Why is bombardment so useless? - Page 2

tatterdemalion · January 13, 2003, 13:58

I appreciate the voices of experience giving tactical advice. I was beginning to think that arty was just messed up.

Willem · January 13, 2003, 14:05

Quote:

Originally posted by tatterdemalion
I appreciate the voices of experience giving tactical advice. I was beginning to think that arty was just messed up.

The thing to remember is that one or two isn't going to do you very much good. You have to compensate for their inaccuracy by having a number of them. A stack of 10 Artillery can cause a lot of damage!

eloquence · January 14, 2003, 03:07

I actually really like artillery from a defensive point of view. Stacking about 5 cats in a city under siege is very helpful. It really discourages the enemy from attacking because you're able to bombard them and force them to attack at not full strength or to retreat and heal.

I've found that on offence they're not as useful unless you have a huge number of them since the enemy defenders can heal when they're in a city.

rippk · January 14, 2003, 12:40

I like naval and air bambardment for initial attacks in a war ... especially in later ages. To take out the resources (saltpete, horses, iron, rubber) ... that way they cannot make or upgrade units to fight back.

Constantine XV · January 14, 2003, 17:09

Personally, I tend to agree with the rate of success of bombardment.

If you further use the editor, there you will see a "lethal land bombardment" and a "lethal sea bombardment" for your units. Activate it for those you want (personally, I turned this on for all artillery, planes, ships and cruise missiles).

Then things become realistic. A couple of planes can take out Infantry, especially regulars and I find this even more realistic.

A few more things that need tweaking are the bombard power of jet planes, so that they can do some damage. The default values are ridiculous (there should a Jet Bomber unit here...), increase the power of cruise missiles and their fire ratio, and you are in business.

Increase the capacity of the Carriers to 12 or even 16.

And now Air Force can really harm those annoying you!

My settings:

Fighter: Bomb Strength = 4, Rate of Fire = 1

Bomber: Bomb Strength = 12, Rate of Fire = 3

Jet Fighter: Bomb Strength = 8, Rate of Fire = 2 (Maybe this should be made the same with the Bomber)

Stealth Fighter: Bomb Strength = 10, Rate of Fire = 2

Stealth Bomber: Bomb Strength = 18, Rate of Fire = 4 (You know, they cost 240 shields. At least they should be useful to something)

F - 15: Bomb Strength = 15, Rate of Fire = 3 (Bombing better that the Bomber, still the Stealth Bomber being better. They still have to be better than Jet Fighters).

Cruise missile: Bomb Strength = 32, Rate of Fire = 4, Bombard Range = 4 (maybe should be 5). Since they are destroyed after they attack, they have to do big damage, worst-case scenario leaving the enemy heavily injured.

And most important, make them able to achieve Lethal Land & Naval Bombardment! (Do not forget yours ships and artillery).

I've played a couple of games with these tweakings and they look realistic and not very unbalanced.

Last night, after the fifth failed attempt to plant a spy at the Mongols, they declared war. Three turns of heavy bombing with three Carriers full of F-15s, taught them a lesson... They came begging for peace....

Happy gaming!

Azeem · January 14, 2003, 17:25

What do you suggest should have the "Lethal Bombardment" ability?

Bonaparte · January 14, 2003, 17:41

I always found bombarding to be a good idea..I slowly build up my bombers and when I ready for war I beat the heck out of there cities and hopfully knock out there barracks. It doesn't matter to me that the cities population will drop because I will only use these cities as launching points for ground units hoping from one city to the next because movement rates around these captured cities isn't affected as that area is now my territory. Eventually when the war is over I will position settlers where I want to build new cities, tear down all the captured cities, and build new ones. Without bombarding this process would be slow, but with it I can capture a whole bunch of cities or even destroy civs in a short period of time.

Constantine XV · January 14, 2003, 17:47

Because in reality, bombardment is lethal. And when it takes 2-3 planes or 3-4 artillery to kill a unit, I think it resembles reality much.

After all, don't you want to be able to kill more if your enemies?

Previously, I was rarely using planes/atritllery in war and thus never building them. I was considering them useless units. With these modifications they have their use.

Anyway, I just found in practice that it is better that way. You can give it a try and see if you like it. I did.

Brizey · January 14, 2003, 17:51

I would be happy if someone just corrected the damn graphic for catapults.

Willem · January 14, 2003, 19:18

Quote:

Originally posted by Brizey
I would be happy if someone just corrected the damn graphic for catapults.

Why, what's wrong with it?

TacticalGrace · January 15, 2003, 05:53

graphics for catapult and cannon have been changed in PTW. They now have little men pushing them around. there are also graphics and sound for the impact.

look pretty good to me...

Oerdin · January 15, 2003, 06:18

I do think those small graphical changes make the units look better.

Willem · January 15, 2003, 10:04

Quote:

Originally posted by TacticalGrace
graphics for catapult and cannon have been changed in PTW. They now have little men pushing them around. there are also graphics and sound for the impact.

look pretty good to me...

Yeah right, I wasn't thinking of that. I guess it's just not that big of a deal with me. Although it does make a bit more sense having someone actually pushing the things around the countryside. And I do like the bombard effects.

MoonWolf · January 15, 2003, 10:13

I've increased bombardment for planes and added lethal damage.

Catapult - No change
Cannon/Hwach'a - Lethal land
Arty/Radar arty - Lethal land/sea
Destroyer - Lethal sea
Battleship/AEGIS cruiser - Lethal land/sea
Fighter - lethal land
Other planes/missile - Lethal land/sea

I play on big maps so I've increased plane/missile ranges up to 25 I think it was and done some increasments in strength and rate of fire (but not as high as constantine IX, maybe I should try that?)

Edit: I can't confirm if I remember correct as I'm not at home

Puupertti Ruma · January 15, 2003, 17:54

Quote:

Originally posted by Coracle
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.

Even though you are certainly right about there I'dd like to point out that Roman Legionares used catapults, ballistas and boltthrowers very effectively against barbarians in open field battles. There are stories that a boltthrower bolt pierced a man and hurled him to a three several meters away. A killer to battle moral I say!

I've always thought that the absence of lethal bombardment is good thing, as it somewhat simulates the suppressing effect of artillery. After 2 weeks of bombardment even well dug-in company would be de-moralized and understaffed.

=DrJambo= · January 16, 2003, 09:24

Artillery are excellent, without them i'd have been dead a long time ago in my current game as the mongols poured 30+ tanks at me each turn. With railroads and a large stack of artillery, one can make it almost impossible for the AI to launch a successful invasion.

Plus, artillery are great for GL generation as you knock those attacking forces down a couple of hp and then attack with your elite troops.

The effectiveness of cannons and catapults are debatable though since their range of 1 isn't nearly as useful at stopping an invasion.

=DrJambo= · January 16, 2003, 09:26

Giving any artillery lethal bombardment is, in my opinion, far too powerful. Plus the human already utilises artillery much better than the AI and so lethal bombardment would be too advantageous to the human.

With lethal bombardment, all someone would need is stacks of cheap artillery and loads of defending type troops.

Panag · January 16, 2003, 11:26

hi ,

, well since each unit is supposed to represent several people , imagine that a hitpoint is one guy , so each time the enemy loses one , imagine some got killed , .....

have a nice bombardment day