Planes can't sink ships, DEAL WITH IT - Page 3

roalan · February 16, 2002, 00:04

Steelehec: I am not sure I entirely agree with you . Yes oil shortages but they had the best flyers at that time with plenty of experience however their air sea rescue was the pits and if a flyer went down he was lost.I do not think they gave that much thought at the start of the war.With the code they had it just did not figure in their plans. Their plan wa sa quick blow to the US destroy our Navy and we woudl sue for peace. They did not believe they would have to go into a long war so shortages did not play a part,they felt they had enough to win a quick war. All except Yamato tha is. If you are going to win a short war you must press the attack untile you can no longer attack,they did not. Not only that but when the battle of Leyte Gulf took place and even before the Japanese realized that shortages did not mean anything because they went on one way missions knowing they would not return i.e. the Yamato and Musashi BB'S.Even Leyte was a one way mission,they only conserved during the middle of the war.

notyoueither · February 16, 2002, 00:15

Quote:

Originally posted by roalan
Are you kidding. BB"s and CVA"s used to have their own fast task forces. Groups of the above were together in WW2 as Fast task forces.

Yep. And thats how I float my BBs and CVs around too. In stacks so that they have higher survivability. I guess it made sense for the navies of the time, and for civ3.

Salve

steelehc · February 16, 2002, 00:19

roalan: If you do not agree with me, then why are you agreeing with me? I said earlier that the Japanese held back from a number of assaults, which they did.

In addition to oil shortages, they suffered from a shortage of trained pilots (they had the best, yes, but these were not easily replaced), and aircraft. For every Japanese plane shot down, they would have had to destroy three American planes in the beginning of the war, seven by 1942, or twenty-two by 1944, just to keep pace numerically. By 1944, American planes were also much better then the best the Japanese had available (P-47, P-51, F6F, F4U, B-29).

In any case, this is well off-topic.

Steele

notyoueither · February 16, 2002, 00:27

Quote:

Originally posted by Spiffor
Can someone explain me why some complain ships cannot be sunk by planes, but almost no one argues that they can't be sunk by ship / land bombing ?
The only cause I see is that they can't stand building ships... Tell me I'm wrong

You'd be incorrect in my case.

I build lots of boats. In fact I'd like to build more. I just can't find many reasons to build DDs after BBs. I'd also like to see CAs.

What I would like to see is an overhauled Naval and Naval-Air system. As can be seen by my proposal earlier in this thread. I would hope that the overhaul would add more flavour to the nautical aspect of the game, because I really do enjoy the ships. It's funny how many people from around my region (the prairies) choose the Navy for service.

I think I read Soren (in today's chat) as saying that many things are possible. But they aren't all going to happen. Here's me making suggestions and hoping.

Salve

notyoueither · February 16, 2002, 00:35

Quote:

Originally posted by King of Rasslin
Look, air cannot sink ships and it will never be able to.

Quote:

Originally posted by notyoueither
Is this for real?

BTW. Would this be a good time to point out that I misinterpreted KoR's statement?

I think it's obvious that I took him to mean *in life*. Whereas it is obvious to me now that he meant *in the game*. Beat me, I deserve it.

However, I also think that the scripts of the chat will reveal that he may not be correct so far as the game goes.

Salve

roalan · February 16, 2002, 00:47

steelehec: I agree we are way off topic so in closing I will say that we do have to live with what civ3 has to offer in the Naval air case.I do hope they make some changes in the future where planes and ships can destroy each other.

King of Rasslin · February 16, 2002, 01:51

I think people are taking this wrong. It ALWAYS ends up as "well in real life they can sink ships!" or "ships should be able to destroy planes!"

Its an issue of game balance. Being so contraversial I think it should be an option in the editor. Sadly, this has been so badly ignored it is pathetic

Well, I guess planes sinking ships might be ok if the boats could fight back. Or if ships didn't crawl across the world. It should be an option in the editor.

Oh well, there is always hope for an expansion. Civ 4 will be 4+ years away, if ever. Lets make the best of what we have or do something about it. Modders, perhaps?

steelehc · February 16, 2002, 02:42

roalan: Thank you for being gracious about that. I apologize for being stubborn, but that's how I am, and I believe in what I say.

King Rasslin: I did not intend fo rthis thread to leave the topic, and go off on real life. Of course planes can sink real ships. We (at least me) are trying to say that planes should be able to destroy the little ship markers you can build and move around.

Steele

Encomium · February 16, 2002, 03:12

Quote:

Originally posted by King of Rasslin
I think people are taking this wrong. It ALWAYS ends up as "well in real life they can sink ships!" or "ships should be able to destroy planes!"

Its an issue of game balance. Being so contraversial I think it should be an option in the editor. Sadly, this has been so badly ignored it is pathetic

Well, I guess planes sinking ships might be ok if the boats could fight back. Or if ships didn't crawl across the world. It should be an option in the editor.

Oh well, there is always hope for an expansion. Civ 4 will be 4+ years away, if ever. Lets make the best of what we have or do something about it. Modders, perhaps?

If ships had that AIR DEFENSE factor factor I earlier mentioned they WOULD be able to "fight back" and damage and occasionally destroy a bomber unit. Fighter cover should be able to do the same.

Why have such hopes for Civ 4?? In terms of naval warfare and air attacks on ships Civ 3 was a step BACk from Civ 2.