Air Naval Combat for Firaxis and Modders and You - Page 2

Willem · February 17, 2002, 15:05

Quote:

Originally posted by panag
Okay , thanks but what about the increase in range for example

okay , in editor there are just to many fields like the one for range who have a maximum , could this be overcome somehow ?

I haven't had a chance yet to get to the aircraft yet, to busy modding other things, so I'm afraid I can't answer your question. By the sounds of it, 8 is the max movement, though I'm not sure if there's away around it using the bombard.

Panag · February 17, 2002, 15:14

"nope"

anyway thanks in advance
maybe you shall get it or i or some-else , in the mean time i can just hope , snif , snif

have a nice day

GePap · February 17, 2002, 16:34

Fighters in Carriers should be assumed as being in 'intercept' mode, and behave the same as fighetrs in cities, attacking any enemy aircraft that come into their range.
I don't agree that bombers hsould be penelized when attacking ships- land-based heavy aircraft where extremely powerful vs. warships in WW2, which is why unescorted fleets near enemy land was a big no-no. The change must be that no bombers on carriers, ever. This would make combat in the middle of the ocean different from combat near coasts, where the threat of land based aircraft comes in. It would also make Amphibious landings more difficult vs. an enemy still in control of their airspace.

I agree that planes should sink ships, and modern ships have AA value. Again, if a sam battery( a building improvement) can battle aircraft, why not an aegis cruiser?

I agree that ranges of ships should be increased, thought this can be done with the editor as is. Air ranges do need to go up significantly, with it varying by map size.

I think a few more units would make sense, but not hat many:

Have a warship equivalent of the caravel- thus bringing in naval warfare earlier. Give it no bombarment ability though.
Change ironclads into pre-dreadnaughts (mainly cosmetic), since thats the class of warships (armor ships from 1862-1904) that it really simulates. Divide transports into two types. Weak defense, civil cargo ships in the early modern age- since troops were carrie in cargo ships- an then make them into amphibious assault ships in the modern age.

As for modern warships, two new types, cruisers and divide the destroyers. An early destroyer, to simualte early small ships from 1900-1945, with the current destroyer simulating missile armed DD's after WW2, and cruisers, to simualte Dreadnaught era middle-class warships up to MOdern times, until the Missile era.

At last, more picky change would be to divide nuclear from pre-nuclear carriers, though it is not crucial in any way. The diff would be range, defense, and the size of the airgroup.

Panag · February 17, 2002, 16:48

hmmmm , it all comes to just putting in blank spaces in the editor , for not only an illustration but also for the unit itself at least 32 should be given so that we can atleast give every civ an extra unit and make some new ones for everyone

they should really think about it at Firaxis

have a nice day

Willem · February 17, 2002, 17:23

Quote:

Originally posted by panag
hmmmm , it all comes to just putting in blank spaces in the editor , for not only an illustration but also for the unit itself at least 32 should be given so that we can atleast give every civ an extra unit and make some new ones for everyone

they should really think about it at Firaxis

have a nice day

Just get the Civ3MultiTool and add them yourself. Why should Firaxis have to worry about that, Gramphos has already done it for them. Now if they could incorporate his tool in thier editor, now that would be nice.

notyoueither · February 17, 2002, 19:29

AirRange: Maximum Operational Range in editor needs to be greatly increased from the current 8. To what, 16? 32? 64? Why is it so limited now? You can adjust Movement up to 100. This is a bit different from increases in actual *standard* bic file settings as distributed by Firaxis/Infogrames (they should increase some too). Large increases in the range of the value for this variable will help modders.

Helicopter Unit on Ships: Hmmm. I don't have any thoughts on this at the moment. Anyone care to propose abilities and stats?

New Units: It seems that we would have many votes for Cruisers.
Assault Ship. Copters inherent in it. Good graphic potential.

More importantly, the spaces for modder created units need to be increased. I'm under the impression that this is something that would be done before Firaxis is *done* with the editor.

Salve

notyoueither · February 17, 2002, 19:38

GePap.

Cool. You're right about the concern in navies for enemy land based air. But was it as effective as torp and dive bombers, plane for plane? The thing about Air Force as opposed to Naval air would be the sheer numbers that an Air Force could bring to bear. It is a delicate balance, and hard to get right.

Salve

Willem · February 17, 2002, 19:50

Quote:

Originally posted by notyoueither
AirRange: Maximum Operational Range in editor needs to be greatly increased from the current 8. To what, 16? 32? 64? Why is it so limited now?

I was thinking about that this afternoon. Now I'm playing a 256 X 256 map. The world is about 25,000 miles in circumference, making 1 square equivalent to about 100 miles. I just had a look, and the range of a B2 Stealth bomber is 6000 miles unrefueled, meaning 60 squares. So yeah, I'd say that the range needs to be increased just a tad .

Quote:

Helicopter Unit on Ships: Hmmm. I don't have any thoughts on this at the moment. Anyone care to propose abilities and stats?

If you're interested, here's some graphics someone over at Civ Fanatic did for a Helicopter and sea transport. I haven't tried it yet so I don't know what they're like at the moment.

MikeV · February 17, 2002, 22:48

Quote:

Originally posted by notyoueither
Helicopter Unit on Ships: Hmmm. I don't have any thoughts on this at the moment. Anyone care to propose abilities and stats?

You can use the standard civ3edit tool to do this.

Under "Unit Statistics," if you give an air unit a non-0 "Attack Str." value

, then under "Air Missions" enable the "Interception" Air Mission, the "Air Defense" option becomes available under "AI Strategies, Air", and you can enable it.

Similarly for "Bombard Str.," "Bombing," and "Air Bombard."

Then, they can be Carrier-based.

So, you could just put in a token value of 1, never use the enabled command(s), and get carrier-based assault choppers! Unfortunately, so can the AI!

notyoueither · February 17, 2002, 23:34

Quote:

Originally posted by MikeV

You can use the standard civ3edit tool to do this.

Under "Unit Statistics," if you give an air unit a non-0 "Attack Str." value

, then under "Air Missions" enable the "Interception" Air Mission, the "Air Defense" option becomes available under "AI Strategies, Air", and you can enable it.

Similarly for "Bombard Str.," "Bombing," and "Air Bombard."

Then, they can be Carrier-based.

So, you could just put in a token value of 1, never use the enabled command(s), and get carrier-based assault choppers! Unfortunately, so can the AI!

What behavior does this result in? I am not conversant enough with the editor to be able to tell. The Choppers would be intercepting Bombers?

Anybody?

I looked at the graphics Willem. Good for the Chopper. But it is more like a very fast ground unit. I'm not sure how it fits into the Air Sea combat system.

Salve

Willem · February 17, 2002, 23:54

Quote:

Originally posted by notyoueither

What behavior does this result in? I am not conversant enough with the editor to be able to tell. The Choppers would be intercepting Bombers?

Anybody?

I looked at the graphics Willem. Good for the Chopper. But it is more like a very fast ground unit. I'm not sure how it fits into the Air Sea combat system.

Salve

Damned if I know.

I'm glad to here about the Chopper, I want to add an attack unit to my game, though I'm thinking more of a land based thing. I can't understand why they didn't include one.

You should check out Civ Fanatics, there's a few people there using Flicster to make new units. Some are pretty good, you might find something you like. There's a guy who calls himself Dark Sheer who takes requests if you have any photos. He does really good work. I've asked him to make me a Polynesian Outrigger as an early sea vessel for Expansionist civs. No transport capacity, just exploration.

MikeV · February 17, 2002, 23:59

Quote:

Originally posted by notyoueither
What behavior does this result in? I am not conversant enough with the editor to be able to tell. The Choppers would be intercepting Bombers?

Basically, it just enables the command(s) and their icon(s) [at the bottom of the screen] for such units. You don't have to select those commands, just because they're active. Choose the normal (a)irdrop mission, just as you did before.

korn469 · February 18, 2002, 07:34

i just updated my mod and i recommend it to all of you who want to make fairly drastic changes to the naval and air parts of the game...try it out and tell me what you think ok?

you can find the thread for it here

http://apolyton.net/forums/showthrea...0&pagenumber=1

Solver · February 18, 2002, 14:41

notyoueither and others:

Something about those Jets... ever tried making a mobile defensive airbase? Make 4 Jets, put them on a Carrier, and send near your costs, with Jets on the Air Superiority mission. Works pretty well, should the enemy bombard from Carriers, or bombard coastal cities.

And by the way, I'm thinking now. What if only some planes could sink ships by bombarding? Say, Bombers and Fighters can't, only Jet Fighters and later aircraft can. This thought is independent, despite the other like posts here.

And, I have to mention, in my mod I've slighly improved Helicopters, with better operational range and larger carry capacity, to make them of some real use, as a unit.

Also, with the current Editor, you *can* restrict planes from landing on carriers. Looks weird, but you can. To do that, give a plane reasonable movement (like 4), uncheck the Immobile attribute, and uncheck the Re-base mission. Thus, the plane will move like any ground unit, able to get to cities, but will not be able to re-base, thus, will be unable to land on Carries and/or cities on other continents. However, this might be too weird, and I certainly wouldn't like to see such a unit in my games

.

Willem, nice to see you remember the SMAC Choppers. Really, make a Chopper with a huge gun, give it the Nerve Gas ability, and another one, if you can (Clean, Wave, or Sophorific (sp?) Gas), and you have a unit that will reduce enemy cities to size 3 within a couple of turns. And, if the enemy has got enough units in there, you'll just destroy the city.

Willem · February 18, 2002, 19:53

Quote:

Originally posted by Solver
notyoueither and others:

Willem, nice to see you remember the SMAC Choppers. Really, make a Chopper with a huge gun, give it the Nerve Gas ability, and another one, if you can (Clean, Wave, or Sophorific (sp?) Gas), and you have a unit that will reduce enemy cities to size 3 within a couple of turns. And, if the enemy has got enough units in there, you'll just destroy the city.

Yes I know, they were way to powerful. And I never even used Nerve Gas. Once I was able to build a few of them, it was pretty much the end of the game, since I was able to defeat everyone fairly easily after that. It wouldn't have been so bad if the AI would have used them as well, but it didn't really, at least not effectively. So there wasn't much of a challenge after that. I'm glad they put these limitations in frankly, though I can understand why other people wouldn't.

Encomium · February 18, 2002, 21:00

Quote:

Originally posted by notyoueither . . .
Helicopter Unit on Ships: Hmmm. I don't have any thoughts on this at the moment. Anyone care to propose abilities and stats?

New Units: It seems that we would have many votes for Cruisers.
Assault Ship. Copters inherent in it. Good graphic potential.

More importantly, the spaces for modder created units need to be increased. I'm under the impression that this is something that would be done before Firaxis is *done* with the editor.

Salve

You may be aware that there are more aircraft carriers in the world currently in existence that are exclusively HELICOPTER ANTI-SUBMARINE carriers than jet aircraft carriers.

Of course, Harriers could land on those sort of carriers. But not Tomcats (F-14's, or A-6's).

Civ III's pathetic use of navies makes no provision of ASW helicopter carriers. With the Editor we could make that possible to an extent, although in reality jets should never be allowed on them and those carriers should be cheaper to build.

Starker Kull · February 19, 2002, 01:32

I wrote about this idea somewhere else, but it seems particulary appropriate for this thread. One of the biggest problems with the naval combat system is that it gives no importance to SPEED. In the real world of navies, the speed of a vessel was and is absolutely crucial for determining what other vessels can be engaged. In other words, if you are the faster vessel, and you are in the open ocean, you choose if, when, and to a large extent, where you engage in combat. Back in the sail ship era, size and firepower tended to be inversely related to speed - this is why such a large variety of ships existed for different missions; frigates for raiding commerce, because of thier speed, and ships of the line for heavy (albiet slow) combat with other Man-O-Wars.

I propose the following idea. If a sail era ship is attacked, if they are FASTER, they can withdraw 50% of the time in open water, and 0% if on the coast, if they so choose (sailing ships on lee shores had lots of trouble with flexible movement, and even in the ocean, spars break, vessels get becalmed, etc.). If it is a steam powered ship or later, same rule, but with 100% chance of withdrawal in the open ocean, and 50% chance near land, if they wish to attempt withdrawal (being hemmed in by a coastline and reefs would still tend to negate superior speed and manuerability). This would make the game have a need for a variety of vessels of various speed/firepower/armor combinations, like a real navy. It also suggests a good way of amping the English UU. Rather than give thier UU slightly better stats, give thier sail era ships the manueverability of steam powered ships, in the sense above. This would reflect the superior seamanship of the Royal Navy in the sailing ship era.

Just one of many things that I would like to see improved. The fact that land based units have a percentage chance to withdraw from attacks based on speed gives me hope that the mechanics are already in the code, and some nice Firaxian will allow us access to them with the Editor!

candidgamera · February 19, 2002, 01:34

Notyoueither:

Agree with most of your first post as is with some comments:

*Ship movement should be increased and I like the basic idea of scaling to map size - but would make it selectable. Goes to assumptions on what a huge world is - a normal sized world with finer movement increments or a huge world-maybe make that selectable. Could see doubling the speeds at basic level though. Columbus made it to the New World and back in 1 year with a Carvel, but I wouldn't scale it literally for Civ3.

*Air ranges: might question that on anything flying off a carrier - planes ditched flying missions at Midway - 200-300 miles. Might be worth focusing on as is air missions are flown instantaneously with instant results as opposed to movement - in the scale of the game something they got right. Bomber ranges might want to be slightly longer, coupled with a new medium bomber with an intermediate range/cheaper.

*Air units sinking ships - yes. Here's a premise: separate characteristic for units, air attack, different from bombardment - can't kill or hard to kill land units, can sink ships.

*AA ratings for ships - definitely has to go with ship attack. Would add an air defense strength too represents abstracted ability to evade/absorb air attack.

*Fighters on CVs - air superiority off carriers should handle that as is. Maybe increase carrying capacity of carriers to 6? Would want to simulate getting caught on the deck like at Midway.

*Air on shipping/Naval air: would add techs and improvements to limit/allow building. Naval air units - a bomber and a fighter type - can fly from carriers. See below.
Same for bombers, fighters and ships - have to build the improvement to build the item.
Agree on no need to distinguish between torpedo/dive bombers. Tech additional would be Naval Aviation - allowing carriers, naval bombers, naval fighters.

Some more heresy: Liked old Civ2 for advanced flight, and make it cover bombers and paras. Airmobility gets you helos.

*Maybe an antiship attack strength for land artillery or a penalty on existing bombard strength - let them sink ships, but make it hard, like penalty on bombers attacking ships.

Boiled down and allowed for on editor how about this:
(*Air Attack rating per above.
*Anti-Air attack strength per above.
*Anti-Air defense strength per above.)
These would be nice but like you say a simple switch and antiair rating.

*Later ship (which TBD) construction ability at a city requires naval base/and or shipyard which requires one or more existing techs. Naval Base ought to lower corruption also.
*Naval air unit construction ability requires Naval Air Station and aircraft factory(with flight, fighter) improvement. A wrinkle-fighters/medium bombers constructed at inland aircraft factory/Air Force Base city (which can build fighters, bombers, medium bombers) can fly to Naval Air Station and be upgraded to get a reduced penalty attacking ships, but still can't fly from ships.
*Naval air units cost more also - maybe up to 20-40% more than land-based air.
*Current editor does some of the work changing movements/ranges, attack strengths, carrying capacities, but maybe need a selectable scaling mechanism for movement.
*Modern stuff should have significantly greater range - and how to handle in air-refueling?
*Naval Base requires Harbor and Naval Air Station . . .? Building ships requires shipyard at some point, say the ship tech just after ironclads, and shipyard requires harbor.
-No more lots and lots of AI ships sailing around like zombies now-

*Naval Air Station with so many squares of coast square.

Separate subjects but ideas above/mechanics could extend to tank factories/armor school/jump school for paras. ect.

Naval Base to build Marines?

Other comments:

Some of the above also might require making units slightly cheaper to make the whole process of reflecting production of modern units not prohibitive, but still a little more step-by-step - "you/AI just can't build a bombers and carriers like magic and thereby unbalance the game". Making ship and plane production tied to improvements might provide a balancing effect to allow both better capabilities without imbalancing the game.
Better reflect how hard it is to be a real modern naval power - lots of infrastructure and cost.

"A whole other abyss":
This all should be tied together with resources too (. . . and just where did you get all that Steel?) - risk of depletion goes up with increased production levels. Each resource has a known/unknown capacity (you only kind of know how much you've got) - each unit produced uses up a unit of that resources capacity. More resource discovery maybe?

A lot of this seems to be eliminating distinction between air/land/ground units like in SMAC design your own - boy that was great.

Like the helo carrier idea.

Make Radar range selectable - be able to build AWACS and E2.

Other note - if I do a mode first one will be to give bombers recon mode.

Sidebar, somewhat related, please bring back the air field, and have a radar station - latter per SMAC.

sachmo71 · February 19, 2002, 11:26

Well, with all of this talk about increasing naval movement, how about increasing movement of all units, and also scale that to maps? Since I've never tried it, I cannot be 100% sure, but I doubt that it would take me 12 years to walk across the United States with a group of axe wielding warriors...even if there were no roads. Or 6 to ride a horse. Just my .02....

candidgamera · February 19, 2002, 14:03

sachmo: fair point, many "voyages" on civ world maps are like going on a generational starship. Probably couldn't take it literal translation because Civ's sense of time is screwy anyway. (Building a library takes a couple hundred years?)

Rethinking my post above some:

Strike the aircraft factory idea, make it just factory - represents general ability to make stuff in a city for military or civilian use.

Add the harbor, shipyard, naval base, naval airstation as another sequenced layer of improvements within the tech progression-need more infrastructure to build newer stuff.

have to have a barracks to build tireme.

harbor comes along normally, but you have to build one + barracks to be able to build caravels.

shipyard add in say at magnetism: have to have barracks+harbor+shipyard to build say frigate, galleon, ironclad.

naval base comes along with destroyers: destroyers+battleship+subs require: barracks+harbor+shipyard+naval base.

airforce base comes along with advanced flight & bombers, got to have one to build bombers+a factory and a barracks. not sure if it should require airport for building one.

naval air station comes along with naval aviation, carriers + naval air (fighters, bombers) have to have naval base+harbor+barracks+factory+shipyard.
(Really makes ship sinking planes a steep proposition - just like it really is to have carrier aviation)

Am assuming BTW for this post and above that current editor could handle the additional techs described, would require rescaling costs too, way too probhitive probably with current improvement costs or you'd never be able to build a carrier.
Probably try this out with the editor. Seen some of this in other mods already posted.

From another post thinking about making modern stuff cost people too - an added thing for that would be nice: workers can be consumed to make troops, just have to be in the city.

Alternative thought on naval bases, air force bases, naval air stations: maybe make them buildable improvements by workers - can rush their construction with workers. Kind of inclined though to make them a city improvement, maybe less costly to build than harbors/airports, but same or more upkeep. Open to opinion.

Sidebar:
tanks: need armor school + barracks.
cavalry: need cav school + barracks.
artillery, radar artillery . . .

remember all this applies to ai as well.

Would think this all would govern the creation of naval and air forces somwhat - make naval cities very strategic. Kind of shoves warmaking ability artificially into certain cities, but then Civ3 is not Rail Tycoon 2 - what a wonderful "transporter accident" that would be

.

Roy H Smith · February 19, 2002, 14:36

Ok, I'm not an expert on the military or armaments but I still suggest the following....just use missiles.

I think all cruise missiles should have their range increase and Aegis Cruisers, Battleships, and Fighter units should be able to carry them. Maybe a Fighter only 2 but an Aegis cruiser should be able to fire one at a Bomber and take it down.

Only modern sea units can transport Cruise Missiles but this seems to better reflect Sea vs Air combat.

Arrian · February 19, 2002, 14:53

I don't have a major problem with the way things are now, but here are some changes I wouldn't mind seeing:

Increased movement/range for ships/planes dependent on map size.

Specialized aircraft that can sink ships (torpedo bomber). Bombers could still bombard ships down to 1hp, but you'd need either another ship or a t.bomber to take out the unit.

Chance of withdrawl by faster ships (a destroyer, for instance, should really be able to disengage from losing combat with a galley). If this can be done, it should be extended to land combat, so that Riders, for instance, could retreat from Knights sometimes. Perhaps make this a lower percentage than the one used for normal withdrawl.

Destroyers should be ASW ships. As they are set up now, they're actually Cruisers. Assuming there is space in the editor at a future date, I'd like to see: destroyer/modern destroyer, cruiser/missle cruiser, modern frigate, battleship/?? - a battleship that carries cruise missles and has upgraded air defense, carrier/Supercarrier.

The modern line of ships should all have better AA and should carry cruise missles. Cruise missle range needs to go up, again dependent upon map size. Ironically, I think that C.M.'s are one unit that should NOT be able to kill other units. Should be a powerful bombard unit, capable of "precision strikes."

No vessel incapable of "seeing" a submarine should be able to attack one (this, IMHO, should include the first generation submarines. Sub to sub combat requires proper sonar, which the first subs did not have). The problem is getting those ships to sail right over the sub. If possible (I know this one's a bit ambitious), I'd like to see subs have the option of picking a target in a stack... with a percentage chance of successfully hitting that target. So sometimes you'd pick off even an escorted transport. Another reason to bring along a combined arms force, complete with ASW ships and planes.

Regular subs should be sinkable by aircraft... but nuc. subs shouldn't, reflecting the amount of time WWI/II era subs had to spend on the surface versus modern nuclear subs which can stay submerged for long periods of time.

OK, I think that's enough.

Having said all of that... I'm fine with the way it is now.

-Arrian

roalan · February 19, 2002, 16:07

I had a 21-21BB attack a 1-2 Galleon,I also deceided to save prior to the attack. For 3 times ,after reloading,the Galleon sank the BB with not 1 HP loss. Finally on the 4th go the BB sunk the Galleon BUT at a cost of 50% loss in HP. Was this galleon loaded with 20K tons of TNT???

candidgamera · February 19, 2002, 19:25

pays to read directions - guess will have to get into modding method to try out ideas above.

Encomium · February 19, 2002, 22:35

Simple fact is that of the many problems with Naval Warfare in Civ III, one of the more annoying is the relative few units involved.

Check out the Civ Fanatics forums/Completed Mods/LWC mod. It gives us lots more naval units - which makes for not only better playability but better history.

notyoueither · February 20, 2002, 02:42

Hi all. Sorry to be tardy. Civ3 1.17 is getting in the way. Improving AI? You bet.

GePap. Forgot that about the Fighter intercept thing. I think they do don't they? I went further and suggested auto intercept against air attacking their square.

Good to hear from korn in this thread. It would be better if he put forth some ideas... [Nudge, nudge]. I'm sure he has some.

sachmo. Unfortunately, scaling up maps and all unit movements would have consequences across the game. Like how many cities can fit in any given map size. Like corruption. Like etc.

I'm trying to remain focused on what the designers are likely to find useful for their plans. Assuming they ain't done planning yet.

Thanks Arrian, and everyone else, for contributing your ideas to the thread. I really wish we could get WitP in Civ, but alas, I will not hold my breath.

Think happy thoughts. I am.

Salve

notyoueither · February 20, 2002, 02:45

Solver:

I'm glad that Jets from Carriers are more effective in interceptions (I assume post 1.16f). My experience with 1.16f was limited due to a monster game that I wanted to finish without it. Now, it's too early for 1.17 (just building factories).

Yes, I agree with the limitations on which air craft can sink ships. I think Fighter/Jet Figther and the Naval Air units. That's it. Adds more strategic *depth* (Ahhh! I used that phrase).

I'd allow Fighters because they would not be very effective agianst large, well armed ships, but they would do well against small ships (Transports and *gasp* Galleys). I believe various navies used Fighters against small ships, and I would assume that Fighter units include air craft such as the P-47, Typhoon, Me110, etc. At least 2 those were excellent FBs.

I think Copters need serious improvement, and I'm starting to have some definite ideas along those lines.

Salve

notyoueither · February 20, 2002, 02:47

candidgamera:

A lot of good stuff. Great!

Air range. I got you on Fighter ranges. Maybe it doesn't need to increase as much as Bomber and (Ship movement). But Bombers are sure enemic now. They definitely need an increase. Naval air should be slightly better than Fighters. Anybody got any info on Jet era ranges for Fighters/Fighter Bombers?

Actually... Not increasing Fighter ranges would also make intercepting Fighters better since it might be more likely that Bombers would fly beyond range of Fighters (no pre-Bomber Fighter prep to draw interceptors).

Air defence, Air Attack, etc. I'm not sure how much more complexity Firaxis would incorporate. I hope they read this entire thread! Maybe a good item for the *Going Long* list of items that would be nice, if not necessary.

Carrying capacity of CVs. Maybe a Nuclear CV new unit? Actually, the editor allows a carrying capacity of up to 100.

Go for it!

The prerequisite buildings is good. Again for *Going Long*. Allow small ships, up to Transport and DD to be built in any city. CR, BB, CV, etc. Need a Major Ship Yard. Also, this idea extended to land would add balance there. Allow foot in any city. Other units... Thinking, for now.

Salve

notyoueither · February 20, 2002, 02:50

* Helicopters need serious improvement. Extend their range? Increase carrying capacity (say to 2). Allow them to pick up foot based units from the field (Air Cav). Maybe also allow Helicopters a bombard value. Tied into ASW, they would be allowed to sink Subs (maybe not ships). Also, you should be able to rebase Copters to ANY land square. Of course, since they have 0 Defence, they can be destroyed/captured (destroyed preferably) by any unit over-running that base square. All helicopter missions should be subject to interception (never seen it as of now). How about that?

* New Unit: Helicopter Carrier. Allow CV-H (??) based Copters to land foot units from Transports in it's stack. Or pick them up and return to the Transport(s). Or bombard. Or kill Subs. We're going long here. Deifinite XPack material.

notyoueither · February 20, 2002, 02:52

* Allow ships with faster movement auto escape from combat at 1 HP (except against Subs). I like it! End to the Iron Clad sinks BB song. I would say even if the IronClad attacks a BB with 1 HP. The BB just scoots. Also, if you did this, DDs would be able to escape BBs (realistic? no way a BB can destroy all of a scattering DD group). Assuming of course that DDs go faster than BBs. Carriers couldn't escape any Modern naval unit. Any weaknesses?

Any ship escape rule MUST be simple, or it will not be accepted, so I don't know if Firaxis will ever incorporate Wind Gage and Coastal position for Sail units. But, maybe it could be adjusted. Ships with a slim movement advantage (1 or 2) have a chance of escape. Those with bigger advantages (3 plus?) get auto escape. Of course these values assume a general increase of naval movement rates of at least double. Bump the Man-O-War movement to 1 higher than Frigate. Voila. The English get a better UU.