Do you think airplanes should be able to sink ships?

[Dmc507]

I understand their reasoning behind not allowing air units to kill ships and ground units (as I read why they did that in their post), but lets be serious. After the Japenese bombed Pearl, did they have to bring their battleships in to finish them off? What about at the battle of Midway? Or Coral Sea? I could stand it if the first air units available in the game were not allowed to sink ships, but modern units come on! If during the cold war russia started bombarding Los Angeles with battleships, do you think we would of just let them do it untill some of our ships arrived? No we would of attacked them with aircraft and sunk their entire fleet. The people who will flame me and tell me that I just can not adapt to the game are full of crap. I can play it like this just fine, but it is not that fun. I can adapt just fine. I can already beat the game pretty easily at the higher dificulty level. Now concering ground units, what the heck do you think we are doing right now in afghanastan? Our bombings have killed so many of their soldiers its ridiculus. What do you think the A-10 was built for? If they dont want to allow normal air units to sink ships or kill ground units, then there should be additional aircraft that you can build that have very specific duties. I.E. close air support aircraft like the A-10 It could kill ground units, but couldnt do air support, or bomb citys, or sink ships. You would also have an anti-ship aircraft that would be capable of sinking ships but couldnt do anything else. Although I would actually really like the idea of having specialized aircraft (just like in reall life) I would be happy with normal air units being capable of such things. Finaly, if they do not want to make it so that ships and ground units can be killed by air units, they should at least make it an option in the editor so those who do want aircraft to actualy be usfull, just like in real life. Right now, i dont build anything but artierly and tanks.

-Dmc507

go ahead and call me a newbie or unable to adapt if you want, but I'm sorry, air power is much more powerfull in real life. So much that it is now the side the best airforce that wins wars. If you think that Air craft are now usefull for killing anything, then you are as blind as all of the Generals that told Billy Mitchell that aircraft had no real place in war. Civ 3 only effectivly models warfare up to WWI.

[Moraelin]

Personally I think that ENOUGH bombardment, both airplanes and AND artillery should kill ANYTHING. (Yes, even if I don't kill the very last soldier who's crapping his pants in a hole. If a unit has been severely decimated, it will bugger off. Defect, retreat for total refitting, whatever.)

Fact: most of the kills in modern warfare are NOT due to rifles. It's done by crew manned weapons, including tanks, airplanes, artillery and machineguns. Infantry IS vital, but they're not the ones doing most of the killing.

I also think that bombardment should produce suppression. A unit that's been heavily fired upon, should have less offense and defense, and be more likely to retreat. That goes for both attack and defense, both AI and player units, so please don't tell me it's TOO unbalanced Elite units should, of course, be a lot less susceptible to become suppressed than conscripts.

BUT, I think bombardment should be less effective than assault. E.g., let each bombardment only take one hit point off that unit. Maybe two if they pull a critical hit roll. Like roll attack vs defense a second time if I hit, and if that hits, too, call it a critical hit.

So basically what I'm saying is: I'd need more than one airplane unit to kill one sea unit in one turn. I'd need more than one artillery unit to kill an enemy ground unit in one turn. So, no, howitzers wouldn't become more valuable than tanks, but they wouldn't be totally useless either.

Also, make the to-hit ratio depend on how many men are left in that unit. (I.e., a unit that only has 1 hp left would be harder to hit than one that still has all 5.) Having it depend on experience would be nice, too. I.e., an elite artillery unit against conscript infantry would hit a lot more often than conscript artillery versus elite infantry. (I'd assume elite artillery is better at finding the range, while elite infantry is both a lot better at taking cover, and more likely to keep their calm and act in an intelligent way.)

[Freiherr]

Yes, airplanes can sink ships. The era when some military analysts thought otherwise ended 60 years ago. In addition to the examples cited previously in this thread, the story of the sinking of the British battleship H.M.S Prince of Wales on 10 December 1941 is worth mentioning. The Naval Historical Center has a good summary of this event , which can be found at:

http://www.history.navy.mil/photos/s...sh-p/pow12.htm

I wonder whether Firaxis had a military historian on their staff.

[Dmc507]

Yes another very good example. Thank you for bringing it up.

-Dmc507

[korn469]

Pearl Harbor is actually a bad example for proving your point

here are a couple of facts about Pearl Harbor that you are quick to gloss over

here is a report from the navy
found here http://www.history.navy.mil/faqs/faq66-1.htm

Of the more than 90 ships at anchor in Pearl Harbor, the primary targets were the eight battleships anchored there. seven were moored on Battleship Row along the southeast shore of Ford Island while the USS Pennsylvania (BB-38) lay in drydock across the channel. Within the first minutes of the attack all the battleships adjacent to Ford Island had taken bomb and or torpedo hits. The USS West Virginia (BB-48) sank quickly. The USS Oklahoma (BB-37) turned turtle and sank. At about 8:10 a.m., the USS Arizona (BB-39) was mortally wounded by an armorpiercing bomb which ignited the ship's forward ammunition magazine. The resulting explosion and fire killed 1,177 crewmen, the greatest loss of life on any ship that day and about half the total number of Americans killed. The USS California (BB-44), USS Maryland (BB-46), USS Tennessee (BB-43) and USS Nevada (BB-36) also suffered varying degrees of damage in the first half hour of the raid.

There was a short lull in the fury of the attack at about 8:30 a.m. At that time the USS Nevada (BB-36), despite her wounds, managed to get underway and move down the channel toward the open sea. Before she could clear the harbor, a second wave of 170 Japanese planes, launched 30 minutes after the first, appeared over the harbor. They concentrated their attacks on the moving battleship, hoping to sink her in the channel and block the narrow entrance to Pearl Harbor. On orders from the harbor control tower, the USS Nevada (BB-36) beached herself at Hospital Point and the channel remained clear.

When the attack ended shortly before 10:00 a.m., less than two hours after it began, the American forces has paid a fearful price. Twenty-one ships of the U.S. Pacific Fleet were sunk or damaged: the battleships USS Arizona (BB-39), USS California (BB-44), USS Maryland (BB-46), USS Nevada (BB-36), USS Oklahoma (BB-37), USS Pennsylvania (BB-38), USS Tennessee (BB-43) and USS West Virginia (BB-48); cruisers USS Helena (CL-50), USS Honolulu (CL-48) and USS Raleigh (CL-7); the destroyers USS Cassin (DD-372), USS Downes (DD-375), USS Helm (DD-388) and USS Shaw (DD-373); seaplane tender USS Curtiss (AV-4); target ship (ex-battleship) USS Utah (AG-16); repair ship USS Vestal (AR-4); minelayer USS Oglala (CM-4); tug USS Sotoyomo (YT-9); and Floating Drydock Number 2. Aircraft losses were 188 destroyed and 159 damaged, the majority hit before the had a chance to take off. American dead numbered 2,403. That figure included 68 civilians, most of them killed by improperly fused anti-aircraft shells landing in Honolulu. There were 1,178 military and civilian wounded.

Japanese losses were comparatively light. Twenty-nine planes, less than 10 percent of the attacking force, failed to return to their carriers.

The Japanese success was overwhelming, but it was not complete. They failed to damage any American aircraft carriers, which by a stroke of luck, had been absent from the harbor. They neglected to damage the shoreside facilities at the Pearl Harbor Naval Base, which played an important role in the Allied victory in World War II. American technological skill raised and repaired all but three of the ships sunk or damaged at Pearl Harbor (the USS Arizona (BB-39) considered too badly damaged to be salvaged, the USS Oklahoma (BB-37) raised and considered too old to be worth repairing, and the obsolete USS Utah (AG-16) considered not worth the effort).

also check out this site
http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/ops/desert_storm.htm

Bombing tonnage

War	Tonnage	Length	Tonnage/Month
WW2	2,150,000	45 months	47,777.78
Korea	454,000	37 months	12,270.27
Vietnam/SEA	6,162,000	140 months	44,014.29
Gulf War	60,624	1.5 months	40,416.00

so assuming that battleships aren't representative of just one ship (destroyers, aircraft, nuclear weapons, and tanks certanly aren't indicitive of just one unit) and considering that out of the 8 battleships at Pearl Harbor five returned to combat duty, that certainly is full destruction of the enemy

then in Vietnam dropping unguided bombs on the jungle for decades certainly didn't win the war, i think that firaxis can make a case for bombing not completely destroying a unit

however maybe with precsion strike then a unit could be completely destroyed (certainly the gulf war was a change in the effectiveness of a bombing campaign)

EDIT: another thing that makes the Pearl Harbor example bad is the fact that it was a suprise attack and the amount of damage control and anti-aircraft defense the battleships put up on that day have to be way below average...i mean sounding general quaters just on the battleships 30 minutes before the attack would have certainly changed the number of aircraft the Japanese lost, so civ3 by not allowing anything but air superiority units to attack other aircraft balances things out to an extent

however airpower is weak in Civ3, but try out my Blitz mod, not only did i increase the bombard power of air units i allowed them to move multiple times and i gave them the Blitz special ability which allows them to attack more than once per turn...so in my mod a jet fighter has 3 movement, and therefor can attack three times in one turn (not to mention i increased its bombard and rate of fire)

[Trifna]

But to totally sink a ship should be very hard... I think that usually ships were unusable before beeing sinked. It's probably easier for a plane to sestroy all what's ON the ship than making holes in the part touching water.

[Seeker]

I know that the C.M. can sink ships.

So, the whole question of whether this was intended to model some kind of realism is a bit strange if just 1 cruise missile unit can sink a battleship unit, but dozens of the most modern aircraft units cannot? It's just wacky.

Is it possible to give air units the cruise missiles ability to destroy things, without making them 'kamikazi'?

In the theoretical editor I mean.

[Moraelin]

Actually, even given the sheer number of crew on board, I think that in game terms a battleship can be considered a single unit.

E.g., the Tirpitz (sunk by british airplane bombing!) had 108 officers and 2500 men on board. Also the sheer cost and time to build one battleship is greater than to build an armour division. The Tirpitz empty had a displacement over 39,000 tonnes. That's a LOT of steel. In fact, that's more steel than in all the 2600 tanks that invaded Poland put together, and noone said that those should count as a single unit.

Plus saying that 8 battleships count as 1 unit isn't supported by their actual historical use. NOONE ever used battleships only in groups of 8.

E.g., the Tirpitz did not have 7 other clones at anchor with it when the British bombs hit it.

E.g., in the sinking of Bismarck, there were only two German ships in that group: the Bismarck and Prinz Eugen, and only the first was a battleship. The first British group that met them consisted of only two ships, too: the Prince of Wales and the Hood. Only the first was a battleship, while the second was a battlecruiser. There were a total of 5 (not 8) total British battleships involved, spread over more than one battle group. And that was one mondo concentration of battleships of one target, because the British wanted the Bismark sunk at all cost. Normal operations would involve maybe one, maximum 2 battleships total.

E.g., even smaller ships like the German "pocket battleships" (really just the German version of a battlecruiser, actually) were used either piecemeal or AT MOST in groups of two. The famous Scharnhorhorst and Gneisenau pair is actually the only case I know of where they used two of them together.

So, no, at Pearl Harbour there wasn't just a case of "3 out of 8 hp lost on a unit", it was a case of 3 whole units out of 8 whole units that were lost to aircraft bombing.

[Xentropy]

I think his point, Moraelin, was to focus on the last paragraph. Only ONE battleship of 8 battleships was, in game terms, destroyed. All others were disbanded (considered too old to bother keeping, despite being repairable) or repaired. Which means they had one hitpoint left. Three hundred planes, focusing their attack on 8 out of over 90 ships, managed to take out ONE. Sunk a bunch of others, sure, but if they were raised and repaired, that means in game terms they had one hitpoint left and were NOT destroyed.

So at the very least, aircraft of that era were extremely unlikely to sink ships, unlikely enough to make it impossible in game terms. If you want it to be possible for the earliest planes in-game to destroy battleships, you should also allow the equally unlikely spearman groups managing to survive long enough to reach the tanks and throw in cocktails to take them out.

Now, as for why aircraft of the precision bombing type cannot take out ships, I don't know, and disagree with this position. But the basic fighters and bombers of early flight should not be able to completely destroy a ship, realistically.

[Venger]

Originally posted by Xentropy
Three hundred planes, focusing their attack on 8 out of over 90 ships, managed to take out ONE. Sunk a bunch of others, sure, but if they were raised and repaired, that means in game terms they had one hitpoint left and were NOT destroyed.

Uh, if the ships had been at sea, not a damn one of them would have been repaired. They were repairable because they were damaged and sank in 40 feet of water, not because they weren't damaged enough to sink them or were unable to sink them. To conclude that aircraft are therefore not effective at sinking ships is a laughably bad perspective.

So at the very least, aircraft of that era were extremely unlikely to sink ships, unlikely enough to make it impossible in game terms.

You have drawn a totally inappropriate conclusion. Airplanes are the bane of the surface naval fleet. Ask anyone on the Bismark, Yamato, Kaga, ad infinitum...

But the basic fighters and bombers of early flight should not be able to completely destroy a ship, realistically.

Dude, that's just nuts...

Venger

[GePap]

The only reasons more battleships were not a total loss at Pearl (besides the Arizona and Oklahoma) was because they were in a shallow port, where they could settle on the bottom instead of sinking miles into the ocean [let me add that I agree with the point that 1 BB = 1 real BB]. The two largest battleships ever, Musashi and Yamato, were sunk by aircraft, and the Prince of Wales and Repulse have already been mentioned. There was also Taranto, in which British Swordfish torpedo bombers (primitive aircraft) attacked the Italian Battlefleet at anchor and sunk at least 1 BB's. So, aircraft can sink ships, even the biggets one s. The fact is that after carrier come into being, they should be the vital ships- remember, carriers are even more vulnerable to air attack than BB's, as Midway shows.

Three points:
If we want to be realistic, carries should not be able to carry bombers, only fighters. Now, a fighter has a ROF of 1, i believe, but even if it is 2, you would still need multiple fighters to finish of a BB, and with their pitiful range, the BB, if it survives the attack of the entire airwing (only 6 fighters) then it may be able to bring its big guns into range and sink the carrier (any carrier in the range of BB guns is dead).

Second, the reason any of us loose BB' s to frigates or even caraveels, is because we have to close in and can't just use the range of big guns. If bombardment got to kill, never again would someone loose a BB to a sailing ship since you just kill it with long range gunnery (which is what would happen). Simply stated, letting bombarddment killwould make all naval combat in this game more realistic and far less frustrating. Think of it, in Civ3 terms, there woiuld have never been battle of Britian: why would the germans care about air supperiority over Britian if the RAF could do nothing to stop its incoming invasions fleet?

Third, the point was made earlier that bobarment can 'destroy' units in the sense of making them utterly useless in combat. A unit that still has people left, but zero morale or in shock is realy no unit at all, and for the highly abstrated world of civ, should not count.

Bombarment should kill, but it should be based on a chance so that it does not become omnipotent: For example, lets say that only 10% of the time arty attacks a land unit and hits, and does enought damage to techically kill the unit does the unit actually die. This means that bombardment is both more effective and that it is not omnipotent. You could vary this chance for different bombardment systems and make the chances of sinking ships greater, since they are more vulnerable than ground units.

[korn469]

Moraelin

ifirst thing i never said that 8 battleships should count as one unit

so assuming that battleships aren't representative of just one ship (destroyers, aircraft, nuclear weapons, and tanks certanly aren't indicitive of just one unit) and considering that out of the 8 battleships at Pearl Harbor five returned to combat duty, that certainly is full destruction of the enemy

more like somewhere between 2-4 units on a normal sized civ map

i mean the entire british isle is a mere 6 land spaces on the standard sized map included with civ3, and if you stack your cities you can fit three cities at most on it, and most of their radius will be in the water, so i am assuming that three cities couldn't turn out the royal air force, five 200 shield battleships, and the rest of the armed forces if they were at that small level

So, no, at Pearl Harbour there wasn't just a case of "3 out of 8 hp lost on a unit", it was a case of 3 whole units out of 8 whole units that were lost to aircraft bombing.

i see it as four battleships on the map damaged down to the red (1 hp left)

plus if you think about it WW2 only takes 4 turns total (38-39, 40-41, 42-43, 44-45) that amount of abstraction really leads me to believe that a battleship isn't just one unit

if you are going to argue about realism, then why not start with naval movement rates...on that same map there are 10 spaces between Germany and the United States, so it would take a german U-boat four turns (nearly eight years) to sail one way from germany to the US...why isn't that as big of a concern?

i agree that air units need to be more powerful, but airunits attacking ships and ground units without being hurt kind of balances out air units not being able to completely destroy ground units

Even more importantly, EVEN IF air units had the possibilty of sinking ships (by setting them to ground units you can do this in the editor i think, i haven't played around with it enough to make sure, except i know that cruise missiles can sink ships), with a default bombard strength of 2 and a rate of fire of 1 a fighter couldn't sink a battleship anyways, to have a 50% chance of a fighter sinking a battleship you need about 18 fighters to accomplish this

[Disk Killer]

I voted for No, with editor option, because I'm being reasonable to the concerns of those who want that option.

I explained my position in the other thread [and reply to those that essentially said I'm an idiot] here: http://apolyton.net/forums/showthrea...097#post654658

Judging from the results, though, I might have to get used to air power destroying naval power in the next patch.... [It's just getting used to it again, no big deal - but it they do change it I hope there's still an option added to the editor so I can change it back! ]

[Moraelin]

Originally posted by GePap
Third, the point was made earlier that bobarment can 'destroy' units in the sense of making them utterly useless in combat. A unit that still has people left, but zero morale or in shock is realy no unit at all, and for the highly abstrated world of civ, should not count.

Just for the record, let me add that in the end this is the only really important point. I mean, sure, there'll always be a few of us military history freaks that will gladly get lost in debating history scenarios and realism. But at the end of the day, what matters is whether in the game it's fun.

And IMHO the current situation just isn't that much fun. Whole classes of units are of very limited use, and debatably not worth the cost and upkeep cost. I mean, for the same number of coins per turn in upkeep I could have a tank, which can and does kill the AI's pikemen, or infantry/mech infantry which can and does kill the archers it sends at me, or... an artillery piece which doesn't really do that much. And which artillery gets captured without a fight, when the other defenders have been defeated, while a tank or infantry could buy me one more turn.

Having artillery and aircraft which do NOT kill in just one strike, but which can cripple a unit enough, and which COULD kill a weakened retreating unit, would be IMHO more useful to have around. It also wouldn't IMHO make it THE ultimate killer unit, nor turn the game into a case of "howitzers are 10 times more powerful than tanks." Which I understand were the main concerns which caused bombardment to be crippled in the first place.

[korn469]

Just for the record, let me add that in the end this is the only really important point. I mean, sure, there'll always be a few of us military history freaks that will gladly get lost in debating history scenarios and realism. But at the end of the day, what matters is whether in the game it's fun.

And IMHO the current situation just isn't that much fun. Whole classes of units are of very limited use, and debatably not worth the cost and upkeep cost. I mean, for the same number of coins per turn in upkeep I could have a tank, which can and does kill the AI's pikemen, or infantry/mech infantry which can and does kill the archers it sends at me, or... an artillery piece which doesn't really do that much. And which artillery gets captured without a fight, when the other defenders have been defeated, while a tank or infantry could buy me one more turn.

Having artillery and aircraft which do NOT kill in just one strike, but which can cripple a unit enough, and which COULD kill a weakened retreating unit, would be IMHO more useful to have around. It also wouldn't IMHO make it THE ultimate killer unit, nor turn the game into a case of "howitzers are 10 times more powerful than tanks." Which I understand were the main concerns which caused bombardment to be crippled in the first place.

i agree with your entire post

naval units and air units are too weak when compared to ground units, but they could strengthen them in other ways instead of just making bombard units be able to kill 1hp units, for one thing like i mentioned with fighters this still wouldn't help them out with battleships, even a carrier loaded with F-15s wouldn't do very good against a battle ship (four attacks with a possible 8 points of damage being inflicted when they only have a four bombard strength) so there are other more effective things they could do to make air and naval units stronger without making bombard units (especially air units) dominate the game like choppers did in SMAC

[Venger]

Originally posted by Disk Killer
I voted for No, with editor option, because I'm being reasonable to the concerns of those who want that option.

It's all about options - of course I voted yes to destroy both, but I also voted assuming that it would be added and adjustable. Variety is the spice of life - allow it to happen, and we can suit to taste. But leave it as is, it's a real nutbuster...

Venger

[greggbert]

One of the biggest balance problems of that game was that once you get air power, ships become completely useless, and you can win the game only building defense units and planes. It's STUPID AND NOT FUN. And it is PROVEN by hundreds of gamers experiences in SMAC.

So enough of this pearl harbor crap and if you are aching for realism, argue about how much it stinks that an entire forest can grow in one year!

Please do not be civ amateurs.
-Greggbert

[GePap]

greggbert:
Air power in SMAC functioned much like air power in Civ2. Air power in Civ3 works UTTERLY DIFFERENTLY from those two times. 1 sigle aircraft could NEVER sink a sinlge, healthy veteran ship, simply because it does only a limited amount of damage and does not do the whole, battle to the death thing of previous Civ ir SMAC aircraft.

Please don't call others civ amateurs if you also seem to be unclear on some basic concepts. Those that live in glass houses should not throw stones

[greggbert]

I am not unclear on anything. In Civ II and SMAC one of the major sucky things was that you could build planes and garrison units ONLY and win the game easily. Ships, tanks, etc became useless with air power. People seem to be forgetting this. SMAC was even worse than CIV II.

[korn469]

GePap

1 sigle aircraft could NEVER sink a sinlge, healthy veteran ship, simply because it does only a limited amount of damage and does not do the whole, battle to the death thing of previous Civ ir SMAC aircraft.

that is not true a bombers would have a chance of sinking regular strength ships since they have a rate of fire of 3, but then ships wouldn't have a chance of fighting back

so WW2 style bombers would have a fairly good chance of sinking Aegis Cruisers, while F-15s (or more likely F/A-18s) would find it almost impossible to sink battleships

that is a problem to me

plus civ3 is just abstract, it could never really portray something like the rise of Genghis Khan (3 turns one very backward civ forms the largest land empire ever)

[Venger]

Originally posted by greggbert
I am not unclear on anything. In Civ II and SMAC one of the major sucky things was that you could build planes and garrison units ONLY and win the game easily. Ships, tanks, etc became useless with air power. People seem to be forgetting this. SMAC was even worse than CIV II.

This is not really the case in Civ2. Use a bomber as cover, put two solid defenders under it, and some tanks and howitzers. Advance and destroy.

Or, simply let the bombers come, and shoot them down with your fighters. It REALLY wasn't that hard.

In SMAC I hear that air units were ridiculously powerful...

Venger

[GePap]

Korn469
In the quote you quote, it says veteran, which means the ship will have 4 HP, which means that 1 bomber can't sink it. That's exactly why I said veteran. Personally, I don't think HP should be based on experience, so i won't allow one bad gaming decision to make up for another.

As for your other comments: An Aegis cruiser is a smaller vessel than a Battleship and has lesser armor, so any plane that, if it hits, could sink a BB, it would be able to sink an Aegis cruiser. The issue is wether it will hit. The solution to this problem is not to make sinking impossible, but to give aegis anti-aircraft bonus, lets say, make it a floating SAM battery, now that those work. That way, it will be very hard for a WW2 bomber to ever get to the point to drop its bombs on a aegis cruiser, thus keeping some sanit.

As for Jet fighetrs, the solution to that is giving them a higher ROF. On a technical issue, i doubt any single aircraft could sink a BB without either getting a lucky hit or carryng a blockbuster or daisycutter.

[barefootbadass]

The fact that air units can't sink ships is in no way inconsistent with the power of air in the real world. Use of air and artillery allows your ground and naval units to utterly decimate their corresponding adversaries. This is how it really works, the side with superior bombardment capabilities wins, but it has to have the other elements of the armed forces trio.

If air power could sink ships you would only need carriers for a navy, but carriers cannot stand alone. And since bombers can't be blocked within their operating range, it is ridiculous to allow them to sink ships. Surrounding your 'prize ship' with destroyers will do nothing to protect it from bombers of a carrier that comes up on another civ's turn. But the ships presumably can protect it with anti arcraft guns. Therefore, since bombers work as a bombardment units, the only way to mimic this protection is to make the opposing navy 'finish' the job. If the bomber were a unit you moved to a neigboring square to do a bombing run, allowing ships to be sunk might make sense, but as it is it is completely nonsense to do such. Balance and playability are more important than nitpick realism.

Also, the pearl harbor comparison is irrelevant because the ships in pearl harbor were at port on a Sunday morning. Of course they were destroyed by that attack.

[Dan Baker]

Although I hate to add units to the game I think subs and planes should be modified in the following way:

Have a special 'torpedo bomber' that can sink ships, but is pretty useless against other targets. Normal bombers are ineffective in sinking ships and should get a major disadvantage when trying to bomb them. So, to sink a battle ship it might take 5-8 lucky torpedo bombers - which makes the game balance about right. This would make Aircraft carries worthy vessels for naval combat. Coastal bombardment without air supority would be, quite frankly, suicide (which it is).

Second, subs should have low attack - but they would just torpedo - i.e., shoot once and then have the option of retreating (kind of like Axis and allies).

Cruise missles do sink ships though, but it'd be nice if Nuke subs could carry them. Pretty silly that they can carry a nuke, but not a cruise missle.

Some of the debat about is a battleship really a battle ship or a group is kind of mute - I mean, it is a game. But, thinking of it as a battle group is probally right. I.E. Some destroyer escorts... etc.

I do think that it should be impossible for artillary to totally destroy ground units. At least a small army is always neccisary.

[korn469]

GePap

i am not exactly sure how how a SAM missile battery works, but it either shoots by passing aircraft in its range and does 1 hp of damage it it enages them with an air attack strength of 8, so either it won't shoot down anything including bombers, or it will pretty much shoot down any non-stealth units out there

On a technical issue, i doubt any single aircraft could sink a BB without either getting a lucky hit or carryng a blockbuster or daisycutter.

how about if they are carrying a harpoon missile from a B-52 or a laser guided 2,000lb bomb or a couple of maverick missiles?

[korn469]

plus as long as we are being nitpicky here

1, 10, 10,000 six-hundred shield ICBMs can't destroy a size 1 city where is the hue and cry over that? everytime i brought up how overpriced nuclear weapons were people told me that they were too strong to begin with

plus many of the things that you are asking for can be accomplished with the editor, just try it out

i'll be right back, i'm off to see if i can make planes that kill ground units

[mfauzi]

I think planes should be able to destroy ships, but the chances should be low (but not too low). Maybe in every 5 or 10 bombardments, 1 ship is destroyed, or something like that.

I guess we have to balance between all ships surviving plane attacks and ships easily destroyed by planes..

I mean, how many times have the enemy's carriers send in bombers trying to destroy you, and at the same time, all you have is land and air units but no ships (like you're on an island and you can't get reinforcements that easily, so you can only rebase your planes and your ships will take forever to get there)? It would be really hard to defend yourself, especially with the enemy bombing your tile improvements and starving your population while reducing your production.

[barefootbadass]

Originally posted by korn469
plus as long as we are being nitpicky here

1, 10, 10,000 six-hundred shield ICBMs can't destroy a size 1 city where is the hue and cry over that? everytime i brought up how overpriced nuclear weapons were people told me that they were too strong to begin with

plus many of the things that you are asking for can be accomplished with the editor, just try it out

i'll be right back, i'm off to see if i can make planes that kill ground units

Heh, also, try out those 10000 some odd ICBMs on cities maybe the game has a rule that the 8578th ICBM will finally obliterate the city.

They are just fine. If you want the ICBM to destroy the city think of it as an artillery shell on steroids and invade and raze after using it.

[barefootbadass]

Originally posted by mfauzi
I mean, how many times have the enemy's carriers send in bombers trying to destroy you, and at the same time, all you have is land and air units but no ships (like you're on an island and you can't get reinforcements that easily, so you can only rebase your planes and your ships will take forever to get there)? It would be really hard to defend yourself, especially with the enemy bombing your tile improvements and starving your population while reducing your production.

Build some cruise missiles while you wait, they're cheap . . .

It's not a fault of the game if you weren't prepared to defend yourself within the rubric of the game.

[GePap]

A blockbuster (also tallboy) is a 10,000lb-12,000lb
bomb, and a daisycutter is the largest dumb bomb we have. Both would do vastly more damage than a harpoon, a couple of mavericks, or a bomb 1/5 their explosive power.

As for you first point, this would be fine be me. The point of aegis is to provide air cover for a taskforce, so making it capable of taking out airthreats is extremely realisitc- in fact, we use aegis to make sure that other's air power does not sink our carriers.
I agree that nukes are vastly underpowered and I have complained about it in other threads that did complain about that issue (but they are old, so one one ever looks at them anymore)

barefootbadass:
Airplanes can sink ships, period. We can always give ships the ability to hit back, which would allay your fears. The fact is that carriers are the most important ships of all in terms of naval combat, not BB's (as much as I love BB's). What no one but me mentions, is that large bombers should not be able to be carried by carriers: this is simly insanity. A carrier carries six aircraft, and as I said, they should all be fighters. With a ROF=1, it would take 4 fighetrs minimum to sink 1 veteran BB, assuming they all hit, which is an assumption we don't have to make. So, realistically, it would take the entire airwing of a CV to sink a BB. DSo you realize how many more shields it took you to make that CV and its airwing than the BB? All those that attack the plane sinking ship idea seem to forget this. If I just wanted ship killing ability I would make BB's. The reason to make CV's (in civ and real world) is to be able to engage the others fleet without danger to your own (since a BB could be sunk by an ironclad ), and with the miserly range of fighters right now, a BB that sruvives could always seek to hunt down the CV.

Basically: Lets allow bombardment kills (which means a BB could sink with its long range guns). Take 2 BB's and a CV with 6 fighters. Bothh take almost the same number of shield to make. Start with the BB's being at the limit of the fighetr range. It would be unlikely that the CV would be able to sink both BB's in one turn, all the while the BB's closing in. If the BB's were able to catch the Cv and bring their guns to bear, they would have a chance to sink the Cv. That would be a very exciting battle to play out, from either side, and I would love to be able to play it out, but as is, i can't