 |
|
Ijuin
|
|
Tokyo, Japan
May 2002
time: 14:31
|
|
Hmmm how about bombardment goes the old way (randomly shoots at population, improvements, or units) in the early game, but when you get Radio (and hence radar), you get to choose which one to target? This would be sort of like how you get the Precision Strike capability in aircraft when you get Smart Weapons.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
nuther
|
|
I voted Yes. Its better because you dont need 20 to 30 arty per stack now. That figure was way off base. It should help the ai and it should help preserve city population points, which will also preserve city defense multipliers. Going from size 20 to size 1 in a turn was just not right either.
Still, I like the idea of some cities turning into rubble a la Stalingrad. But that should be a rare occurrance. As long as bomber can damage stuff, then I guess its good. That makes planes worth more.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
JSRHINO
|
|
How does C3C deal with Precision Strikes, are we given an option now to strike particular units or improvements, or is that still decided by the random selection despite being "Precision Strikes"?
|
|
| |
|
|
|
The_Aussie_Lurker
|
|
Adelaide, South Australia, Australia
May 2001
time: 05:31
|
|
Though I, obviously, don't have C3C yet-I still voted NO!!! I really liked the fact that bombardment was not as clear cut as it was in Civ2!! It was this philosophy in Civ2 which led to the boring 'Howie Rush' strategy of the late game!!!
Personally I think the best way to do things would be for early bombardment units-such as the trebuchet and catapult-to have a VERY high chance of hitting improvements, followed by units and then population (perhaps a 50%;40%;10% split, respectively). Cannons and Artillery, on the other hand, would have a slightly higher chance of hitting units, with perhaps a 40%;50%;10% split. Last of all-Radar artillery would have the BEST chance of hitting units, with a 70%;20%;10% split!!! These are just rough estimates, but would still make bombardment units useful in the capture of a city, whilst still incorporating the element of 'collateral damage' which still dogs military forces, in real life, to this day!!!
Yours,
Aussie_Lurker.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Fosse
|
|
U.S.A.
Mar 2002
time: 23:31
|
|
It seems to me that the new system has simply made human invasions even easier, with bigger, better bases and more troops left when the dust settles.
Unless the AI takes full advantage of this then it's a change that simply tilts the scale MORE in favor of the player. In addition to this, it is unrealstic and takes away a strategic option from the player....
Remember when you had to decide whether to take a city with its population and infrastructure (basically) intact, or whether you wanted to use arty and save a few more lives of your troops?
The new change...
1. Improves the player vs. the AI
2. Removes a strategic option
3. Less realistic
I know that not everyone plays the AU mod.. but these three are in EXACT contention with its mission statement... and I think that goes a long way to show how wrong minded it was.
edited for typo
Last edited by Fosse on 12-11-2003 at 01:12
|
|
| |
|
|
|
duxup
|
|
I would have liked changes made to the bombardment for modern units to be a bit better at hitting units rather than the city.
However, if in fact now they never hit city improvments, then no, I do not like that change. Far too unrealistic.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Fosse
|
|
U.S.A.
Mar 2002
time: 23:31
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by player1
And bomb to death (1 pop, 0 buildings), with most troops intact, like in PtW, is "soo realistic". |
True, but the stacks that people were using to shell AI cities often included a dozen or more artillery units for every handful of offensive ones shelling the city for several turns. I know Civ doesn't have any specific ratio of game units to real life representations, but it could be argued that the lack of realism found in 1 pop, 0 building cities was because of the unrealistic army compositions and extended periods of bombardment.
In truth, would like to see buildings most likely to be hit and destroyed (maybe 90% of successful bombardments), and the rest split between population and units.
This is because loss of life in cities under bombardment tends to be low compared to infrastructure destroyed. The deaths that do occur usually are because of loss of infrastructure... This would be represented well in Civ3 because Bombardment would destroy the infrastructure that keeps the city happy and working, which would eventually lead to too many citizens for the infrastructure to sustain so they starve to death.
However... I feel that the realism argument takes a big backseat to the fact that the change makes it much easier for the human without helping the AI. According to game balance, which should decide all, it was a poor idea.
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
dexters
|
 |
Vancouver, Canada
Nov 2001
time: 05:31
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Fosse
However... I feel that the realism argument takes a big backseat to the fact that the change makes it much easier for the human without helping the AI. According to game balance, which should decide all, it was a poor idea. |
It is infact not easier for the human players, unless you consider cracking a size 12 city with entrenched defenders easy.
Taking a large city whole has few benefits. First few turns it's in chaos and resistance with be significant, forcing large number of troops to stay back to quell resistance or prevent flips.
Yes, you get lots of pre-builts buildings, but it's a trade off, not an advantage. Previously, you can just station artys on a hill to bombard a city to size one, and divert a cavalry from another stack to give the city a final 'coup de grace' kill. That's no longer possible pre-flight.
|
|
| |
|
| |
All times are GMT. The time now is 05:31.
Apolyton Time is 00:31. |
top of page
|
|
|
Forum Rules:
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
|
HTML code is ON
vB code is ON
Smilies are ON
[IMG] code is ON
|
|
|
|
|
|
10-11-2003 18:16
It is only for melee attacks.
|