though, civ is civ, and though there are new things to get used to, the same basic principles seem to apply: Inflation aka The Big Bang at the beginning, RRs as the breakthrough tech, keep your people happy, keep the peace and plow everything into science, leave the early Wonders except Pyramids to the AI and try to grab all the later ones -- seems to work for me so far.

I'll be surprised if you don't get your head handed to you... best of luck.

Yes, Civ is Civ, but at more advanced levels, Civ3 requires a fundamental change in approach. REX followed by building, research, trade, and war will leave you trailing the AI civs throughout the game.

In Civ3, you must break into a lead in one or more arenas.

[GePap]

I love a huge stack of artillery: a size 25 city reduced to a tiny burg size 5, with every improvement destroyed! A couple of units then march in, and its done.

All the civ designers did is make modern war more like what actual modern war is like- long, bloody, and extremly destructive. Stalin said artillery is the king of the battlefield, and he was right.

I guess we just have to wait for PW to see which kind of warwagging wins: the tank rush, or the slow, brutal, bombardment mehtod.

[vmxa1]

In CivII you could easily prevent them from going much of anywhere with the ZoC. It was even easier to defend cities in Civ II as a modern unit could defend a city against anything they ever sent. At least now if the AI gets units to your city you best have enought to defend. CivII was great for its day, but way too easy. In civIII you need to adapt to games from time to time and especialy as you change levels. I mean you could see 50/60 units show up at your door and none of those impevious city walls to help. You best not be sitting there with one defender. But maybe my memories are getting fuzzy as well , since I stopped play II after III came out.