this game needs massive improvement

[Dis]

I have only read one of his posts, but judging from its juvenile content the ignore feature might be useful. It's even more juvenile than my posts

[Ironikinit]

Soz, I meant MM.

[SieGermans]

ok look everyone. my beef is primarily with the combat system. When i said it's almost impossible to win on any setting other than chieftain, I meant in terms of warfare. Enemy nations are always making threats, but my military advisor says our army can take them, so I go to war with them, and end up having my ultra contemporary military defeated by spearthrowers and guys with sticks. I understand the need to expand, and my technology is always up to par with everyone else (but never ahead). I'm used to having technology to trade for gold etc. but when I was playing as Japan in the industrial ages and went to war with pathetic china who was mostly armed with Riders and longbowmen because they were slow to upgrade their units. so after consistent, ineffiective shelling of a city defended by a pikeman and two spearmen, their little battalion of riders managed to come up, kill 4 of my fortified, veteran infantrymen and capture three of my artillery units with only one of their units lost. that pissed me off because in the very same game, my cavalry was essential ineffective against enemy riflemen. I take offense to being called a "newbie" too, i've been playing the civ series since civ I came out and I am very familiar with the gameplay. it's just that Civ III changed a lot of things that were essential and replaced it with a lot of eye candy, which is nice, but doesn't make the game worthwhile. I am used to Civ 2, and was expecting more Civ 2 in the game, but it's just not present.

Terser, when you say editor, you mean the scenario maker?

Zachriel, I'm pretty sure the Army assembled in WWII to retake France was much larger than the Gulf war. The gulf war army was piddling compared to those of WWII and even Vietnam. but what your saying just works into what I am saying. Caesars legions were an "ancient" technology. they used ancient strategy, ancient weapons, thus weaker than the medieval forces used by william to invade normandy during the 11th century. I think it would be less of a headache if firaxis just made the AI upgrade it's units with the age. that way if I send in 4 infantrymen and they all get kicked trying to attack a tank oor a fortified infantryman, it makes SOME sense. sure it's still a loss but its within reason. a phalanx defending against a tank? no, not a chance, not even the slightest bit of damage. hell, I doubt a bronze or iron spear would even scratch the thick paint on the tanks armor, which can withstand a small HE round. just the same with a frigate attacking a destroyer. NO damage should be done. a cannon ball would just bounce of the hull of even a 100 year old warship. the copper armored USS Constitution deflected cannon balls for crying out loud! and a submarine should recieve no damage from anything but modern warships. Bombers should also have an increased attack, as with fighters. Fighters should be able to destroy units like tanks and infantry. they should give the option of "strafe" for the mission, which means your fighter can go in (with an attack of 12 for the WWII fighter, and 18 for the jet fighter, and 20 for the stealth fighter) so you can destroy ground units, which is one of the fighters most important role. I'm rambling now. you guys get the point.

[Terser]

SieGermans, I am refering to the "Civ3Mod" file. Just in case you don't know, it allows you to modify many of the rules governing the game.

The process of changing the attack and defense strengths of the units to reflect some sort of reality is rather laborious. It took me four or five hours of modding, two or three test games (played all the way through the tedium of modern times) and several "worksheets" filled with numbers before I finally had everything "tweaked" the way I wanted it. But the results have been worth it: I no longer have anti-tank spearmen or swordsmen, and my battleships plow the seas without fear of galleys or caravels.

As for calling you a noob-no offense was meant. It's just that anyone who is not familiar with the arguments over CivIII's combat system (and the rather extraordinary justifications for the whacked results) is kind of a stranger around these parts.

[steelehc]

Originally posted by SieGermans
Zachriel, I'm pretty sure the Army assembled in WWII to retake France was much larger than the Gulf war. The gulf war army was piddling compared to those of WWII and even Vietnam. but what your saying just works into what I am saying. Caesars legions were an "ancient" technology. they used ancient strategy, ancient weapons, thus weaker than the medieval forces used by william to invade normandy during the 11th century. I think it would be less of a headache if firaxis just made the AI upgrade it's units with the age. that way if I send in 4 infantrymen and they all get kicked trying to attack a tank oor a fortified infantryman, it makes SOME sense. sure it's still a loss but its within reason. a phalanx defending against a tank? no, not a chance, not even the slightest bit of damage. hell, I doubt a bronze or iron spear would even scratch the thick paint on the tanks armor, which can withstand a small HE round. just the same with a frigate attacking a destroyer. NO damage should be done. a cannon ball would just bounce of the hull of even a 100 year old warship. the copper armored USS Constitution deflected cannon balls for crying out loud! and a submarine should recieve no damage from anything but modern warships. Bombers should also have an increased attack, as with fighters. Fighters should be able to destroy units like tanks and infantry. they should give the option of "strafe" for the mission, which means your fighter can go in (with an attack of 12 for the WWII fighter, and 18 for the jet fighter, and 20 for the stealth fighter) so you can destroy ground units, which is one of the fighters most important role. I'm rambling now. you guys get the point.

Zacherial was talking about the most powerful army ever assembled. I believe it was the army tasked with the invasion of Japan which never happened, bu thats beside the point. Numbers do not always reflect power.

I agree that having the AI upgrade units would be very good.

I already posted about spearmen vs. tanks (twice in this thread).

A frigate attacking a destroyer is different. Some of those ships had eighty guns or more, half on the same side. These guns could fire iron shot only, but iron shot can weigh a lot. 40 sixty-pounders could cause quite a bit of damage to a destroyer. Now a battleship...

The copper on the USS Constitution was mainly to prevent rot of the wood. It did not help protect the ship from cannon fire. That was due to the unusually thick wood paneling on the sides of the ship.

I already posted on submarines as well. Anything firing explosive shells (ironclads and later) should be able to damage submarines.

The attack value of fighters is (I think) for their air-to-air combat only. Bombers are not good at air-to-air combat.

If you think that WW2 fighters would not be as good at strafing as a modern jet, you are mistaken. The P-47 Thunderbolt (the Jug) had eight .50 calibre machine guns. Eight. The F-14 Tomcat has a single 20mm cannon. One. It is a bigger gun, but not eight times bigger. The P-47 can put out at least twice as much weight per second as the F-14, or any other modern attack aircraft. As for stealth fighters, the F-117 has ZERO guns. It would not be able to strafe at all. WW2 fighter-bombers (P-47, P-51, Typhoon) were the Kings of Strafing. Fighter's major role was/is air superiority. Thats why they are called fighters. The fight other aircraft.

Steele

[GeneralTacticus]

Caesars legions were an "ancient" technology. they used ancient strategy, ancient weapons, thus weaker than the medieval forces used by william to invade normandy during the 11th century.

Actually Encyclopedia Brittanica disagrees with this.Under "the inferiority of medieval tactics, it says:

Inferiority of medieval tactics
Compared to the most powerful ancient armies, however, even late medieval ones were impermanent and weak. Numbers never approached those fielded during Hellenistic and Roman times: it was a mighty medieval prince who could assemble 20,000 men (of whom perhaps 5,000 would be knights), and most forces were much smaller. Apart from the stirrup, an invention whose importance may have been exaggerated by modern historians, no important advances took place in military technology. Consequently, tactics tended to repeat themselves in cycles rather than undergo sustained, secular development--as was to become the case after 1500 and, above all, after 1830. If only because medieval discipline was often lax and organization usually elementary, sophisticated tactical maneuvers such as those which characterized the armies of Alexander, his Hellenistic successors, and the Romans at their best were few and far between. Otherwise put, the knightly system of making war was much more individualistic than its classical predecessors; had the two been pitted against each other, the earlier forms would likely have overcome the later.

Of course the Encyclopedia Brittanica isn't always right, but personally I believe this point. The Normans were able to keep control because the English culture was much different and they didn't have the capacity for the kind of revolts that were a frquent irritation to the Romans.

In addition, the reason for having fewer troops in the Middle Ages was NOT that the troops were better, it was that the assortments of kingdoms and fiefdoms were unable to support larger armies.

[SieGermans]

steelehc
"40 sixty-pounders could cause quite a bit of damage to a destroyer. Now a battleship... "

no, it would bounce of the hull of a destroyer and a battleship. you have no idea how powerful the hulls of these ships are. the cannons used on sailing ships would not do any more damage than dent the hull at best. I have a cousin in the navy and I myself have been on a ticonderoga class cruiser, they can withstand a hit with an HE shell and still keep chugging. it takes a aerial bombardment or a large torpedo to do these kinds of ships in.

"Anything firing explosive shells (ironclads and later) should be able to damage submarines."

if a regular HE round detonated underwater, it would do very little a submarine because of water pressure. depth charges were invented to overcome this by having special equipment and explosives on them that created a concussion shockwave rather than a regular explosive which used the water itself to blow apart a sub's hull. still, the most effective anti-submarine weapon is another submarine with a torpedo.

"The copper on the USS Constitution was mainly to prevent rot of the wood. It did not help protect the ship from cannon fire. That was due to the unusually thick wood paneling on the sides of the ship."

it was documented as an early form of armor actually, stemmed out of reducing the need to repanel the ship every year. since iron was still considered too heavy a material to use to plate ships, more maleable, readily available and cheaper copper was used on older frigates. the fact remains that the ship deflected a cannon ball. Ironclads were a direct result of this, especially when the steam engine came about and was able to move a heavy iron ship through the water at a reasonable speed. the huge clipper ships of the early industrial age also had iron hulls, and about an acre of sail to push them through the water fast.

"The attack value of fighters is (I think) for their air-to-air combat only. Bombers are not good at air-to-air combat"

Fighters fill both ground attack and air defense. you can't use a heavy bomber to strike strategic points. since the game doesn't have the several classes of aircraft available (air support, ground attack, defensive fighter, strike fighter, light bomber, heavy bomber, precision bomber, recon plane, etc.) the role of the unit needs to be widened

"If you think that WW2 fighters would not be as good at strafing as a modern jet, you are mistaken. The P-47 Thunderbolt (the Jug) had eight .50 calibre machine guns. Eight. The F-14 Tomcat has a single 20mm cannon. One. It is a bigger gun, but not eight times bigger. The P-47 can put out at least twice as much weight per second as the F-14, or any other modern attack aircraft. "

I never once said that. Respectively however, WWII planes were lethal to there contemporaries. busting tanks and destroying railways, munitions dumps, and destroying infantry positions was done perfectly by the warbirds of WWII. however, you gave a bad example of a good modern strafing plane. an F-14 is a better support and defensive fighter. the A-10 Thunderbolt II is a superior ground attack plane, carrying bombs, machine guns, cannons, and a large 20 mm gattling gun on the front. it is slow flying, and heavily armored for this role. the P-47 may not have had cannons on it, but a Spitfire Mk. IX had two 20mm wing mounted cannons, the Hawker Tempest had 4 wing mounted 20mm cannons, and the Focke-Wulf 190 had two nose mounted machine guns (.30 cal), two 12.7mm wing mounted machine guns, and a 20 mm cannon mounted on the airscrew and all had 8 rocket rails underwing to deliver an extra punch to armored installations. these planes could do serious damage to todays modern army but the lack of armor and speed the new planes have is what would make them suffer heavier loses. you need to realize ground attack requires bombs, rockets, as well as conventional guns to be successful, which both modern, and WWII fighters had. a heavy bomber, such as the ones depicted and used in Civ III are good to hitting cities and attacking fleets. fighters, and fighter-bombers of any age, do everything else, attack ground units, destroy rails, mines, take out forts, sink transports, take out enemy fighters and bombers, and attack specific targets within cities, but since the bombard value of a fighter is about as strong as a catapult, they are completely useless in the game.

"As for stealth fighters, the F-117 has ZERO guns. It would not be able to strafe at all."

sure it can, it has great maneuverability, can carry rockets, and has a large bomb payload. a very capable strafer and can go in undetected and catch units of guard, as they did during the gulf war.

"Fighter's major role was/is air superiority. Thats why they are called fighters. The fight other aircraft."

I pretty much covered this above, but that kind of thinking is completely incorrect. if your logic was correct, then a bomber would "bomb other aircraft". a fighter has multiple roles, hence the several variations of fighters. you have strike fighters like F-16s, support fighters like F-18s, stealth fighters like F-117s, ground attack like A-10s, fighter-bombers like the A-6 Intruder, and defense fighters like the F-14, as well as electronic warfare EF-111s. trust me, I know more about this than you would. I am in the Air Force ROTC.

[Dis]

build more units.

that is my motto. that is how to win at higher levels.

And yes fighters do have multiple roles. The navy and air force has to stretch its resources as much as possible. That is why they use the term interceptor/bomber. They really don't call them fighters.

[SieGermans]

general tactitus
first off, i'd like to say that the encyclopedia britannica is using a very biased approached with that issue. Medieval europe and the feudal system wasn't the only group in middle ages that was perfecting battle strategy. it was the saracens who invented the concept of guerilla warfare when they repelled the Mongol push into egypt and then back out of the middle east. add technology into the mix. medieval weaponry such as heavy ballistas, greek fire, bodkin arrows, heavy shields, longbows, composite bows, crossbows, blast furnace steel (not iron, but steel), and chain mail are the advantages a medieval army would have over their ancient counterparts. if a roman legion were to go to war with a regement of 14th century spanish army, the legion would get destroyed, even if it out numbered the regement 2 to 1. the bodin arrows would rip through their shields and plate armor, pots of flaming tar would hurled into the legion would burn the soldiers out of their armor , crossbows would split helmets and skulls with ease, and steel weapons would shatter iron broad swords. if a roman legionaire was lucky enough to get a hit one of these soldiers, unless it was a heavy, crushing weapon like an axe or mace, the chain mail would keep the soldier alive and relatively uninjured, allowing him to take his steel axe and kill the legoinairre. if this regement managed to have these new weapons called muskets and cannons which were around in the 1300s, the armies would be leveled. the Turks were able to push into Europe as fast as they did because of technological advantage. they had cannons, cavalry, and musketeers which mowed down formations of armored european knights from afar. the tactics of the turks were relatively simple, they used the same tactics in the 10th century AD when they first tried to seize constantinople but their navy got destroyed by greek fire. when the playing field is level, tactics make the difference, when there is a major technological advantage, tactics can do very little to change the outcome of the battle.

[Deathwalker]

The part of the game that needs the most work is the modern eara. This part of the game is the most incomplete.
So I thing any future exspansion packs need to be aimed at exspanding this eara the most and add a few things in the other earas

[SieGermans]

I agree with that too, but seeing as how I either get fed up or bored with my game before the discovery of the radio, I really haven't spent much time playing in this era. although, I have played in it a few times. forced retirement at 2050 is a *****. I mean it's only 2050! they should have definitive future techs like they have in call to power, to show that firaxis has a bit of imagination (or do they expect us to pop out Civ III and put in Alpha Centauri when we research all there is to research .

[Zachriel]

Originally posted by steelehc
that numbers do not always mean power. However, I can see two glaring exceptions:Russia (WW1+WW2), and China.

The Battle of Britain was fought with troops numbering in the hundreds.

Another example, the Napoleonic Wars. The first time around Napoleon had a million man army. The second time around he could only field about 72000 at Waterloo, as the manpower of Europe was pretty well exhausted by that time.

In any case, it is an arguable point.

[Zachriel]

Originally posted by SieGermans
I agree with that too, but seeing as how I either get fed up or bored with my game before the discovery of the radio, I really haven't spent much time playing in this era. although, I have played in it a few times. forced retirement at 2050 is a *****. I mean it's only 2050! they should have definitive future techs like they have in call to power, to show that firaxis has a bit of imagination (or do they expect us to pop out Civ III and put in Alpha Centauri when we research all there is to research .

I've played many, many games just through the ancient age, especially after finishing a war, win or lose, and things are pretty well settled for a while. I usually try to play out bad positions, at least until the loss is certain. Don't be afraid to lose either; it's part of the fun.

Did I ever tell you about my Luxembourg strategy?

Hey Joan, baby. Give me some Saltpeter.

Dearest Catherine. You look lovely today. Would you like some of these wonderful gems to decorate your beautiful visage?

Oh Great Bismark, sage ruler that you are, would you mind having your Panzers get off the palace lawn. Thank you very much. Oh, and here's your annual tribute. What do you mean, it's not enough?

[SieGermans]

hehehe, i'm cocky, i will retire before I face invasion but rarely have i ever lost cities on my continent, if I do it's a foreign city I had weakly guarded with cavalry waiting for reinforcements or something. It's just some battles on other continents are total *****es. and really tick me off cause the cocky jerk I'm invading is still trying to pretend he is stronger than me despite my 242 Infantry units back home just dying to destroy China. oops, i've said too much.

[Martinus Magnificus]

Originally posted by Encomium
I've posted this before and do so yet again.

What Civ III needs is a combat bonus if a military unit is of a different Age than the opponent. 25% sounds fair.

In otherwords, a longbowman attacking a cavalry unit suffers, say, a 25% decrease in combat effectiveness. Yes, I have seen a full strength longbowman destroy a full strength cavalry (with no escape route) even though the cavalry was armed with rifles.

Combat bonus, or differentials, between units of different Ages would help a lot of these problems.

So get Moralin's Exponential Mod!!! Am I the only one who knows of its existance?

[Ironikinit]

I can't believe that no one is in the slightest concerned that adding 25% per era would unbalance the game. Worse, I could make it impossible to win if the AI got a tech lead that gave units an era ahead of the player's.

Sie,

Here's a handy link that shows the odds of attack:

http://www.columbia.edu/~sdc2002/civulator.html

For example, vet riders (A = 4) attack reg infantry fortified in grassland. The riders have a 13.704% chance of winning.

Usually the AI won't even make such attacks.

To Zach and Steel and any others interested:

As for frigates damaging destroyers, no, they really shouldn't be able to if reality is our only guide. Frankly, they shouldn't be able to damage ironclads. But in terms of the game, I feel that there should be some risk for the more advanced civ, and some hope for the more backward civ.

[Spec]

[Raion]

Civ III to me is a broad based game. Its not like Harpoon 4, nor other only war computer games.

Maybe they have more culture, and other factors that lead to that.
I know some Civ's soldiers will just last longer than other Civ's soldiers in the game. Certain Civ's that are militerisic will have better soldier over other Civ's that may have more culture.
When one plays a Civ, one should pick out the type of Civ for the game one wants to play. They are all different.
If not, mod the Bic file to change the name of that Civ.

[Worthingtons]

BTW: We awarded you with the title of head DiC (Discriminating Consumer), or DiC head, if you will.

Good comeback by Emco tho....

[steelehc]

EDIT: Double post.

Steele

[steelehc]

Originally posted by SieGermans
steelehc
"40 sixty-pounders could cause quite a bit of damage to a destroyer. Now a battleship... "

no, it would bounce of the hull of a destroyer and a battleship. you have no idea how powerful the hulls of these ships are. the cannons used on sailing ships would not do any more damage than dent the hull at best. I have a cousin in the navy and I myself have been on a ticonderoga class cruiser, they can withstand a hit with an HE shell and still keep chugging. it takes a aerial bombardment or a large torpedo to do these kinds of ships in.

"Anything firing explosive shells (ironclads and later) should be able to damage submarines."

if a regular HE round detonated underwater, it would do very little a submarine because of water pressure. depth charges were invented to overcome this by having special equipment and explosives on them that created a concussion shockwave rather than a regular explosive which used the water itself to blow apart a sub's hull. still, the most effective anti-submarine weapon is another submarine with a torpedo.

"The copper on the USS Constitution was mainly to prevent rot of the wood. It did not help protect the ship from cannon fire. That was due to the unusually thick wood paneling on the sides of the ship."

it was documented as an early form of armor actually, stemmed out of reducing the need to repanel the ship every year. since iron was still considered too heavy a material to use to plate ships, more maleable, readily available and cheaper copper was used on older frigates. the fact remains that the ship deflected a cannon ball. Ironclads were a direct result of this, especially when the steam engine came about and was able to move a heavy iron ship through the water at a reasonable speed. the huge clipper ships of the early industrial age also had iron hulls, and about an acre of sail to push them through the water fast.

"The attack value of fighters is (I think) for their air-to-air combat only. Bombers are not good at air-to-air combat"

Fighters fill both ground attack and air defense. you can't use a heavy bomber to strike strategic points. since the game doesn't have the several classes of aircraft available (air support, ground attack, defensive fighter, strike fighter, light bomber, heavy bomber, precision bomber, recon plane, etc.) the role of the unit needs to be widened

"If you think that WW2 fighters would not be as good at strafing as a modern jet, you are mistaken. The P-47 Thunderbolt (the Jug) had eight .50 calibre machine guns. Eight. The F-14 Tomcat has a single 20mm cannon. One. It is a bigger gun, but not eight times bigger. The P-47 can put out at least twice as much weight per second as the F-14, or any other modern attack aircraft. "

I never once said that. Respectively however, WWII planes were lethal to there contemporaries. busting tanks and destroying railways, munitions dumps, and destroying infantry positions was done perfectly by the warbirds of WWII. however, you gave a bad example of a good modern strafing plane. an F-14 is a better support and defensive fighter. the A-10 Thunderbolt II is a superior ground attack plane, carrying bombs, machine guns, cannons, and a large 20 mm gattling gun on the front. it is slow flying, and heavily armored for this role. the P-47 may not have had cannons on it, but a Spitfire Mk. IX had two 20mm wing mounted cannons, the Hawker Tempest had 4 wing mounted 20mm cannons, and the Focke-Wulf 190 had two nose mounted machine guns (.30 cal), two 12.7mm wing mounted machine guns, and a 20 mm cannon mounted on the airscrew and all had 8 rocket rails underwing to deliver an extra punch to armored installations. these planes could do serious damage to todays modern army but the lack of armor and speed the new planes have is what would make them suffer heavier loses. you need to realize ground attack requires bombs, rockets, as well as conventional guns to be successful, which both modern, and WWII fighters had. a heavy bomber, such as the ones depicted and used in Civ III are good to hitting cities and attacking fleets. fighters, and fighter-bombers of any age, do everything else, attack ground units, destroy rails, mines, take out forts, sink transports, take out enemy fighters and bombers, and attack specific targets within cities, but since the bombard value of a fighter is about as strong as a catapult, they are completely useless in the game.

"As for stealth fighters, the F-117 has ZERO guns. It would not be able to strafe at all."

sure it can, it has great maneuverability, can carry rockets, and has a large bomb payload. a very capable strafer and can go in undetected and catch units of guard, as they did during the gulf war.

"Fighter's major role was/is air superiority. Thats why they are called fighters. The fight other aircraft."

I pretty much covered this above, but that kind of thinking is completely incorrect. if your logic was correct, then a bomber would "bomb other aircraft". a fighter has multiple roles, hence the several variations of fighters. you have strike fighters like F-16s, support fighters like F-18s, stealth fighters like F-117s, ground attack like A-10s, fighter-bombers like the A-6 Intruder, and defense fighters like the F-14, as well as electronic warfare EF-111s. trust me, I know more about this than you would. I am in the Air Force ROTC.

This is gonna take a while...

Think for a minute about the number of unarmored parts on a modern warship. To use your example, a Ticonderoga class missile cruiser. The hull is armored beyond belief, as are the superstructure and the deck. However, its kinda hard to armor an antenna, radars, missile racks, windows, etc... against sixty pound iron shells coming in at very high speed. I never intended to say that frigates could actually sink a destroyer, but the could cause some damage. Damage that would be expensive to repair.

I do have an idea of how powerful the hulls of those ships are, as I used to work on one. The USS Antietam, CG-54.

If a HE shell detonated underwater reasonably close to a submarine, especially an old one, the sub would feel it. WW1 and WW2 submarines were very fragile. A .50 calibre machine gun could sink one if it was surfaced. Just a little overpressure would crush the hull, and sent it to the bottom. As I said before, iron shot would do absolutly nothing to a sub.

Why do you think they replaced the wood every so often on the sailing ships? It rotted. It absorbed seawater, and grew much weaker. Yes, "Old Ironsides" did reflect a few cannonballs, but that was not due to her copper plating. You would need lots and lots of copper to armor a ship, much more then you would need iron. The weight differences would balance out with the vast increase in material needed.

Yes, the roles need to be widened, and if you are using fighters to represent attack aircraft, then very well. I use them for air superiority, and bombers for attack, as they fit the roles better.

You did say that. You said that newer aircraft should have higher values for attack to represent their better strafing ability. Strafing involves guns. WW2 fighters had more guns then anything else. Rockets and missiles and bombs are all well and good, but they don't strafe. BTW: the A-10 Tunderbolt has a 30mm GAU-8 autocannon; the Focke-Wulf FW-190 had two 7.7mm machine guns; and I used the F-14 Tomcat because most people know what it is. The F/A-18 Hornet, an attack fighter has the same 20mm autocannon as the F-14. This gun, or a version of it is also found in the F-15, F-16, F-4, and would have been found in the F-20, if they had ever built it. My point was tha WW2 fighters are the Kings of Strafing, which I said. For ground attack, the A-10 is probably number one.

Why are the bombers depicted in Civ heavy bombers? What about using bombers as attack aircraft, and fighters as fighters, air-to-air combat aircraft? Thats what I do, and that is what I was talking about.

No, the F-117 Nighthawk cannot strafe. Strafing involves guns. The F-117 has no guns. It can run ground attack missions, and it can do this very well, but it cannot strafe. It also maneuvers like a drunken pig with concrete blocks tied to his feet; not very well.

I believe I understand what you are saying. You are saying that the fighter units in the game represent all small aircraft used by the military, whether they be attack, recon, air-superiority, or whatever, and the bomber units represent all large aircraft employed for attack purposes. I disagree with this view, but I understand it, and see that it does make sense.

As for frigates damaging destroyers, no, they really shouldn't be able to if reality is our only guide. Frankly, they shouldn't be able to damage ironclads. But in terms of the game, I feel that there should be some risk for the more advanced civ, and some hope for the more backward civ.

As I said before, frigates could cause damage to a destroyer. THey couldn't sink one, but they could cause it to require to some big expensive repairs. Ironclads have fewer sensitive components that are not protected by armor, so that holds up their, but the guns of the USS Monitor were targeted by the gunners on the CSS Virginia, and one of them was put out of action at Hampton Roads.

I agree with you, that stronger, more advanced civs should not be all-powerful.



Steele

[theEntity]

I really don't understand this complaining about the combat model.
CIV3's combat model is perfectly fine for several reasons:

1) Fun: How much fun would fighting be if you knew the outcome? Just walking over the opponent that has absolutely no way of stopping you is not my idea of fun. Knowing that your superior unit may die, both makes you have to plan better in the first place and also makes you have to switch strategy to deal with the sudden loss when it happens. The war would certainly be more boring without this.

2) Balance: Speaks for itself, mostly. A game is better balanced if the weakest participant still have a chance against the stronger.

3) Realism: Yes. I maintain that it is more realistic as it is now, than if the spearman automatically lost against the tank. Now, before getting too upset about this, ask yourself: How many spearmen vs. tanks battles has there been throughout history? None - the reason is that in the real world, a tech gap just cannot be that big. All nations learned about gunpowder long before tanks were developed.

So when I see a spearman fight a tank in CIV3, I use something which is called imagination, and imagine that the spearman no longer represent 1000 men with spears, but rather 1000 men with the most basic weapons of that time.

When Russia attacked Afghanistan around 1980, the Afghanistan managed to defeat Russian tanks. Not with spearmen, but with an army that was about as undeveloped as an army could be in 1980. In my games, a spearman in the modern age respresents a unit with basic rifles and some molotov coctails and even a bazooka or two.

So, keep the AD factors like they are.

[SieGermans]

"However, its kinda hard to armor an antenna, radars, missile racks, windows...I never intended to say that frigates could actually sink a destroyer, but the could cause some damage. Damage that would be expensive to repair."

that kind of damage can happen during storms. replacing windows, and antennae are relatively cheap expenses. Radar arrays are housed in armored radomes which can repel large caliber gunfire these days thanks to special polymers. and missle racks...modern warships have missle bays which are housed within the ship, these are safe from aircraft attacks. but the fact that a 200 mph cannon ball could even get over the hull of a large destroyer is absurd. obviously you know very little about old naval warfare. the ships had to line up next to eachother and hammer at each other with cannons for quite a while until the other ship surrendered or was sunk. they were very low in the water as well, 10 feet over the edge of the hull would put you in the drink. those old cannons didn't have much range. now let's see how this works out. a 100 ft. long frigate sails up to firing range of a modern destroy which is 5 times longer and travelling much faster than the frigate. the frigate would at least get fondered by the wake of this giant ship moving very fast. for arguement, the destroyer has dropped anchor. now the frigate moves in really close again. provided that the destroyer doesn't already fire a missle or torpedo off the deck mount at the frigate, the best they could do is manage to land a cannon ball on the deck because the hull of the destroyer is probably higher than the first tier sail on the frigate. and if it does manage to get a cannon ball high enough to take out the radar and antenna at the top, that would by no means sink the ship or cause any structural damage. in fact the damage would probably be repaired the same day.

"If a HE shell detonated underwater reasonably close to a submarine, especially an old one, the sub would feel it. WW1 and WW2 submarines were very fragile. A .50 calibre machine gun could sink one if it was surfaced. Just a little overpressure would crush the hull, and sent it to the bottom. As I said before, iron shot would do absolutly nothing to a sub."

Not at all. not the slightest bit. you could hear the explosion, it would by no means destroy it. Submarines were the biggest nuisance to ships at sea during the first half of this century because they were undetectable during attacks, had the advantage of being able to see what it's attacking, but the attacker not being able to see it until the torpedo is fired. Sonar changed all this, but it is a relatively new technology, being first applied during WWII. if a submarine is surface, which diesel subs did frequently it is very vulnerable (in fact, an interesting addition to the game is the need for a diesel sub to surface every 4 turns or something, if it doesn't, then it will sink because the engines got no air. when it's surfaced it's defense is cut in half) and that was how most subs were destroyed during WWII. Airplanes and smaller ships armed with depth charges and sonar were also able to take out subs, but only because they new the exact location and were to fire. a simple HE round doesn't have what it takes to create the concussion necessary to rupture a subs hull underwater. submarine hulls are not thin or weak at all. they are designed to withstand incredible water pressure, down to 300 feet during WWII, and 600 feet for today's navy. the depth charges concussion created a huge amount of pressure on the hull cause it to rupture and then causing the whole sub to implode. that is the only way to sink a submerged sub during WWII from the surface.

"Why do you think they replaced the wood every so often on the sailing ships? It rotted. It absorbed seawater, and grew much weaker. Yes, "Old Ironsides" did reflect a few cannonballs, but that was not due to her copper plating. You would need lots and lots of copper to armor a ship, much more then you would need iron. The weight differences would balance out with the vast increase in material needed. "

no you wouldn't. the copper plating helped. it's ridiculous to say that it didn't help when other ships at the time without copper plating got smashed by cannon balls. you give an old cannon too much credit, it is a very weak weapon. a cannon ball can smash masoned walls and buildings, and can knock masts off old ships and smash through decks, but it is a very weak weapon. cannon balls probably have a muzzle speed of 200 mph tops which slows down rapidly. as I said before, the copper plating led to the idea of the ironclad. the only thing was an iron ship, which is denser than a copper clad ship, would be very hard to move and would need a huge power supply; once the steam engine came into common use, ironclad and then iron-hulled ships became the norm. to move a sailing vessel made of iron at any reasonable speed, it required the amount of sail that a Clipper ship had.

"Yes, the roles need to be widened, and if you are using fighters to represent attack aircraft, then very well. I use them for air superiority, and bombers for attack, as they fit the roles better."

once again your knowledge of the roles of aircraft is minimal at best. One of the things we learn in the ROTC is the importance of "fighter" aircraft for everything. Heavy bombers are on their way out to be replaced with sleeker, more aerodynamic planes like the B-1B which is essentially, a large "fighter" like aircraft.

"You did say that. You said that newer aircraft should have higher values for attack to represent their better strafing ability. Strafing involves guns. WW2 fighters had more guns then anything else. Rockets and missiles and bombs are all well and good, but they don't strafe. BTW: the A-10 Tunderbolt has a 30mm GAU-8 autocannon; the Focke-Wulf FW-190 had two 7.7mm machine guns; and I used the F-14 Tomcat because most people know what it is. The F/A-18 Hornet, an attack fighter has the same 20mm autocannon as the F-14. This gun, or a version of it is also found in the F-15, F-16, F-4, and would have been found in the F-20, if they had ever built it. My point was tha WW2 fighters are the Kings of Strafing, which I said. For ground attack, the A-10 is probably number one."

look junior, strafing is an involves any form of quick, ground attack intended to hit-and-run vital targets using a plane entire arsenal. specifically "ground attack" is attacking troops and armor with airplanes. i don't care what you think it is, because I know what it is since I hear it every other day from my lieutenant. when WWII fighters went in for a strafing run, they were armed with rockets, small bombs, as well as their machine gun arsenal. And they were expected to drop all their bombs, and fire all their rockets before they returned to base. since modern aircraft carry more bombs and stronger, more accurate rockets, they should reflect this in the game by giving them stronger attacks towards ground units and improvements. and the 7.7 mm round IS a .30 cal. 8 mm is .32, 12.7 is roughly .50 and latter versions were equipped with wing mounted 12.7 mm machine guns to add more firepower in a desperate attempt to destroy more allied bombers as the nazis got pushed back into Germany. the A-10 is a 30mm gattling gun, my mistake. I forgot just how strong a plane it was. But 1 A-10 can do more damage to a single area than 3 P-47D Thunderbolts. it is all relative.

"No, the F-117 Nighthawk cannot strafe. Strafing involves guns. The F-117 has no guns. It can run ground attack missions, and it can do this very well, but it cannot strafe. It also maneuvers like a drunken pig with concrete blocks tied to his feet; not very well."

you've never seen an F-117 fly. it is very maneuvarable albeit a dogfighting attack airplane like an F-18 would be far better at executing 8 G hard corners and corkscrew barrel rolls. an F-117 is a quick strike fighter that can strafe a munitions dump or bomb an oil field very quickly, quietly, and precisely as they did during the Gulf War.

my point is that if Civ III gives fighters the ability to run recon missions, do air superiority, and drop bombs on enemies, they are in fact respecting the multi-role capability a fighter has and therefore should make it realistic. standard rules give the fighter a bombard attack of 2; the catapult which has a bombard of 4. they should do what they did in Call to power and make different planes for different uses. Make a recon plane that has a longer range than the attack fighter which has a very strong attack against enemy fighters, but weak defense and then they should make a support fighter which can strafe buildings in cities and destroy railroads, farms, and mines with ease, and assault enemy ground units. the more modern having a stronger attack because of larger weapon loads, stonger weapons, and increased accuracy and speed. and then they should make a defensive fighter which takes to the skies when bombers or support or attack fighters come in to attack. air and naval warfare were just ignored in the game, and thus rendered useless really.

[Barchan]

Originally posted by SieGermans

look junior, strafing is an involves any form of quick, ground attack intended to hit-and-run vital targets using a plane entire arsenal. specifically "ground attack" is attacking troops and armor with airplanes. i don't care what you think it is, because I know what it is since I hear it every other day from my lieutenant.

Although I agree with your overall point, I wouldn't be too quick to cite your lieutenant as an authority on air power. Strafing is done with guns, period. Look it up in the dictionary if you like. Sure, CAS and Interdiction are both missions based on finding targets of opportunity and striking them with available weapons. But there's a huge difference between a bomb run and a strafing run. Don't confuse the mission with the method of attack.

Having said that, I agree that modern fighters are much more effective at hitting and destroying ground targets than their WWII counterparts. They may not be as effective at strafing (although the A-10 Thunderbolt II is a notable exception), but with modern advances in munitions and electronic targeting, they are much more deadly with bombs (particularly JDAMs) and other stand-off missile weapons (such as the Maverick). If you've ever seen the results of an F-15E Strike Eagle or F/A 18 Hornet attack, you'd be disappointed with the meager ground attack rating jet fighters get in CivIII.

[SieGermans]

^ exactly my point. it's bomb rating is 4, the same as a catapult which just hurls a big stone. the WWII fighter is 2! it's ridiculous. I'm making a scenario modification to rules only that makes modern unit intensely more powerful than ancient and medieval units. (for example a modern tank has an attack of 45 and a defense of 30). I upped bombard strength on WWII fighters to 12, and jet fighters to 18. stealth is also 18 and the heavy bomber is 30, stealth is 32. I want to see if I can also make the heavy bomber capable of carrying cruise missiles, and the stealth bomber capable of carrying tactical nukes because of there roles as missle platforms. (bomber will have a load/unload feature, cruise missle moves like an air unit, so there can be an extended range or something like that. I looked up the definition of strafe in various sources, one said ground attack by low flying aircraft, another said specifically with machine guns and cannon fire. it's up in the air on this one, because several WWII airplane books I've read have mentioned rockets and small gravity bombs as arsenal used in strafing runs.

[Zachriel]

Originally posted by SieGermans
ok look everyone. my beef is primarily with the combat system. When i said it's almost impossible to win on any setting other than chieftain, I meant in terms of warfare.

Point of fact, people win with the current combat system on all levels. You need overwhelming force, at least 3-1 in the open and up to 10-1 against a fortified defense to have any assurance of victory. With sufficient bombardment, these odds can be hedged. And don't forget, you need a plan to win the peace after the battle, too.

Bombard, bombard, bombard.
http://www.crowncity.net/civ3/Attack.htm

[Barchan]

Originally posted by SieGermans
it's up in the air on this one, because several WWII airplane books I've read have mentioned rockets and small gravity bombs as arsenal used in strafing runs.

Again, I agree with your overall point, but the definition of a strafing run is not "up in the air" (no pun intended). A strafing run is a low-altitude attack by an aircraft using guns or cannons. True, aircraft can expend different ordnance on a strafing run-type attack, but that doesn’t make it a strafing run unless the main purpose of the attack was to fire guns or cannons at ground targets and the other weapons are deployed as a secondary attack. Dropping bombs is a bombing run, firing missiles is a missile attack and firing guns is a strafing run. At least that’s how the USAF views it, anyway. You are, I suppose, free to disagree, but those are the terms used for those missions.

Perhaps you might want to check out this website

http://www.13thbombsquadron.org/combattactics.html

It’s sponsored by the 13th Bomb Squadron Association, a group of mainly Korean War vets who know a few things about aerial combat. You might want to pass the link on to your LT as well....

[sachmo71]

Here goes...


that kind of damage can happen during storms. replacing windows, and antennae are relatively cheap expenses. Radar arrays are housed in armored radomes which can repel large caliber gunfire these days thanks to special polymers.

I seriously doubt that the radar domes are armored. The casing is made from the same material that your local doppler radar is made from.

and missle racks...modern warships have missle bays which are housed within the ship, these are safe from aircraft attacks.

Yes, they are deep within the ship, but if a modern anti-ship missle were to hit the missle bay, the ship would be debris in the ocean. The only defense a modern ship has from air attack is it's missles and PDS.

but the fact that a 200 mph cannon ball could even get over the hull of a large destroyer is absurd. obviously you know very little about old naval warfare. the ships had to line up next to eachother and hammer at each other with cannons for quite a while until the other ship surrendered or was sunk.

The effectiveness of cannon was not in it's ability to punch a hole in the other ship, but to kill everyone on the deck and to destroy the vulnerable parts of the ship, such as the masts. I suggest John Keegan's The Price of Admiralty for a great look at broadside naval combat.

they were very low in the water as well, 10 feet over the edge of the hull would put you in the drink.

Which type of ship are you talking about? Spanish ships were low, but some of the later gun ships were 20-30 feet high.

the frigate would at least get fondered by the wake of this giant ship moving very fast.

A frigate could survive the wake of a destroyer! Unless it was a boston whaler with a 20 pounder in the prow!

for arguement, the destroyer has dropped anchor. now the frigate moves in really close again. provided that the destroyer doesn't already fire a missle or torpedo off the deck mount at the frigate, the best they could do is manage to land a cannon ball on the deck because the hull of the destroyer is probably higher than the first tier sail on the frigate. and if it does manage to get a cannon ball high enough to take out the radar and antenna at the top, that would by no means sink the ship or cause any structural damage. in fact the damage would probably be repaired the same day.

The frigate could rake the deck with 20 pound cannon balls. It would tear up the bridge, the deckhouse, the helo pad, the missle launcher...pretty much everything. Contratry to popular belief, the modern combat ship is not built to stand up to that kind of punishment. They don't have tank armor...the INTERNAL components of a modern ship are armored with kevlar. The hull would be punctured...it's made of aluminum.

"If a HE shell detonated underwater reasonably close to a submarine, especially an old one, the sub would feel it. WW1 and WW2 submarines were very fragile. A .50 calibre machine gun could sink one if it was surfaced. Just a little overpressure would crush the hull, and sent it to the bottom. As I said before, iron shot would do absolutly nothing to a sub."

Not at all. not the slightest bit. you could hear the explosion, it would by no means destroy it.

What on earth do you think depth charges are filled with? High explosives. If a shell, especially a large caliber on, were detonated close to a submarine it could damage it. Not the the degree that a depth charge would, but it COULD destroy a sub.

a simple HE round doesn't have what it takes to create the concussion necessary to rupture a subs hull underwater. submarine hulls are not thin or weak at all. they are designed to withstand incredible water pressure, down to 300 feet during WWII, and 600 feet for today's navy. the depth charges concussion created a huge amount of pressure on the hull cause it to rupture and then causing the whole sub to implode. that is the only way to sink a submerged sub during WWII from the surface.

See above. Actually, a modern sub should be able to dive below 1000 feet. Also, just a note. A depth charge imploding a submarine was a rare even. The successive concussions of multiple spreads from depth charges had much more luck at causing multiple leaks in the submarine, making it fill with water and sink. To implode a submarine, a depth charge would have to explode pretty much right next to the hull, and if it did it was just dumb luck. Also a note about the methods of finding a submarine...the tide in WWII changed for a number of reasons, but one was the invention of the Ley Light, a very powerful searchlight which helped pilots of aircraft spot a submarine BEFORE it ever fired a torpedo.

"Why do you think they replaced the wood every so often on the sailing ships? It rotted. It absorbed seawater, and grew much weaker. Yes, "Old Ironsides" did reflect a few cannonballs, but that was not due to her copper plating. You would need lots and lots of copper to armor a ship, much more then you would need iron. The weight differences would balance out with the vast increase in material needed. "

no you wouldn't. the copper plating helped. it's ridiculous to say that it didn't help when other ships at the time without copper plating got smashed by cannon balls. you give an old cannon too much credit, it is a very weak weapon. a cannon ball can smash masoned walls and buildings, and can knock masts off old ships and smash through decks, but it is a very weak weapon. cannon balls probably have a muzzle speed of 200 mph tops which slows down rapidly. as I said before, the copper plating led to the idea of the ironclad. the only thing was an iron ship, which is denser than a copper clad ship, would be very hard to move and would need a huge power supply; once the steam engine came into common use, ironclad and then iron-hulled ships became the norm. to move a sailing vessel made of iron at any reasonable speed, it required the amount of sail that a Clipper ship had.

Copper is not a very strong metal. Do you know why they use copper in pipes? Because it resists corrosion from water! The copper was used to prevent corrosion. If a cannonball was deflected off of it, it was more luck than anything.

"Yes, the roles need to be widened, and if you are using fighters to represent attack aircraft, then very well. I use them for air superiority, and bombers for attack, as they fit the roles better."

once again your knowledge of the roles of aircraft is minimal at best. One of the things we learn in the ROTC is the importance of "fighter" aircraft for everything. Heavy bombers are on their way out to be replaced with sleeker, more aerodynamic planes like the B-1B which is essentially, a large "fighter" like aircraft.

[i]The B1 was designed as a high-speed, high altitude penetration bomber. When they figured out that it wasn't fast enough to preform that role, it was relegated to a cruise missle deliver platform. I'm not in the ROTC, so I may not be in the know, but the B1 is definately not "basically a fighter". It can't manuver like a fighter, and would be dogmeat in a one on one with any fighter that could catch it (anything made past...say 1964). Sure heavy bombers may be on the way out, but I think that speaks more of the lethality of modern weapons than anything else.

"You did say that. You said that newer aircraft should have higher values for attack to represent their better strafing ability. Strafing involves guns. WW2 fighters had more guns then anything else. Rockets and missiles and bombs are all well and good, but they don't strafe. BTW: the A-10 Tunderbolt has a 30mm GAU-8 autocannon; the Focke-Wulf FW-190 had two 7.7mm machine guns; and I used the F-14 Tomcat because most people know what it is. The F/A-18 Hornet, an attack fighter has the same 20mm autocannon as the F-14. This gun, or a version of it is also found in the F-15, F-16, F-4, and would have been found in the F-20, if they had ever built it. My point was tha WW2 fighters are the Kings of Strafing, which I said. For ground attack, the A-10 is probably number one."

look junior, strafing is an involves any form of quick, ground attack intended to hit-and-run vital targets using a plane entire arsenal. specifically "ground attack" is attacking troops and armor with airplanes. i don't care what you think it is, because I know what it is since I hear it every other day from my lieutenant. when WWII fighters went in for a strafing run, they were armed with rockets, small bombs, as well as their machine gun arsenal. And they were expected to drop all their bombs, and fire all their rockets before they returned to base. since modern aircraft carry more bombs and stronger, more accurate rockets, they should reflect this in the game by giving them stronger attacks towards ground units and improvements. and the 7.7 mm round IS a .30 cal. 8 mm is .32, 12.7 is roughly .50 and latter versions were equipped with wing mounted 12.7 mm machine guns to add more firepower in a desperate attempt to destroy more allied bombers as the nazis got pushed back into Germany. the A-10 is a 30mm gattling gun, my mistake. I forgot just how strong a plane it was. But 1 A-10 can do more damage to a single area than 3 P-47D Thunderbolts. it is all relative.

Without looking up the exact definiton of strafing, I would have to agree with your statement. One question, why do you keep trying to insult this guy? It devalues your argument. Oh yeah, we don't use A-10's anymore. I think that's sad, but whatever.

"No, the F-117 Nighthawk cannot strafe. Strafing involves guns. The F-117 has no guns. It can run ground attack missions, and it can do this very well, but it cannot strafe. It also maneuvers like a drunken pig with concrete blocks tied to his feet; not very well."

you've never seen an F-117 fly. it is very maneuvarable albeit a dogfighting attack airplane like an F-18 would be far better at executing 8 G hard corners and corkscrew barrel rolls. an F-117 is a quick strike fighter that can strafe a munitions dump or bomb an oil field very quickly, quietly, and precisely as they did during the Gulf War.

A F-117 is not very manuverable. I HAVE seen an F-117 fly. They aren't made for strafing...they are made for smart ordinance delivery. Using your definition of strafing, you may be right, but it is much better at firing standoff weapons to destroy targets.


my point is that if Civ III gives fighters the ability to run recon missions, do air superiority, and drop bombs on enemies, they are in fact respecting the multi-role capability a fighter has and therefore should make it realistic. standard rules give the fighter a bombard attack of 2; the catapult which has a bombard of 4.

[i]As you yourself said, it's all relative. I think they gave them low bombard factors because they wanted fighters to be used mainly for recon and air superiority, but could attack units in a pinch. Course, that's just my opinion, and if you don't like it you can always edit the fighter. I know lots of people agree with your accessment about their bombard ability...I just don't happen to be one of them!

they should do what they did in Call to power and make different planes for different uses. Make a recon plane that has a longer range than the attack fighter which has a very strong attack against enemy fighters, but weak defense and then they should make a support fighter which can strafe buildings in cities and destroy railroads, farms, and mines with ease, and assault enemy ground units. the more modern having a stronger attack because of larger weapon loads, stonger weapons, and increased accuracy and speed. and then they should make a defensive fighter which takes to the skies when bombers or support or attack fighters come in to attack. air and naval warfare were just ignored in the game, and thus rendered useless really.

They weren't ignored...I just don't think they figured on everyone wanting air and naval combat to be as detailed as they have found. Once again, there are lots of people who agree with you about air and naval war, and I think mods already exist, so you don't even have to try and figure it all out!

[Heliodorus]

OMG I am so tired of this subject.
I'm a long-time advocate of the abstracted system so
Why must people rant about it when they should be figuring out how to get past it with a strategy!

I accept that people get irate over the break with realism - it's just that you won't convince me that Civ3 is supposed to be realistic in any one particular way. It's a collection of abstractions.

I wish people would quit the kvetching about unrealistic combat in a game where ships take years to travel the oceans, and no combat unit requires logistical support! If you want realistic warfare, that's the FIRST thing you have to have in a simulation, and I bet none of you is prepared to deal with allocating fuel, food, and ammunition to each tank, infantry, and aircraft unit, eh?

I'm going back to bed, now.

[Barchan]

[QUOTE] Originally posted by sachmo71
The B1 was designed as a high-speed, high altitude penetration bomber. When they figured out that it wasn't fast enough to preform that role, it was relegated to a cruise missle deliver platform.

Oh yeah, we don't use A-10's anymore. I think that's sad, but whatever.

Sorry, and I know this is drifting off-topic, but just to clear things up:

The B-1 was designed as a supersonic low-altitude nuclear bomber. It's sole mission, at the time of design, was to penetrate Soviet air defenses and deliver nuclear weapons deep inside the USSR. As the Cold War wound down, it became clear that the B-1 would not be needed for such a mission. Therefore, it was reconfigured to be a supersonic low-altitude multi-role conventional bomber. Also, the B-1B does not carry CALCMs; only the B-52 does. For the curious, the B-1B can carry 84 Mk-82 general purpose bombs (500lb) or Mk-62 naval mines, 30 CBU-87/89 cluster munitions or CBU-97 Sensor Fused Weapons and up to 24 GBU-31 JDAM GPS guided bombs or Mk-84 general purpose bombs (2000lb). (Just a bit more effective than a catapult, eh?)

Lastly, the USAF still maintains roughly 210 A-10 and OA-10 aircraft on the active-duty inventory. The ANG and Reserves maintain approximately another 150 Warthogs.