Why doesn't the AI build destroyers?

[Trachmyr]

One way to get the AI to "produce" more destroyers is to edit the Frigate/Ironclad/Privateer to UPGRADE to destroyers. This also has the added benifit of making these units obsolete in the modern era and prevents the AI from building them (unless they lack oil).

I also have changed cruise missiles to include the "Tactical Missile" ability... which does NOT turn it into a nuke (you'd have to add the "Nuclear Weapon" ability) but does allow them to be loaded on subs. I allow the Destroyer to upgrade to the Aegis, and changed the Aegis so it has the same attack as a destroyer but a better defence/bombardment and allow it to carry 2 "Tactical Missiles"... which can be nukes or cruise missiles (I chanded the Nuke Sub to hold 3). I also made both destroyers have 2 better move than Battleships (10 compared to 8).

[Rakki]

the Phalanx is currently being phased out by a new generation of close in defense missiles utilizing Rolling Air-Frame designs which make them *extremely* maneouvrable AND also capable of intercepting incoming missiles at greater ranges.

When you have supersonic warheads inbound, a gatling firing around 2kms isn't really going to be enough - particularly if there are MANY missiles.

Note on battleship armour - while modern anti-shipping missiles are perfectly capable of blowing a huge hole in a modern warship and sinking it, WW2 era battleships are designed to take incoming from VERY BIG guns which lob shells that may weigh a ton or more - your usual ship killing Harpoons and Exocets might be lethal against modern warships but if WW2 era battleships are designed to take MULTIPLE hits AND still be able to FIGHT.

The battleships like the Missouri and the Iowa have been retired however because they are simply too expensive to maintain, resupply, and crew. (it costs about US$100,000 to train, feed and generally keep on the payroll the average enlisted man)


The problem with Civ is that it doesn't have the MOO system of being actually able to upgrade a unit with new technology while remaining the SAME TYPE of unit....

[Wrong_shui]

Originally posted by dexters
Wrong, what difficulty level did you play?

Chieften, warlord and regent.

Yet to see a decent navy other than 4 carvals

[Akka]

Originally posted by Rakki
Note on battleship armour - while modern anti-shipping missiles are perfectly capable of blowing a huge hole in a modern warship and sinking it, WW2 era battleships are designed to take incoming from VERY BIG guns which lob shells that may weigh a ton or more - your usual ship killing Harpoons and Exocets might be lethal against modern warships but if WW2 era battleships are designed to take MULTIPLE hits AND still be able to FIGHT.

I don't think you realize what is actually the destructive power of missiles. WW2 battleships could be designed to take hits from big guns and still be able to float, but I can assure you that any modern missile which hits a WW2 Battleship will sink it in no time.
It's not for nothing that navies now rely on missiles rather than guns : precision and power.


Now back to the game :
The problem in Civ3 navy is that it seems it hasn't been really thought of. When I see things like being able to build carrier when you are not able to build crafts (which is completely stupid both on the realism AND on the gameplay ground), it makes me wonder if Fireaxis team did not just made the quantity of naval units they thought sufficient and then dispatched them quickly in the tech tree without really thinking about it, to be back to other (hopefully more important) matters.

Here is how the modern navies could be (and, in my mind, should), giving each unit a specific role :
1 - Battleship are the fighters and the artillery. They excel at sinking other ships and at bombing the ground. Though, they are very vulnerable to aircraft strike and submarines.

2 - Carriers are the air power provider, they carry aircrafts and basically control all the area in their vicinity. They have additionnal defence against planes, but are very vulnerable to ships and sub attacks. I think their air capacity should goes up to 6 aircraft and NO missiles.

3 - Destroyers are the anti-sub units and the scout, and should be better against them than another naval units and have more movement points. They can fight another ships but not as well by far than battleships, and can defend against aircrafts but only very slightly.

4 - AEGIS cruisers are the modern naval units, and should be versatile. They are good against aircraf, less powerful than battleships (but still good at fighting another ships), and very powerful against submarines. They should have extra defence against missiles, and be able to carry 2 standard missiles (not nukes).

5 - Submarines are invisible and have a BIG bonus when they attack anothers ships. AEGIS cruisers and destroyer, though, can see them and don't suffer from the attack bonus of the sub. Submarines are mainly focused to take out battleships and carriers, and force players to make fleet with destroyer and cruisers.
Nuclear submarines are the same, but more powerful, faster, and have the ability to carry 2 nuke (NOT regular cruise missiles).

I think that this would make the fight on seas more balanced and interesting. Your opinion ?

[Dev]

I don't think you realize what is actually the destructive power of missiles. WW2 battleships could be designed to take hits from big guns and still be able to float, but I can assure you that any modern missile which hits a WW2 Battleship will sink it in no time.

and I can pretty much assure you that there isn't a single non nuke missile in existance that will sink an Iowa class BB in one hit.

/dev

[MudDuck13]

Privateers are nearly useless, unless the AI is using caravals. They very rarely beat a frigate, which you get at the same time on the tech tree. They definitely need to have their attack increased to 2.

[Akka]

Originally posted by Dev


and I can pretty much assure you that there isn't a single non nuke missile in existance that will sink an Iowa class BB in one hit.

/dev

Well, this can be true. But untill proved otherwise (with clear examples of BB being hit and not destroyed, or if you're a weapon engineer or anything like that) I will continue to be sure that a modern heavy missile is able to sink ANY kind of ship if hitting its target in normal circumstances.

[Sevorak]

Rakki's done a pretty good job explaining why Phalanx, or any gun-based CIWS for that matter, isn't so effective against missiles. Phalanx is only a single component of the convergence zone defence that battlegroups use, that being F-14's to intercept missiles at the outer zones, then AEGIS guided SM-2 missiles for the next ring, closer to the ships, then Sea Sparrow and finally Phalanx to catch the leakers, which isn't so effective because Phalanx itself is very short ranged. When I said effectively useless, I meant that Phalanx alone does not constitute a viable antimissile system - you need the other components for Phalanx to catch leakers off of. It doesn't do the job by itself, so in ship v ship combat you can effectively ignore it.

As for battleships, they aren't encased in a solid shell of steel. Their armour is located in a belt surrounding the ship designed to catch and deflect incoming shells. Incoming gunshells have a fairly typical expected flight path, and it's not the same as that of missiles. Missiles don't even need to hit the armour belt - and in fact, they don't, slamming into the upper superstructure in a normal missile strike area. True, this won't be sinking it, but with both its firing directors gone, all the instruments and uplinks from other ships, plus a good degree of the crew, it's dead in the water until someone drydocks it for a year. In Navy parlance, this is a mission-kill - it's not dead, but it's as good as dead for the mission.

If they wanted to, they could probably design something to penetrate the armour anyway, one foot of steel isn't going to stop the newest-generation weaponry. There are shoulder mounted weapons nowadays that can go right through a foot of steel. But why go through it when they can just go around it?

-Sev

[StevanVB]

Sevorak,

nice post, but I fear you got a couple of points wrong,

you wrote:
"A Gulf War remodernized battleship differs from the 1945 version by:

16x Harpoon missiles in box launchers with an inadequate targeting system,
4x Phalanx CIWS that are effectively useless,
32x TLAM (note: not TASM!) in ABL's as well.

In modern ship to ship combat the guns are useless so we ignore them.

The modern destroyer perforce carries:

2x Phalanx CIWS that are effectively useless,
8 cell Sea Sparrow SAM,
21 missile Mk 49 RAM (anti cruise missile),
61 cell Mk 41 VLS, which can be assumed to hold 8 Harpoons and 53 SM-2 SAMs, but could be part TASM, part SAM as well)"

First off, TASM is dead. Yup, dead as a doornail. They took it out of service shortly after the collapse of the USSR, some time before the 2nd Gulf War.
The reason for this was, that targeting missiles at moving ships over some 500nm is no easy task. It couldn´t be safeguarded, that the things would rather hit the Pacific Princess cruising in the area than Mr. Baddie´s boat.

Apart from that, I recall writing that a battleship -GIVEN THE SAME TECHNOLOGICAL LEVEL- would beat a destroyer hands down.
Now, you are comparing a WW2-vintage battleship which was (slightly) modernized some time in the 80s to the latest batch of Arleigh-Burke class destroyers ("destroyers", which, given their size and firepower rather classify as cruisers - if it wasn´t easier to get them through Congress as the former...).
Now this is, as you might realize, not what I meant.

Rather, the comparison should be between either:
a. the 80s modernized BB vs. an 80s destroyer (note: the first Burkes were introduced in the 90s, AFTER the Gulf War).
or
b. the latest Burke vs. a -hypothetical, as there are none- modern battleship with the very same top-notch equipment.
You just need to extrapolate the vast increase in displacement and armament of destroyers since WW2 and apply it to BBs.

That would be a somewhat fairer comparison imo.

Now to the other points you made pitting an Iowa against a Burke:

"As the missiles bear down on the battleship, its Phalanx CIWS uselessly spatter the air with bullets. The missiles start slamming into the battleship, and it starts taking serious damage."

We´re talking Harpoon IA-D (as TASM is out, this is the only ASM left in US arsenals these days). These missiles (xept ID) aren´t exactly known for their innovative final approaches, as this capability isn´t very much needed now the Soviet Navy´s gone (potential enemies nowadays don´t have very sophisticated AAW systems) Phalanx therefore has quite a good chance against IA, B, OK vs. IC and still viable against ID.
Also, they have minuscule warheads, at least compared to what ye ole battlewaggons were built to survive.
True, gunshells don´t carry highly combustible fuel, yet much of the modernization work done on the Iowas was aimed at making those things as "fire-proof" as possible (they were brought out of mothballs to counter the Sov´s Kirov-class guided-missile "battlecruisers"), so they should shrug them off easily.


"Chances are, the destroyer (which actually HAS antimissile defence) will live rather than the battleship, whose designed defence was always the armor (and against modern warheads, that's a no-go)."

Still, 16 Harpoons are better than 8. The DD wouldn´t be able to hurt the BB much, whereas one, single hit by those 16-inchers (and no, they didn´t still use the WWII-era targeting directors in the 90s!) would give the Burke some MAJOR flooding problems.
Furthermore, modern warheads are designed to damage modern ships, i.e. unarmoured tin-cans (OK, they´ve improved that aspect with the Burkes and other modern escorts, but still), so they´re not really up to the job.

"Naval guns are outdated,..."
Nope.
This is from an article on the next generation of US surface combattants:

*United Defense has been awarded the contract to develop the ship's Advanced Gun System (AGS) for both Blue and Gold teams. The 155mm gun is equipped with a fully automated weapon handling and storage system and a family of advanced munitions and propelling charges. Low-rate initial production of the gun is scheduled for 2006 and 2007 and for the land attack projectiles from 2008 and 2009.

The gun is a conventional single-barrel low-signature gun with fast reaction, fully stabilised train and elevation, integrated system control and all-electric drives. The gun provides a high rate of fire at approximately 12 rounds/min in maximum and sustained firing modes with a 750-round magazine. The gun provides firepower against a range of littoral and inland targets as well as highly advanced gunfire capabilities for anti-surface warfare.

The gun and munitions are being developed concurrently to achieve a maximum range of 100nm (with rocket assist). The family of munitions is expected to include land attack and ballistic projectiles. Technologies derived from the US Navy's extended range guided munition (ERGM), the US Army 155mm XM-982 projectiles and the DTRA 5 inch projectile are being studied for incorporation into the projectile suite.*

Just imagine a modern version of the battleship equipped with such guns plus top-notch sensors and missile-based CIWS.
Why they aren´t built?
Well, what for? To smite whom?
CVBGs do their job well enough, actually, given the lack of a proper enemy navy (the odd missile-boat doesn´t count), the maintenance of those is already hard to justify (at least to leftie tree-huggers, that is...). A modern BB lobbing several dozen tons of iron per minute 100++ nm inland/to sea would be a nice addition to any fleet, but also a mighty big overkill!

"As for your naval theories, destroyers may be smaller, but that hardly makes them expendable."

Expendable doesn´t equal wasteable, but even today´s high-powered DDs and FFs are still nothing more than escorts (although they ARE becoming more like cruisers, i.e. capable of independent ops.).
If you lose one, it´s bad, but still way better than losing a carrier, LPH or LPD.
The UK lost five destroyers and frigates during the Falklands war.
Why?
Because they sat there in San Carlos water, taking bomb hits while protecting the landing force.
It was a loss, but thanks to their sacrifice the troops were able to disembark mostly unharmed, the isles were liberated and the war was won.

"They are some of the most valuable and versatile parts of the fleet."

Versatile- big YES
Valuable- ditto
but also -in relation to other units- EXPENDABLE


"Supercarriers are not adequately represented either"
Agree 100%.
Modded my CVs to carry 6 air units. Still isn´t very impressive, esp. due to the incomprehensible feature that bombardment can´t kill (at least naval) units.

Finally, concerning WWI & II DD vs BB odds it must be stated that theory doesn´t quite always match up with reality.
True, the average destroyer´s torpedoes of that era could, theoretically, if several of them hit a BB (esp. the WWI ones) in short sequence, kill it.
Guess what? It didn´t happen. As far as I can remember (unfortunately I don´t have my sources at hand right now) not a single battleship or -cruiser was sunk by destroyers in either war.
No FUNCTIONING BBs, that is. Destroyer´s and cruiser´s torps were often used to deal the killing stroke to BBs previously "silenced" and disabled (=dead in the water) by other BBs (happened to Bismarck, for example).
The reasons for this lack of success were that all except the British and Japanese torps had pretty unreliable detonators, that the torp launchers on deck couldn´t be used in bad weather, that both the BBs and their escorts could throw a barrage of shells at DDs which had to come very close to make their torp runs and, most importantly, that it was bloody hard to hit a fast-moving target with unguided torpedoes back then.

Anyways, what I´d like to see is destroyers as your (&the enemy´s) main naval unit in CivIII. The backbone and eyes of the fleet, as this is what is closest to their historical, real-life role.
Battleships should, like carriers, be the rare, powerful beasts, that, however, still need lots of screening by DDs and cruisers as you wouldn´t want to lose them to some nasty sub or a sudden enemy onslaught.


Cheers!
Steve

[dexters]

Boom


is all that matters

[GePap]

Originally posted by StevanVB
Finally, concerning WWI & II DD vs BB odds it must be stated that theory doesn´t quite always match up with reality.
True, the average destroyer´s torpedoes of that era could, theoretically, if several of them hit a BB (esp. the WWI ones) in short sequence, kill it.
Guess what? It didn´t happen. As far as I can remember (unfortunately I don´t have my sources at hand right now) not a single battleship or -cruiser was sunk by destroyers in either war.
No FUNCTIONING BBs, that is. Destroyer´s and cruiser´s torps were often used to deal the killing stroke to BBs previously "silenced" and disabled (=dead in the water) by other BBs (happened to Bismarck, for example).
The reasons for this lack of success were that all except the British and Japanese torps had pretty unreliable detonators, that the torp launchers on deck couldn´t be used in bad weather, that both the BBs and their escorts could throw a barrage of shells at DDs which had to come very close to make their torp runs and, most importantly, that it was bloody hard to hit a fast-moving target with unguided torpedoes back then.



Cheers!
Steve

If you read up on the history of the battle of Leyte gulf, you will see that the Southern Japanese taskforce, with 2 BB's and various other units, was crippled trying to run a strait while heading right into aline of old US Battlewagons. You will also read that in that engaement it was torpodeos launched by us destroyers and PT boats that did the most damage. Unitl the advent of radar (which the japanese id not have in WW2 ships) hitting anything was difficult [I will add that this engagement was at night] so it is possible for a DD to make a run, launch a spread of trops, and try to get the hell out without the missfortune to take any heavy shells from the BB. Is it likely, no, can it happen? Yes. besides, how many battles do we know of in which single BB's took on single DD's? The thing closest to that was when the Japanese Central force (as opposed to the northern force of CV's) with 4 BB's and other heavy cruisers caught the small group of escorts, DD's and escort CV's protecting the landing beaches in Leyte Gulf- and the US won that because of heroic and oft suicidal attacks by the little US crafts and the planes from the escort CV's which scared the Japanese commander enough for him to retreat(in the act saving the landing forces)

[Venger]

Originally posted by Akka le Vil

I don't think you realize what is actually the destructive power of missiles. WW2 battleships could be designed to take hits from big guns and still be able to float, but I can assure you that any modern missile which hits a WW2 Battleship will sink it in no time.
It's not for nothing that navies now rely on missiles rather than guns : precision and power.

Are you out of your mind? You think an Exocet or other modern ASM weapon can take out an Iowa class? Come on... the only effective weapon against a BB is either MASSIVE bombing or a hell of a torpedoing...

Now back to the game :
The problem in Civ3 navy is that it seems it hasn't been really thought of.

I consider it overall a step backwards from Civ2. While bombarment is nice, as is the removal of stack death, overall, the navy is rather bland. It seemed like the Civ2 navy was much richer in options...

When I see things like being able to build carrier when you are not able to build crafts (which is completely stupid both on the realism AND on the gameplay ground), it makes me wonder if Fireaxis team did not just made the quantity of naval units they thought sufficient and then dispatched them quickly in the tech tree without really thinking about it, to be back to other (hopefully more important) matters.

Dude, you could remove "naval units" and insert nearly anything about the game and have a good case...

Here is how the modern navies could be (and, in my mind, should), giving each unit a specific role :
1 - Battleship are the fighters and the artillery. They excel at sinking other ships and at bombing the ground. Though, they are very vulnerable to aircraft strike and submarines.

I liked Civ2 BB's - they rule the seas but are instant cruise missile magnets, requiring AEGIS support to survive and bring their heavy cannon to bear. Before AEGIS and cruise, they rule the seas...just like real life. Although bombers can get them at times...

2 - Carriers are the air power provider, they carry aircrafts and basically control all the area in their vicinity. They have additionnal defence against planes, but are very vulnerable to ships and sub attacks. I think their air capacity should goes up to 6 aircraft and NO missiles.

They can carry MISSILES???? You gotta be kidding me...

3 - Destroyers are the anti-sub units and the scout, and should be better against them than another naval units and have more movement points. They can fight another ships but not as well by far than battleships, and can defend against aircrafts but only very slightly.

See, we keep moving between eras when discussing DD's. Current DD's deploy the AEGIS and have awesome AA capability. They also have good ASW capability as well. However, older DD's provided good ASW, just okay AA, but also decent fire and bombardment support - they participated in numerous bombardments in WW2. I like the DD when it can detect subs, has about an 8/8 strength, and 7 move. I like that unit.

4 - AEGIS cruisers are the modern naval units, and should be versatile. They are good against aircraf, less powerful than battleships (but still good at fighting another ships), and very powerful against submarines. They should have extra defence against missiles, and be able to carry 2 standard missiles (not nukes).

Is there a x2 versus air unit flag in Civ3? It was useful in Civ2... I think we need two cruisers, the traditional heavy AA and fire support escort cruiser, and the later fire control AEGIS model...

5 - Submarines are invisible and have a BIG bonus when they attack anothers ships. AEGIS cruisers and destroyer, though, can see them and don't suffer from the attack bonus of the sub. Submarines are mainly focused to take out battleships and carriers, and force players to make fleet with destroyer and cruisers.

Submarines actually have historically been poor hunters of capital ships - but have absolutely RAPED merchant shipping. Modern subs are better at attacking formal capital ships, but due to the nature of the battle group, likely won't survive to get close enough to one. Sure, there are examples of sub attacks on capital ships, but they usually were either isolated (Indianapolis) or already crippled (wasn't the Lex sunk limping back to Pearl?). There are LOADS more examples of subs just not coming home...

Nuclear submarines are the same, but more powerful, faster, and have the ability to carry 2 nuke (NOT regular cruise missiles).

Huh? They cannot carry cruise missiles? Hmmm...I think they should be able to carry either, most nuke ships can launch tube launched ASW and LAMs, even boomers, which are nukes, but not all nukes are boomers...I created two subs in Civ2, the regular version, slightly weakened, and the Fast Attack, slightly strengthened and with +2 move. Most fast attacks can easily trip the mid 30's submerged...

I think that this would make the fight on seas more balanced and interesting. Your opinion ?

Variety is the spice of life, but we have little in the current system. I would like to see, as far as naval units go:

Cruisers - the traditional type, 12/12 with a range two bombardment
Assault Carriers (carries only helicopter and marine units)
PT Boat - high speed, decent attack, very small defend, maybe an 8/3/9 - the mounted warrior of the sea...

That would add some needed spice to what is now a bad naval mix...also, I'd have most capital combat ships same A/D - the means the battleship goes to 18/18. I'll likely be trying for the definitive combat mods once my current game is done and I have seen the whole kit and kaboodle in action...

Venger

[Karhgath]

I've been playing around to see how I could balance all that, and I think I've found a solution(probably not the best tho). The solution is to use Bombard for modern ships and submarines instead of the standard Attack rating.

3 new ships :

PT Boat
A fast and small assault ship with torpedoes.
A: 8
D: 4
M: 8
Bombard Str: 8
Bombard Range: 1
Bombard Rate of Fire: 3
Cost: 8
Require: Oil
Prerequisite: Mass Production

Nuclear Carrier
Goal is to be a little more modern than old WW2 carriers, and a little faster to keep up with modern ships. Also, more ship capacity.
A: 1
D: 10
M: 6
Capacity: 8
Cost: 20
Required: Uranium
Prerequisite: Nuclear Power

Missile Destroyer
Ok, this is the modern Destroyer. His main weapon is now his missiles(bombard), instead of having torpedoes. With Blitz, he can bombard instead of attacking, so he's at a safe distance, and others cannot counterattack. So, if a Battleship attack a MD, the MD will loose, but if he is wise and stay far and pound the Battleship with missiles, the MD will probably win. He's a kind of pre-AEGIS cruiser, but still a destroyer class. The defense is upped due to new missiles defenses.
A: 8
D: 10
M: 6
Bombard Str: 10
Bombard Range: 2
Bombard Rate of Fire: 2
Cost: 15
Required: Oil
Prerequisite: Rocketry
Zone of Control
Blitz


Changes to old units :

Cruise Missiles
This is something everyone wanted for a long time.
Tactical Missile -> Can be used by Missile Destroyer and Nuclear Submarine.

Submarines
See below
Bombard Str: 8
Bombard Range: 1
Bombard Rate of Fire: 3


Nuclear Submarines
See below. Increased capacity.
M: 4 (previous 3)
Bombard Str: 8
Bombard Range: 1
Bombard Rate of Fire: 3
Capacity: 2 (previous 1)

This gives submarines actually an advantage. They can use bombard, and the engage the ship, which makes the more useful because they should already be weakened by the bombard(it would be because of surprise). However, they can bombard shores =(( Oh well, nothing's perfect.


Destroyer
Made the Destroyer a little faster than Battleships, so that they can be more useful and cost-effective compare to Battleships. Also, I gave them better 'torpedoes'. That means destroyers can be use to weaken heavier ships. Because of that, I lowered their Attack rating to 8.
A: 8 (previous 12)
M: 6 (previous 5)
Bombard Str: 8
Bombard Range: 1
Bombard Rate of Fire: 3
Upgrade to Missile Destroyer

AEGIS Cruiser
Ok. So, what is the difference between AEGIS and the Missile Destroyer? A lot. The AEGIS is a cruiser, so a little bigger and heavier than destroyers. Here, they have the same defense as Battleships. Best bombard, don't required Uranium(that was silly), and they can 'blitz' like the Missile Destroyer. Move changed to 6, to make it as fast as all other 'modern' ships.
D: 12 (previous)
M: 6 (previous 5)
Bombard Str: 12 (previous 4)
Cost: 18 (previous 16)
Removed Uranium requirement
Added Oil Requirement
Added Blitz

Carrier
Only 4 aircraft was silly. Ok, right now air superiority is screwed, so you don't need fighters on carriers, but as soon as this will be patched, you will need those. Also changed prerequisite to Advanced Flight for many reasons : Advanced flight was useless, You could build carriers before you could build aircraft(silly), and I think it somewhat makes sense.
Capacity: 6 (previous 4)
Prerequisite: Advanced Flight (previous Mass Production)


This is a suggestion for a MOD file. I am not a ship and a military buff, so I posted those here before making a mod, what do you think of it? Is the Blitzing Missile Destroyer and AEGIS too powerful? Nothing is balanced in-game, I haven't made the patch yet, just changes suggestions. Need your advice here =) I think the submarines are more usefull now, they can nearly sink a regular or veteran ship before really attacking, making it really a ship's killer. I don't want to make an accurate MOD either, because a LOT of things would have to change, but I just want to make the current ships a little more useful/realistic, while remaining the spirit of the game.

[Venger]

Originally posted by Karhgath
PT Boat
A fast and small assault ship with torpedoes.
A: 8
D: 4

Too high. If a PT boat were to actually be attacked, it'd likely get it's ass spanked. I'd keep it 3 - it is very, very vulnerable to any enemy fire, even a .50 cal will rip up your average PT boat.

M: 8

Come on, don't be stingy, give it 9 - it's a fast attack boat after all...

Bombard Str: 8
Bombard Range: 1
Bombard Rate of Fire: 3

NOOO!!!! No bombardment. I don't need a PT boat destroying my irrigation and mines on my coast...

Nuclear Carrier
Goal is to be a little more modern than old WW2 carriers, and a little faster to keep up with modern ships. Also, more ship capacity.

Supercarrier is the unit name you are looking for...

Missile Destroyer
Ok, this is the modern Destroyer
A: 8
D: 10
M: 6
Bombard Str: 10
Bombard Range: 2
Bombard Rate of Fire: 2
Cost: 15
Required: Oil
Prerequisite: Rocketry
Zone of Control
Blitz

I don't think we need this unit...

Submarines
See below
Bombard Str: 8
Bombard Range: 1
Bombard Rate of Fire: 3

ARRGHH! I don't need subs destroying my irrigation and mines on my coastal squares...

Destroyer
Made the Destroyer a little faster than Battleships, so that they can be more useful and cost-effective compare to Battleships. Also, I gave them better 'torpedoes'. That means destroyers can be use to weaken heavier ships. Because of that, I lowered their Attack rating to 8.
A: 8 (previous 12)
M: 6 (previous 5)
Bombard Str: 8
Bombard Range: 1
Bombard Rate of Fire: 3

I'd like to see most surface combat vessels have the same A/D strength unless otherwise logical - the 8/6 may make sense attacking a battleship, but not when being attacked by an ironclad. Let's even the strengths.

AEGIS Cruiser
Ok. So, what is the difference between AEGIS and the Missile Destroyer? A lot. The AEGIS is a cruiser, so a little bigger and heavier than destroyers. Here, they have the same defense as Battleships. Best bombard, don't required Uranium(that was silly), and they can 'blitz' like the Missile Destroyer. Move changed to 6, to make it as fast as all other 'modern' ships.
D: 12 (previous)
M: 6 (previous 5)
Bombard Str: 12 (previous 4)
Cost: 18 (previous 16)
Removed Uranium requirement
Added Oil Requirement
Added Blitz

Unless it Civ3 has a x2 versus air flag, the AEGIS notion is useless. It's just a GMC.

Carrier
Only 4 aircraft was silly. Ok, right now air superiority is screwed, so you don't need fighters on carriers, but as soon as this will be patched, you will need those. Also changed prerequisite to Advanced Flight for many reasons : Advanced flight was useless, You could build carriers before you could build aircraft(silly), and I think it somewhat makes sense.
Capacity: 6 (previous 4)
Prerequisite: Advanced Flight (previous Mass Production)

Considering that a single air unit really doesn't represent a single plane, I think the 4 unit total was okay.

Good shots at this. Watch the bombardment rule, it'll make for goofy gameplay. Otherwise, some decent changes.

Venger

[TrailerParkJawa]

Originally posted by Dev


and I can pretty much assure you that there isn't a single non nuke missile in existance that will sink an Iowa class BB in one hit.

/dev

First, I think this is a great thread. Like many of you I wish naval units were of more importance. This goes for Civ 2 and Civ 3.

I agree with /dev, an IOWA class BB as it was during the Gulf War is a very survivable ship. Invulnerable ? No. But an Exocet or Harpoon missle would not do much harm.

Look at the Stark, it was hit by two missles and survived, although no longer capbable of combat. And that was a Perry class frigate with an aluminum superstructure. A steel ship like the Missouri would shrug off hits like that.

Of course alot of what we are talking about is just opinions. There have been very few instances of modern naval combat.
During the Gulf war two of our ships hit mines, an amphib and an Aegis cruiser.

Did you know that the IRAQi's launched two missles at one of the battleships ?? One missed, and the other was shot down by a British escort.

Anyhoo, back to units in the game. I think the idea of the Privateer is really cool!

But the attack value of 1 is way bad!

[Sevorak]

Stevan,

I'm aware TASM is currently dead...but so are the battleships, like two are museums and two are in Class B Inactive Reserve. They're similarly dead as a coffin-nail ("never understood why they always said 'door-nail' - I always felt a coffin nail was more dead" )

As for the comparison, you'd be surprised. I'm in fact describing a second-generation Spruance 'can, not a Burke.

But let's go with Harpoon 1C. My point is that the missile strikes above the armour belt, so the battleship's armour becomes completely irrelevant. However non-innovative the missile's flight path is, it still doesn't look anything like a shell's, and even though it's subsonic, Phalanx can't stop more than one or two.

What's the range of Harpoon 1C? Well, the Navy gives it as >60 nautical miles. I'll go with that. What's the range of the 16"/50's? Barely a third that at about 20 nautical miles. The destroyer does not need to, and will not, get into range. I mentioned the directors simply because the BB's link to its Predator unmanned drone will be cut by the first missile to strike it, disabling all of its radar and radio antennae.

The AGS is meant for fire support, not ships going gun-to-gun on the high seas again. The time of flight on ERGM is something like 7-9 MINUTES and it's only ever been recorded to have a 61 nautical mile range. Plus, after the first 20 rounds, severe degradation of the barrel occurs, forcing a reduction in fire rate and necessitating a barrel change. These problems have not yet been resolved, they're simply expecting them to be by 2006 or so. Note that ERGM was to have been operational by 2002 but the aforementioned problems with the barrel were not satisfactorily addressed. In modern ship-to-ship combat, forget the guns. It's that simple.

Battleships aren't really overkill, but it depends on your definition. For one thing, they're painfully inaccurate, with a CEP of about 50 yards, IIRC. Secondly, they can't deliver as much explosive power as a carrier can. I don't recall where I last saw the math, but one carrier and its airwing on average deliver ten times the weight of fire in the same time. Carriers certainly aren't the new capital ship because they're cheap alternatives to battleships! (Compare the cost of a new CVN to $100 million to run one battleship for five years)

TrailerParkJawa,

Oliver Hazard Perry class frigates have designed modularity and compartmentalization. They deal with damage in a different way than battleships. It also didn't hurt that the men of the Stark performed some excellent damage control.

Venger,

You dont need to take out an Iowa class. Remove the radar and radio antennae and you win, since it can't fire its own missiles, talk to its Predator to fire its own missiles, or do anything other than flail its guns in the air. And yes, given enough missiles you WILL take out an Iowa class, simply because they'll strike all around the armour belt, they won't conform to the deflection standards built into the armour (intended to deflect shells) and they'll generally wreak havoc on all the parts of the BB that aren't guarded by a foot of steel, which just happens to be a large part of the superstructure.

Karhgath,

I think that if, in Civ style, we limit ourselves to major combatants, it doesn't need to get too crazy. Destroyer, Cruiser, Battleship, Carrier, Submarine to form the WWII group. Assuming that the Ironclad, which is the only unit we can use before as a comparison, remains 4.4.4 (4).1.2 and 80 shields....
DD ~ 8.8.8 (8).1.2 90 (assuming some sort of Gearing/Sumner type thing...6x5"/38)
CA ~ 14.14.8 (12).1.3 120(Baltimore approximation...9x8"/55)
BB ~ 42.42.8 (24).2.4 280 (Iowa approximation 9x16"/50)
CV ~ 8.8.8 (8).1.2 carry4 200 (Essex approx....12x5"/38)
SS ~ 14.8.5 100 (something Barbel and Tang like)
Advances to gain these ships would probably be Refining, Combustion, Mass Production, Flight, Combustion.

The reason why surface ship AD has to be the same is because it really doesn't matter in naval battle who's attacking who first - you see each other from miles out of range and both have a pretty good idea of what to do.

Modern Age then would be composed of Missile Destroyer, Missile (AEGIS) Cruiser, Supercarrier, Nuclear Fast-Attack Submarine.
DDG ~ 64.64.8 (4).1.2 200 (Using as the base the Spruance 'can)
CG ~ 70.70.8 (4).1.2 220 (Ticonderoga base)
CVN ~ 0.6.8 carry12 240 (Nimitz)
SSN ~ 72.24.8 200 (688I or Seawolf)

Advances necessary here, for balance purposes, would be Space Flight (the modern DDG doesn't actually show up before 1969), Robotics, Robotics, and Smart Weapons.

Then again, I'm weighing in extremely heavily on the realism side here, and against the game balance side. While the 64.64.8 DDG will thrash the 8.8.8 WWII DD as it should (the WWII DD having no antimissile defence and no missiles) the game implications of a nine or so tech advantage translating into a unit with that much power could be...overwhelming. So don't take this seriously.

I think the major points that really break the possibility of a "good" naval system is that the Defence value must be the same against air, sea, or submarine. That, and that ships can bombard other ships, which is somewhat odd...but livable if the bombard value didn't have to count for both sea and ground.

Just as matters of minor note: AEGIS cruisers are actually not bigger or significantly more heavily armed than destroyers. In fact, the Spruance destroyer and the Ticonderoga AEGIS cruiser are built off the same base, and effectively differ only in the number of SAMs they carry (and the presence of the AEGIS computer/SPY radar, but newer missile destroyers i.e. the Japanese Kongo and American Burke classes make up that deficiency somewhat). An amusing note is that the Destroyer unit, since it looks like a Spruance, looks very similar to an AEGIS cruiser (Ticonderoga) while the AEGIS cruiser unit itself depicts a Burke (a destroyer). Anyway, the CG's greater number of SAMs gives it a slight edge in combat, but not that much of one.

-Sev

[Karhgath]

I know bombard shouldn't be used for that, but I'm in a game and currently trying it out... and you are right, it just doesnt work =) The AI never use bombard on units, or rarely, so thet just use subs and all to bombard coast... bad idea, sorry =) Submarines should be able to attack first without the ship firing back at it if they can't see it, then the combat goes on as normal. That's wht I tried to use th Bombard as a kind of torpedo launcher or something.

As for the carrier, well, I read somewhere WW2 era carriers had around 55-65 crafts(both fighters and bombers), so I averaged to 60 and divided by 10(10 units per squad... which I have no idea if it's realistic, hehe). The prob is there is no distinction between fighters and bombers on a carrier. Oh well. Modern day super carrier have about 75-85 aircrafts, and I used the same thing as above. Proportionally, it should be about right. However, remember that, right now, puting fighters on carriers is just useless, you only have to put bombers. However, when air superiority will be fixed, putting a couple of fighter on the carrier to protect it from air raid will be very useful, so that's why I upped the value a little. If you really want, we could make it 3/4 respectively, but I don't think it's enough.

Too high. If a PT boat were to actually be attacked, it'd likely get it's ass spanked. I'd keep it 3 - it is very, very vulnerable to any enemy fire, even a .50 cal will rip up your average PT boat.

Come on, don't be stingy, give it 9 - it's a fast attack boat after all...

NOOO!!!! No bombardment. I don't need a PT boat destroying my irrigation and mines on my coast...

Ok, the prob is against frigate and all, so it will probably be some play testing here for Defense. As for he speed, 9 would be about 45-50 knots. I have no idea of the speed of PT Boats, so enlighten me here =) And yes, I will remove bombardment, I wanted to portray torpedoes run with that, but like i said above, it was a stupid idea =)

Thanks for the supercarrier... I knew it was the name, probably just forgot about it, lol. As for the missile destroyer, it's the modern destroyer, with a better bombard(missiles) and a little more defense(improves anti-missiles defenses).

Well, the destroyer is 8/8/6. So yes, it has the same attack and defense actually, the 6 is the move attribute =)

I know AEGIS is not that different from a standard cruiser/missile destroyer without x2 vs Air... There should be values such as torpedoes, missiles, anti-missile, anti-aircraft, etc., but there is none, so I guess it's back where we were =)


Sevorak:
Thnaks for the info =) You are right, the AEGIS(Ticonderoga) is not that bigger than a Sprudance, about 4 feet, lol. A little smaller displacement too. So really, without a x2 vs Air, it's kinda a destroyer, totally useless. Maybe making it able to carry tac missiles and cruiser missiles?

And damn, those numbers are big =) I agree they could substancially be bigger, and than modern tech is a lot better than older tech which is now mostly obselete and useless, but still... maybe not THAT high =) And, if we look at the Civ3 combat system, I'm not sure putting these numbers so high will REALLY change the 'lucky' outcomes. We'll have to playtest that.

One last thing. 12 carry for a supercarrier and only 4 for a WWI Essex carrier? Supercarriers carry about 85, so 85/12 ~= 7. 7x4 = 28 aircraft. I dunno how much the essex could carry, but it seems low. Again, there is no difference between the size of a fighter and the size of a bomber in Civ3.