the Civ 3 Fleet

Dida · September 24, 2001, 16:23

What are the naval units in Civ3? so far, I know there are
Trireme
Caravel
Frigate
Galleon
Transport
Destoryer
Submarine
Battleships
Carrier
Nuclear Submarine
Aegis Cruiser

Is there any other that I missed?
so, after you get battleship, the next generation naval flag ship would be the Aegis Cruiser? should there be something in between, such as Guided Missile Cruiser to place the battleship. After all, battleships were outdated right after WWII.

GaryGuanine · September 24, 2001, 16:35

You get AEGIS cruisers with Rocketry, right? Then I think the AEGIS cruiser unit sort of represents missile cruisers, too. I agree with you historically, and you could just rename the unit the missile cruiser, and it would make more sense.

And the flagship after WWII? The aircraft carrier!

Gary

Melios · September 24, 2001, 16:41

He mentioned the Aircraft Carrier.

GaryGuanine · September 24, 2001, 16:45

Right, but he asks what the "next generation naval flagship" would be. And that's the aircraft carrier.

Gary

Dida · September 24, 2001, 16:49

nah, you don't get Aeguis Cruiser until Robotic, that at the very end of the game. There should be a missle cruiser unit that comes with Rocketry or something.

Jeffrey Morris FIRAXIS · September 24, 2001, 16:52

Privateer.

Jeff

GaryGuanine · September 24, 2001, 16:55

Yeah, but then there would just be a short time for a single unit that basically does the same thing as the AEGIS cruiser. Maybe you should just get the missile cruiser with Rocketry, and dump the AEGIS altogether.

Of course this is probably all done now, but it's still fun to talk about it.

Gary

The Andy-Man · September 24, 2001, 16:59

erm. you do get agis with rocetry.

Provost Harrison · September 24, 2001, 17:00

Don't the English have a Man of War as well? And of course, the privateer

GaryGuanine · September 24, 2001, 17:04

Yeah, Andy Man's right!

Gary

Dida · September 24, 2001, 17:11

can aeguis cruiser attack enemy ship from tiles away?

Christantine The Great · September 24, 2001, 17:22

Quote:

Originally posted by Jeffrey Morris FIRAXIS
Privateer.

Jeff

Uh, aren't you all going to go crazy about what a privateer is???

Provost Harrison · September 24, 2001, 17:38

We are discussing privateers on another thread somewhere around here, and besides, all those of us who are familiar with Col know what the things are anyway...

GaryGuanine · September 24, 2001, 17:48

Dida,

No, but what I would do is to edit the text files and have submarines and AEGIS cruisers carry cruise and nuclear missiles, it was just a simple 0/1 switch.

Gary

Dida · September 24, 2001, 19:34

i agree Gary, the best thing about Civ is that you can make it the way you want. Well, most of the time.

Patriqvium · September 25, 2001, 00:51

Quote:

Originally posted by Jeffrey Morris FIRAXIS
Privateer.

Jeff

Yes! YES!

Too bad multiplayer isn't in... bugging other human players with those pirate fleets popping out of nowhere without markings would have been fun

colossus · September 25, 2001, 07:21

I hope civ3 would tune down the power of trireme.

In civ2, I always explore half the globe with these little triremes. Way too powerful.

Sigh that there is no naval explorer.

There should be no naval flagship after battleship. the mode of warfare has changed and there is no need for a flagship. Also please remember that battleship is not obsolete technically, just damn too expensive to be a worthwhile investment.

Dida · September 25, 2001, 09:46

Battleship is obselete because it's too expensive, and uneffective in modern naval warfare. Big guns do not work as good as missiles, and large ships are easy targets for enemy aircraft.

DonJoel · September 25, 2001, 10:09

Quote:

Battleship is obselete because it's too expensive, and uneffective in modern naval warfare. Big guns do not work as good as missiles, and large ships are easy targets for enemy aircraft.

Yep. I think that worked pretty good in civ2 were cruise missiles pretty much made dem useless (atleast if you played against the computer which always managed to kill my battleships as soon as they left the city

)

Triped · September 25, 2001, 10:11

Battleships are not quite obsolete. They can still do devestating amounts of damage against shores, etc., provided that they have sufficient protection (it's a lot harder to shoot down a shell than a plane)

GaryGuanine · September 25, 2001, 10:28

Yeah, they always end up taking the battleships out of mothballs whenever a conflict comes along. We keep saying they're obsolete, but then using them in real life.

Gary

Shiva · September 25, 2001, 10:36

Quote:

Originally posted by Dida
Battleship is obselete because it's too expensive, and uneffective in modern naval warfare. Big guns do not work as good as missiles, and large ships are easy targets for enemy aircraft.

Not quite. Big guns dont have the range of missles however are far more usefull for firesupport, far more cheaper than missles, cannot be shot down, and could also be fitted with the same guidance packages that land based shells could (laser guilded, rocket boosters to increase range,ect). Also the American battleships of the 80's carried the same SSM missles of otherships of the fleet.

As for being a easy target because its large thats not quite true either. Yes it would give off a larger radar signature however the difference between detecting it and another ship of smaller size really isnt that big. Also since a battleship has far far armor and quite a few more defensive weapon systems compaired to most modern ships it a hell of alot harder to kill. An Aegis cruiser has better all around missle defense but one good solid hit at its gone. Refitted 1940's battleships may have been too expensive but it was certainly not uneffective.

DonJoel · September 25, 2001, 10:37

My guess is that they are obsolete to a modern attacker since anybody with cruise missiles and bombers wont have any trouble in sinking it, but against ill equipped enemies such as Irak during the Gulf war they can be pretty effective.

Triped · September 25, 2001, 11:16

Iraq*

(couldn't help it)

They're useful against anybody...we have sufficient anti-missile coverage to protect them on the seas (phalanx cannons, Patriots, etc.)

DonJoel · September 25, 2001, 11:21

Double post.

DonJoel · September 25, 2001, 11:23

Sorry, its Irak in swedish

But, I think that using cruise missiles from multiple corvettes and/or airplanes will bring them down quite easily. Or you can use submarines to sneak up on them and take them out with torpedoes.
The reason carriers aint so vulnerable is because they often stay well out of the coastline, something battleships cant do if they are want to use their cannons.

Triped · September 25, 2001, 11:25

True, but our technology is impressive enough that we shouldn't have any troulbe fending off those riff-raff

Xmudder · September 25, 2001, 11:37

I've always felt that the Battleships should be attached to Marine divisions. Material I've read about D-Day claims that the warship bombardment was even more important than the air bombardment. A plane would come in, drop its bombs (often missing, sometimes hitting Allied troops) and fly back to England. Good for interdiciton, bad for battlefield support.
The DDs, CAs, and BBs of D-Day were able to keep a constant barrage of shells, and you could "walk" those shells onto enemy positions with a radio. These ships make incredibly effective floating artillery platforms - a 16" gun is 400 odd mm. Largest common field guns are 155mm (6 inch).
The biggest limitation is range. 16" has a range of about 26 miles, IIRC. 8" sabos have about a 50 mile range. If you aren't that close to the shore, it doesn't help much. Plus, advances in ammo technology has been largely ignored to concentrate on missiles.

But what do I know? I also think the A-10 should be transferred to Army control.

In game terms, I think 4 bombardments at strength 8 up to 2 squares inland is probably an effective compromise. Plus, I doubt Howie's have a range of greater than 1. If the game allows artillary duels like SMAC, that makes BBs a lot of fun against coastal targets.
I wonder what the range on coastal fortifications are?

Given that the English UU is the Man of War (upgraded Frigate), that coastal batteries open fire on passing ships, that you can now have your borders extend into the sea, you can build and charge for a grand canal (Suez, Panama), and that ships can now bombard coastal targets, the naval aspect of this game is going to be interesting.
I always hated it when my Ironclad died trying to kill a settler...

Triped · September 25, 2001, 11:43

I completely empathize with your ironclad

Missiles are very important, but if we had been improving our shells, they could be pretty impressive. The Nazis built a gun that shot 6.5 ton shells...think what we could have had today.

The Andy-Man · September 25, 2001, 11:57

Battleships cost alot of cash, but missles aint exactly cherap and only last for one attack....

the benefit of carriers over a battles ship is a carrier is so far out of range from a counter attack (coastel fortress, other navy etc) and the air unbits (especialyl todays jet fighters) are so fast and efficient that a carrier load of bombers does a hell of alot more damage then a battleship.