Air Units: IF only we could make them realistic

Faeelin · January 5, 2002, 16:33

Everyone knows that airpower is at the apex of victory. Look at history. Aside from Vietnam (which was the most poorly fought war in modern history) airpower has been useful in diestroying the enemy. It happened in WW2. It happend in the korean war, the gulf war, the limited action of the falklands, did damage in the balkans (not great, but it was hurting) and most recently, in Afghanistan. If airpower can let the US win a battle in a frozen mountainous wasteland, I think it can sink a bronze age galley.

Grrr · January 5, 2002, 18:07

I totally and utterly agree, and whats more, the galley should NOT be able to retaliatte. The original fighter may have run out of hit points, but a modern stealth fighter would sink it GUARANTEED
I have yet to reach the modern age, all my games have been won during the renaisance, but the airpower sound like crap.

Tolkien · January 5, 2002, 20:02

It's all true. And I'm pretty upset about nearly all of the combat models in the game...just last week the AI killed my infantry unit with a spearman--pretty dumb if you ask me.

oh well, I don't play single player campaign anymore, now that I finally got the civ3 editor working, I use it to play all my games. that's what I would suggest to you. This is what I tweaked:

1. units - I tweaked most of their stats, so the combat is more realistic.

2. Governments - I tweaked nearly all of them, and added Socialism.

3. Corruption - I greatly reduced it so that under all of my governments, the corruption level is lower. I also added "reduces corruption" to 2 or 3 more city improvements.

4. In single player campaign, I would almost never get above +20 gold per turn. So I changed the citizens, now, each laborer (default citizen) gives +1 gold. I tested it, and right now I am getting +850 per turn, because of my sprawling empire, I don't have to worry about damn corruption.

5. I also changed the huge world size from 180 x 180, to 256x256. I like playing on big maps.

I am playing with these changed right now, and I am having alot more fun than I used to.

Oh yeah, I forgot to mention that I changed the techs too, so now I get them alot faster, I minimized them to 2 turns, and maximum to 20 turns. This has helped alot, I am only at 1600 AD, and I'm half way through the industrial age, I expect to be blasting my enemies apart with tanks and bombs by the time the constitution is born.

The Kaiser · January 5, 2002, 20:34

If anything airpower is a little too powerful, particulary in its ability to flatten all your terrain improvements if you have poor air defenses. Airplanes bombing bridges YES, irrigation NO.

Also the fact that a sea unit cannot be totally destroyed is a good thing because in past Civ games it made sea invasions virtually impossible once flight had been discovered.

Think about it, the Transport or Destroyer unit actually represents a fleet of ships of which no Air Power in history has been able to totally destroy without a few ships escaping, although perhaps heavily damaged.

Grrr · January 5, 2002, 21:06

Quote:

Originally posted by Tolkien
I also changed the huge world size from 180 x 180, to 256x256. I like playing on big maps.

How???
Also the minimum science How???

Faeelin · January 5, 2002, 22:15

Quote:

Originally posted by The Kaiser
If anything airpower is a little too powerful, particulary in its ability to flatten all your terrain improvements if you have poor air defenses. Airplanes bombing bridges YES, irrigation NO.

Also the fact that a sea unit cannot be totally destroyed is a good thing because in past Civ games it made sea invasions virtually impossible once flight had been discovered.

Think about it, the Transport or Destroyer unit actually represents a fleet of ships of which no Air Power in history has been able to totally destroy without a few ships escaping, although perhaps heavily damaged.

Umm.... damn. How about the US attacks on Japanese convoys?
In any case, your arguement is flawed. If I send 40 planes after 1 galley, the damn galley should die. You know it, you're trying to rationalize Firaxis' lassitude.

codemast01 · January 5, 2002, 22:18

Quote:

Think about it, the Transport or Destroyer unit actually represents a fleet of ships of which no Air Power in history has been able to totally destroy without a few ships escaping, although perhaps heavily damaged.

Air power was unable to stop the invasion at Normandy. However you must remember that the German air force was severely limited by their loses vs. the RAF (Royal Air Force) and the lack in fuel for their planes. No one has been able to have a naval invasion vs. an air force at full strength.

However this is besides the point. CivIII only has basically one unit that can defend against air attack (Jet Fighter). Other units are defenseless. Why not give the AEGIS Crusier and some other units ablities similar to the AS mission a fighter has. The result would be similar to not allowing the sinking of ships. Some ships will be destroyed but most likely not all. As it currently is, not only do all transports survive, all the troops also survive uninjured.

Also something to think about:
If a transport represents a fleet of ships, then why doesn't a F-15 represent a fleet of jets?

Grrr · January 5, 2002, 22:31

Quote:

Originally posted by codemast01
Also something to think about:
If a transport represents a fleet of ships, then why doesn't a F-15 represent a fleet of jets?

Yes, I agree a fleet of F-15s will have trouble blasting away a puny galley, I mean, it's like killing an ant with a .308 from the top of the empire state building.

Faeelin · January 5, 2002, 22:43

Your logic is flawed. F-15's can take out tanks. Heck, cruise missiles can target individuals. So I think they could take out a galley.

korn469 · January 6, 2002, 01:46

first a few things about airpower in civ3

*even if aircraft could sink ships, without a stat change then B-17's could sink Aegis Cruisers, while F/A-18's would have a hard time sinking ironclads
*airpower not being able to sink is balanced by the fact that seapower can't damage airpower, plus realistically certainly airpower doesn't always triumph...i would say that small fleet of US Navy Aegis Cruisers could take whatever the entire North Korean airforce could dish out; while the Iranian navy would certainly have problems with an US aircraftcarrier taskforce
*drawing examples between the world's strongest superpower versus one of the world's least advanced militaries can certainly lead to one sided and potentially wrong conclusions

there are better ways to balance airpower than just giving it the ability to sink ships
personally i like blitz, multiple moves, and higher bombardment ratings

Prince · January 6, 2002, 08:45

In my very first civ game, I captured a small russian city on the east coast of south america, with marines coming from australia. I quickly built bombers and moved them to Grozny, the city I captured. 7 Bombers or so were totally flattening the russian cities in the next couple of turns, destroying improvements, lowering population points, and when my tanks were at the front gates of the next city, they greatly helped damage the defenders. I don't think air units are all that bad, the only thing that hasn't proven it's use to me yet is the (Jet) Fighter, but that's because I have never faced enemy air units yet. And then again, guys, think about it, who said this game is intended to be realistic? Sure, it's BASED on reality, but in the end, nearly half of the civs shouldn't even have the chance to build air units at all. Ever. Just because they are supposed to be *dead* before that time. Tanks vs. Spearmen is not a realistic situation, so when the Spearmen win, I don't see the point, the whole situation isn't realistic so no matter who wins it's not real anyways! And same goes for airplanes, their bombs not destroying galleys is not realistic. Bombers attacking galleys is not realistic.

Grrr · January 6, 2002, 19:18

Quote:

Originally posted by Faeelin
Your logic is flawed. F-15's can take out tanks. Heck, cruise missiles can target individuals. So I think they could take out a galley.

YEAH RIGHT!?!

If these GREAT F15s of yours can target indivuals, then why don't they just fire a cruise missle at Osama Bin Laden. No the propoganda may say so, but in all reality, the guiding systems arent't that great. I have heard of at least 5 missiles going totally astray in the Kosovo bombing. No F15s are NOT 100% accurate, far from it!

Faeelin · January 6, 2002, 19:36

Uhuh... So you're telling me that five thousand f-18's couldn't take out a galley?

Numbers aside, the fact is that they'd laugh at the galley. IT'd be strafed, bombed, torpedoed, before it got within sight of my civ3 shores. And survive.
oh, and about OBL: You know where he is, we'll get the job done. Also, 5 out of how many that were fired? Several dozen? Even if it's only 100, that means 95 percent accuracy.

Grrr · January 6, 2002, 20:09

Quote:

Originally posted by Faeelin
Uhuh... So you're telling me that five thousand f-18's couldn't take out a galley?

Numbers aside, the fact is that they'd laugh at the galley. IT'd be strafed, bombed, torpedoed, before it got within sight of my civ3 shores. And survive.
oh, and about OBL: You know where he is, we'll get the job done. Also, 5 out of how many that were fired? Several dozen? Even if it's only 100, that means 95 percent accuracy.

One Galley?!?!, a Galley unit represents a FLEET of galleys say 100 or so.
As for 5% inaccuracy, these are only the ones which FAILED MAJORLY, and not the ones which were a few hundred metres off target.

So when someone does find Osama Bin Laden (I don't know his whereabouts, why don't you organise 5000 F18s to bomb, strafe, and torpedo him. Good Luck!

korn469 · January 6, 2002, 20:27

Faeelin and grrrr

first thing there isn't even 5k f/a-18's in any one nation's arsenal

second thing is THAT NO NATION USES GALLEYS!

even the least advanced nation on earth is going to use a combustion engine on their ships, which would more likely resemble patrol boats than anything else

spearmean, galleys, etc just aren't going to exist along side f/a-18's and abrams tanks

the militas in afganistan and elsewhere aren't representative of spearmen, they are completely different

plus a B-17 COULD NOT! sink an Aegis Cruiser! so just allowing airpower to sink naval units does not balance the game

the thing is weapons from 30-50 years ago are obsolete for the most part against modern day weapons, while an ak-47 is still a viable weapon a MiG-17 has been hoplessly obsolete for some time now

even an entire roman legion at its height could probably be dispersed by some riot police with waterhoses and tear gas, much less by well positioned special forces calling in napalm or cluster bomb strikes on the legion in the middle of the night

codemast01 · January 6, 2002, 20:31

Osama and the Taliban didn't fight back with galleries and spears. (If they did they would have been slaughtered) They had modern weapons like AK-47s.

Quote:

Tanks vs. Spearmen is not a realistic situation... And same goes for airplanes, their bombs not destroying galleys is not realistic. Bombers attacking galleys is not realistic.

Yes all this is true. Why not ask that something be done to fix it instead of saying that CivIII is only BASED on reality and is not suppose to be realistic. This is similar to saying a car is not suppose to provide the best protection for its driver because perfection is not the goal. No... People demand the company make a safer car. Realism and perfection might not be goals but both should be strived for.

Grrr · January 6, 2002, 20:53

Yes it is totaly true that civ is an unrealistic game, and Faeelin has overexagerated with his point of 5000 F-18s in a squaron. 20-25 is more likely!

whosurdaddy · January 7, 2002, 01:40

Quote:

Originally posted by Grrr

YEAH RIGHT!?!

If these GREAT F15s of yours can target indivuals, then why don't they just fire a cruise missle at Osama Bin Laden. No the propoganda may say so, but in all reality, the guiding systems arent't that great. I have heard of at least 5 missiles going totally astray in the Kosovo bombing. No F15s are NOT 100% accurate, far from it!

Ummm, if you dont think modern day laser and satelited guided weapons can target single individuals, ships, etc. then i dont know what world your living in. Oh, by the way, they have tried to fire cruise missles at osama bin laden, but missed not due to faulty technology but to due to faulty intelligence. As for a ship in the open ocean with nowhere to hide (especially without aircover or anti-aircraft defenses, such as a galley), gimme a break, they are sitting ducks for modern day warplanes. THATS WHY THE MAIN ANTI SHIP WEAPON OF THE UNITED STATES SINCE THE BEGINNING OF WORLD WAR II HAS BEEN AIRPLANES!!!!!!!!!

Grrr · January 7, 2002, 01:44

Quote:

Originally posted by whosurdaddy

Ummm, if you dont think modern day laser and satelited guided weapons can target single individuals, ships, etc. then i dont know what world your living in. Oh, by the way, they have tried to fire cruise missles at osama bin laden, but missed not due to faulty technology but to due to faulty intelligence. As for a ship in the open ocean with nowhere to hide (especially without aircover or anti-aircraft defenses, such as a galley), gimme a break, they are sitting ducks for modern day warplanes. THATS WHY THE MAIN ANTI SHIP WEAPON OF THE UNITED STATES SINCE THE BEGINNING OF WORLD WAR II HAS BEEN AIRPLANES!!!!!!!!!

I admit that yes, a galley has no chance, but don't believe that it can target Osama Bin Laden.

Green Giant · January 7, 2002, 01:52

Tanks the size of whole cities is not realistic.

Health bars for military units is not realistic

A single number representing city population is not realistic

Pyramids magically puting granaries in every city is not realistic

The weather does not change, that is not realistic

There are no natural disasters, that is not realistic.

Conquering an entire civilization with 3 tanks is not realistic.

I could go on and on. Somebody please, please, tell me when Civ 3 EVER has or ever claimed to be realistic? Anyone, anyone?

You want ultra realistic combat, go play Operational Art of War. I will keep playing Civ and enjoy the balanced gameplay.

whiners

Grrr · January 7, 2002, 02:08

Quote:

Originally posted by Green Giant
I could go on and on. Somebody please, please, tell me when Civ 3 EVER has or ever claimed to be realistic? Anyone, anyone?
whiners

Hey Green Giant
In one of the original promotional statement by Firaxis, it stated that the aim was to "Make the most realistic civilization experience to date"
While some things, such as tanks the size of cities are not realistic, they are acceptable. Maybe you want to play civ with a magnifing glass to find a tank. Others like warriors destroying tanks, are not REALISTIC, and a menace to gameplay.

elcapjtk · January 7, 2002, 02:09

I think you all are having logic and history recognition problems. Battle of Midway, many planes take down 4 Japanese Carriers as well as one American carrier, as well as some other support ships.

F-15's have laser guided missiles, and wood blows up and burns really really well.

Ooops owned

N. Machiavelli · January 7, 2002, 02:16

Quote:

Originally posted by Green Giant
Somebody please, please, tell me when Civ 3 EVER has or ever claimed to be realistic? Anyone, anyone?

"More interactions, alliances and realistic artificial intelligence responses...."

-The same realistic AI that now hates you in spite of a peaceful history, constant gifts, and alliances. Why? Because you have 3 more riflemen than they do.

"Active world generator creates more realistic maps and organic terrain features."

-With all the silks in the world exisiting only in a single 3 x 3 patch.

"Rewrite history with the greatest civilization of all time!"

"Together we can make Civilization III a potent platform for not only exploring factual history...."

-At least Civ2 actually gave you historical scenarios so that you could 're-write' history.

korn469 · January 7, 2002, 02:30

when was the last time people actually used galleys?
the vikings?

plus also each battle in civ3 isn't really a single engagement, it is a number of engagements, because the shortest unit of time in civ3 is one year, so desert shield would have been one turn while desert storm would have been only part of a turn

in civ3 the following US civil war battles all took place in the same turn

Ft. Henry & Ft. Donelson: Gen. Grant captures two forts on the Tennessee and Cumberland Rivers. Confederates forced out of Kentucky and yield much of Tennessee
Monitor vs. Merrimac: First ironclad battle in history ends in a draw as the Merrimac withdraws after daylong exchange of fire. Union blockade of South is maintained
Shiloh (Pittsburgh Landing): Grant overcomes Southern forces with heavy losses for each side: 13,000 Union casualties, 11,000 for South
New Orleans: Farragut seizes New Orleans for Union after boldly attacking Southern position. 11 Southern ships sunk
Peninsular Campaign (Yorktown, Seven Days' Battle, Fair Oaks): After continual prodding by Lincoln, McClellan decides to attack Richmond via the South. He moves his large army down the Potomac, marches on Richmond, and then assumes a defensive position rather than pushing for victory. Gen. Lee takes command of Southern troops
Bull Run (Manassas) 2nd battle: McClellan replaced by Gen. Pope. Lee and Gen. Stonewall Jackson defeat Union troops again at Manassas and Pope is replaced by McClellan
Antietam: Heavily outnumbered, Lee's troops face McClellan in bloody fighting. Over 23,000 casualties (more than all previous American wars combined). Lee retreats to Virginia
Fredericksburg: Gen. Burnside attacks Lee's fortified position and suffers 10,000 casualties (to Lee's 5000).
Chancellorsville: Gen. Hooker defeated by Lee, but Jackson is mistakenly shot by his own men and killed.
Vicksburg: After a long siege, Vicksburg surrenders to Grant. All of Mississippi River is now in Union control
Gettysburg: Over 165,000 soldiers participate in the largest battle in the Western Hemisphere. After three days of fighting, Lee retreats, leaving 4,000 dead Confederates. Total casualties: 23,000 Union, 28,000 Confederates
Chattanooga: Reinforced with troops from the East, Grant is able to push Southern troops back and prepare for assault on Atlanta and the heart of the Confederacy

and that is just the major battles, all of this in one turn...so draw the conclusions you want from that

Atahualpa · January 7, 2002, 09:16

Is it really that hard to add a possibility of an aircraft to sink a ship?

I mean you could just draw another random number if the ship is down to 1 health and compare it with bombard strength of airplane and defense of ship and then see if it is sunken or not.

Or it could be that the first attack can at best result in the ship loosing all but 1 health.
The next attack then could determine if the ship was destroyed or not. Based on possibility: bombard strength against defense strength.

But much more important would be the ability to destroy workers with bombards!
I can a hundred thousand times destroy the road to his oil resources in a second he has built it up again.
Like if people could build roads under heavy bombardment.

Ata

HalfLotus · January 7, 2002, 14:13

I dont know how realistic the air combat is, but it's play balanced pretty well. I like that air/land/sea combat is set up to reward combined arms. It makes for a better strategy game. Though it sound like some you are looking for a better historical simulation.

Sandman · January 7, 2002, 15:24

Does anyone else feel that the inclusion of stealth aircraft is wrong?

The US air force has only bought 21 stealth bombers, and has decided to not buy any more. No other country has them, or is planning to make similar aircraft.

What will undoubtably become a footnote in aviation history should not be included in the game.

Cookie Monster · January 7, 2002, 15:29

While were on the subject of airpower in Civ3 I have a quick question. I hope someone here will be able to answer it. All in all I'm pretty content with the air system as it stands with one exception........

The patch seems to have fixed the air superiority bug. I am now shooting down enemy bombers with my patrolling fighters. My question is how do you shoot down the enemy fighter planes that are on air superiority missions? I was thinking of sending in my own fighters to areas that are defended by AI fighters and have them perform strike missions hoping that the AI fighters would "dogfight" my own attacking fighters. Has anyone tried this?

Your thoughts are appreciated.

Murtin · January 7, 2002, 16:49

Personally, I just don't want the kind of realism people ask for when they require that modern military units should never lose to ancient units. I'll agree that it would add realism. I always get at least a little annoyed trying to figure out how that old floating wooden thingy known as a frigate could get at (and sink!) my lovely brand new nuclear sub.

I don't want that kind of realism because I don't think its real world consequences would make a good game. Civilizations don't remain standing for 5000 years fighting each other. Historically, what happens is that somebody makes some technological breakthrough and then expands all over the place, conquering or wiping out their neighbours.

And it wouldn't be fun having to suffer a humiliating defeat and then start over all the time just because your neighbour beat you to horseback riding. Or iron working. Or gunpowder. Or steampower... and so on.

The Kaiser · January 7, 2002, 16:56

This whining about realism just gets discussions nowhere. Civ3 is abstract in it's depictions and suggestions should be concentrated on making the game better and more fun to play rather than a total historical exercise.

Exceptional events do happen in military history from time to time like the battle of Isalandwana (or however you spell it) when the Zulu warriors defeated the "Modern" British soldiers etc. So why do people keep coming up with this lame argument about the Phalanx vs Tank issue. So what if it's a little unrealistic! If it is your Tank unit you admittedly will be very disappointed to say the least to loose to a Phalanx, but if you are struggling in a game and the Phalanx belongs to you then you be blessing the day when Firaxis made such a combat resolution possible.

And on to the Galley vs F-15 debacle. All through Naval history countries have tried to keep there ships up-to-date by "Up-gunning" them to the latest standard. Notice the WW2 era Battleships that post war were fitted with anti-air missiles to replace their regular flak guns (i.e USA Iowa class). So I know this is going to sound a bit bizarre, but if a Galley has survived through to the modern era, how do we know it hasn't been fitted with the latest light-weight SAM missile defense?