Naval combat - Page 2

Quokka · January 21, 2002, 21:42

I also only build a navy for defensive and transport reasons. The only real use is to uncover the whole map.

Zachriel · January 21, 2002, 22:07

Quote:

Originally posted by The Emperor Fabulous
I personally find the navy useless. I only build ships defensively, because offensively is a waste of time and resources.

Shore bombardment works pretty good.

MonsterMan · January 21, 2002, 23:33

If you have plenty of bombardment-capable ships, you can for example take a metropolis down to below 7 pop, which makes it twice as easy to conquer it. You can also destroy improvements, like barracks, which slows down the rate units heal in that city. You can also bombard improvements to level the playing field when it comes to improvements. For any serious offensive against civilizations on other continents, I wouldn't wanna be without my fleet.

Willem · January 21, 2002, 23:35

Quote:

Originally posted by MonsterMan
If you have plenty of bombardment-capable ships, you can for example take a metropolis down to below 7 pop, which makes it twice as easy to conquer it. You can also destroy improvements, like barracks, which slows down the rate units heal in that city. You can also bombard improvements to level the playing field when it comes to improvements. For any serious offensive against civilizations on other continents, I wouldn't wanna be without my fleet.

Can you also destroy roads using Bombardment? Certainly would be handy for seperating a civ from a resource.

Zachriel · January 22, 2002, 00:19

Yes, you can destroy roads. And what good is a harbor without a road?

MonsterMan · January 22, 2002, 00:22

Yes, the bombardment of ships work the same way as catapults do.

Actually... a harbor will let the city recieve luxury resources, with or without roads. Or did you mean something else? :)

Willem · January 22, 2002, 00:25

Quote:

Originally posted by MonsterMan
Yes, the bombardment of ships work the same way as catapults do.

Actually... a harbor will let the city recieve luxury resources, with or without roads. Or did you mean something else?

It might let the city have the resource, but if you destroy the road leading out of it, the rest of the empire can't.

Thrawn05 · January 22, 2002, 12:22

Quote:

Originally posted by Willem
I suppose with nuclear subs, you could add the stealth flag as well. I'm not sure how that well that would work though.

Stealth is only calculated when it comes to air missions, in particular the odds that a jet/f-15 or a SAM system could intercept a bombing run. Stealth is not calculated in any other way. Unless you make you subs capable of air missions.

Barnacle Bill · January 22, 2002, 15:55

Quote:

Originally posted by Quokka
I also only build a navy for defensive and transport reasons. The only real use is to uncover the whole map.

The importance of naval power in Civ-type games is under-represented due to the simplified-to-the-point-of-distortion economic system. In real life, most nations are not self-sufficient. Even those which are essentially self-sufficient find it profitable to engage in foreign trade, and suffer economically when their trade is blocked. In real life, prior to railroads most cargos could only be economically moved long distances by water - the exception being things with a very high value to mass ratio (most of which are "luxuries" in both real life and Civ3). Even with railroads, sea transport is cheaper unless the route is much, much longer than by rail.

So, in real life there is all this water-borne trade going on. So, in real life navies primarily exist to protect that trade. Countries which are more involved in oceanic trade tend to have big navies (or rely on the big navies of their trading partners). When such countries are fighting each other, you get a naval war with the goal of cutting off one's opponent's foriegn trade. The enemy's of such countries also often build navies for the purpose of interfering with the enemy's trade. Since sea powers have to invest in big navies anyway, they tend to look for strategies where they can make use of that power even against land powers.

The root of all this is economic, though. Overseas trade for most nations that have navies is VITAL, not just a way to get a little extra cash, and that is why they have navies to start with. The Civ games do a poor job of modelling the economics of it, and provide little in the way of means by which your navy can screw up your opponent's trade, thus Navies appear relatively useless.

Encomium · January 23, 2002, 06:03

Quote:

Originally posted by Deathwalker
The whole navy things needs to be updated. The units, ai power and more. The naval asspect of the game was servealy ignored

Yes. Along with excessive culture flipping (and vanishing garrisons), and excessive corruption, the pathetic way navies are handled in Civ III is my biggest complaint about the game.

Privateers and submarines should be attacking TRADE ROUTES and enemy merchant shipping - NOT WARSHIPS. They are not intended for that in reality. But in Civ III I could have dozens of privateers on the trade route of some enemies and it would accomplish NOTHING! It should greatly hurt their trade.

In World War One and Two the Germans almost won both wars by attacking those trade routes - not blockading a port with battleships.

Bombardment? NO WAY warships would spend all their time mucking about bombarding improvements. Only batteshiips (and maybe Aegis) had the capability anyway. I eliminated all bombardment functions of all warships except those two.

Increased ironclads strength to 7.6. MOW to 5.4. Frigates to 4.3. Privateers to 3.2 (otherwise there is no point in building them). All ships had their moivement points increased by from two or four. Destroyers (CAN see subs) and carriers being the fastest.

Nuclear subs are very different from regular subs. The former STAY SUBMERGED always and move very quickly. The nuclear subs should be faster and harder to find.

Bombers apparently can NOT sink warships!! This is absurd. It happened regularly in WW II. I gave bombers attack and defense strengths; maybe that will work. Maybe not.

I am not sure if fighters can fly interception off carriers. (?).

There is also no way scouts, workers, explorer, and warriors should stop a large invasion force from landing. But they do stop them just by occupying tiles. Very unrealistic.

POSSIBLE BUG: Someone posted elsewhere that a friendly transport (loaded) entering the same tile as a carier was sunk by the carrier! Anyone hear of that?

Anyway, Sid's handling of naval warfare STINKS, and it should be patched pronto.

At least in Civ II we could use naval units to attack caravans and diplomats on transports. We even had a cruiser unit.

Zachriel · January 23, 2002, 08:58

Quote:

Originally posted by Encomium
Bombardment? NO WAY warships would spend all their time mucking about bombarding improvements. Only batteshiips (and maybe Aegis) had the capability anyway. I eliminated all bombardment functions of all warships except those two.

I agree wholeheartedly that privateers and subs should be used to attack trade, and further, that trade needs to be more important.

However, bombardment has been a staple of 3rd world domination since the colonial age. Nothing like pulling your ships up to an enemy port with impunity and opening fire. Many times just the presence of bombarding ships will result in a favorable treaty.

Thrawn05 · January 23, 2002, 21:43

Quote:

Originally posted by Encomium
Bombers apparently can NOT sink warships!! This is absurd. It happened regularly in WW II. I gave bombers attack and defense strengths; maybe that will work. Maybe not.

I am not sure if fighters can fly interception off carriers. (?).

POSSIBLE BUG: Someone posted elsewhere that a friendly transport (loaded) entering the same tile as a carier was sunk by the carrier! Anyone hear of that?

I agree bombers or "Topedeo Fighters" should be able to sink ships. However, adding attack and defense will do nothing but change the odds who will win in an air intercept missions.

As for the fighters, as long as you don't move the carrier (fort it), you can set the fighters for the air intercept missions.

As for your "Bug", it's not a bug. The carriers do have an attack and defense value, although small compaired to battleships and destroyers. The transports are weaker.

YC4B4U · January 23, 2002, 21:55

A sure indication of how unrealistic carriers are in my opnion. Transports shouldn't be able to get close enough to carriers and then I can't remember what carriers have actually had weapon mounts that can sink a Transport. (I don't think the Phalanx on modern carriers could...)

I suppose an Aircraft Carrier is only as good as the aircraft it carries.

steelehc · January 24, 2002, 05:35

[QUOTE] Originally posted by Willem
Artillery and cannons are way to inaccurate. The odds of them hitting a ship often enough, or in just the right spot, are so extreme that they're virtually non-existant. I'd be surprised if artillery were even able hit a ship more than once every ten or so rounds. They're mainly useful for fixed targets or locations, not something that's moving around like a ship.

I am suprised you think this way. After all, what are the guns on battleships, cruisers, destroyers, etc... if they are not artillery and cannons? Ships have been sinking ships with guns for hundreds of years. And speaking of accuracy, the American Iowa class battleships have guns accurate to 5 yards at 30,000 yards or range. What moves faster? A ship, or a cannon shell?

Quote:

Originally posted by Thrawn05
well, I thought japan's UU was a little dumb, so I edited my game and gave them Yamoto Battleship. Basicly the same as the regular battleship only with an extra bombardment range and an extra movement point. It works out nicely

The Yamato was the largest battleship ever built, but also one of the slowest, and weakest. It's top speed was about 25 knots, with a range of 30-40 miles, compared with the Iowa's speed of 30+ knots, and 50 mile range.

I apologize if I come off the wrong way. I am not intending to sound like an arrogant as**ole, but if I do, the forgive me. I am a history person, and cannot stand innacuracies, even such trivial ones as these. (My girlfriend hates this)

Steele

steelehc · January 24, 2002, 05:36

That last post of mine is screwed up. The second paragraph is my response to the first. I hope that helps.

Steele

Thrawn05 · January 24, 2002, 13:28

Quote:

Originally posted by YC4B4U
I suppose an Aircraft Carrier is only as good as the aircraft it carries.

that is VERY true, in Civ3 and in real life. Carrier warfar is manly air dominant. If Carrier A had Zero fighters, and Carrier B had F-15s, odds are Carrier B will win. Carriers for the most part, are defensless by themselfs, and ryling soly on their fighters. Support ships suchs as destroyers and battleships help in defending the Carrier from enemy fighters (via Flak) and help in detecting enemy subs.

Thrawn05 · January 24, 2002, 13:35

Quote:

Originally posted by steelehc
The Yamato was the largest battleship ever built, but also one of the slowest, and weakest. It's top speed was about 25 knots, with a range of 30-40 miles, compared with the Iowa's speed of 30+ knots, and 50 mile range.

True, but it was also easy to sink (it never got to okinawa (spell?)), so I couldn't just add another defensive point to it, since fighters would have a harder time destroying it. So I felt an extra movement point wouldn't hurt. It actually makes it better, since Japan in civ3 would be able to control the seas quicker and better then anyone else (TAKE THAT LIZ!!!).

Willem · January 24, 2002, 16:01

Quote:

Originally posted by steelehc
That last post of mine is screwed up. The second paragraph is my response to the first. I hope that helps.

Steele

Yes it did.

Quote:

I am suprised you think this way. After all, what are the guns on battleships, cruisers, destroyers, etc... if they are not artillery and cannons? Ships have been sinking ships with guns for hundreds of years. And speaking of accuracy, the American Iowa class battleships have guns accurate to 5 yards at 30,000 yards or range. What moves faster? A ship, or a cannon shell?

Yes you have a point there. But Battleships are much more mobile than ground based Artillery, and their turrets are as well, so they'd be able to correct thier trajectory a lot quicker. And keep in mind here that we're not talking about a single Battleship, we're talking about a small fleet, or flotilla whatever. And I have never heard of ground based artillery being able to wipe out an entire flotilla. The odd one or two yes, which is reflected in the loss of hit points, but to me it would to much of a stretch for ground based artillery to take them all out.

Navyman · January 25, 2002, 09:50

A small naval discrepancy but should be pointed out nontheless. The Ironclad unit depicted in Civ3 is the USS Monitor, yet the game allows the Ironclads to go into ocean squares. The real USS Monitor could not go into the ocean because by its design had pretty bad seakeeping qualities in rough seas. For historical accuracy and for a better fit into the game's rules, the game designers should have used the HMS Warrior model for the Ironclad. Also, the HMS Warrior was the most kick-butt ship of its time.

I know, I know, there are a lot of other issues that need to be fixed before such a trivial one but hey, it's good to keep a sharp eye out.

Willem · January 25, 2002, 10:59

Quote:

Originally posted by Navyman
A small naval discrepancy but should be pointed out nontheless. The Ironclad unit depicted in Civ3 is the USS Monitor, yet the game allows the Ironclads to go into ocean squares. The real USS Monitor could not go into the ocean because by its design had pretty bad seakeeping qualities in rough seas. For historical accuracy and for a better fit into the game's rules, the game designers should have used the HMS Warrior model for the Ironclad. Also, the HMS Warrior was the most kick-butt ship of its time.

I know, I know, there are a lot of other issues that need to be fixed before such a trivial one but hey, it's good to keep a sharp eye out.

Well it's easy enough to fix if it's really bugging you. Just set the appropiate special ability in the editor. I've been reading this from a number of people and I'm thinking of doing the same thing myself. But I'm wondering, how do you think that might affect the game play? Maybe they sacrifised historical reality in order to make the game play a bit better. Any opinions?

Thrawn05 · January 25, 2002, 12:31

Quote:

Originally posted by Willem
Maybe they sacrifised historical reality in order to make the game play a bit better. Any opinions?

I do think they did sacrifised historical reality to. Particually when it came to the jet/stealth fighter and stealth bomber. Those planes, if you account for mid-flight refualing, could travel around the entire globe practicly. Its unfortunate that civ3 dosn't do this, at least for the stealth planes IMHO.

Willem · January 25, 2002, 12:59

Quote:

Originally posted by Thrawn05

I do think they did sacrifised historical reality to. Particually when it came to the jet/stealth fighter and stealth bomber. Those planes, if you account for mid-flight refualing, could travel around the entire globe practicly. Its unfortunate that civ3 dosn't do this, at least for the stealth planes IMHO.

Good point about the re-fueling planes. It's making me wonder if it would be possible to create an air unit that works that way, sort of like an air-born carrier. Thanks for the idea, I'll have to look into it.

Quokka · January 25, 2002, 15:59

About the Ironclad and it not being Ocean going. I think it would work pretty well in the game. It would make the Frigate and Man-O-War worthwhile units. They are both Ocean going vessels. Right now they are practically useless with Ironclads coming on the next tech. The English UU is chronically underpowered and useless in the game, their UU is the top-of-class for only 4 turns or so. Weren't the first Ironclads in the US Civil War used as Coastal & River Monitors? If you want a blue water navy then you'd have to build Frigates. I like it, I'll buy the company.

steelehc · January 25, 2002, 16:32

Quote:

Originally posted by Willem

Yes you have a point there. But Battleships are much more mobile than ground based Artillery, and their turrets are as well, so they'd be able to correct thier trajectory a lot quicker. And keep in mind here that we're not talking about a single Battleship, we're talking about a small fleet, or flotilla whatever. And I have never heard of ground based artillery being able to wipe out an entire flotilla. The odd one or two yes, which is reflected in the loss of hit points, but to me it would to much of a stretch for ground based artillery to take them all out.

Good point. Let me consult my books. I think it's a wasted effort on my part. I cannot recall any action where more then one or two ships were sunk by coastal defense artillery.

Steele

Optimizer · January 25, 2002, 16:43

There are some very good points here. We should concentrate on how naval warfare could be improved by the editor.

It is a little sad that the things that take away the fun from navigation are not bugs or flaws, but a poor system.

Things can be done, however. Please read my Maritime Manifesto for ways to make the maritime part of the game interesting.

Oerdin · January 25, 2002, 16:56

As long as you folks are discussing it you may want to take a look at how navel combat works in CTP2. It has a much greater unit depth and it has several nice features like sonar bouys, underwater cities, and other tile improvements. It's to bad we can't just copy these ideas into Civ3.

Bautou · January 25, 2002, 18:32

Quote:

Originally posted by Quokka
About the Ironclad and it not being Ocean going. I think it would work pretty well in the game. It would make the Frigate and Man-O-War worthwhile units. They are both Ocean going vessels. Right now they are practically useless with Ironclads coming on the next tech. The English UU is chronically underpowered and useless in the game, their UU is the top-of-class for only 4 turns or so. Weren't the first Ironclads in the US Civil War used as Coastal & River Monitors? If you want a blue water navy then you'd have to build Frigates. I like it, I'll buy the company.

I really like that idea too. Though frigates (and most other naval units anyhow) should be sped up a bit as naval movement would get even more bogged down under this plan.

Encomium · January 26, 2002, 06:52

BTW, bombers have been given by me those attack and defense strengths, and I unclicked "immobile", and gave them all MP's of 6. Whatever this does to the game it will be less bad than the utter nonsense of bombers not being able to sink warships (I guess Sid never heard of Pearl Harbor, or Midway). If I have to change fighter values I'll do that too if it works beter that way.

Oh yes, another Sid Stupidity is that fighters are still unable to escort bombers. Guess he also missed the entire Air War in WW II.

steelehc · January 26, 2002, 06:58

Quote:

Originally posted by Encomium
BTW, bombers have been given by me those attack and defense strengths, and I unclicked "immobile", and gave them all MP's of 6.

Do the air missions still work? That would kindof defeat the purpose, if they didn't.

Steele

Zachriel · January 26, 2002, 11:50

Quote:

Originally posted by Encomium
Oh yes, another Sid Stupidity is that fighters are still unable to escort bombers. Guess he also missed the entire Air War in WW II.

Fighter escorts were only available when near the airbase. Bombers were often unescorted when going deep.