Bombardment / Friendly fire

[Litcube]

Do you bomb your own troops as well as the enemies when you bombard?

[Skymage]

Bombardment never hits the invading army.

I think it should, but it doesn't :(

SkyMage

[Da_Blade]

Well, bombardment is not like they just randomly drop bombs and shoot at the ground....

[Litcube]

Strange, I said this in another thread too. Bombardmnet implies saturating fire over an area, and not hitting specific targets. Friendly fire would be highly likely.

[James1701]

I dissagree, there is no reason to assume that orbiting starships would be unable to avoid hitting their own troops.

[Da_Blade]

I admit it's hardly high precise bombing, but remember you're bombing a planet, not a city. If your troops secured let's say the american continent (2 regions), it's highly unlikely the bombs intended for africa will accidentaly hit the american continent.

[Ron_Lugge]

Originally posted by James1701
I dissagree, there is no reason to assume that orbiting starships would be unable to avoid hitting their own troops.

We have airplanes capable of hitting targets within 100 feet of hour own troops, safely. Why couldn't start ships have such accuracy (given the obvoius advanced tech)?

[Litcube]

Da_Blade.

You're right..

..I feel silly.

[Skymage]

Originally posted by Ron_Lugge
We have airplanes capable of hitting targets within 100 feet of hour own troops, safely. Why couldn't start ships have such accuracy (given the obvoius advanced tech)?

And during 'operation desert storm' & 'operation enduring freedom' we HAD friendly fire casualties. I would agree that friendly fire losses should be small but it should still be there.


IMHO

SkyMage

[James1701]

Originally posted by Ron_Lugge
We have airplanes capable of hitting targets within 100 feet of hour own troops, safely. Why couldn't start ships have such accuracy (given the obvoius advanced tech)?

Read my post again. I did not say what it is you think I said.

[Litcube]

Like Da_blade said, we're not talkin 100 feet here. We're talking continents.

[herknav]

Originally posted by Skymage
And during 'operation desert storm' & 'operation enduring freedom' we HAD friendly fire casualties. I would agree that friendly fire losses should be small but it should still be there.


IMHO

SkyMage

Yeah, but NOT from any sort of bombardment. The casualties were from close air support, something the game doesn't even model. So you might assume a couple of the casualties you get in the normal scheme of things could be friendly fire.

Bombardment is a prepratory step, and therefore before the troups are in the area.

But I don't see why it cannot be used in the subsequent fight, depending on the charecteristics of the weapon. Lasers hit what they are pointed at, and you can mathmatically figure out the potential refraction, so why not shoot thattank the enemy is using?

[Skymage]

Originally posted by Litcube
Like Da_blade said, we're not talkin 100 feet here. We're talking continents.

I dont believe ground combat will be fought from 'contenents' away. I believe it'll be up close and personal. Thus the margin for error is VERY small. This is why I believe there should be friendly fire losses (and again I think it should be a very small number compared to enemy losses).


again IMHO

SkyMage

[Skymage]

Originally posted by herknav
Yeah, but NOT from any sort of bombardment. The casualties were from close air support, something the game doesn't even model. So you might assume a couple of the casualties you get in the normal scheme of things could be friendly fire.

Bombardment is a prepratory step, and therefore before the troups are in the area.

But I don't see why it cannot be used in the subsequent fight, depending on the charecteristics of the weapon. Lasers hit what they are pointed at, and you can mathmatically figure out the potential refraction, so why not shoot thattank the enemy is using?

I guess our definition of bombardment is different.

I would call your definition prepatory fire (a type of bombardmant).

My definition would also include close range artillary and fighter support (such as the napalm use in vietnam)


I'll just chalk it up to different terminology.


SkyMage

[Da_Blade]

I'd say the moo2 space bombardments are more like the WWII bombings: massive amounts of fire spread over an area. This kind of bombing did not happen with ANY friendly troops in the vicinity, they were purely for destruction(industry)/morale purposes.

The kind of bombing in which friendly fire DOES happen is, as stated before, close air support. Close air support is, as it states, close, and i consider it modelled within ground combat itself, as it really is part of that.

What we have seen in Iraq has been mostly close air support, with the exception of the bombings of baghdad and such targets, such bombardments would never be done with troops within the city, too risky. And triggerhappy pilots shooting up friendly convoys is a result of close air support, and also are minimal losses compared to the scale of worldwide warfare, and the size of moo3 units.

Since 2 combat units make up a division, which is about 10,000 people IRL, each combat unit is about 5000 people. Friendly fire that eliminates 5000 people is unheard of. And loosing a unit is the only loss you'll feel in Moo3.

[Skymage]

@ Da_Blade

Infantry and armor -- I'll agree 10,000+ / division

Commandos and supply (Magazines) -- I doubt are that big



I'm not criticizing the system, it works as advertised. The question I was discussing was IF friendly fire should be taken into account (I believe it should, you do not. Difference of opinion)


Friendly fire could be taken into account by lowering unit accuracy and/or firepower (considering a portion of a unit could be pinned by such fire).



What I'm talking about will not show up in anything but, maybe, an expansion (as it would need coding) anyway.


SkyMage

[Da_Blade]

Originally posted by Skymage
@ Da_Blade

Infantry and armor -- I'll agree 10,000+ / division

Commandos and supply (Magazines) -- I doubt are that big


Hehe, a 10,000 people commando unit kinda loses it's "special forces" tag, doesn't it? ;)


Friendly fire could be taken into account by lowering unit accuracy and/or firepower (considering a portion of a unit could be pinned by such fire).


Two reprises:

1) For all we know this is already in place, it would take rather elaborate testing to find out

2) Would it matter much? This effect would fall into nothingness compared to the effect of tactics, environment and training of units.


But i guess it's a difference of opinion. :)

[Ron_Lugge]

Originally posted by James1701
Read my post again. I did not say what it is you think I said.

Ooops. Wrong quote :D

[Hikari]

Ground combat as up-close and personal? I don't know about you, but I somehow can't imagine my Fusion Core Launcher-equipped mecha-dinosaurs feeling any particular need to get within a few dozen miles of their target, and they're about the most impersonal combatants I can think of.

If anything, I'd like to gain MORE control over bombardment when I have forces on the ground, especially Commandos. I'd like to be able to specifically target certain building types (ie, only Military-class structures), target only ground troops or development while doing minimal damage to the population, etc.

Making bombardment friendly-fire prone would make it even less of an option for supporting ground invasions. Does anyone really want to see the ground war portion of the game become LESS interesting and strategic?

[Neofelis]

Planetary bombardement has the aim to destroy everything living on the surface. That means, kind of space B52 unloading their cargo upon cities. It is per se illogical to assume this would take place while troops are on the ground to conquer the planet: not because they could be killed by FF (military never really cares for that, only for what the press makes out of that; humans are cheap: just tell a generation about the values of marriage, about christianity and the glory of your nation and they will breed on....) but because you don´t waste your precious bullets and tanks for some ash and lunar landscape. You´ll want the factories and the mines and the mob centers.

Besides, close air support will hardly produce more "collateral damage" (what a nice NATO word for dying kids, women and other civilians, burned civilian buildings and lots of human tragedy.... Orwell and Goehring would be happy :down: ) than normal tank fire, mortar rounds and stray bullets... lots of damage, but thats why houses in combat zones mostly need fresh paint. I think it´s better to consider close air support as being reflected in the collateral damage setting.

[Ron_Lugge]

Originally posted by Neofelis
military never really cares for that, only for what the press makes out of that; humans are cheap: just tell a generation about the values of marriage, about christianity and the glory of your nation and they will breed on...

Dead wrong.

Please excuse the pun.

[Neofelis]

Originally posted by Ron_Lugge
Dead wrong.

Please excuse the pun.

Excused :) .

Please excuse my oversimplyfication ;)

[Hikari]

Planetary bombardement has the aim to destroy everything living on the surface.

I completely disagree with this statement. If the only intended use for planetary bombardment in the game were totoal annihilation, then why would the option to drop your payload by fourths even exist?

You can't "save" some of your bombardment to use on other planets. You don't lose access to any of the weapons used in battles during the next turn. If you're using planetary bombardment only for the sake of depopulating systems, they're absolutely no reason to ever use the 1/4th option.

By the fact that it's there, I think it's safe to conclude that someone at some point in the design process intended bombardment to be used for more than explosive eviction of a planet's current population. Maybe they intended for it to be used in "softening up" ground forces, and the bugs simply made this function unusable. Maybe they even thought players might like to knock out some of a planet's development (specifically buildings that are [or at least were supposed to] make planets harder to invade, or that could make a prolonged invasion difficult, like Mob Centers) before or during an invasion.

I would have preferred (and still do) that bombing was much more effective as a surgical tool, but more of a political pitfall, and maybe had the effect of causing long-term unrest in the original population of the planet if you bombed prior to or during an invasion (people don't like being liberated by nuclear bombardment, or so I'm told).

I guess there are some people who would alternately prefer seeing it (un)changed to reflect being a tool capable only of glassing planets and causing general, unchecked destruction. To each their own, I guess.

[Norfleet]

Originally posted by Hikari
I completely disagree with this statement. If the only intended use for planetary bombardment in the game were totoal annihilation, then why would the option to drop your payload by fourths even exist?

You can't "save" some of your bombardment to use on other planets. You don't lose access to any of the weapons used in battles during the next turn. If you're using planetary bombardment only for the sake of depopulating systems, they're absolutely no reason to ever use the 1/4th option.

By the fact that it's there, I think it's safe to conclude that someone at some point in the design process intended bombardment to be used for more than explosive eviction of a planet's current population. Maybe they intended for it to be used in "softening up" ground forces, and the bugs simply made this function unusable. Maybe they even thought players might like to knock out some of a planet's development (specifically buildings that are [or at least were supposed to] make planets harder to invade, or that could make a prolonged invasion difficult, like Mob Centers) before or during an invasion.

Bombardment is thoroughly useless for softening up ground forces, because it destroys a much smaller proportion of ground forces than it destroys of what you're trying to capture. At the end setting, you can turn the entire planet into smoldering rubble, and only have killed 40% or less of the actual defenders, even though there's nothing left to defend.

Why can you drop in 4ths? Simple: Trying to see if you can bomb the irritating minorities clogging the planet that they hate, or the Ithkul, so you can attempt to salvage the remaining species. So you drop a bit, inspect the carnage next turn, etc. Still, the bombardment control is nowhere near as precise as MOO2, and with enough of an attacking force, even a single 1/4th bombardment can glass the planet. However, as it stands, bombardment is thoroughly useless for softening a target, because your target will be utterly destroyed before it becomes softened.