Bombardment Targets Units in Cities First?

Catt · November 8, 2003, 17:46

Either I'm experiencing an incredible RNG string or C3C has changed how the bombarment of cities operates - and changed it significantly. In 3 separate artillery barrages against enemy cities, a stack of 12 artillery either took hitpoints from defenders or missed -- not once (until all units were redlined) did the city lose an improvement or a pop point. Since one barage extended through two turns, that means 48 artillery barrages without taking a pop or an improvement until all defenders were redlined (and as best as memory serves, a few trebuchet assaults on cities had similar results).

Has anyone destroyed a pop point or a city improvement when there are defenders with more than 1 HP left?

Catt

zorbop · November 8, 2003, 19:03

wow... this might make city bombardment useful . Now i dont have to destroy half of a city i will conquer that turn anyway to hurt a few units?

ChrisiusMaximus · November 8, 2003, 19:44

I hope your right Catt and its not just an RNG fluke, bombardment needs improvement

WarpStorm · November 8, 2003, 20:47

He's right

How could they do this? This will make the game way too easy.

Please bring back collateral damage.

alva · November 8, 2003, 21:38

Just don't use arty

WarpStorm · November 8, 2003, 21:42

More testing reveals that only land and sea units do this. Air units provide plenty of collateral damage

Sarxis · November 8, 2003, 21:55

This is all good. I'm very pleased.

WarpStorm · November 8, 2003, 22:14

I'm not. This is a big flaw that I think will need to be fixed.

Louis XXIV · November 8, 2003, 22:31

I would rather it be more like, instead of 100% likely. (something like 50-75% chance of hitting units).

Fried-Psitalon · November 8, 2003, 23:19

I believe the targeting is based on a formula- the more units in a city, the more likely you are to hit units. The less units in a city, the less likely you are to hit units.

This formula was actually posted here on the boards somewhere recently, I believe....

Sarxis · November 8, 2003, 23:20

Yeah, now that I think about it, I'm not sure how I feel about it. I guess I'm just more curious if this was intentional or not.

WarpStorm · November 8, 2003, 23:45

Fried, I just made a test case where I built stocked metropli ready for bombard with varying numbers of units (1 through 8 units). In every case, land bombard hit the units exclusively until they weren't eligible. I ran this scenario 3 times with different seeds. It could be random, but I kind of doubt it.

The air attacks seem to follow what you said, but arty seems to be always hitting units first.

G'Kar · November 9, 2003, 00:18

I'm not sure if I like this or not. It's easier in the sense that you can easily knock down HPs, but then it takes longer to kill population, and reduce defense multipliers. I think they need to reintroduce random collateral damage.

Dominae · November 9, 2003, 00:56

Quote:

Originally posted by Defcon5
I'm not sure if I like this or not. It's easier in the sense that you can easily knock down HPs, but then it takes longer to kill population, and reduce defense multipliers. I think they need to reintroduce random collateral damage.

I would rather have all units at 1 HP before going after the defense multipliers. Againt the AI this is always better becaues it rarely defends its cities with over 5 units (on average).

Dominae

Kuciwalker · November 9, 2003, 01:02

Quote:

More testing reveals that only land and sea units do this. Air units provide plenty of collateral damage

If anything, this should be flipped. Land and sea units should provide collateral damage, and air units should (after Smart Weapons) target units specifically.

Catt · November 9, 2003, 01:37

Quote:

Originally posted by WarpStorm
I'm not. This is a big flaw that I think will need to be fixed.

I'm pretty surprised about this change, too. I think I'll have to institute a "house rule" -- no offensive arty stacks of greater than X (maybe 6?). This makes "Moonsinger's March of Death" more end-all be-all than it already was.

Catt

Inverse Icarus · November 9, 2003, 01:49

yeah, i ran into this in the Napoleonic scenario, playing as Austria. i was whomping the Russians good with my cannons.

Jaybe · November 9, 2003, 04:40

Quote:

Originally posted by Catt
... I think I'll have to institute a "house rule" -- no offensive arty stacks of greater than X (maybe 6?). ...

I've been doing that with PTW for many months now; but if I get really flustered, I would use multiple stacks of 6.

Catt · November 9, 2003, 05:04

Quote:

Originally posted by Jaybe

I've been doing that with PTW for many months now; but if I get really flustered, I would use multiple stacks of 6.

Me too - although I've generally limited myself to a dozen or so on offense (plenty on defense). It just doesn't strike me as fun using huge stacks of artillery to take cities, no matter how effective a tactic it is. With exclusive unit-targeting, I think I'll want to further limit my use of artillery units on offense.

Catt

Saint Marcus · November 9, 2003, 10:34

Quote:

and air units should (after Smart Weapons) target units specifically.

**cough**and Chinese embassies**cough**

Kuciwalker · November 9, 2003, 11:49

Actually, that would be a good idea - be able to destroy embassies.

RobC · November 9, 2003, 13:59

Quote:

Originally posted by WarpStorm
I'm not. This is a big flaw that I think will need to be fixed.

I agree...heat-seeking catapult boulders are neither realistic nor good for game balance/play.

RobC · November 9, 2003, 14:16

Vote on what you think of this change here:
http://apolyton.net/forums/showthrea...hreadid=101232

asleepathewheel · November 9, 2003, 14:47

Hmm, yeah I don't like that either. At first it sounded great, but in reality it just makes it much easier for me as a human.

ChrisiusMaximus · November 9, 2003, 15:11

Well Ive not got conquests yet so I cant judge for sure but I know that lots of people wanted to see an improvement to Artillery. So you get what you ask for and still your not happy

Im looking forward to seeing how this works for myself, but I would say it would be better if the AI has learnt to use Artillery offensively. Has it ? is the AI in conquests showing any signs of knowing what to do with its Artillery ?

Tiberius · November 9, 2003, 15:19

I was always unhappy and upset by the high missing ratio of my bombardment units, but this solution is wrong. It is way too powerful.

Bombarding a city into oblivion, reducing its pop to 1 and destroying all buildings before hitting the troops wasn't good either; but this solution is definitely not the right one.

A bombardment should randomly hit troops, buildings and pop points. Randomly, or maybe according to a certain formula/percentages, but not in a strict order.

player1 · November 9, 2003, 15:27

Good thing, before C3C, units in cities suffered "Displacement" bonus (DnD term, spells which makes enemy attack miss with flat 50% chance).

Of course, that was just bad old mechanic if you ask me.
If you pop city in same place as your unit you automaticly get 50% miss chance to hit units (while attacking same units will not make difference). Makes no sense to add extra 50% miss chance if there are already defense mutipliers.

Although I would rather prefer Arty targets units, but when it missed, then to hit collateral damage (selecting thing to be hitted before calculating chance to hit is just absurd old system).

By the way, only possibile problem with curretnt setup would be if AI is too bad with use of bombing. In that case human would have advantage (which was not too much with old system when arty has extra 50% miss chance).

vmxa1 · November 9, 2003, 15:28

Quote:

Originally posted by Saint Marcus

**cough**and Chinese embassies**cough**

I don't think this makes your point, since they hit it on purpose.
It was not a bomb failure, but an intellignce failure.

player1 · November 9, 2003, 15:32

Quote:

Originally posted by WarpStorm
He's right

How could they do this? This will make the game way too easy.

Only if AI is incapable of using artillery.

Of course if we go in that way then Artillery should be removed from game completly.

And there are still defense mulitipliers which won't be easlity lowered (since bombing city pop. to death won't work well).

For me, possibility of having useful catapults just sounds cool.

from me!

player1 · November 9, 2003, 15:38

Quote:

Originally posted by Tiberius
A bombardment should randomly hit troops, buildings and pop points. Randomly, or maybe according to a certain formula/percentages, but not in a strict order.

Old system was too random.

Basicly thing to be bombed was choosen before calculating hitting chance.

Totaly illogcial. It should be other was around.
Not to say that it added extra 50% miss chance.

For example let's assume that main purpose of using artillery is to breach enemy defenses (units).

So Atrillery tries to hit unit.
But it misses.

Now since shell needs to be somewere then add chance to hit building or population.

Sounds much more resonable.