Naval combat

[Willem]

Originally posted by Zachriel


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

Bombers were always unescorted when going deep. Fighters just didn't have the range in order to keep up. They'd fall from the sky from lack of fuel half way to the target point. That's probably why bombers were built with 3 or 4 gun turrets.

[Venger]

Originally posted by Zachriel

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

Not entirely true. Naval bombers were nearly always accompanied by fighter escort. At the end of 1943 P-51s escorted bombers and provided cover all the way to the target.

Venger

[Willem]

Originally posted by Venger


Not entirely true. Naval bombers were nearly always accompanied by fighter escort. At the end of 1943 P-51s escorted bombers and provided cover all the way to the target.

Venger

That's because they could bring the carriers in closer to the target and shorten the range enough that the fighters could be involved as well. In the case of the bombing of Berlin, which is what I think of when you're talking about "going deep", a fighter would never be able to make it there and back. And I think the game is set up with that sort of scenario in mind as well, so no fighter escort.

[Zachriel]

Originally posted by Venger
Not entirely true. Naval bombers were nearly always accompanied by fighter escort. At the end of 1943 P-51s escorted bombers and provided cover all the way to the target.

Venger

As the war progressed Allied airbases got closer and closer to the enemy capitals. The Pacific campaign was largely about airbases; Doolittle, on the other hand, had no fighter support.

[Easy Rhino]

It's hard to fit naval warfare into Civ. I mean, the numbers of units involved are usually a lot lower than on the ground (fleets of a few ships instead of thousands of troops), the move a lot faster, the engagements are usually quicker, and "attrition" just doesn't work the same.

- I think the biggest enhancement would be to allow privateers and subs to CHOOSE which unit they attack when they attack a square. They'd go after merchants, probably kill them, and then try to get away before the warships counterattack.

- The Yamato and Musashi were never really able to conduct any effective offensive operations, but they were really difficult to kill. It required dozens of bomb and torpedo hits and hundreds of aircraft. I think extra defense points would be good. If it was Civ2, you could just give it a few million hit points.

(they should also be more expensive than normal battleships)

ER

[Barnacle Bill]

Originally posted by Willem
In the case of the bombing of Berlin, which is what I think of when you're talking about "going deep", a fighter would never be able to make it there and back. And I think the game is set up with that sort of scenario in mind as well, so no fighter escort.

Quite wrong - ever heard of "drop tanks"? Well before D-Day, US fighters were escorting bombers all the way to BErlin from bases in England. Fat Hermann, while languishing in prison during the Nuremburg trials, is reported to have said that he knew the war was lost the first time he looked up and saw a pair of P-51's over Berlin.

[macaskil]

Shore batteries sinking warships

During the German invasion of Norway in 1940, some German ships were sunk by land-based Norwegian guns in Oslo Fjord.

It didn't stop the invasion but weakened the German Navy and may therefore have changed the course of the war.

[Zachriel]

Originally posted by Barnacle Bill
Quite wrong - ever heard of "drop tanks"? Well before D-Day, US fighters were escorting bombers all the way to BErlin from bases in England. Fat Hermann, while languishing in prison during the Nuremburg trials, is reported to have said that he knew the war was lost the first time he looked up and saw a pair of P-51's over Berlin.

The unescorted missions had disastrous results for the bombers. During a bombing mission over Schweinfurt, Germany on October 14, 1943 to bomb the large ball bearing factories so crucial to the German war effort, the U.S. Eighth Air Force were attacked by a large number of Luftwaffe fighter aircraft. Out of 229 bombers over Scheinfurt, 60 were shot down and 17 more were irreparably damaged. This loss rate was was unacceptable and proved that the allied bombing campaign over Germany could not continue unless the bombers could be accompanied by fighter aircraft.
http://azaz.essortment.com/pmustangair_ryoq.htm

Of course, as the war progressed, advanced, long-range bombers were put in service.

[Zachriel]

Of course, as the war progressed, advanced, long-range fighters were put in service.

[Encomium]

Originally posted by Zachriel


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

German Me-109's escorted Luftwaffe bombers over England in the Battle of Britain.

American P-51 Mustangs escorted B-17's deep into Germany.

So lack of fighter escort capabilities is a problem in Civ III.

But the inability of bombers in Civ III to sink warships is so stupid it greatly hurts the game,

[Zachriel]

Originally posted by Encomium
German Me-109's escorted Luftwaffe bombers over England in the Battle of Britain.
American P-51 Mustangs escorted B-17's deep into Germany.
So lack of fighter escort capabilities is a problem in Civ III.
But the inability of bombers in Civ III to sink warships is so stupid it greatly hurts the game,

Being somewhat repetitious: The Germans had airbases just a few miles away from Britain. Fighter escorts for deep bombing missions in Europe didn't start until the last half of the war. The Pacific campaign was all about securing airbases. Bombers have longer ranges than fighters, so it is just a matter of how far the bomb site is.

[Encomium]

Originally posted by Zachriel


Being somewhat repetitious: The Germans had airbases just a few miles away from Britain. Fighter escorts for deep bombing missions in Europe didn't start until the last half of the war. The Pacific campaign was all about securing airbases. Bombers have longer ranges than fighters, so it is just a matter of how far the bomb site is.

If you want to avoid "repetion", get it right. To say the Luftwaffe had airbases just "a few miles" from Britain is a ridiculous exaggeration.

Bomber escort COULD always occur in WW II. But missions DEEP into Germany had to wait for the Thunderbolt and Mustang.

So, some escort should always be possible.

None of that is nearly as important as the idiocy of bombers not being able to sink warships in Civ III.

[YC4B4U]

So it would seem from the discussions that we want the following:

To be able to create our own units -> sacrifice speed for armour or firepower or vice versa.

Ironclads that can't reach ocean (or perhaps even sea) squares.
Or change to HMS Warrior Or Add another Unit based on HMS Warrior.

Yamato as Japanese UU (If it had been constructed at the start of the war I think its ending may have been different).

Aircraft that sink ships (perhaps slow ships and big ships are easier to sink).

Maritime Patrol Aircraft.

Combat Air Patrol for Carriers.

Fighter escort missions.

Increased range to Fighter escort missions as technology improves. (ie drop tanks)

Submarines and Privateers that can pick off targets (eg Transports) but with risk of damage according to escort.

Subs have "torpedo" bombardment.

Privateers that actually Privateer (plunder merchants).

Maritime trade that can be sunk by submarines and Privatees.

Aegis Cruisers that provide fleet air defence (isn't that what they are supposed to do?)

Anti-ship Mines. I suppose that means we need a Minelayer and then a Minesweeper...

Inflight refuelling to increase range of bombing missions.

Sonar buoys.

It won't take them too long to do that will it?

[Deathwalker]

I just want them to fix nval warfare. It sucks, we need more ships and more abilties e.g. ship ships with planes

[notyoueither]

[SIZE=1] e.g. ship ships with planes

Is that kinda like an Aircraft Carrier Carrier?

Salve

[Zachriel]

Originally posted by Encomium
If you want to avoid "repetion", get it right. To say the Luftwaffe had airbases just "a few miles" from Britain is a ridiculous exaggeration.

Bomber escort COULD always occur in WW II. But missions DEEP into Germany had to wait for the Thunderbolt and Mustang.

So, some escort should always be possible.

The Battle of Britain
An immediate effect of the British isolation was that the Luftwaffe now had airbases in France, the Low Countires and Norway from which almost every part of the Britain could be attacked.
http://www.rickard.karoo.net/warsmain3.html

The capture of France, allowed Germans to escort bombers over Britain. Later in the war, the capture of Italy allowed escorted Allied raids throughout Central Europe.

You are correct in that fighter escorts were always available for nearby missions. For "deep", that is strategic bombing, it required well-placed airbases, or newer technology towards the end of the war.

Certainly a better implementation of fighter escort is possible using the Civ3 engine, however, it is not absolutely required for gameplay.

[Thrawn05]

Originally posted by Zachriel


As the war progressed Allied airbases got closer and closer to the enemy capitals. The Pacific campaign was largely about airbases; Doolittle, on the other hand, had no fighter support.

Let me clear this up, in the european threater, before the P-51s, fighters had to return to base when they hit the germen boader. When the P-51s came out, the P-51s could escort the bombers ALL THE WAY, not because they took off closer to the enemy lines, BUT because they had the fuel efficientcy to DO SO! P-51s left allied bases on britan just like the bombers.

If you are confused about this, perhaps watching the history channel for 100 hours straight will clear things up .

[Zachriel]

Originally posted by Thrawn05


Let me clear this up, in the european threater, before the P-51s, fighters had to return to base when they hit the germen boader. When the P-51s came out, the P-51s could escort the bombers ALL THE WAY, not because they took off closer to the enemy lines, BUT because they had the fuel efficientcy to DO SO! P-51s left allied bases on britan just like the bombers.

Correct, though Germany was hardly the only target and bases in N. Africa, then Italy were crucial for airsupport later in the war.

The point being that if you model air combat in 1939 you have a significantly different model than in 1944.

[Zachriel]

Citation for an unescorted bombing run against Germany in 1944, with bombers which were based in different theaters of war.


32ND BOMB SQUADRON of the 301st Bomb Group (H)---For outstanding performance of duty in armed conflict with the enemy on 25 February 1944, thirty-one B-17 type aircraft of this group took off to participate the bombardment of heavily defended enemy aircraft factories and production centers at Regensburg, Germany in one of the first coordinated attacks by Air Forces operating out of different theaters against a target deep in the industrial heart of Germany. Ten aircraft of this group were forced to turn back shortly after take-off, seriously decreasing the fire power and formation strength while enroute to the target. After their rendezvous with other Wing units and without the support of friendly fighter escort, where it was attacked by more than 100 enemy fighters. These were constantly replaced by fresh enemy planes until, when the group reached the target, the total strength of the attackers was estimated at over 200 hostile fighters.

http://www.valleyva.com/32nd/32ndawrd.html

[steelehc]

Originally posted by YC4B4U
Yamato as Japanese UU (If it had been constructed at the start of the war I think its ending may have been different).

I agree with everything you posted except this. The Yamato was laid down in 1937, and the Musashi (the sister ship) was laid down in 1938. These ships were truly awesome, the largest warships ever built in their time. However, a battleship is limited in its capabilities by opposing air power, and a defensive war. From 1942 onward, the Japanese were on the defensive, and had a disadvantage, in terms of quantity and quality, in the air.

Another thing, that people easily forget, is that the USS Iowa class battleships are not only alone as "Kings of the Sea," but they are the fastest, most accurate, longest-ranged, most well-armed, most defended, and best designed warships ever built.

[steelehc]

That was me.

If you have any questions, please pm me, or post here. I would be happy to debate/discuss this with anyone.

Steele

[steelehc]

Originally posted by macaskil
Shore batteries sinking warships

During the German invasion of Norway in 1940, some German ships were sunk by land-based Norwegian guns in Oslo Fjord.

It didn't stop the invasion but weakened the German Navy and may therefore have changed the course of the war.

Some equals five, right? It is a rare enough occurence that it can be said to never happen. Perhaps radar artillery should be able to sink ships, and other guns should have a chance of doing so (25%-50%?).

[Dis]

naval combat in this game is aboslutely horrible and worthless. because the game is so tedious, I really have no desire to launch amphibious invasions anyways. being an ex navy guy, I wanted more. civ2 surpassed civ3 in naval combat. And that isn't saying much.

I don't even build ships to defend my coast. There is no reason. so they toast a few improvements. Whooppee. I can rebuild.

[YC4B4U]

I think we just have to put up with the limitations of the turn based format - if we wish for more depth then try the latest incarnation of Harpoon etc.

The only possibility for greatly improved turn based play is to implement tactical combat for attacks rather than probability and ADM. (Such as "Conquest of the New World" or similar)

Some minor improvements can be made I admit, but for what I "feel" alot of people are asking for requires a greater depth not possible within the current format. Or requires that Naval combat becomes a game within the game.

[Fromage]

1. One problem is how destroyers and battleships are pretty much the same. AI will never build any destroyers, but they have dozens of battleships. It just doesn't make sence to build destroyers, when BSs cost almost the same.

I have modded battleships to have attack 32, defence 24 and cost 300. Now battleships rule seas if opponent doesn't have those or aircrafts. Destroyers and subs won't have much chance if battleship isn't damaged. This is how it should be. Now people need destroyers too, because battleships are too expensive to control all the seas.

2. No-one should see subs. This would make convoys useful, because you couldn't know where those enemy subs are. If the sub attacks, escorts will have chance to sink it.

3. Ironclads shouldn't be able to move on oceans. This would make frigates much more usefull.

4. Privateers are useless now. I have no idea how those should be changed. Perhaps attack of 3 would help. Now they could sink merchant ships easily, but faster frigates could destroy them easily (attack 2 vs. defence 1)

[Easy Rhino]

YC4B4U, that's a good attempt at a summary.

But I also want a modeling of thermal layers and sea life.

ER

[Eye Of Moron]

I have an idea that I think would really improve the naval aspects of the game. Why don't they give movement modifiers to water squares? They could have ships treat sea squares as roads (movement x3) and ocean squares as "super" roads (movement x5). This would solve the common complaint of naval units being too slow, while at the same time not making them so fast that they are impossible to catch - since they have to "slow down" and use up movement pts to move through coastal tiles they will not be able to drop off units/bombard improvements and then run away before you can catch them. They could also make it so you wouldn't get the movement bonus when moving through "territorial waters" - water tiles that lie within another civ's borders - unless you had a right of passage. This would mean that any attacking ship would have to use up his movement going through a few tiles of ocean and coast before he could reach your shores. And since the movement bonus is tile dependent, you won't have galleys racing around revealing the whole map in the ancient age either. You can even make the bonus dependent on tech - example: astronomy gives x3 movement in ocean; navigation gives X3 in sea, x5 in ocean. I know it's not exactly "realistic" since I can't really think of a good reason why ships would move faster in ocean waters than in coastal waters, but I think it will make the game more "fun" and IMHO fun > realism. Besides, how realistic is it that it currently takes my modern fleet of carriers 30+ years to circumnavigate the globe?
Oh yeah, planes need to be able to sink ships. I don't care how they do it, but they need to change this. I say either take out bombardment altogether when an air unit fights a sea unit (and just have straight combat) or let fighters use their air-air combat attack value to attack and sink ships. Maybe consider giving air units a "withdraw" capability when attacking ships. Fighters on carriers have to be able to perform air superiority missions. All this would have to be balanced to not make air units TOO overpowering, but in reality air units ARE overpowering vs. naval units. It's generally not a good idea to send surface ships with no air support up against a carrier fleet. Just ask the Japanese.

[Tingkai]

The game could be changed so that the number of subs you have will affect another civ's trade, if you're at war. For every sub at sea, their trade could drop by 10 gold per turn, but you can counter this by having subs at sea. So if you have one sub out and the other civ has a destroyer then the net effect on trade is nil.

[YC4B4U]

My initial reaction to the sub/trade idea by Tingkai was not positive. But I shall make some comments.

A blanket sub/destroyer ratio (or similar) doesn't sound like a sound idea. Perhaps it would be better to allow a sub near a harbour to cause some restriction in trade. However this idea still is far better than the alternative of having hundreds of merchants on the high seas and the sub/privateer picking them off individually.

CTP2 tried to model trade routes by using a line on the map that could be "pillaged". I thought that this was annoying as I could not tell if the pirating was affecting my enemy and I would get sick of hitting the "pillage" button every turn.

The more I think of pirating sea trade, the more I think that it can't be done logically or enjoyably. I think the best way to deal with submarines is to treat them purely as stealth military units. That is, they can bombard warships or transports with a slight chance of counter attack and damage.

A penny for your thoughts...

[Encomium]

Originally posted by YC4B4U . . .
A blanket sub/destroyer ratio (or similar) doesn't sound like a sound idea. Perhaps it would be better to allow a sub near a harbour to cause some restriction in trade. However this idea still is far better than the alternative of having hundreds of merchants on the high seas and the sub/privateer picking them off individually.

CTP2 tried to model trade routes by using a line on the map that could be "pillaged". I thought that this was annoying as I could not tell if the pirating was affecting my enemy and I would get sick of hitting the "pillage" button every turn.

The more I think of pirating sea trade, the more I think that it can't be done logically or enjoyably. I think the best way to deal with submarines is to treat them purely as stealth military units. That is, they can bombard warships or transports with a slight chance of counter attack and damage...

Treating submarines or privateers "purely as stealth military units" is entirely non-historical. The Germans almost won TWO Worild Wars by attacking Britain's commerce and they did that nowhere near British ports which could never be blockaded owing to British surface naval supremacy and eventual air supremacy.

If an enemy naval unit of any kind is on a trade route it should effect negatively trade and commerce, and cost gold. A battleship would have more of an effect than a sub but be a lot easier to find and attack, of course.

Privateers could be (in an Age before subs) simply designated to attack the trade of certain nations, as the English did to the Spanish in the 1580's even before actual war. There should no need for turn by turn functions and activations (other than movement). There should be no need to click 'pillage'; trade damage should occur automatically by the mere prescence of hostile units.

And BOMBERS MUST BE ABLE TO ATTACK - AND SINK - WARSHIPS.

Idealy, diesel subs should be a lot easier to see (even by bombers) than nuclear subs that stay submerged all the time.