this game needs massive improvement

[Zachriel]

It doesn't always matter what the hull is made of.
It doesn't always matter what cannons you have.

If you scoff at that little merchant vessel and John Paul Jones sails up and boards your ship, you have a problem. Take your enemy seriously.

[sachmo71]

I stand corrected...I thought the A-10 was out of service!

[nationalist]

Originally posted by Minuteman


Thanks for reposting those brilliantly framed comments. We must have missed them the first 600 times you posted them.

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

Congrats Encomium!

I was just wondering why everyone hates Encomium. His posts are no worse than a majority of people in this forum, yet I have been running into Encomium hate pot for the past few days. I'm fairly new here, so someone please explain it to me. I'd like to join in on the fun myself, if it is justified.

[ACooper]

We don't Enco. We hate his actions.


Love all around................GROUP HUG!!!!


BTW, What were we talking about again?

[John Paul Jones]

Originally posted by ACooper
BTW, What were we talking about again?

...something about the game needing massive improvement. When my privateers can capture enemy ships I will be happy

[Zachriel]

Originally posted by John Paul Jones
I have not yet begun to fight!

http://www.usflag.org/the.serapis.flag.html
Attached is the flag that Jones raised on the British frigate he captured with a refitted merchant vessel.

[Andrew Cory]

Originally posted by Barchan
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.

I looked it up:

Pronunciation: (strAf, sträf), [key]
—v., strafed, straf•ing,
—n.

—v.t.
1. to attack (ground troops or installations) by airplanes with machine-gun fire.
2. Slang.to reprimand viciously.

—n.
a strafing attack.

I think Barchan wins this one...

[Encomium]

Originally posted by nationalist


I was just wondering why everyone hates Encomium. His posts are no worse than a majority of people in this forum, yet I have been running into Encomium hate pot for the past few days. I'm fairly new here, so someone please explain it to me. I'd like to join in on the fun myself, if it is justified.

I can assure you I hold the insulting Firaxis suckups and shills such as Minuteman in mutual contempt.

The pathetic fanboys/sycophants spent their Daddies' $44.95 on this game and act like they are in love with Firaxis. Or maybe some of these dolts are just are hired by Firaxis to come on the forums and personally flame anyone who points out the numerous flaws in this unplaytested game.

Now go pick up your checks from Firaxis.

[Encomium]

Originally posted by ACooper
We don't Enco. We hate his actions.


Love all around................GROUP HUG!!!!

But I suppose it is alright for Minuteman to call those who are NOT Firaxis suckups "DiC's"? Hypocrite.

Yes, some of you spend your entire lives either playing Civ III or trolling the forums. Get a life.

[Zouave]

Originally posted by Encomium

Yes, some of you spend your entire lives either playing Civ III or trolling the forums. Get a life.

Oh, the irony.

[Willem]

Originally posted by Zouave



Oh, the irony.

Yeah really. It's kind of like Hitler saying some of his best friends were Jews.

[steelehc]

Sachmo71:Thanks. I would respond to SieGermans last post, but you already said everything I would.

look junior

a 200 mph cannon ball

100 ft. long frigate sails up to firing range of a modern destroyer which is 5 times longer

Radar arrays are housed in armored radomes

modern warships have missle bays which are housed within the ship

you've never seen an F-117 fly

OK. Don't insult me. If you are in ROTC, you should be calling me "sir." Thats what cadets are supposed to say to an O-6.

Cannon balls flew far faster then 200 mph. 17th Century (1600s) English cannon had a muzzle velocity of 965fps. That works out to about 660 mph.

"100 foot long frigate?" Some old ships-of-the-line, which are represented by frigates, were several hundred feet long.

Maybe radar arrays on your ROTC campus are housed in armored radomes. The ones on ships are tough enough (probably) to protect them from small arms fire, but nothing else.

Not all missiles are housed within ships. The USS Ticonderoga, to use an example has a Mk 26 twin-rail missile launcher, for SAMs. It is mounted on deck, and would be readily destroyed by a volley of cannon fire from an 18th century frigate.

I have seen an F-117 fly. It is rather ungainly. It is impressive, but not manuverable.

Steele

[Barchan]

Originally posted by steelehc

I have seen an F-117 fly. It is rather ungainly. It is impressive, but not manuverable.

Steele

Ungainly, indeed. It actually looks a bit like a bumblebee as it flies by, especially as it shuffles along on a low-speed pass. All the while you watch it thinking, "how does it stay up there like that?"

I don't have a good single source for this, but I seem to recall from somewhere that the F-117 was never really intended to be a fighter at all, but was envisioned more as a small bomber (more appropriately a multi-role fighter/bomber akin to the F-16, I suppose, but with less air-to-air capability). However, at the time the Air Force "fighter mafia" had taken over the upper ranks of the USAF and would not abide the SAC bomber community adding another new toy to its inventory. Also, Congress would not have supported another new bomber (given the huge sums already sunk into the then recently-cancelled B-1A program). Thus, the decision was made to produce it as a "tactical fighter" rather than a bomber. Nevertheless, as its design traded off speed and maneuverability (it cannot go supersonic and isn't very nimble) for stealth, it was never intended to be used as an air superiority fighter. It’s an impressive jet, to be sure, but compared to every other “F”-designated aircraft in the entire active DOD inventory, it’s one of the worst air-to-air fighters in the lot.

[steelehc]

I dont think they mount any air-to-air weaponry, do they? I know F-14s, -15s, -16s, etc... all have Sidewinders or AMRAAMs mounted all the time, but does the Nighthawk have anything?

Steele

[Barchan]

Originally posted by steelehc
I dont think they mount any air-to-air weaponry, do they? I know F-14s, -15s, -16s, etc... all have Sidewinders or AMRAAMs mounted all the time, but does the Nighthawk have anything?

Steele

If they do, the capability is classified. There are no external weapons mount points on the F-117A, and I think the F-22 is the only aircraft designed with internal missile bays. It's a funky technology based on hydraulics, and is yet to be fully tested. Also, as far as I know, the Nighthawk doesn't have any guns or cannon on board. It's only defense is stealth; you can't target what you can't see. However, you can still fill the sky with lead and hope to hit something, which is exactly what happened in Yugoslavia (only known F-117A shootdown).

Also, I think the F-14 carries the Phoenix missile rather than the AAMRAM. F-15Cs will usually rack out with sidewinders, sparrows and/or AAMRAMs, but F-16s will likely only carry sidewinders if performing a ground attack mission. F-15Es can carry all kinds of stuff underneath, but it varies depending on the mission.

[steelehc]

I thought they took the Sparrow out of service. Its a radar guided missile, so it requires the fighter pilot to keep his plane on target while this missile is tracking.

Thanks for the response. I haven't heard of any air-to-air on the F-117 either.

Steele

EDIT: I forgot about the Phoenix... Isn't that a long-range missile?

[Barchan]

Originally posted by steelehc
I thought they took the Sparrow out of service. Its a radar guided missile, so it requires the fighter pilot to keep his plane on target while this missile is tracking.

Thanks for the response. I haven't heard of any air-to-air on the F-117 either.

Steele

EDIT: I forgot about the Phoenix... Isn't that a long-range missile?

AFAIK, the AIM-7 Sparrow is still in service. I would expect that new electronic upgrades have made the sparrow "fire and forget" like the AIM-120 AAMRAM.

The AIM-54 Phoenix is a long-range AA missile. It has a longer range and larger warhead than the AAMRAM, but is only used by the Navy.

[SieGermans]

an O-6 wasting all his time on an online forum? that's unlikely, very much unlikely, O-6s have this little thing called duty which eats up all there time. if you are going to lie at least be smart about it, don't think you will command respect from me. Your cockiness about that alone "If you are in ROTC, you should be calling me "sir."" leads me to believe you are full of **** cause the only time I need to call anyone sir is when I am on duty. Don't bullshit me.

an 18th century cannon would do nothing to a modern warship other than get smashed to pieces. i already made my point earlier and all I hear are these bullshit "what ifs" from the rest of you. saying something like "a stray cannon ball could possibly get high enough to bend the antenna on the radio tower of a destroyer

""100 foot long frigate?" Some old ships-of-the-line, which are represented by frigates, were several hundred feet long."

the longest were 300 feet long, sloops, brigs, and privateers were between 100-200 feet long. Clippers were the monsters of the sea back in the late 18th and early 19th century but they were not warships.

"I have seen an F-117 fly. It is rather ungainly. It is impressive, but not manuverable."

I guess you would consider WWII planes unmanevuerable too. the F-117 isn't intended for dogfights, but it has the ability to shake enemy aircraft very well.

[ACooper]

Originally posted by Encomium



But I suppose it is alright for Minuteman to call those who are NOT Firaxis suckups "DiC's"? Hypocrite.

Yes, some of you spend your entire lives either playing Civ III or trolling the forums. Get a life.

Thanks for providing the perfect example of what I mean. Some of us play the game. Why are you here? Oh, that's right, your the DiC Head.

[Ironikinit]

The following is way off topic, but this thread's a mess anyway.

Enco at least does play the game. The real DiCs are the ones who feel justified in babbling insultingly about the game and its fans on a fan forum without even owning or having ever played the game. Oh, some of them played it a few times and think that makes them experts. Where I come from, that type is called a fool. Well, "fool" will do.

Yes, Enco is ill mannered, yes, he repeats himself, yes, I'd pay money to see him lightly beaten with a bat. There are worse, though. They seem scarcer these days, and I think that all who read this forum should be pretty pleased.

Plus the ignore feature is so so so cool. I've read boards that didn't have it and it's the best feature ever.

[Barchan]

Originally posted by SieGermans
an O-6 wasting all his time on an online forum? that's unlikely, very much unlikely, O-6s have this little thing called duty which eats up all there time. if you are going to lie at least be smart about it, don't think you will command respect from me. Your cockiness about that alone "If you are in ROTC, you should be calling me "sir."" leads me to believe you are full of **** cause the only time I need to call anyone sir is when I am on duty. Don't bullshit me.

Dude, whether steele is a full-bird or not, with that attitude your career in the military will be both short and painful. True, O-6s don't have much free time, but duty doesn't eat up all "there" free time, as you put it. There are also little things called "lunch" and "liberty" and, yes, even Colonels and Navy Captains get them too. It's not like they're general officers. And it's not inconceivable that they might choose computer games as their hobby instead of hunting or fishing. I think it's fair to be skeptical, but you might want to proceed more cautiously. Sure, when you get a message to call Colonel Sanders, you might be getting pranked. On the other hand, I've known at least one Air Force O-6 by the name of Sanders, so you never know. But I guarantee if you tell an O-6 not to bullshit you, you'll have a very uncomfortable meeting in his or her office right away.

Also, if you think that you won't be calling senior officers Sir when you meet them after hours or they call you at home, don't expect to make O-3.

I guess you would consider WWII planes unmanevuerable too. the F-117 isn't intended for dogfights, but it has the ability to shake enemy aircraft very well.

WWII planes? Sure, the B-17 wasn’t very maneuverable at all. The P-51, on the other hand, was quite nimble. Could probably turn circles around the F-117, too. But at any rate, the F-117 cannot “shake” modern fighters. If it’s ever spotted, it’s probably going to get smoked. It’s not supersonic, and its flight handling characteristics are extremely poor compared to other fighters. Its only real defense is that it’s hard to see, both on radar and visually. But once spotted by a halfway competent fighter pilot, the only thing it’ll be shaking is the ground when it hits it. That's why the Air Force generally uses them only A) at night or B) when the enemy air-to-air threat has been neutralized.

[sachmo71]

Now it's going toward a full fledge flame war. Sigh...the great thing about a point of view is that it can change. This thread is becoming an exercise in futility...some folks seem to be too interested in their "message board pride" to try and find a middle ground.

[Windwalker]

Originally posted by SieGermans
an O-6 wasting all his time on an online forum? that's unlikely, very much unlikely, O-6s have this little thing called duty which eats up all there time. if you are going to lie at least be smart about it, don't think you will command respect from me. Your cockiness about that alone "If you are in ROTC, you should be calling me "sir."" leads me to believe you are full of **** cause the only time I need to call anyone sir is when I am on duty. Don't bullshit me.

Well it seems that you folks all have a little whippin coming to y'all. For you see, I am O-1000, that's right the CINC of all y'all, otherwise known as the "Dubya", and you all better start showin some respect for the might of the US of A and yours truly before I bust y'all down to kitchen duty!! ATTENTION!!

lol...

Silly army people and their silly egos...

- Windwalker

[steelehc]

Thanks Barchan, once again.

an 18th century cannon would do nothing to a modern warship other than get smashed to pieces. i already made my point earlier and all I hear are these bullshit "what ifs" from the rest of you. saying something like "a stray cannon ball could possibly get high enough to bend the antenna on the radio tower of a destroyer

Don't bullshit me

Well it seems that you folks all have a little whippin coming to y'all. For you see, I am O-1000, that's right the CINC of all y'all, otherwise known as the "Dubya", and you all better start showin some respect for the might of the US of A and yours truly before I bust y'all down to kitchen duty!! ATTENTION!!

Yes, you already made your point. I happen to disagree with it, thats all. No-one is saying "bullshit what-ifs" here. Most of the posts have been reasonable and serious.

I am not bullshitting you. Why would I lie to some punk-ass kid? I don't have as much free time as I would like, but I do have some.

LOL

Steele

[korn469]

steel and barchan and others could you give me your opinions on the following changes to the combat system?

first i increased hitpoints like this

Conscript 4
Regular 6
Veteran 9
Elite 12

this makes combat results more reliable and it also makes veteran and elite troops better than in normal civ3

then i changed the naval units like so, a.d.m bmdstr [RoF] rng

Destroyer 14.12.11 8[5]1 (can see submarines)
Battleship 30.20.10 14[6]2
Carrier 0.18.10 5 transport (radar, carries fighters only)
Submarine 16.6.9 (can see submarines, zoc)
Aegis Cruiser 16.24.11 12[5]1 3 transport (can see submarines, radar, can carry cruise missiles only)
Nuclear Submarine 10.12.10 3 transport (can see submarines, can carry tactical missiles and cruise missiles)

then i changed air units like so

Fighter 5.5.2 12[4]6 (fighter)
Bomber 0.2.2 10[8]8
Helicopter 0.2.3 0[0]6 (can see submarines/invisable units)
Jet Fighter 15.15.3 15[5]8 (radar, fighter)
F-15 18.18.3 15[5]8 (radar, fighter)
Stealth Fighter 0.6.3 18[4]8 (radar, stealth)
Stealth Bomber 0.3.3 20[8]8 (radar, stealth)

i increased the chance to intercept air missions to 90% and stealth missions to 9% so this means that air combat is much more likely and that is why the attack and defense numbers are the same basically they engage each other and fight it out, and all air units can attack up to the number of moves they have and only units with a (fighter) tag can load onto carriers

so for example a jet fighter could rebase, do recon and then carry out a bombing run, compared to normal civ3 where it could only carry out one action

i don't intend on making them completely realistic but i want to make them more realistic and yet balanced at the same time

so how does that compare to reality?

and one other thing, to me each ship represents more than one ship, and each fighter represents at least one squadron

[steelehc]

I like it. That seems like a good way of keeping balance, and adding more interest to the game.

Steele

[Barchan]

Korn469:

Trying to balance realism an playability in this game seems almost an impossibility, given the overall abstraction involved. Still, I think you're on a good course.

One of my beefs with the naval part is the sub stuff. Subs are worthless in the regular game. Nuclear subs are nice, but there need to be two types of nuclear subs: attack and missile. Oh, verily, subs and Aegis cruisers should carry cruise missiles. Additionally, nuclear subs should be able to carry strategic nuclear weapons as well; after all, that's what nuclear missile subs were designed for. And I know, I know, subs don't really fare that well against capital warships, but it really irks me when ironclads and frigates routinely seek out and sink my subs. It really burns me up when my subs attack frigates and still somehow lose. I guess that even though they look like U-boats, they must still be civil-war era CSS Hunley type things.

For the airpower stuff, I think the multiple missions might make air units unreasonably powerful in the game. They're fairly potent as it is; you can pretty quickly wipe the enemy's landscape clean of any pesky improvements in a few turns. With multiple missions, you could do it in a single turn. Also, although I know that airpower is inherently flexible and that modern fighter aircraft are nearly as good at strike missions as they are at air-to-air missions, I think the player has to make some tougher choices. Do I use the jets to bomb, recon, or protect? IRL, these are critical decisions commanders must make every day. I know that the game's turns are larger in scope and could very well involve all these missions, but the player should have to make the choice.

I don't recall if the game supports it or not (although I doubt it) but there really needs to be an Escort or Offensive CAP mission for fighters. They could simply be assigned to this mission from the base/carrier and would try to intercept any defensive interceptor. Otherwise, it looks like your regular bombers will be absolutely raped by any jet fighters in the area. Which, IRL, they would. But, also IRL, they'd be supported by escorting jet fighters to engage the other jets.

I think there should be a jet bomber unit as well. Where are the B-52s??? Heck, where are the German Arados that were being developed in 1945? B-17's didn't have that long a reign.

On a similar note, regular fighters have too short a lifespan. I rarely even build 'em, since jets are just around the corner. On the other hand, stealth and precision bombing take forever to get. I think jet power should be further down the tech tree.

A note on ranges: jets should go farther than props, stealth should go farther than jets. Stealth bombers should go farthest of all. With aerial refueling, the range of jets is limited only by the stamina of their pilots. But even without it, modern aircraft can fly a good deal farther than their prop-driven predecessors.

Lastly, I think that the regular fighters and bombers are too effective compared to their jet/stealth counterparts. Either the prop-jobs need to be toned down (although probably not, as they should have some effectiveness against infantry and tanks) or the jets, particularly stealth platforms, should be ramped up. Especially the stealth bomber; the B-2 can drop up to eight JDAMs at once and hit eight different targets several miles away, and up to five miles apart, with accuracy to within yards. In contrast, a B-17 that got its bombs to within miles of the target was considered a success. Stealth bombers with precision weapons should be crushing; and why not, since they’re so hard to get in the game?

I do like the interception/stealth combat value tweaks. That’s perhaps the most realistic treatment in this area I’ve seen so far. That and getting the damn bombers off the carriers. Doolittle’s raid on Tokyo was a one-time good deal; the bombers barely managed to take off and could not have returned to carrier to land. Even sustained medium bomber ops from a carrier is just a dream; heavy bomber carrier ops is a joke. Oh, and planes sink ships. They’ve been doing it for over 75 years now, too.