Icing on the Cake

Bombardment does seem useless at first. It really shines later on in the game when most of your land is railroaded. Imagine a stacks of 20+ artillery that can be instantly placed anywhere in your territory. Most anything that attacks you can be reduced to one hit point before you ever risk one of your attacking units.

 

Of course, it's really bad when they then capture all 20+ artillery and use them on you...

 

I've found bombardment is particularly useful against cities you intend to raze. It can inflict a coupla crucial points of damage on the defending units, which has a huge affect if you consider the bonuses those units might be getting. It can also reduce city-size, reducing those bonuses. When it destroys improvements, it takes out the barrack first, which I think slows down the healing of units and stops them producing veterans. All good stuff.

The only quibble I have is that, unlike Civ2, stealth bombers seem to come too late to have much of and impact now. Maybe I'm just doing my science wrong. I'll have to whack my scientists a bit harder.

 

**Shrug** Like someone else before me said, I stopped paying attention to this whole deal a LONG time ago. I got the Sept 11th incident as a bday present. But if the Middle East DOES get thier mittens on a nuke, then, well, we are pretty much screwed.

 

Why? They've only got one nuke. I'm not that worried - who's going to nuke Australia?

 

*quickly whips something behind his back*

N-n-noone, Jar. Not US! Why? Why did you ask?

 

No one wants to nuke Australia - the world media wouldn't be upset. Of course, I'd then grab the nearest guns and go off a-killin' the people who did it, their friends, their cousins and so on and so forth.

 

http://www.cnn.com/2002/US/03/06/russia.nuke/index.html