Poll: bombardment

[Albert]

Originally posted by CerberusIV
What I have just realised is that I would like submarines to bombard naval units, not attack. That would be more realistic and would work with my approach of giving destroyers the "see invisible" ability. The problem is that the AI would use subs to bombard tile improvements. It would be nice to have separate land and sea bombardment (they are rather different things in reality).

hi ,

simple ; take a nuclear sub , put some long range (!) cruise missiles on them and you are in , .....

you can even make a special sub launch rocket with the editor , .....

have a nice day

Should be a torpedo option. Torpedoes are fare more effective than cruise missiles. Its not like the ancient "das boot" torbedoes when you need the vessel in sight. modern torpedoes are long ranged self seeking killers and is for this reason that an aircraft carrier needs so many destroyers to seek them out.


Destroyers should see moving subs much earlier, but only see none moving subs when they are one tile away. The subs have to wait, but when the enemy arrives, deliver a deadly portion og explosives

[steven8r]

Apparently, Zachriel and I think along similar lines--at least as reguards arty bombardment. Sure, Persepolis will have to be rebuilt once you take it, but that 1 citizen might resist, but he won't do the ol' Culture Flip. Just rush some Libraries and Temples to build up the culture and all the new citizens will be yours, not Persian. They will never flip back to Persia.

It looked like Zachriel had a stack of about 8 - 10 arty's on that mountain. I personally prefer to use about 25 - 30 units. After a few turns (usually no more than 3) the town that you're attacking (and by this time will be a town) will offer little to no resistance.

I have made all arty units Lethal. This came in VERY handy one game where I was behind in techs and having to defend w/ inferior units. I generated 3 GL's via bombarding enemy battleships that ended their turn too close to my city. After that war, I was able to catch-up tech-wise and then surpass my enemies.

ARTY RULES!!!!!

I usually don't build too many catapults. If I capture some, then great, I'll use them mostly for defense, but they tend to be little better than useless. Once I can upgrade them to canons, then they are a little better for defense, and starting to get better at offense. When you can build Artillery, then you can just Rock-n-Roll right over whomever--even better w/ railroads because you can move 'em in quickly.

Almost no AI cities can withstand a stack of 30+ Arty's, and any AI SoD's that are comming your way will be slowed-down or stopped by use of overwhelming Arty force. Even w/o "Lethal Bombard" enabled, you can severely injure enemy units, then pick 'em off w/ your Elites. Another added benifit of having injured AI units in your terretory is that the AI usually will try to heal them before attacking. With enough arty and elite units, you can make sure that they never heal.

Yes, ARTY RULES!!!!!

[Jaybe]

Originally posted by steven8r
...I have made all arty units Lethal. ...
Yes, ARTY RULES!!!!!

I'm sorry, but
IF you are after ANY challenge to the game
THEN that is just sooo pathetic.

You took a unit that the AI has almost NO ability to use properly, and then you made it "LETHAL".

Must be playing on Diety or somethin' ... or just enjoying an easy romp through the park.

[Centauri18]

Bombard units need at least some defensive value in my opinion. But then it would be impossible to capture them. I've heard of catapults and such being captured by the enemy, but usually after the battle was over. The problem is that artillery units were seldom defenseless. They were almost always guarded somehow, far as I know.

[steven8r]

Originally posted by Jaybe
I'm sorry, but IF you are after ANY challenge to the game
THEN that is just sooo pathetic.

You took a unit that the AI has almost NO ability to use properly, and then you made it "LETHAL".

Must be playing on Diety or somethin' ... or just enjoying an easy romp through the park.

Even with non-lethal artillery, ARTY RULZ!!!!!!

[Theseus]

Steven8r:

1) I agree, ARTY RULES!!
2) Jaybe is right, lethal land bombard is just too game-breaking... lots of discussion about this in the mod threads.
3) GLs from lethal land bombard against ships show up where? On land, where the attacking Arty is?

[steven8r]

Originally posted by Theseus
3) GLs from lethal land bombard against ships show up where? On land, where the attacking Arty is?

Theseus,

The GL shows-up in the same square w/ the Arty that generated him. In my example, he appeared in my city.




BTW: This hapened before PTW.

[dworkin]

The defensive value of bombard units is inherent in the defenders traveling with them. Bombard and defensive units complement each other very well. The bombard stacks also make good defensive points for the fast units.

[steven8r]

Jaybe,

Lethal land bombardment can make things too easy. I rarely use it. It just makes sense that it be lethal. I prefer to use the Arty to criple my enemy, then attack him w/ Elite units.

[TacticalGrace]

Originally posted by Centauri18
The problem is that artillery units were seldom defenseless. They were almost always guarded somehow, far as I know.

Not true. At the battle of Waterloo, Wellington arrayed his cannon in front of his infantry squares when the French Cavalry under Marshal Ney attacked. The crews fired the cannon until the last minute before retreating into the infantry squares, leaving the cannon behind UNGUARDED. Military doctrine was that the Allied cannon should have been destroyed (by spiking) but the French didn't do it. Lucky for Wellington. The cavalry was unsupported by cannon and musket and so had to retreat. The allies retook the cannon and later put it to good use against the previously undefeated imperial guard.

of course, none of this can be simulted by civ3...

[Panag]

Originally posted by Albert



Should be a torpedo option. Torpedoes are fare more effective than cruise missiles. Its not like the ancient "das boot" torbedoes when you need the vessel in sight. modern torpedoes are long ranged self seeking killers and is for this reason that an aircraft carrier needs so many destroyers to seek them out.


Destroyers should see moving subs much earlier, but only see none moving subs when they are one tile away. The subs have to wait, but when the enemy arrives, deliver a deadly portion og explosives

hi ,

that might to be a bit difficult , .....

in the modern day world , subs can hit both land and sea units or buildings , therefore it would be more intresting to see a type of cruise missile instead of a torpedo , we have to take the size of the srceen in account and the trouble that an extra unit shall bring with it , ... if the devolpers really want to do something about it , a type of cruise missile would be the best , ....

have a nice day

[Albert]

Originally posted by panag


hi ,

that might to be a bit difficult , .....

in the modern day world , subs can hit both land and sea units or buildings , therefore it would be more intresting to see a type of cruise missile instead of a torpedo , we have to take the size of the srceen in account and the trouble that an extra unit shall bring with it , ... if the devolpers really want to do something about it , a type of cruise missile would be the best , ....

have a nice day

yes, the modern day 160m Ohio giant US sub might carry whatever they want, but the more common subs for defending countries usually wait deep down and don`t have that option.

What I mean is that when you get your productive coastal cities up running and it takes two turns for a battleship, and one for a cruise missil, one for destroyer (that moves almost as long as a cruise missil anyway), one for sub, I don`t see the point in cruise missiles any more.

My point: a slow,but almost invisible sub, with lethal bombardment option on other naval units would give a lot to naval defense tactics, making the attacking vessels afraid of entering an aerea without hordes of destroyers babysitting for the bigger units.

I dont mind if this is done by some sort of missil, torpedo or just bombardment, but subs is in the modern world the best naval defense for weaker countries, because of the hiding possibility and the extreme amounts of explosives it carries.

but then again, what the developpers do is whats important. I would just like to see some sub changes

[Centauri18]

I forgot about the undefended artillery thing. Huh. Well, the more modern artillery ought to have some defensive options.

[Yanghead]

Not true. At the battle of Waterloo, Wellington arrayed his cannon in front of his infantry squares when the French Cavalry under Marshal Ney attacked. The crews fired the cannon until the last minute before retreating into the infantry squares, leaving the cannon behind UNGUARDED. Military doctrine was that the Allied cannon should have been destroyed (by spiking) but the French didn't do it. Lucky for Wellington. The cavalry was unsupported by cannon and musket and so had to retreat. The allies retook the cannon and later put it to good use against the previously undefeated imperial guard.

of course, none of this can be simulted by civ3...

In civ3 Waterloo would have been a fight between 2 armies with the french stacked on top of a cannon. The artillary always fires first when attacked in a stack.

But I agree artillary units should have some defence. Even 1!, After all as you say the standard practice was to spike the guns before abandoning them.

[Centauri18]

Artillery firing first makes sense. I mean, in a lot of those mideval battles, you always had the archers and such firing first, and then a minute later the infantry and the cavalry attacked. Something like that, anyway, I only know about that stuff from movies so far.

[Jaybe]

Originally posted by Yanghead
...
But I agree artillary units should have some defence. Even 1!...

Given the mechanics of Civ, where it basically takes 1 offensive unit (other than blitzers) to take out 1 defensive unit, giving defense to artillery types doesn't work. Imagine defending a city with JUST artillery units: You could assure the city's survival by just outnumbering the attackers with defending artillery! Who is going to hold the front lines?

[Panag]

Originally posted by Albert


yes, the modern day 160m Ohio giant US sub might carry whatever they want, but the more common subs for defending countries usually wait deep down and don`t have that option.

What I mean is that when you get your productive coastal cities up running and it takes two turns for a battleship, and one for a cruise missil, one for destroyer (that moves almost as long as a cruise missil anyway), one for sub, I don`t see the point in cruise missiles any more.

My point: a slow,but almost invisible sub, with lethal bombardment option on other naval units would give a lot to naval defense tactics, making the attacking vessels afraid of entering an aerea without hordes of destroyers babysitting for the bigger units.

I dont mind if this is done by some sort of missil, torpedo or just bombardment, but subs is in the modern world the best naval defense for weaker countries, because of the hiding possibility and the extreme amounts of explosives it carries.

but then again, what the developpers do is whats important. I would just like to see some sub changes

hi ,

huh , what about Jericho , exocet and harpoons being launched from small 45 meter diesel subs , .........

not to mention the fact they have 6 or more SEAL's on board , .......

there should ba small modern diesel sub in CIV III that can hold a foot unit and a couple deadly rockets for ships , .......

have a nice day

[Centauri18]

I agree. And Gatling gun units? Maybe? SOmetime in the late (or possibly early) Industrial Age?

[Panag]

Originally posted by Centauri18
I agree. And Gatling gun units? Maybe? SOmetime in the late (or possibly early) Industrial Age?

hi ,

the helicopter gunship would be very intresting , .....

so would the machinegun foot unit be , ......

a mobile mortar unit would be intresting also , .....

have a nice day

[TacticalGrace]

Originally posted by Yanghead


In civ3 Waterloo would have been a fight between 2 armies with the french stacked on top of a cannon. The artillary always fires first when attacked in a stack.

In my example I was talking about British guns, not French. Concepts which are "abstracted out" in civ:


(1) At Waterloo the French could have spiked the British guns and retreated without having to defeat the infantry. This couldn't happen in civ if the inf was stacked on the cannon.

(2) The cannon could have been destroyed at Waterloo, but not captured (due to adjacent infantry). No distinction in civ.

(3) At waterloo the cavalry charge would have been successful if it had been followed up by cannon + infantry. cavalry is good at breaking a defensive line and chasing down broken troops but unsupported it is ineffective against a tight fortified formation. There is no notion of this in civ: a unit has an attack rating and a defense rating and that's it (Call to power II had a better stab at this)

But I agree artillary units should have some defence. Even 1!, After all as you say the standard practice was to spike the guns before abandoning them.

actually I don't think this is the answer. Under some circumstances it should be possible to capture enemy guns, not just destroy them.

I do think that undefended cannon should still get in a shot against an attacker. I also think that cannon should get 2 shots in against slow units.

[TacticalGrace]

Originally posted by panag
the helicopter gunship would be very intresting , .....

Do you think this should be an air unit or a land unit with high movement rate?

so would the machinegun foot unit be , ......

I've always assumed that infantry units have a few machine gunners with them.

a mobile mortar unit would be intresting also , .....

very high attack and low defence? Should they have bombard? Does sound interesting.

[Panag]

Originally posted by TacticalGrace

Do you think this should be an air unit or a land unit with high movement rate?

I've always assumed that infantry units have a few machine gunners with them.

very high attack and low defence? Should they have bombard? Does sound interesting.

hi ,

helicopter should be a special mix or so , .....

, it might be a bit difficult to work it out be it should be possible , .....

the first heli unit should be able to see sub's and attack them , the second should be great against tanks and mech infantry only , .....

machinegun , high attack rate , thats for sure , .... defense only high against foot units , it should cost a lot , .....

mortars , very effective against foot units , no defense ( almost )

have a nice day

[Kramerman]

Originally posted by TacticalGrace

Do you think this should be an air unit or a land unit with high movement rate?

I've always assumed that infantry units have a few machine gunners with them.

very high attack and low defence? Should they have bombard? Does sound interesting.

at first i made gunships ground units with abilty to treat all terrain as roads. but it pissed me off that they couldnt cross seas or lakes, as a helicopter should, so i went back and changed it to an air unit. I gave it a very high attack, lower defense, a bombard range of zero, and made it very expensive

ive never made a machine gunner unit for this same reason. ive never known large troop organizations (regiment, brigade, division, etc) of purely machine gunners.

kman