Artillery bombardment failed.

SK138 · December 9, 2002, 19:39

This happens to me all the time. The only way I can get a good, successful siege is when I have tons and tons of artillery units. Anyone else agree that they miss too much?

WarpStorm · December 9, 2002, 19:51

You can tweak this in the editor, but first some understanding of how bombardment works.

When you decide to bombard a city it first decides what is going to be attacked, units (over 1 hit unless lethal), population (over 1), or structures. If it chooses one that doesn't exist (say it chose a unit and they were all at 1 hit), it is an automatic failure. After that it does the attack. If the attack misses this is a failure also. The default defense from bombardment for both population and structures is 16. Note that the ROF of the bombard determines how many attacks it gets a turn.

Jaybe · December 9, 2002, 19:57

... with 50% targeting of units, 25% each of targeting civvies or improvements.

Seiges are supposed to take awhile. That's why it is called a seige, especially with catapults and cannon, and even artillery against metroes.

War4ever · December 9, 2002, 21:52

it was not uncommon in warfare for artillery to overshoot etc, or even undershoot, so this is quitie normal....i too was stunned the first time i missed, i was equally stunned when it only took i point of damage off the unit

but this is normal......with enough artillery from any era, you can wreak plenty of havoc

Willem · December 9, 2002, 22:16

Quote:

Originally posted by SK138
This happens to me all the time. The only way I can get a good, successful siege is when I have tons and tons of artillery units. Anyone else agree that they miss too much?

If they hit more often, it would be to easy to conquer a city. A few turns to soften up the defenders then send in the Cavalry. Artillery in real life was never that overpowering.

You'll find too, that Artillery etc. is far more effective when attacking units in the open. The fact that troops in the city have all sorts of buildings etc. they can take cover in is bound to make a difference.

Carver · December 9, 2002, 23:16

The thing is, when you attack a size 25 metro you should hit something. Think about firing an artillery shell at NYC (don't do this in RL please)...even if your aim is horrible you're gonna hit something.

ChaotikVisions · December 9, 2002, 23:58

Sure, you'll hit something, but will you do alot of damage? In a size 25 metro 25 to 100 deaths from hitting an office building isn't big enough in Civ terms. You've got to blast a couple whole residential areas to get an effect, or hit the barracks, etc... Massing artillery is the best way to get results unless you want a long drawn out siege.

Willem · December 10, 2002, 00:16

Quote:

Originally posted by Carver
The thing is, when you attack a size 25 metro you should hit something. Think about firing an artillery shell at NYC (don't do this in RL please)...even if your aim is horrible you're gonna hit something.

Even with a steady barrage, how many shells do you think would just end up putting a pothole in a road somewhere, or blowing up some statue in a park? Sure you'll hit something, but will it be anything important?

Jaybe · December 10, 2002, 00:22

Carver, IRL when you get to the point of metropolises, you have lots of concrete (or reinforced concrete) buildings. When you make ruins of such buildings with direct hits, all you do is create MORE cover for troops, snipers, etc. That is why you send in the infantry and do house-to-house fighting. Bombing and indirect fire quickly get to the point of hindering rather than helping an attack. Direct fire weapons (using line of sight as opposed to coordinates) do better, but see next paragraph.

Sure, you can basically destroy all the buildings and make it unlivable for the population, but it just creates all the more bunkers for defenders; and all the streets end up being impassible due to all the rubble.

Franses · December 10, 2002, 04:15

Did you have this experience in PTW? I must say that I had a different experience sofar and was shocked by the damage inflicted by my artillery. It was succesfull 80% of the time especially on units and improvements in the field. Bombarding cities seem to have a lower chance to be successful but that to seemed far better than I was used to. Strange that you had the opposite experience.

Zero · December 11, 2002, 01:16

Quote:

Originally posted by Carver
The thing is, when you attack a size 25 metro you should hit something. Think about firing an artillery shell at NYC (don't do this in RL please)...even if your aim is horrible you're gonna hit something.

German bombing campaign of London anyone?

also, your supposed to use alot of artillery. It makes sense to me, but even if it doesnt, for game balance sake you gotta make them miss alot. It would ridiculous if you have an unit that can damage units accurately without any penalty.

The Viceroy · December 11, 2002, 09:10

Does anybody know if Deadly Bombardment is in PTW, as I can't seem to see it in the Editor anymore.. I miss it...

Willem · December 11, 2002, 10:48

Quote:

Originally posted by The Viceroy
Does anybody know if Deadly Bombardment is in PTW, as I can't seem to see it in the Editor anymore.. I miss it...

It's there! Maybe it's time you had your eyes checked.

The Viceroy · December 12, 2002, 15:09

Ohh dear , really

I'll give it another look ..

FNBrown · December 12, 2002, 15:24

Yeah, lethal bombardment is still there. I probably make far too generous use of it, too. ;-)