Submarine Warfare

I think that submarine warfare in Civ2 is unrealistic, and could be made more realistic by not allowing submarines to directly attack anything. Real subs carry torpedos and of course ballistic and cruise missles in order to make an attack, and real subs can only be destroyed by depth charges. However, submarines in Civ3 should have the option to submerge and unsubmerge; when unsubmerged, a submarine may travel faster than it can underwater because there is less underwater pressure resistance, but cannot defend itself as well because it can be attacked without the use of depth charges. Also, in real life certain types of missles cannot be launched from a submerged submarine. Plus, a submerged submarine, if traveling along the poles, has a slight chance with each movement of getting stuck in a glacier, thus killing the crew, slowly, and practically making the sub useless. But what if the sub could be lifted, possibly saving the crew, repaired, and used again... What then? Likewise, what I'm trying to say is there is both advantages and disadvantages whether a sub is submerged or unsubmerged.

------------------
JRH
[This message has been edited by jrhughes98 (edited October 30, 2000).]

[Builder]

Dont you think that launching torpedos should count as normal attack?

quote: Originally posted by Builder on 10-30-2000 02:23 PM Dont you think that launching torpedos should count as normal attack?

Never! Having to build torpedos as well as depth charges in Civ3 would the make the game both more realistic and challenging. After all, torpedos and depth charges do run out like missles do.

------------------
JRH
[This message has been edited by jrhughes98 (edited October 30, 2000).]

[airdrik]

one word: Ammunition. All units that use up ammunition(everything after gunpowder+catapults and archers) should have a certain amount of game ammo that is used up 1 per hit. Units that use up different amounts of real ammo use up the same amount of game ammo each hit so it is still concidered 1, the only difference is that it takes more time and money to 'recharge' the game ammo of units that use more real ammo per hit.

[Diablo, Bro. of Mephisto]

I like this idea, and I would also have to add that subs should be able to have the option of sailing underneath other ships when they come up to them. There should also be depth, like the deeper the sub gets, the better a chance there is of the water compressing the sub, and destroying the ship.

[chrispie]

Hmmm, ammo, yeah I think that could work. But it'd be a fine line between good playability and being just plain irritating.

Just as long as no-one suggests supplying bandages and first aid kits to the units.

As for Subs, I love the idea of them going under other units, it's a great idea, but to avoid confusion I think they couldn't finish their turn under an enemy unit maybe.

[Dom Pedro II]

I think there's a wee bit too much micromanagement in these last proposals.

[rremus]

I also think ammo would add too much micromanagement. I think the strength bar is a metaphor fine enough for all these details like suplies, ammo, casualties etc.

[Tiberius]

quote: one word: Ammunition

Two words: NO WAY!

No, seriously, why are you trying to make the game so much complicated? One turn are several years, a battalion of tanks is represented by a single armor unit and so on; everything is on grand scale in Civ and you want ammo?! What could be the benefits in fun or gameplay of such an idea?

No, thank you.

[Deathwalker]

Definatley a bad idea, though I aggree that the current methods for repersenting subs needs inprovements, this idea would add nothing to the game.

------------------
I have walked since the dawn of time and were ever I walk, death is sure to follow

[rremus]

CTP has the Stealth Submarine unit type, a modenr submarine, most notable capable of carying Nukes...
I think something like that would be sufficient.