Bombarding... too many failed artillery attacks and bombing runs?

Sava · March 23, 2003, 18:02

Well... I think there are way too many failed bombardments in this game. Especially for fighters and jet fighters. I just had 23 jet fighters bombard Moscow, which is 13 and has like 5 units in it, and not a one did anything. WTF?!

Verto · March 23, 2003, 21:21

I agree, bombardment is nearly useless. For it to do any damage, you need dozens of artillery/air units, and even then the damage is minimal.

Manya · March 23, 2003, 21:51

Yes artillery sucks in this game, there is no way to do any damage with bombing, better to waste resources in other units that can do more damage

Sava · March 23, 2003, 22:04

That's unfortunate, because artillery in the real world is very, very effective.

vmxa1 · March 24, 2003, 00:35

Quote:

Originally posted by Sava
That's unfortunate, because artillery in the real world is very, very effective.

Well actually arties are very ineffective in the real world.
It has only been in the last decade the even missiles and bombs were very acurate. Plain old cannons or field pieces are very poor and in the game we are using WWII planes for the most part and they really stunk.

Now if you want to just address the issue on the game basic, I would agree that they are too ineffective and are just an after thought.
I use them to fend off naval attacks in cities that do not have any ships or planes. They are only meant to drive them off.
I use them to aid in an assualt, but do not have high expectations that they will be a big help.

Dida · March 24, 2003, 01:17

bombardment is useless. for the money you invest in fighters and cannons you could have built more tanks, which in turn will do a lot more work for you.

Master Zen · March 24, 2003, 03:06

On open ground however, they are VERY effective. However, don't expect to be able to pound a large city into submission without at least 15-20 artys.

Air bombardment seems to be slightly more effective for no mayor reason... and Naval bombardment is terrible against cities.

Honestly, I don't really use bombardment untill Artillery comes along. There is a period between Replaceable Parts and Tanks that gives you no edge against Infantry. Thus, in good WW1 style, you'll have to go for it with massive artillery.

There's a recent thread about this in the Strategy forum, take a look

Jaybe · March 24, 2003, 05:05

If you are in representative (war weariness sensitive) government, using bombardment can save you from needless casualties. 6-12 artillery, plus air support and you can take out a metro (along with many of its population and improvements). To take it out intact, use cruise missiles since they only target units. Don't forget the ARMIES of tanks/MA!

Jarvin · March 24, 2003, 05:17

It depends on what kind of artillery you are using, catapults and cannons are useless, period. Ships can bombard each other OK, but against cities and other things on land they are crap too.

Artillery and Radar Artillery are good for softening up enemies that you arent certain you can beat alone, and they are also pretty good for reducing your casualties.

Fighters and Jets should never be used for bombing, unless you're trying to lure out enemy interceptors. Fighters and Jets are for recon and intercepting.

Bombers and Stealth Bombers are pretty good at bombing cities (precision strike is badass for screwing over an enemy), but I've found that their main use is for "shooing" away enemies that scare me.
Example: I have a destroyer that only has one or two life blocks left and theres an enemy battleship a couple squares away. You can use bombers to bomb the battleship down to one life and it will usually run away instead of attack, and if it doesnt it gives your destroyer a chance.

WarpStorm · March 24, 2003, 05:47

The issue is that population and buildings have a 16 defense.

Sava · March 24, 2003, 08:31

The only real good use for bombardment that I have found is that it is good to bomb tile improvements and cut off supply lines and reinforcements. This allows me to isolate enemy cities, stop resources, and prevent my invasion forces from being overwhelmed by dozens of units.

bongo · March 24, 2003, 08:42

The only way to compensate the weaknesses of bombardment is to use them in large numbers. Anyway I don't build bombardment-capable units in large numbers until I can build battleships or artillery.

Sava · March 24, 2003, 11:55

Navals units, IMO, are a little bit more useful because you can blockade cities with harbors, kill enemy sea units, and provide sustained mobile reconaissance (as opposed to fighters).

Dida · March 24, 2003, 16:39

naval blockade is such a bullshit. you have to complete cover up every sea tile in an enemy city to block it. to block their entire country would take probably 100 battleships. and the enemy only need 1 turn of relief to start building massive tanks all over his country again.
to make naval blockade more useful, one hostile naval unit present in the radius of a city should prevent it from conducting trade over the sea for that turn.

Master Zen · March 24, 2003, 17:54

Dida is right

naval blockade should be MUCH easier. You don't need a cordon of ships in RL to block a port.

Theseus · March 24, 2003, 20:21

Bombardment rocks.

30 Arty, protected by an Infantry or mixed-defense Army... click, one one thousand, click two one thousand, click, etc.

Sit back, have a smoke, and watch steel rain do its job... yeah, there are some misses, but in two or three turns you can take a metro down to a town, and generally ruin somebody's day.

Sisawat · March 24, 2003, 20:52

I would have to say that bombardment rocks.

Its of questionable effectiveness until artillery for taking cities, but mixed stacks with catapults or cannons can't be beat for skirmishing or blighting the countryside. I've blunted enough assaults with a few well placed catapults for them to show their worth.

I've had cases where even as few as six cannons made a difference in taking a capital city, but they need to be used in concert with other operations and they need to be used in mass.

Aramis · March 24, 2003, 22:19

Quote:

Originally posted by Sava
The only real good use for bombardment that I have found is that it is good to bomb tile improvements and cut off supply lines and reinforcements. This allows me to isolate enemy cities, stop resources, and prevent my invasion forces from being overwhelmed by dozens of units.

This is exactly where bombardment is most effective. While it seems that 3 out of 4 times bombardment will not succeed, that fourth time is crucial. Heck with bombarding cities--hit the terrain improvements (esp. mines) thus reducing the city's shield production. Cause a significant amount of damage to units moving over the roads coming to the city yer about to invade. Heck--get rid of the roads.
Effectiveness of bombing depends on the unit. Frigates are useless. Ironclads mostly useless. Destroyers not much of an improvement, but better at it. Battleships good (have 2 or 3) AEGIS forget it (on land). Fighters (inc. jets) don't bother--use for air recon. Bombers--good. Stealth--it gets better.
Cruise missles work well (if you have a lot). You can bombard the hell out of a city you want with them and then pretty much waltz in.
The point is--if you are going to use bombardment, prepare for a lot of it--estimate your needs and then overcompensate. Guarantee (sp?) you won't complain later.

BigDork · March 24, 2003, 23:02

Quote:

Originally posted by Theseus
30 Arty, protected by an Infantry or mixed-defense Army... click, one one thousand, click two one thousand, click, etc.

Theseus...

30 Arty is a lot of shields I could have put into tanks instead. I guess I just don't have the patience for arty. Maybe if the radar artillery had a movement of 2 I'd use them but they just can't keep up with the tanks and later MA and I'm not gonna wait for the artillery to get in place and then pummel a city down to a village. I feel one of the biggest advantages of tanks and MA is their ability to move quickly from city to city. Artillery just slows them down. Those extra tanks will more than make up for not bombarding a city first. But then again, that's my opinion and play style and to each his/her own.

BigD

Master Zen · March 24, 2003, 23:50

Big Dork:

I am the first to admit that I hate artillery but sometimes they are necessary. They are slow, yes, but while you are moving them towards their target (say it'll take 3 turns) you can always pummel the city with bombers in the meantime.

In the end it's a trade-off: few artillery + lots of tanks = lots of casualties. lots of artillery + a decent share of tanks = slower victory. It all depends on what you are aiming for (no pun intended)

Aramis · March 24, 2003, 23:54

Shock and awe.

BigDork · March 25, 2003, 00:17

MZ...

I usually use bombers if I need to bombard. I'm a big fan of air power(heh, after all, I am in the Air Force). Bombers have a decent range and usually about 10 of them will get the job done quickly enough. And the great thing about bombers is they can cross a continent or an ocean in turn and be ready to go on a different front where with artillery you need rails to get that done.

But like I said, it's a matter of play style.

BigD

Master Zen · March 25, 2003, 01:14

BigD

I actually prefer bombers too. For some reason (purely coincidence I guess), I seem to get better results from Bombers against cities than Artillery even though in theory Artillery has greater bombardment 12 vs 8.

Problem is of course if the AI has a good number of fighters. In that case, it would be too much a waste and artillery would be a better if not slower option.

I still don't understand why Firaxis gave just 1 movement point to Radar Artillery, after all it is a tracked unit. You can always mod it to 2 to make it catch up with your other mobile troops. On the other hand, bombers are unrealistically "rebaseable". It would have been better to give them much greater range (possible in PTW) and a re-base range equal to that.

-MZ

BigDork · March 25, 2003, 02:46

MZ...

Usually if I run into fighter problems I will send in my own fighters first. Sure I lose some but then I'm not losing my bombers.

I too agree that the Radar Artillery should be a 2. I know I can change it in the editor but I usually play the AU mod and well, it's not changed there. Well at least I think it's changed there. Seeing as how I've never built them I guess I shouldn't say. I could look it up but I'm just too dang tired right now.

BigD

Sisawat · March 25, 2003, 02:57

I made Radar Artillery move 2. Not to touch on too much of a potentially sore subject, but you don't see the M109A6 Paladins or M270A1 MLRS (which is what the CivIII default Radar Artillery unit is) having any trouble keeping up in their columns in western Iraq right now, do you?

Jaybe · March 25, 2003, 03:42

Quote:

Originally posted by Master Zen
... I seem to get better results from Bombers against cities than Artillery even though in theory Artillery has greater bombardment 12 vs 8.
...

Artillery: bombardment 12, RoF 2
Bomber: bombardment 8, RoF 3

They are statistically of equal strength (24)!

Reinhard-Baer · March 25, 2003, 05:41

Well as I've to agree with you that Artillery sucks in this game I tend to build them because I like this weapontype. Think of all this cool cannons hurling round of round of shells against the enemy. I produce dozens of them and get very good results it's all a matter of numbers.

Deathwalker · March 25, 2003, 06:19

You could always just edit atillary to the way you want. Increaded move rate for exampe? You dont have to strick with the default rules

Sava · March 25, 2003, 10:19

Quote:

Originally posted by Jaybe

Artillery: bombardment 12, RoF 2
Bomber: bombardment 8, RoF 3

They are statistically of equal strength (24)!

Statistically, they are possible of inflicting an equal amount of maximum damage. The first number is the effectiveness. The second is the amount of times damage is applied. They are not equal.

Mad Bomber · March 25, 2003, 16:33

Quote:

Originally posted by Master Zen
BigD

I actually prefer bombers too. For some reason (purely coincidence I guess), I seem to get better results from Bombers against cities than Artillery even though in theory Artillery has greater bombardment 12 vs 8.

Problem is of course if the AI has a good number of fighters. In that case, it would be too much a waste and artillery would be a better if not slower option.

I still don't understand why Firaxis gave just 1 movement point to Radar Artillery, after all it is a tracked unit. You can always mod it to 2 to make it catch up with your other mobile troops. On the other hand, bombers are unrealistically "rebaseable". It would have been better to give them much greater range (possible in PTW) and a re-base range equal to that.

-MZ

Firaxis was asked this question in a chat when PTW was being unveiled; their reply was "thats what the editor is there for"

Personally I haven't played vanilla CIV3 or PTW in a while (excepting PBEM games that I'm in) If you don't like the effectiveness of ARTY then mod it, Building and Citizen defense is too high? Mod it. Movements are too low? Mod it.....

The rebasing is a pain, I rather liked the CIV 2 model for airpower more than the CIV 3 model.