Strategic bombing, tactical bomber

What would you like to see in Freeciv? Do you have a good idea what should be improved or how?
User avatar
XYZ
Elite
Posts: 369
Joined: Fri Jan 31, 2014 12:00 pm

Strategic bombing, tactical bomber

Postby XYZ » Wed Apr 06, 2016 10:52 am

I've always wondered if strategic bombing could be introduced since it is much more that what bombers did in WW2. Destroying homes, factories and infrastructure of cities and not to forget kill humans. I could imagine a city loosing a city structure and/or population per bombing raid but not necessarily units. Odds would depend on if there is a defender e.g. rifleman (also depending on how many) or an anti-aircraft gun structure/unit. Also introducing a tactical bomber for unit combat would close the gap between fighter (more gainst other planes) and bombers (for city destruction).

sveinung
Elite
Posts: 459
Joined: Wed Feb 20, 2013 4:50 pm

Re: Strategic bombing, tactical bomber

Postby sveinung » Thu Apr 07, 2016 8:21 am

At the moment a ruleset can use "Bombard" or regular attack. The result of "Bombard" is: actor spends all his movement, each unit in the city has a risk of being hit and one population is removed from the city (unless the effect Unit_No_Lose_Pop, "City Walls", is active). "Bombard" can't kill a unit or a city.

I could make a strategic bombing action available for ruleset authors. Freeciv 3.0 is the earliest version where that could happen. Would you be able to help testing it if I did? If yes: how much help would you need to test it? (On a scale from "can download the most recent Freeciv 3.0 from SVN, apply custom patches that aren't a part of Freeciv yet, compile the result, change the ruleset and then test it" to "can test it if someone else gives me access to a working version, installs it for me and tell me what ruleset to load")

User avatar
XYZ
Elite
Posts: 369
Joined: Fri Jan 31, 2014 12:00 pm

Re: Strategic bombing, tactical bomber

Postby XYZ » Thu Apr 07, 2016 1:19 pm

each unit in the city has a risk of being hit and one population is removed from the city
even better if you can combine the 3 (with structure loss) with probabilities to emulate the varying precisions bombing had back then.

Would you be able to help testing it if I did?
Unfortunately I have never tested/loaded rulesets. I could do it if isn't to difficult. Unfortunately the AI doesn't use planes for offensive attacks yet wich would allow AI simulations.

I remember now how I used bombers while playing the Colonial Africa Scenario when Greatturn was still working. Pretty useful to kill units in the field but pretty useless against cities (we played with the bombard function from civ2civ3 ruleset).

User avatar
XYZ
Elite
Posts: 369
Joined: Fri Jan 31, 2014 12:00 pm

Re: Strategic bombing, tactical bomber

Postby XYZ » Sat Sep 30, 2017 11:03 am

Grafics are doing some steps ahead so I thought to bring up this again since it would enhance the game by another advanced strategic element. Is the earliest that this could be introduced 3.0 or is there a possible earlier date?

sveinung
Elite
Posts: 459
Joined: Wed Feb 20, 2013 4:50 pm

Re: Strategic bombing, tactical bomber

Postby sveinung » Wed Oct 04, 2017 7:10 am

XYZ wrote:Is the earliest that this could be introduced 3.0 or is there a possible earlier date?


3.0 is the absolute earliest possible date. After 3.0's data file format freeze 3.1 will be the earliest possible date.

sveinung
Elite
Posts: 459
Joined: Wed Feb 20, 2013 4:50 pm

Re: Strategic bombing, tactical bomber

Postby sveinung » Wed Oct 04, 2017 7:50 am

XYZ wrote:even better if you can combine the 3 (with structure loss) with probabilities to emulate the varying precisions bombing had back then.

Is this about "Strategic Bombing", a wish for more than one "Strategic Bombing" variant or a wish for a new variant of "Bombard"?

XYZ wrote: Unfortunately I have never tested/loaded rulesets. I could do it if isn't to difficult. Unfortunately the AI doesn't use planes for offensive attacks yet wich would allow AI simulations.


I think my use of the term "testing" was unclear. An AI simulation can't tell me if my implementation is what you asked for. It is also unable to say: "after playing a bit with this I think that the following change should be made...".

I'll use a different feature, long range bombardment, as an example to explain what sort of testing I'm after. Long range bombardment is easy to test. No need to apply custom patches, download the source code, compile it, install a ruleset or even to install Freeciv it self. This is because Freeciv-web uses it in the Webperimental ruleset. Start Freeciv-web with webperimental. You have now loaded a ruleset with long range bombardment. Play until you can bombard something that isn't at an adjacent tile. Bombard something on a non adjacent tile. You have now done a superficial test of long range bombardment. Play more. Check the corner cases. Does it work as expected? See how it interacts with the other rules. Does it make the game unfair? Report back. You have now done the kind of testing I was asking for.

Would you be willing to do that kind of testing of "Strategic Bombing"? (Is "playtesting" the proper Engish term?)

User avatar
XYZ
Elite
Posts: 369
Joined: Fri Jan 31, 2014 12:00 pm

Re: Strategic bombing, tactical bomber

Postby XYZ » Wed Oct 04, 2017 10:16 am

Is this about "Strategic Bombing"


Yes, destroying the enemy by destroying his infrastructure (city improvements/workforce/rails).

a wish for more than one "Strategic Bombing" variant


Yes, destroying city structures and/or population and/or rails. Depending on what kind for bomber you have:
WWI bomber: total randomness besides little damage and big chance of missing the target
WWII bomber: strong but little effect on small cities and not always precise
cold war bomber and upward: precise population and/or city structure/rail destruction.

or a wish for a new variant of "Bombard


Yes, randomly hitting units inside the city is one element but I imagine also untouched units since the bomb carpet does only hit some and not all parts of the city. Its a combination of destruction types. Bombarding units is only a side effect.
I would leave destroy/heavily-bombard enemy units to dive bombers/attack aircrafts and the big bombers for cities.

I guess I could test it!
Attachments
Dive bomber cannons.gif
Here a dive bomber that I recycled from the fighter
Dive bomber cannons.gif (5.45 KiB) Viewed 2661 times

sveinung
Elite
Posts: 459
Joined: Wed Feb 20, 2013 4:50 pm

Re: Strategic bombing, tactical bomber

Postby sveinung » Tue Nov 26, 2019 1:07 pm

sveinung wrote:3.0 is the absolute earliest possible date. After 3.0's data file format freeze 3.1 will be the earliest possible date.


I failed to get anything done in time for 3.0. On the bright side I managed to brush the dust of "Surgical Strike Building" and have it accepted into 3.1. Does it cover the precise city structure destruction for cold war bomber part of your request? Would "Pillage" cover the precise rail destruction for cold war bomber part?

User avatar
XYZ
Elite
Posts: 369
Joined: Fri Jan 31, 2014 12:00 pm

Re: Strategic bombing, tactical bomber

Postby XYZ » Wed Nov 27, 2019 9:42 am

I failed to get anything done in time for 3.0. On the bright side I managed to brush the dust of "Surgical Strike Building" and have it accepted into 3.1. Does it cover the precise city structure destruction for cold war bomber part of your request? Would "Pillage" cover the precise rail destruction for cold war bomber part?


I don't think time matters at this point anymore :D

But it's wonderful, thank you! I think it's less suited for heavy bombers but more suited for dive bombers/fighter bombers that are employed to take out single buildings with precision.
Due to the imprecision of strategic/heavy bombers I would define their destruction of buildings as random but their destructiveness extended to multiple buildings (or at least the chances). The damage could also be extended to units who lose "health" beside the building destruction when in the city.

Would "Pillage" cover the precise rail destruction for cold war bomber part?


Well, I know pillage more as an action a unit performs over a round meanwhile the bombing (tactical or strategic) I invisioned for infrastructure was more an action that happens in a single turn so you fly over enemy's territory to destroy his railways and then fly back home. The defense to this kind of attack would be employing SAMs and AA guns over your territory that are cloaked so that the enemy bomber is being intercepted or at least his bomber damaged when flying into these anti-aircraft defense units.
Attachments
AA-trio.png
Examples of AA defense...
AA-trio.png (7.67 KiB) Viewed 96 times

sveinung
Elite
Posts: 459
Joined: Wed Feb 20, 2013 4:50 pm

Re: Strategic bombing, tactical bomber

Postby sveinung » Wed Nov 27, 2019 9:37 pm

I'm glad you like it. Personally I have wanted surgical strike against buildings and units in civ-like games since the late 90's. With this pace I'll be done in just a few decades.

To make you idea more concrete I have mapped it to actions. Correct me if I'm wrong or if you have changed your mind.

XYZ wrote:WWI bomber: total randomness besides little damage and big chance of missing the target

"Strategic Bombing" - randomly destroy building, population, extra, damage unit or miss.

XYZ wrote:WWII bomber: strong but little effect on small cities and not always precise

Are you asking for a semi-targeted variant? I mean a variant that has a target but may miss and hit nothing or something else? In that case we need one action for each target kind (unit, population, building, extra). Does strong mean higher probability of doing damage vs "Strategic Bombing"?

XYZ wrote:cold war bomber and upward: precise population and/or city structure/rail destruction.

"Surgical Strike Building" - precise city structure
A variant of Pillage that is instant and can target the adjacent tile (if you wish to destroy rail in cities)
A variant of Poison City that isn't a Spy action.
"Attack Specific Unit" or "Surgical Strike Unit" (planned but not started, could be years away) if you forgot to mention units.