Poll: bombardment - Page 2

latka · January 21, 2003, 19:46

My previous question had deviated away from the original topic, and more questions have arisen, so I have created a new thread called, "AI's determination of War and Peace" to cover these new questions.

Sorry for the brief tangent.

Kramerman · January 21, 2003, 20:25

i like my modded bombard units. they are more useful, adn strategic, but dont unbalance the game

Zachriel · January 21, 2003, 21:17

Before

After

According to the Rules of War
http://www.zachriel.com/gotm14/RulesofWar.htm

Theseus · January 21, 2003, 21:56

God, Zachriel, I love your examples.

In AU 203, Arty has been critical for me in taking out 5 Persian cities... this while I've been facing MAs.

TacticalGrace · January 23, 2003, 06:35

yay, Zachriel, go get those dirty polluting persians.

Panag · January 23, 2003, 18:46

hi ,

sure its important , when you keep a small army they really are worth it ( units with bombardment ability )

have a nice day

campmajor! · January 24, 2003, 11:23

I use bombard units when I discover artillery. Before that they are not so accurate. But of course naval units are used before arty as well, but in great numbers.

I think they are important against big opponents. You can use them to cripple their economy. Just erase the roads to the resources!

It can really help you win wars. Especially when attacked. Because the AI retreats damaged units!

dworkin · January 24, 2003, 15:45

I start mass bombardment with cannon because by then my infrastructure can churn out a pile of them without trouble. Before then it's all a bit of a mad scramble and the catapults are low on the priorities list. A few may get built and placed in strategic cities, but it's a rare cat indeed that gets to throw rocks the other way over the walls.

Rebel67 · January 25, 2003, 18:55

Bombardment is great when attacking. bombers can take care of roads, and more importantly railroads deepish into their territory, whilst artillery are very useful for bombarding the city before you capture it. If you take out the AI's roads and railroads then they will not be able to hit you with everything on the first turn.

Of course the problem is so many railroads to go after, this means you should plan where you attack, to reduce the amount of of railroads you need to get.

When launching a sea invasion after railroads are invented I always back it up with bombers, battleships and artillery. If you take out every railway within 3 squares of your landing troops, then you won't be counter attacked on your first turn, but the AI usually moves lots of units to within range of your recently landed artillery and tanks.

Rebel67 · January 25, 2003, 19:13

Bombardment is great when attacking. bombers can take care of roads, and more importantly railroads deepish into their territory, whilst artillery are very useful for bombarding the city before you capture it. If you take out the AI's roads and railroads then they will not be able to hit you with everything on the first turn.

Of course the problem is so many railroads to go after, this means you should plan where you attack, to reduce the amount of of railroads you need to get.

When launching a sea invasion after railroads are invented I always back it up with bombers, battleships and artillery. If you take out every railway within 3 squares of your landing troops, then you won't be counter attacked on your first turn, but the AI usually moves lots of units to within range of your recently landed artillery and tanks.

AJ Corp. The FAIR · January 26, 2003, 02:18

Quote:

Originally posted by wilbill
Prior to artillery, I use bombardment as a defensive device. I rarely build catapults, not because they have no value, but because their truly useful lifespan is pretty short.

Then just upgrade them afterwards ...

Ancient battles with catapults are really funny and sometimes just ... NECESSARY.

Especially when your army is outnumbered by your opponents. Quicly building catapults and using your road network could just stop the invasion oft the AI.

The 1 HP they each can take away may make a huge difference, often resulting in keeping your city instead of losing it.

The strat doesn't work when you're surpassed in terms of technology of course ...

AJ

Yanghead · January 26, 2003, 03:09

Quote:

Originally posted by Jaybe

For those who do not know, Tattila was referring to:
A city that has been heavily bombarded is EASIER to defend. Any people not killed have all the more places to hide themselves in the rubble. The streets are all gone, so anyone not intimately familiar with the area gets lost quickly because maps are useless (unless you have GPS

).

I beg to differ. The Rangers in Somalia had GPS, helicopters telling them which street to take and AWACS, and they still could not get to a crash site mere blocks away.

Yanghead · January 26, 2003, 03:16

Bombard ment has 2 uses in my opinion

1) defence near hostile or nearly hostile borders preferable in a fort on a hill. Usually just 2 or 3 with some def units of course. Softens up those attacking units as they move thru. AI can be pretty dumb if your fort is right near a city they will completly ignore the fort but still move units thru ZOC.

2) destroying enemy infrastruture, eps with bombers to hit strategic resources and remove them from trade networks. Also your artillary in forts on hills as above can bust up road slowing the attack and buy you more time.

Panag · January 26, 2003, 09:17

hi ,

bombardment is missing several things , ....

its great for now , but what about defense , we need an option like "double defense against air-units" , like in CIV II but more advanced

Firaxis

have a nice day

TacticalGrace · January 28, 2003, 09:33

Isn't is possible to mod an anti-aircraft gun which intercepts air units? But I guess that would look silly because no doubt it would fly across the screen like a fighter...

Really every unit should have an air defence score that determines the chance of inflicting damage on any air units.

Not necessarily anything to do with bombardment units though. only radar artillery should have air defence capabilities

Panag · January 28, 2003, 09:38

Quote:

Originally posted by TacticalGrace
Isn't is possible to mod an anti-aircraft gun which intercepts air units? But I guess that would look silly because no doubt it would fly across the screen like a fighter...

Really every unit should have an air defence score that determines the chance of inflicting damage on any air units.

Not necessarily anything to do with bombardment units though. only radar artillery should have air defence capabilities

hi ,

not only that , what is really needed is something like "double defense against airunits" , ......

, we would also need a mobile AA unit , with maybe a maximum number of units who would have that capacity like ten or so , ......

Firaxis , ...

have a nice day

Kramerman · January 29, 2003, 01:09

Quote:

Originally posted by Yanghead

I beg to differ. The Rangers in Somalia had GPS, helicopters telling them which street to take and AWACS, and they still could not get to a crash site mere blocks away.

This was caused by the delay of directions. By the time the directions from the circling AWACS reached the convoy, they had already passed the turn by some distance, and so they kept missing the proper turns. This was a failure of communication.

Tattila the Hun · January 29, 2003, 03:04

Okay, maybe someone could make a SAM unit, that would look like radar art. (how cold you tell SAM from RA? dunno), but have the intercept/attack (no attack, naturally) animation using cruise missile, ie cruise missile flying like fighter, intercepting the bomber. Same for Aegis.

I hope I make sense...

TacticalGrace · January 29, 2003, 06:12

It makes sense. Unfortunately I suspect not possible to mod that change. Perhaps a unit that looks like the cruise missile instead.

For most people I suspect it's irrelevant. For normal games, everything is over by the modern age and even if it isn't, it will be decided by who has the most MA.

I've never built a Radar Artillery unit.

Arrian · January 29, 2003, 11:24

I will happily use captured catapults, and occasionally even build them. I use them to soften up units I want to hit with elite units, to better ensure victory and (hopefully) GL generation. They would be of little use vs. a city, since cats are fairly weak, and I don't have nearly enough of them (5 would be a lot for me).

I often build several cats just prior to getting metallurgy, and then upgrade the lot to cannon. I will still use cannon primarily to soften up units out in the open. A typical number of cannon in my army is 10.

Artillery, however, I will use to hit cities. I will still use it to beat up units in the open, but I will consolidate my arty into a large stack and bombard the hell out of enemy cities. A typical number for me to have is 20-25.

I play on standard maps, so you have a reference for the numbers.

-Arrian

Panag · January 29, 2003, 13:56

Quote:

Originally posted by Tattila the Hun
Okay, maybe someone could make a SAM unit, that would look like radar art. (how cold you tell SAM from RA? dunno), but have the intercept/attack (no attack, naturally) animation using cruise missile, ie cruise missile flying like fighter, intercepting the bomber. Same for Aegis.

I hope I make sense...

hi ,

, they could use a foot soldier with a stinger , they could use a humvee with stingers on it , ......

what is also needed is light infantry in humvee's , .... they should bring them back from CIV II

have a nice day

TacticalGrace · February 3, 2003, 06:28

Quote:

Originally posted by Rebel67
If you take out every railway within 3 squares of your landing troops, then you won't be counter attacked on your first turn, but the AI usually moves lots of units to within range of your recently landed artillery and tanks.

Yes this is a good strategy, and one that I wish I had the patience to impliment. Usually the reward for my impatience is the loss of my army.

Doing as you suggest can help to destroy the standing army that the AI has built up. Once that reservoir is emptied the AI has little capability to mount an attack on your troops and it's then on the defensive. Every turn it will build a few units and attack you with them. It'll also draft a few defensive units, but as I say, it's on the defensive.

Panag · February 3, 2003, 07:04

Quote:

Originally posted by TacticalGrace

Yes this is a good strategy, and one that I wish I had the patience to impliment. Usually the reward for my impatience is the loss of my army.

Doing as you suggest can help to destroy the standing army that the AI has built up. Once that reservoir is emptied the AI has little capability to mount an attack on your troops and it's then on the defensive. Every turn it will build a few units and attack you with them. It'll also draft a few defensive units, but as I say, it's on the defensive.

hi ,

and that is something that the AI should learn , an organised counterattack , ........

its intresting to see that a GL when at war with the ai is used at ones to build an army , .....

an army that is filled with a rag-tag of troops and attacks without backup from artillery , .....

have a nice day

CerberusIV · February 3, 2003, 07:12

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).

Panag · February 3, 2003, 07:24

Quote:

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

Daz · February 3, 2003, 07:34

Yes I do use it. But if I have an overwhelming force available I dont, 'cause it destroys a lot of city improvements too. I lose a unit or two more than I should have, but that aqueduct, police station or bank need not be rebuilt.

TacticalGrace · February 3, 2003, 09:48

If you have an overwhelming force then you don't need tactics.

Panag · February 3, 2003, 09:58

Quote:

Originally posted by TacticalGrace
If you have an overwhelming force then you don't need tactics.

hi ,

have you seen the numbers the AI gets without paying on the highest levels , ......

sometimes tactics prevail over numbers , .....

and why move 200 or more units when the same can be done with far less , ....

have a nice day

TacticalGrace · February 3, 2003, 10:08

Quote:

Originally posted by panag

hi ,

have you seen the numbers the AI gets without paying on the highest levels , ......

sometimes tactics prevail over numbers , .....

true. But if the human player has overwhelming numbers then minimal tactics are sufficient against the AI because it doesn't have advanced tactics.

Quote:

and why move 200 or more units when the same can be done with far less , ....

That's just luxury. It's preferable to use tactics for exactly that reason, but not necessary.

Could it be that late game tedium encourages the human player to use good tactics?

Panag · February 3, 2003, 10:19

Quote:

Originally posted by TacticalGrace

true. But if the human player has overwhelming numbers then minimal tactics are sufficient against the AI because it doesn't have advanced tactics.

That's just luxury. It's preferable to use tactics for exactly that reason, but not necessary.

Could it be that late game tedium encourages the human player to use good tactics?

hi ,

, well there are people who keep about ten armies , five with modern armor , five with mech infantry , and that is about all they use , the just put a defensive unit in a town and leave it there for the rest of the game , others go to war with 25 modern armor's that are protected by mech infantry and supported with artillery , a total of lets say 100 units or so , for a small scale war against an enemy that only has maybe ten cities , ......

others swear they cant fight without having 100 airunits , ......

the best is to use good tactics , it saves on money and its less complicated to move around , and with loads of money in the bank you can just rush that new army , or that new unit you need , ....

its not funny when you have to wait two days with PBEM because one player is moving 500 plus units , .......

have a nice day