 |
| |
|
|
CerberusIV
|
|
I give bombers, jet fighters and F-15's lethal sea bombardment. The AI does use bombers against ships so I feel this is reasonable.
I also allow F-15's and stealth fighters lethal land bombardment. The AI isn't really able to use this but since a game is pretty much decided by the time these units become available it just allows me to finish off damaged AI units easily rather than changing the outcome of a game.
I would never give artillery units (of any type) lethal bombardment because it just makes it much too easy for the human player.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
GarP2
|
|
Agree that it would unbalance the game, but also, I wouldn't want it to be risk-free And lethal. As for naval units, they can attack directly as well as bombard, so they have a lethal mode.
GarP
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
Catt
|
 |
California - SF Bay Area
May 2002
time: 21:28
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Trip
How is that different from how it is now?  |
 Not tremendously different, if one chooses to play it that way.
But, with lethal bombard (versus the current situation) a human player with the capacity to build / upgrade 30 or so artillery shortly after RP would have won the game. As it stands now, a mass of artillery can defend successfully, and supported by a small supply of foot units, can often conquer worlds; but at least AI civs will focus on unit building during war -- and unless you go out and kill bombarded units after artillery barrages, they'll come back at you when healed, beefed up by the reinforcements built by the AI. With lethal bombard, building a small mass of artillery would enable destruction of AI civs without fail -- the "smart" move in such a game would be to build a mass of bombard units and disband virtually all other units (eliminating upkeep). After having done so, the human could still choose between economic wins and military wins. Though not much better today, at least a focus on an economic win injects some risk into the equation -- a psycho, communist AI civ invades with 100+ units and manages to start taking cities. And a focus on a military win injects risk (primarily a diplo, and to a lesser extent a SS win).
Bombard is already a human advantage in the game; enabling lethal bombard widens that advantage.
Catt
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Cruddy
|
|
I go for naval lethal bombard, but ONLY for ship based air and cruise missiles.
Up to the aircraft carrier, ships had to engage at sea in a duel.
No land unit was ever destroyed by arty alone, so if I can figure out how to turn off LB for land based cruise I will (I'm still a klutz with the editor).
|
|
| |
|
|
|
nbarclay
|
 |
Huntsville, Alabama
Dec 1999
time: 23:28
|
|
I like the AU Mod's approach of giving lethal bombardment to fighters but not to bombers. That makes it possible to sink ships with air power alone, but the fact that fighters aren't very competent at bombing keeps the ability from creating serious balance problems.
When has air power ever completely destroyed all the military units in an area to a point where enemy troops could walk in with zero opposition? I think the way Civ 3 handles things on land reflects reality pretty well: American bombers reduce the Iraqi infantry to one hit point each, and America's Modern Armor clean them up easily.
On the other hand, naval units in the real world are a lot more vulnerable to lethal bombardment. But there are two catches. (1) In real life, a defender can't haul artillery across the continent on railroads, install it, and sink ships with it before the ships even get a chance to pull back. The artillery has to already be in place when the ships arrive. So denying artillery lethal bombardment against ships is a necessary counterweight against the ridiculously high mobility Civ 3 artillery has. (2) Historically, ships have far more to fear from precision weapons from smaller aircraft than they do from heavy bombloads from larger aircraft. Giving bombers their full attack power against ships, plus lethal bombardment, makes them too strong against ships.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
CerberusIV
|
|
The point about giving bombers lethal sea bombardment is that once large scale airpower arrives then attacking into enemy territorial waters near their land should be pretty fatal for ships without fighter cover from aircraft carriers.
You only get one type of basic bomber, not the division into heavy bombers and torpedo bombers and so on that exist in the real world so the one unit ends up doing all the roles.
I find that the ideal way to deal with ships bombarding your coastal areas without giving artillery lethal sea bombardment is to shift artillery across by RR and bombard the ship down to 1HP then finish it off with a single cruise missile. I have never had one miss yet and it is more economical than using two or three cruise.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Gen.Dragolen
|
|
IŽve done some playtesting with lethal and non-lethal bombardment, and found that lethal was a little too much, but if you up the RoF 1 or 2 to a more relistic level, reducing even elite units to 1 hp makes their impact a little more realistic.
You can leave the buildings and pop untouched as artillery will start fires that do most of the damage. Even cruise missles should not have a lethal bombardment. Indirect fire, while devastating, is not capable of destroying the enemy alone. He just wonŽt stand still long enough for you to hit him...
However, I also increased the effect of being in a fortress to reflect how good it is in modern warfare to be Ždug inŽ and that reduced the impact of artillery. After all, the Island campaigns in the Pacific showed that fortified infantry could take all that a battle ship could dish out, and still fight back effectively. And for modern units, being dugin amounts to being in a fortress. Being fortified in my mind is more like being ready to repell an attack than having constructed defensive works.
This also works well with bombers too. It does look impressive to see a unit taking 4 hits from a bombing raid and maybe a building destroyed.
D.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
MyOlde
|
|
Haliburton, Ontario, Canada
Jun 1999
time: 05:28
|
|
Interesting thread. I had been holding off modding anything to lethal, being afraid of what the AI would do with it against me. But most of you seem to think they're not very good with it. That doesn't seem good, either. Maybe, once again, the game is best left alone -- the way the designers designed it.
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
Gen.Dragolen
|
|
Epistax,
So what would you call carriers like the enterprise and hornet that were damaged but not sunk? They are effectively removed from being usefull with only 1 hp left. At that point even a lowly sub could score a kill.
Mind you, there is one unit I immediately upgraded the attack on since a torpedo can sink all by the biggest ships, and then they are crippled by a good hit. Even battleships which were designed to take a few torpedo hits suffer. The Bismark springs to mind, or the Italian Fleet at Taranto and US Fleet at Midway. Even the Japanese Fleet at Midway was not wiped out, but suffered heavy casualties and was withdrawn for repairs.
One thing you may want to try is changing the number of hit points a ship has if you are going to allow Lethal Bombardment. Part of this depends on the scale on which you see the game: Is a ship a single vessel, or a squadron of ships ? My vote is for the squadron, since this is supposed to be a strategic level wargame (IMO).
D.
|
|
| |
|
| |
All times are GMT. The time now is 05:28.
Apolyton Time is 00:28. |
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
|
|
|
|
|
|
30-05-2003 00:10
Unbalanced the game tremendously. Very limited forms of lethal bombard seem less so -- I believe the AU Mod gives fighters, but not bombers, lethal bombard . . . perhaps only against naval units.
)
|