Why is bombardment so useless?

tatterdemalion · January 6, 2003, 18:08

Why is the game designed to make bombardment and aerial assaults successful so infrequently?

I can see the impulse to limit their effectiveness, but it is just plain irritating to have success rates that are so low. I mean, I never bother with Catapults.

Most bombardment just destroys city improvements. So if you actually use the bombardment and on the off chance that it is successful, then you end up destroying the city you are trying to capture instead of the military units. Cruise missiles are fine, but arty, fighter and even bomber attacks usually do nada.

Yurt · January 6, 2003, 19:31

I think the effectiveness of bombard is about right, except for its low likelihood of occuring. If there was about a 90% chance instead of 50 or 30%, it would be much more worthwhile. And of course, the computer bombards successfully almost always, while I rarely get a successful bombard.

annoyed · January 7, 2003, 01:03

the biggest problem with bombard is that the damage is not cumulative. I do not mind that I need a large multitude unit artillery units to do damage, but like AOW2, eventually something should break, and damage should be inflicted more easily for the later units, making it seem like a real seige.

TacticalGrace · January 7, 2003, 12:11

Quote:

Originally posted by tatterdemalion
I can see the impulse to limit their effectiveness, but it is just plain irritating to have success rates that are so low. I mean, I never bother with Catapults.

I have found that even one catapult can be useful if you put it in the right place (but most useful on defense). Put a couple on a hill with spear or pike where there is a lot of enemy traffic and they're pretty fun.

Quote:

Most bombardment just destroys city improvements.

how would you feel if ironclads from another continent were blowing up your barracks and temples? I get pretty ticked off. It works both ways though.

Quote:

So if you actually use the bombardment and on the off chance that it is successful, then you end up destroying the city you are trying to capture instead of the military units.

you don't have to take a city to achieve your objectives.

Quote:

Cruise missiles are fine, but arty, fighter and even bomber attacks usually do nada.

cruise missles are for fun really 'cos the game has been lost or won well before they appear.

arty is great. attack a rifle-manned city with 10 infantry and you'll lose 3 or 4 infantry (more if you are unlucky)

do the same with 5 arty and 5 inf and you might only lose 1 or 2 (or if you are unlucky and the bombard does nothing then you don't attack that go. You've lost nothing. wait for next go.)

also 5 arty plus a few ironclads and a decent rail network is enough to put off most overseas AI opponents before they even hit the beaches.

fighters: don't use them for bombing. That's what bombers are for.

bombers: the best way to cut enemy resource lines. Also carriers+bombers are the key to naval superiority. For home defence you can dispense with the carrier.

TacticalGrace · January 7, 2003, 12:15

Quote:

Originally posted by Yurt
I think the effectiveness of bombard is about right, except for its low likelihood of occuring. If there was about a 90% chance instead of 50 or 30%, it would be much more worthwhile. And of course, the computer bombards successfully almost always, while I rarely get a successful bombard.

I haven't noticed this.

Are you sure you are comparing like for like. The computer never seems to bother with bombarding cities which have a relatively low success rate and instead goes for terrain bombardment which presumably has a high success rate.

ZargonX · January 7, 2003, 13:36

I personally never use catapults, but once cannon comes onto the scene, I make sure to have a good solid mass of them available for use. They're good for blasting ships that sail up to your coast to bombard improvments, and leaving them in forts at strategic choke points makes for some easy free hits on the enemy. My air force, on the other hand, tends to be much smaller...

CerberusIV · January 7, 2003, 15:30

I find that it pays to use overwhelming force.

Four or five bombers against a size 15 city won't do much. I always use about 15-20 and bombard for a couple of turns before attacking. That is usually effective.

It is also sometimes worth doing all the bombardment manually rather than auto-bombard as the damaged AI units are cycled. Once you see the top unit you just damaged replaced by another damaged unit you know how many defenders there are and also what type of units and how much damage. Cheaper than espionage!

Spiffor · January 7, 2003, 16:46

In my latest game, I had no resources and was stuck on a tiny island. I "acher-rushed" the Celts (in 500 AD

) who were stuck on an even tynier island. I used catapults for the first time this time : they did wonders against city walls and barracks, and softened significantly the spearmen defending Celtic cities.
Catapults can be good to destroy these annoying improvements, and can reduce considerably your archer / swordsmen losses.

Bombers are best used to destroy tile improvements in the enemy territory. It rocks to isolate a city from the trade network, because it can enter in civil disorder and cannot produce any advanced unit (except guerillas).

When massively bombing a city in the industrial / modern era, you'll have an extreme failure rate once the city is reduced to size one and all improvements have been destroyed. AFAIK, when bombing, the computer first decides if it'll affect population, units, or improvements, and then checks if the bombing is a success. When the computer picks "aim at improvements" and there is no improvements left to destroy, the bombing misses, and you don't get an "Artillery Bombardment Failed" message.
(I'd like a strategy wizard to confirm this if possible, I might be wrong, but I think I've read this explanation long ago)

Colonel Kraken · January 8, 2003, 18:37

Just modify the bombard stats of your units and suddenly they become VERY effective and lots of fun

Pyrodrew · January 9, 2003, 08:36

I try to avoid using artillery against enemy cities. If I don't want the city or if they are a REAL nasty Civ & I am trying to survive then city bombardment becomes more attractive.
Artillery works great against Enemy Troops & Stacks of Death in your territory once RRs enter the scene. Stacks of Death turn into Stacks of the Dead.

PrinceBimz · January 9, 2003, 11:12

Bombardment is VERY effective, the AI had destroyed nearly my entire nation last game with air and naval bombardment. I am talking about 75% of my improvements and like 6 cities which where knocked down from 12 to like 2 or 3! Other cities lost several structures...temples, barracks, harbors you name it. Now understand this was in the later game. In the later game when you get battleships, bombers and artillery bombardment is extremely effective. So really bombardment gets more effective through the ages when more powerful units are available to you.

Just one catapult won't do very well. I say have at least 3 of them. Now a cannon is stronger and more effective, just 1 or 2 can make a difference with cannons. Then when you step up to artillery you have a more powerful bombarment unit. Also like someone mentioned above, youo can go into the editor and change it if you don't like it. I think it works very well like it is without changing anything. At last this all makes sense right?

Willem · January 9, 2003, 12:19

Quote:

Originally posted by PrinceBimz

Just one catapult won't do very well. I say have at least 3 of them. Now a cannon is stronger and more effective, just 1 or 2 can make a difference with cannons.

I usually go for a stack of 10 myself, guarded by an Army. The AI will never attack it.

Another advantage of bombard units is that you don't have to worry about having a Barracks to produce them. There's no real advantage between having a Regular catapult or a Veteran.

Also, you don't have to worry about hitpoints. You can send your bombard units ahead to the next city to soften it up while you're waiting for your regular units to finish healing.

TacticalGrace · January 9, 2003, 12:34

Quote:

There's no real advantage between having a Regular catapult or a Veteran.

Are you sure? I thought there was a higher hit chance with vet or elite. Without lethal bombard you can't get upgraded to vet and elites aren't even possible.

Willem · January 9, 2003, 12:45

Quote:

Originally posted by TacticalGrace

Are you sure? I thought there was a higher hit chance with vet or elite. Without lethal bombard you can't get upgraded to vet and elites aren't even possible.

No, the hit chance is determined by the Bombard Strength. In fact, no unit gets hit bonuses from higher rankings, that's determined solely by the Attack/Defence Strength stats in the editor. Advancing levels only increases overall hit points and retreat possibilities. Since bombard units are captured, not destroyed, hit points are irrelevant, and they don't retreat.

TacticalGrace · January 9, 2003, 13:12

sorry, I was thinking of retreat probability

Larz Smith · January 10, 2003, 01:42

I just wanted to agree with the idea that bombardment is VERY usefull. It just so happens its usefullness is most apparent in the later stages. One of my latest games I repeatedly had to goto war with an agressive Roman nation. To my advantage though, there was a thin land front between our countries, and they could only come after one city. Thus everytime an army appeared on my territory I could bomb away on their approach before finishing them off when they got within range. Or I would have if they didnt run away to heal up half the time.

Azeem · January 10, 2003, 02:05

Bombardment seems to work more on larger cities with more improvements. So bombarding big, highly developed cities is much more useful than a tiny little undeveloped town. They're also good for destroying tile improvements, which could starve enemy cities, or destroy transportation networks.

Pyrodrew · January 10, 2003, 04:54

Yes, I would rather starve a city down then destroy all the improvements (police station, courthouse, etc.) that I could have used after conquering it. And as mentioned, is very effective against enemies entering your territory.

piratebrun · January 10, 2003, 12:46

I generally bomb all the roads leading to the capital, then blockade it (if it has a port) and bomb the city until the harbor and airport are gone. Then I leave the enemy capital alone (unless I *NEED* to take it). This cuts off all trade with foreign empires, thus causing them to suffer unhappiness from no luxuries, and no trade.

I also destroy all their road connections to their own internal luxuries and resources.

Bombard may have a high failure rate, but is MOST effective. Just use lots of artillery and bombers. I use anywhere from 20-50 per city

Fried-Psitalon · January 10, 2003, 13:03

Sometimes it helps to give a small nod to the realism of history. Catapults and the like were never very accurate... so you use a lot of them. Repeatedly. The term "siege" didn't get that name by accident.

Personally, I'm not a big fan of any unit that can't defend itself.... I'd rather have two rifles guarding a square than a rifle and cannon. Sure, I lose some offensive capability, but if one rifle dies in the first example, I'm not out my other unit. The only real exception in my mind is the Hwach'a, which arrives so early with such a high attack value as to make the Koreans *almost* worth playing.

(Now if only they had lethal bombardment like Civ3.com says they do.... THAT would be a cultural unit worthy of use.)

DuncanK · January 11, 2003, 12:29

Artillery is a must for me. When my opponent rushes me, I bombard them and then hit them with my calvary. After they have tried this a few times I go in for my own attack.

Coracle · January 12, 2003, 20:11

Quote:

Originally posted by Fried-Psitalon
Sometimes it helps to give a small nod to the realism of history. Catapults and the like were never very accurate... so you use a lot of them.

Civ 3 is very inaccurate in terms of history and realism.

Catapults are an example. The game left out the much better and more effective trebuchets. Catapults, and all SIEGE weapons were built on or near the site of the siege. They were not built in a friendly city and then dragged all over the map, nor were they used in open field battles against troops. They were primarily against city walls, in reality. But reality has nothing to do with Civ 3.

Mad Bomber · January 13, 2003, 03:37

Bombardment is almost useless now, because the defensive bonuses in cities have been increased in each of the last 3 patches, while bombardment values themselves have stayed the same. The result is that you often need 20 cannon to reduce 3 defenders to 1 HP in a Metropolis. The answer is to reduce the defensive bonuses and to increase the bomabarment strengths and Rate of Fires in the editor.

Panag · January 13, 2003, 08:14

Quote:

Originally posted by DuncanK
Artillery is a must for me. When my opponent rushes me, I bombard them and then hit them with my calvary. After they have tried this a few times I go in for my own attack.

hi ,

and that is one of the best tactics around

counter strike backed with artillery , it even works against a far greater enemy

have a nice day

TacticalGrace · January 13, 2003, 08:16

Quote:

Originally posted by panag

hi ,

and that is one of the best tactics around

counter strike backed with artillery , it even works against a far greater enemy

have a nice day

And a very low risk way of getting great leaders.

Do you like great leaders? I like great leaders...

Panag · January 13, 2003, 09:21

Quote:

Originally posted by TacticalGrace

And a very low risk way of getting great leaders.

Do you like great leaders? I like great leaders...

hi ,

, why risk of losing your units when you can first knock an hitpoint away from your enemy , .....

great leaders emerge even from killing an enemy unit with one hitpoint left , .....

have a nice day

SpencerH · January 13, 2003, 10:03

Massed arty for attack and counter-attack is the key element for effective use of small numbers of units against the AI.

Try this with say 15 arty firing at a well defended city. Fire your stack repeatedly in order to demolish the enemy defenses. You'll see groups of 5-10 hits (for example) followed by 5-10 misses (for example) instead of truly random results i.e. miss-miss-hit-mis-hit-miss-miss-miss. This is the pattern that has vexed many of us with unit combat, but is hard to 'prove' since the sample is too small. The numbers used to decide hits may be 'random' but they're linked to each other so that results are clustered.

Panag · January 13, 2003, 10:17

Quote:

Originally posted by SpencerH
Massed arty for attack and counter-attack is the key element for effective use of small numbers of units against the AI.

Try this with say 15 arty firing at a well defended city. Fire your stack repeatedly in order to demolish the enemy defenses. You'll see groups of 5-10 hits (for example) followed by 5-10 misses (for example) instead of truly random results i.e. miss-miss-hit-mis-hit-miss-miss-miss. This is the pattern that has vexed many of us with unit combat, but is hard to 'prove' since the sample is too small. The numbers used to decide hits may be 'random' but they're linked to each other so that results are clustered.

hi ,

, and risk shooting everything to rubble in side the town or city , ...... no then its better to draw them out and pick them out one by one , .....

have a nice day

SpencerH · January 13, 2003, 10:46

I do it because I dont care about whether the cities I conquer have anything or anyone in them. You should do it to test what I say

Panag · January 13, 2003, 11:29

Quote:

Originally posted by SpencerH
I do it because I dont care about whether the cities I conquer have anything or anyone in them. You should do it to test what I say

hi ,

done it before and found it no good , the risk of destroying to many things at a later stage in game simply is not worth it , ....

there is more fun in drawing them out and picking at them

have a nice day