 |
| |
|
|
Heartsurgeon
|
|
Adding lethality to bombardments really unbalances the game IMO. As it is, artillery is the most devastating unit in the game, given how early you can acquire it. Cavalry and riflemen can just be ground to hamburger by artillery. I had about 20 of them in a warzone where 3 other civs were attacking me. Every turn they sent 8-12 cavalry, riders, riflemen, etc into the zone, and all I had to do was pound these units with the artillery. Then my own cavalry just went out and whipped all these units that had only 1-2 hit points left. Over the course of 5-6 turns, I lost a total of 2 units, while my opponents lost close to 50. I built some more and invaded them. Their cities had no prayer. Conquest was achieved before the industrial age was over.
The advantage of artillery obviously wanes in the modern age, but making the unit even more powerful would probably prevent a game from ever getting that far.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Killazer
|
|
I agree for artillery and sea vs land, air vs land. I do think lethal bombard should be added for ship vs ship and air vs ship tho.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Random Passerby
|
|
The problem is that while artillery can decimate cavalry, what you really need at that stage is something to beat infantry. And there artillery tends to fail; twenty artillery at a minimum is needed to make a reasonable dent in a city with 10 hp worth of infantry guarding it.
Though still, I don't see any need for lethal land bombardment for just about any units.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Killazer
|
|
Yeah..you all make good points. In terms of this game and the way it plays the current bombard system works. Lethal ship vs ship and air vs ship seems more realistic, but would prolly cause problems in gameplay like the ironclad vs battleship deal. Thing is tho if you have enough ironclads to bombard a BB down to 1 hit you prolly have the right to kill it outright anyway.
As for air vs ship... i dont know but cant a carrier in a fleet run air superiority to protect the ships vs bombers? If not then I guess you better not move your fleet close to an enemy city if lethal air vs ship bombard was put in.. might be a bit unbalanced.
I dunno im gonna have to play a couple more games and use fleets more. Its a sensitive issue =D Im sure about the no lethal land bombard tho.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Capt Dizle
|
|
If multiplayer is going to work, it is crucial that the game be balanced.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Coracle
|
|
Catapults are too weak, though, and they should only be used against enemy towns and cities.
Ships before destroyers should never have the ability to destroy improvements by bombardment.
What we need is some sort of automated bombardment feature, along with stack bombardment to limit the tedium.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Killazer
|
|
The point of bombardment units isnt to kill other units its to weaken them so that they can be overrun by your offensive units. And I think they work fine. Some changes can be made for the realistic factor without unbalancing the game but changing artillery to just set attack pieces is pretty dumb. The largest potential area of change lies in the air/naval scene.
A couple well thought out changes in this area can be made permanent without unbalancing the game. Perhaps just air vs ship lethal although I dont see a huge problem with ship vs ship lethal. You have to think about bombard vs defense. Someone mentioned ironclads killing battleships with lethal bombard. It might happen but yer gonna need a helluvalot of ironclads. Having that many in the first place would prolly allow you to kill a battleship by just attacking it anyway. And then what happens? You use all yer clads to kill 1 BB and then the BBs tear your clads to shreds next turn.
As for catapults being too weak... Yes they are weak but they are only to be used in the very early game. Three or four catapults in a stack of a spearman and a few archers can prevent the loss of any of your units which might have otherwise been killed and thus the tide turned against you. This can be important in MP because you cannot save and reload constantly to avoid losing units and if an attack goes bad for you you are in serious trouble. Even if the catapults only take out 1 or 2 hits that can help you significantly. Six catapults and a couple defensive units plus five or 6 attackers can be a very difficult force to stop in the early game.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
cyclotron7
|
 |
Drowning in Schnitzel
Jan 2001
time: 21:19
|
|
I find massed artillery to be very useful once railroads are in place... I recently fought a large air war/artillery duel with the Russians, my jets shooting down their bombers and my bombers pounding their cities, with a stack of 12 of my artillery in a fortress 2 tiles from their base. In the end, I brought 2 metros and a city all down to town size, sent them into civil disorder from building loss, cut off their mainland resources by bombing out their harbors, and brought every single unit (mostly mech inf and inf) down to 1hp before wiping out all 3 cities in one turn with only 5 tanks. Since at the time I had lost my only source of oil, throwing tanks at metros would have exausted my tank reserve quickly, so I relied on my artillery to win the war for me.
Artillery is quite useful when non-lethal, a must-have for large scale land warfare once railroads are involved. Catas and cannons are really only useful for coastal defense and long sieges, since they have no good railroad system to tote them around.
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
Random Passerby
|
|
I don't get this irrational hatred for units that don't kill things. I routinely build dozens of defensive units which will never ever kill anything, and for uber-empires this number could reach into the hundreds. Not every offensive unit I build is going to win all the battles it gets into; not only will these units not kill anything, but they will get killed themselves. If you're budgeting three offensive units for each up-to-date defensive unit (though this differs by era, this is still generally a dodgy ratio that's often prone to defeat and disappointment), then you're saying right off the bat that as many of two-thirds of your force is NOT going to be killing things. Of course this is inaccurate, as some of your attack force will be employed picking off stray counter-attacks, but the point remains: in conflicts where the opponent is at least roughly equal, you will be deliberately building offensive units knowing full well that they're just going to be spent wearing down the enemy so that other units can kill them. And if the conflicts aren't roughly equal, then in my opinion the entire friggin' game is a waste and it's time to restart.
|
|
| |
|
| |
All times are GMT. The time now is 05:19.
Apolyton Time is 00:19. |
top of page
|
| archivepost |
|
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
|
|
|
|
|
|
24-04-2002 07:07
|