Should planes be able to sink Ships?

[Deathwalker]

I personally think planes hsould be able to sink ships and ships should be able to destroy planes. Am I alone?

[korn469]

that alone won't make the game more realistic or make it any more balanced, and so because of that i say no

[Hywel Dda]

I agree, this wouldn't improve the game for me.

[Bill9999]

I'll throw up a dissent

While history has proven many times that planes can take out ships, and ships can take out planes, I feel that implementing this into the current game mechanics would break the game.

BOMBers are used for BOMBardment in the game. BOMBardment can not kill units, or else they really would become useless as a part of the game. Why build a catapult if it works like any other offensive unit? Or Cannon? Or Artillery? They are used to soften defenses, not attack. Same goes for bombers vs boats. They are used to soften, with mop up to be done by a "traditional" offensive units, in this case another naval vessel.

If you were to change the game mechanics to allow bombers to sink ships, why couldn't they wipe out a tank? We know well that a good carpet bombing can take out a unit of armor. Or infantry. Or any other ground based unit. Certainly more easily done than attacking a ship / group of ships in the middle of the ocean.

So the only solution would be to let bombers kill anything then.

But would that really work? They would be unstoppable, so then there would have to be some way for ground units to fight back. That would require at the least new types of AA units, and most likely a whole new section of the "war" engine that would figure how these attacks would be resolved.

Would that add to the level of enjoyment? Personal preference.

This is one of those places that the Firaxis Tag Line comes into play. "When reality runs against fun of the game, fun will always win in the design."

It really comes down to would it be fun? You may feel one way, I may feel another, and we could both be different than the majority.



Bill9999

[Barnacle Bill]

Originally posted by korn469
that alone won't make the game more realistic or make it any more balanced, and so because of that i say no

Actually, it would alone make the game more realistic. Every little bit helps.

[ACooper]

I see super-bombers capable of killiing anything, anytime. I see new exploits with superbombers against an already weak and slow Navy.


I must say no.

[Harovan]

A no vote from me, although I would allow air units to sink ships that were initially down to 1 hp (similar to non-retreating of 1 hp mounted units).

[Alex]

I would say no. Game balance reasons.

[Grumbold]

I vote no, for all the reasons already mentioned. If Firaxis could include realistic but fun air and anti-air combat then great, but the balance currently favours aircraft too much IMO. Tilting it even further without including effective countermeasures would be wrong as well as damaging to the gameplay.

[Thrawn05]

I said this before in a thread a while back, and I'll say it again. I must have one hell of a bug in my civ3, since the AI is attacking the same unit, on the same tile, that has ONLY ONE UNIT on that tile, and killing it.

I can't see why you can't at least make airplanes kill units, they did that in the other civ game I played (CIV SNES).

Cause they don't kill units, I don't bother with fighters or other bombarding units. They are a waste of turn time and shields. I rather build somthing like a knight or calvary or a tank. Those units work at least.


Perhaps an checkbox option in the editor to turn bombard killing on/off. That would make EVERYONE happy on this subject.

[Oerdin]

My anwser is a qualified yes. Planes should be able to sink ships but it should be very hard for them to do so; the opposite should also be true. By making it very hard we would avoid the "super bomber" syndrome and we could add a little bit of realism. Another good fix would be to add an antiaircraft navel unit like an Aegis cruiser which would have a big bonus for attacking and defending against air units.

[notyoueither]

Where is the *Yes they should, but modern war ships should shoot back* option?

Salve

[dowish]

I vote yes. I maybe be unique, but when it comes to games like this, reality never goes against fun.

I do agree that bomber/air units shouldn't be able to destroy land units, but they should be able to destroy navy units. Naval and land units are two very differant and distinct kinds of units. Land units can always hide, dig a hole whatever. Once found, ships can't do that.

[Grrr]

Yes but a modifier in favour of the ship would be good.

Anyway, there are more important aspects of gameplay that should be patched!

[Ironikinit]

Y'all probably know my vote, but the closeness of the poll results thus far indicates that as far as Apolyton posters go, options to make air units capable of destroying sea units available via the editor would be a welcome addition.

[Kiltdown]

Bombarding is action at a distance, offering no direct risk from the conflict. There should be no way to destroy the taget unit if there is no risk to the attacking unit.

Now if you add a "strafe" command, that lets a plane attack and be attacked, then that would make sense. I'd rebalance the relative strengths to make it so that there was a good chance that a single jet against a battleship with one point left would still likely lose.

[August Borms]

No, the navy is weak enough as it is.

[Skanky Burns]

I think bombers should be able to sink ships, but if not, Im happy with the way things are.

Before, you could not destroy enemy ships without a navy of your own (with the exception of nukes). And even with a navy you were hard-pressed to achieve any sort of victory despite having more advanced ships.

Now we can just bombard ships down to 1 hit point and then be able to cruise-missile them

[GePap]

Yes!

Weakness in the naval game should not be compensated by with weakening the air game. Does anyone build carriers? Whats the point, if they are uselss for command of the sea without BB's around (DD's are too weak). I a building, the SAm, can be given the ability to fight with planes, why not modern ships? (ancient ships no)

[Dauphin]

For realism planes should be able to sink ships, but it has to be built with good game mechanics.

[Thrawn05]

Originally posted by Ironikinit
Y'all probably know my vote, but the closeness of the poll results thus far indicates that as far as Apolyton posters go, options to make air units capable of destroying sea units available via the editor would be a welcome addition.

I'd agree with that.

[BucksRock]

From WWII up to the end of Vietnam only torpedo bombers or dive bombers were capable of taking out a ship. A B-17 was not going to do it. Maybe another tech advance could be made for the expansion pack.

Torpedoes - allows submarines and allows bombers to sink enemy ships.

[Andrew Cory]

Originally posted by GePap
Yes!

Weakness in the naval game should not be compensated by with weakening the air game. Does anyone build carriers? Whats the point, if they are uselss for command of the sea without BB's around (DD's are too weak). I a building, the SAm, can be given the ability to fight with planes, why not modern ships? (ancient ships no)

If (big if, perhaps even an IFF (if and only if, assuming that my grasp of higshcool geomatry remains true after so many years) ) fighters can be given some sort of "go after the other guy's air units" command. Currently, about half the point of fighters is missing, and that kinda sucks...

What I would like to see is this:
Fighters: Given the abilty to make air strikes against (and can kill!) other fighters.

Bombers: Another Bombing unit between the base one and the stealth. This one would have the ability to kill ships, but would be horribly vunerable to fighters.

Net effect: Carriers are suddenly usefull, as they can both protect against air units, and also kill sea units. Carriers are also usefull as mobil platforms for delivering bombardment strikes far from "home" territory. If a player allows one close, they are asking for trouble...

[Starker Kull]

I think it is crucial to the game's realism that planes should be able to sink ships. The evolution of the battleship was that with the advent of new, powerful turbine engines, ships could now be big and fast, rather than having to make a choice between one and the other. Once you have a speed advantage (since if you are faster in the water, you generally can choose the time and place of combat), all you need to be a "dreadnought" is further range weaponry than any other ship. Thus, the "battleship" was a heavily armored, fast ship with ONLY big, long range guns, the idea being that they would never use smaller, shorter range guns because they would have sunk anything by the time those smaller guns could be used - i.e. they were a waste of space. These were unbeatable (execpt against another battleship, of course), because of their unmatched RANGE. Enter WWII, with effective torpedoes and the planes to carry them. Suddenly, the primary defense of a battleship, the fact it could sink or at least engage anything floating before being attacked itself, was lost. Planes were effectively flying guns, they could and they DID sink ships in HUGE numbers. This is why in a modern fleet, there is no real place for a battleship, unless you are fighting a foe with no air force or carriers. The aircraft carrier has replaced the battleship as the core of a fleet, because its "guns" have by far the longest and most flexible reach.
I think the game needs to reflect this if it is to imitate a modern navy even faintly.

[Andrew Cory]

Originally posted by Starker Kull
Enter WWII, with effective torpedoes and the planes to carry them. Suddenly, the primary defense of a battleship, the fact it could sink or at least engage anything floating before being attacked itself, was lost. Planes were effectively flying guns, they could and they DID sink ships in HUGE numbers. This is why in a modern fleet, there is no real place for a battleship, unless you are fighting a foe with no air force or carriers. The aircraft carrier has replaced the battleship as the core of a fleet, because its "guns" have by far the longest and most flexible reach.
I think the game needs to reflect this if it is to imitate a modern navy even faintly.

I am thinking that there needs to be some sort of Battleship MK2, just like a battleship (mayhap a bit faster), but can fire at aircraft. The Aegis cruiser would then be less unique, but perhaps its stats could be upped in response...

[King of Rasslin]

Planes should not be able to sink ships. There is no risk to the plane and therefore there should be no risk to the ship, unless there is an enemy naval unit to fight back. Planes sinking ships is for people that don't bother with with making other ships.

It can seriously affect balance on island maps. I think if planes could destroy ships ships should be able to destroy planes. Plus planes are so mobile and ships are SLOW.

[Andrew Cory]

Originally posted by King of Rasslin
Planes should not be able to sink ships. There is no risk to the plane and therefore there should be no risk to the ship, unless there is an enemy naval unit to fight back. Planes sinking ships is for people that don't bother with with making other ships.

It can seriously affect balance on island maps. I think if planes could destroy ships ships should be able to destroy planes. Plus planes are so mobile and ships are SLOW.

Well, yes. But then, that's called progress. The solution is to start building more carriers, with fighters, to protect those ships. In real life, if one side has air superiority, they can make life hell for the other side. Game ballance would make it possible for both sides to compete in the fight for air superiority, not make it meaningless. Carriers rule the seas right now. They do this because Airplanes can take out hydroplanes (sorry, went for the meaningless symetry). The only real counter for this (IRL) is more airplanes. To take this out of the ballance is to freeze the sea game in an era just-pre WWII.

There is only one _good_ reason that I have heard against planes taking out ships: "the one icon doesn't represent 1 unit" argument. I think that this is only sorta true. While one legionary may represent 1000 men, I tend to think of one tank as representing about 16 tanks, and one marine (I placed the marine later in the game, beefed up its values, and made it an American UU) as representing about 8 actual soldiers...

By the same token, I tend to think of naval units as representing not more than 7-8 actual ships, and that decreases as time goes on. For instance, I think it is entirely realistic for 1 carrier icon to represent 1 carrier, 1 nuke-sub icon to represent 1 nuke-sub, and 1 Aegis cruiser icon to represent at most 2 Aegis cruisers. Since I can see an several bombers taking out 1 carrier, I can see 1 bomber icon (representing a dozen or so craft) taking out 1 carrier icon (representing 1 carrier)...

I should point out that those same bombers could _NOT_ take out land units for many of the same reasons, they just don't tend to in real life. Even the most devistating air battles to date (Afganistan, a few months ago) could not take Tora Bora, or even Kabul. Although I think we could have destroyed the average Afgan city, I don't know that I want to give a player that kind of power...

[Dis]

I only think specialized units such as dive bomber and torpedo bomber should be able to sink ships. But not regular bombers.

[notyoueither]

Originally posted by Dissident
I only think specialized units such as dive bomber and torpedo bomber should be able to sink ships. But not regular bombers.

Prince of Wales, Repulse, (Yamato?) any USN ship silly enough to go within range of Bear and Backfire bombers during some hypothetical, unfought war.

Oh! Did you think the Soviets had not figured out ways to blow significant chunks of that navy of yours out of the water? Thank God it never came to proofs.

Salve

[Zoid]

Yes, of course planes should be able to sink ships. I have just two words to say PEARL HARBOR And Dissidents last post makes kinda sense...