Chassis Idea: Balloon; Improvement Idea: Balloon Defence.

Christantine The Great · December 2, 2000, 00:15

If the Unit Workshop is included in Civ III (Which I am sure of.) there should be a new unit chassis called the balloon. It would be the first air unit you could research. It would be pretty strong until the discovery of the airplane, which it would have a -50% of winning aganst (Like popping a...balloon!). Of course with the balloon comes the "Balloon Defence". The balloon defence would be a city improvement that would represent a ring of small balloons around a city to protect it from air attacks. The balloon defence would only work aganst planes with props so with the jet it would become obesolete. The defence would give a unit inside the city a 50% defence bonus. The only downside to the Balloon Defence is that it would have to "heal" every time it is used.

------------------
"Freedom, Trade, Christantine!"

The Viking Archives

Tical_2000 · December 2, 2000, 01:23

No.

Christantine The Great · December 2, 2000, 02:26

quote:

No.

Well that was a hard fought out argument over the subject. I perfectly see your point of view.

(Care to elaborate?)

------------------
"Freedom, Trade, Christantine!"

The Viking Archives

UltraSonix · December 2, 2000, 03:17

I think the olden day (late 1700/1800) balloons were very hard to control - they wouldn't be very useful.

------------------
No, in Australia we don't live with kangaroos and koalas in our backyards... Despite any stupid advertisments you may see to the contrary... (And no, koalas don't usually speak!)

Evil Capitalist · December 2, 2000, 05:31

Before we start on baloons there are much more importasnt units to incorporate. Like a swarm of killer turtles. Or the telethon improvement.

Christantine The Great · December 2, 2000, 14:58

I believe that Zeppelins were used heavly in WW I not II.

The balloon unit would cover all types of airships, from the first balloons to the huge Zeppelins. The shape would change slightly and it would get various advantages over the changes. But it would always have the weakness aganst planes. The early balloons might have a trireme effect if they get too far away from a city. But instead of the balloon being destroyed it would crash and whoever finds it would receave a damaged balloon that they would have to get to a city before it completely broke.

Evil Capitalist · December 2, 2000, 15:56

quote:

Originally posted by Ribannah on 12-02-2000 12:01 PM
Indeed the early Balloons were hard to control, but the later Airship had more possibilities. The 20th century Zeppelins were a force to reckon with in WW II.

Assuming you mean WW1- they still wern't. They resulted in about 100 deaths, and took about 2 days to reach the target. If an AA gun or fighter was in the area they were finished.

Ribannah · December 2, 2000, 17:03

In WW I they flew higher than the fighter planes of that time, and farther than bomber planes.

In WW II, the allied forces were still afraid of the airship. They bombed the airship works, and the Germans went into rocketry instead, that's why none were used.

With today's technology (no hydrogen!) an airship could take a lot of bullets and a few rockets before going down, but would probably be used for transportation. Unless it had Stealth

------------------
If you have no feet, don't walk on fire

Harel · December 2, 2000, 18:03

Well, Napolean used flying balloons to gather intel on troops movement... it could be an excellent recon unit ( a line of sight of 2, maybe even 3... )

DarkCloud · December 2, 2000, 19:05

Scout Balloon- Scouts out attacks; works like a helicopter (damaged for more time)
1 Attack, 2 Defense, 6 Movement (Ballooning)

Zeppelin- Same as scout
6 attack, 4 Defense, 2 Movement (Advanced Ballooning)

Ribannah · December 3, 2000, 01:01

Indeed the early Balloons were hard to control, but the later Airship had more possibilities. The 20th century Zeppelins were a force to reckon with in WW II.

Rather than forming a "ring of defence", the balloon could be used for reconnaissance (both offensive and defensive) and bombardments.

------------------
If you have no feet, don't walk on fire

Evil Capitalist · December 3, 2000, 05:23

quote:

Originally posted by DarkCloud on 12-02-2000 06:05 PM
Scout Balloon- Scouts out attacks; works like a helicopter (damaged for more time)
1 Attack, 2 Defense, 6 Movement (Ballooning)

Zeppelin- Same as scout
6 attack, 4 Defense, 2 Movement (Advanced Ballooning)

I'd suggest they have a defense of 0- it shows how easily they were shot down.

UltraSonix · December 3, 2000, 06:51

quote:

it could be an excellent recon unit

I think that could be the only plausible use of balloons - aren't balloons atill used nowadays for this purpose? (As well as for weather predicting.)

And on the subject of airships - if they are to be included, shouldn't they have a small chance per end-of-turn of exploding?

------------------
No, in Australia we don't live with kangaroos and koalas in our backyards... Despite any stupid advertisments you may see to the contrary... (And no, koalas don't usually speak!)

Christantine The Great · December 3, 2000, 16:18

quote:

And on the subject of airships - if they are to be included, shouldn't they have a small chance per end-of-turn of exploding?

A balloon will only explode if it is filled with hydrogen, like the Hindenburg. It was filled with hydrogen because they thought it would go faster than a helium filled balloon, since it is lighter, but did not know that some weather conditions could light the balloon on fire.

DarkCloud · December 3, 2000, 17:49

Balloon Defense- this sounds far too unlikely, since it never happened.

A defense of 1 would be better than 0, with a 0 defense they would be shot down after one fire.
However you have a good point. Zeppelins would have a defence of 2 because of double-coating.

JamesJKirk · December 3, 2000, 19:22

The Germans used Zeppelins to firebomb London during WWI and they were considered great for recon as well, they were used more as a bomber than planes which usually amounted to a guy dropping a grenade out the side. And balloons were used by both sides in the Franco-Prussian war quite often.

Christantine The Great · December 3, 2000, 22:05

quote:

Originally posted by DarkCloud on 12-03-2000 04:49 PM
Balloon Defense- this sounds far too unlikely, since it never happened.

Yes it did. During World War I the British surrounded important cities with simple balloons to catch German bomber planes and crash them. It would be an effective defence aganst early planes.

------------------
"Freedom, Trade, Christantine!"

The Viking Archives

UltraSonix · December 4, 2000, 05:17

So that's what was meant by "balloon defense"! I had thought it was defence against balloons!

------------------
No, in Australia we don't live with kangaroos and koalas in our backyards... Despite any stupid advertisments you may see to the contrary... (And no, koalas don't usually speak!)

Drakenred · December 4, 2000, 14:15

quote:

Originally posted by UltraSonix on 12-04-2000 04:17 AM
So that's what was meant by "balloon defense"! I had thought it was defence against balloons!

The question of wether or not the use of Barage ballons during WWII as a deterent to low level bombing- strafing was efective is still debatable, basicaly they did not stop highlevel bombers, and were fairly esily dispached by a few planes strafing the area prior to or while the main atack was going in, Stray rounds from dogfights above the Balloons, and even by defending AAA fire, or, if deplyed improperly, they were simply ignored by the fighter pilots.

on the other hand, Observation ballons only existed from the US Civil war untill WW1(and were aparenly being fased out during the end of WW1). Zeplins from aproximatly 1890-1918 or so befor Flak and Higher altitude aircraft could reach them routeenly, and even then a practical bomer zeplin did not apear untill after WW1 was well underway.

The US Navys Zeplins, while spectacular, did not last long, and at best were litle more than observation platforms and plublicity stunts.

however, what would posibly be the most succesflull use of Lighter than Aircraft would have to be the use and deployment of the US Navy Blimps for convoy escorts during WWII, and even their record may have been a coincidence(due to Submarine activity moving to the mid-atlantic)

(a bit of a clarification, i ment "During WWII However. . .")
[This message has been edited by Drakenred (edited December 04, 2000).]
[This message has been edited by Drakenred (edited December 04, 2000).]

hHydro · December 4, 2000, 15:38

I dunno. They're a neat idea. In our timeline the balloons only enjoyed moderate success, likely due to the 'near simultaneous' development of the airplane.

However one could argue that aerodynamics is a slightly more complicated idea than ballooning. Who's to say what might have happened if the wright brothers never existed? From 1903 to 1914 is only 11 game turns, so what if in WWI the germans (with new discoveries say.. every 14 turns..) chose to research 'economics' instead of 'flight'?

I'm sure in such a scenario you would see the balloon technology used to greater effect in bombing and transport than it was. Who knows? I'm sure some of you have seen or played 'Crimson Skies' by Microsoft. That's the perfect example of an 'alternate history' where zepplins have developed (perhaps with a jump on planes) to play a larger role in air warfare.

No sense convoluting it with all sorts of special rules, but it would make an interesting chassis.

Just consider;

*place one or two steps 'up' the tech tree - Successful baloon flights were made well before powered flight.

*Chassis cheaper than planes.

*Major cost to put both offense/defense on chassis (or dissalow)

*planes gain same bonus attacking balloons as they do ground troops.

...As far as Evil Cap. and his swarm of killer turtles... Hey, that's what mods are for.

Deathwalker · December 5, 2000, 06:37

No BLOODY unit work shop, I hated it totaly in SMAC. The furest I would go would be to build a Unit like Tank and upgrade it to Hover Tank or something. But no WORKSHOP,

------------------
I have walked since the dawn of time and were ever I walk, death is sure to follow

Adm.Naismith · December 5, 2000, 10:47

Deathwalker,

quote:

No BLOODY unit work shop, I hated it totaly in SMAC

I don't remember why do you hate it so much, but really the SMAC Workshop has a bad interface and a disappointing graphics for units (because of limiting choices of graphics component, that must all mix toghetert almost as LEGO (c) blocks: they should draw more components, that Workshop engine would chose more appropriately for every combo, with better results).

The whole concept must be tuned by customizable rules, especially limiting available mix for scenario reasons.

In fact, a Workshop feature needs a carefull balance of numbers for every components (reducer or enhancer for hits points, attack points, etc.), but it opens wide possibility for alternative history, what-if scenario and so on.
The Earth History should become only the standard scenario, for map, tech tree and available units combo.

------------------
Admiral Naismith AKA mcostant

airdrik · December 5, 2000, 12:37

Deathwalker, and anyone out there who opposes the 'unit workshop' idea: There will always be a switch that you can hit to turn off the unit workshop and just use standard units. This switch might also present itself in the installation, and once you say 'no I don't want unit workshop on my computer' then that is the last you will ever see of it. So stop coming in to any of these posts and yell 'down with unit workshop, unit workshop is evil,' etc. because there are some of us on this forum who might be interested in playing with just the workshop, or with whichever suits us when we start a new game.
[This message has been edited by airdrik (edited December 05, 2000).]

DarkCloud · December 5, 2000, 23:47

Where the heck did I say I didn't like Unit Workshop airdirk?

Heck, I think it is a great idea!
But I merely put the balloon stats because that is how Civ II functioned.

I for one would like a mounted phalanx (I have been yelled at for this) and a fire phalanx, and a plague phalanx (see the topic by Youngsun for more info)

airdrik · December 6, 2000, 00:03

Sorry Darkcloud, I read the name wrong, I meant Deathwalker. I'll fix it.

jdlessl · December 6, 2000, 02:13

Hydrogen-filled airships aren't quite the death traps people make them out to be. If one is punctured, the leaking hydrogen goes out and up and becomes harmless quite quickly. The Hindenburg blew up because the paint that was used on it caused a large electric discharge into the hydrogen and ... you know the rest. Comparatively, helium-filled balloons are almost a joke; helium is a thousand times harder to get and has only 1/4th the lifting power.

Airships could be a good early bombing unit, but only if the game is slowed down enough by the modern age. Otherwise they'll be like frigates and their period of usefulness is shorter than the time it takes to build one. Furthermore, after they become obsolete in the front lines, they'd be an excellent type of trade/transport/resupply unit, since they're perfectly good for freight transport.

Hey, how come Transport Tycoon never used airships?

--
Jared Lessl

DarkCloud · December 6, 2000, 20:43

Thanks for correcting it airdirk.

beyowulf · December 7, 2000, 14:42

quote:

Originally posted by jdlessl on 12-06-2000 01:13 AM

Airships could be a good early bombing unit, but only if the game is slowed down enough by the modern age. Otherwise they'll be like frigates and their period of usefulness is shorter than the time it takes to build one. Furthermore, after they become obsolete in the front lines, they'd be an excellent type of trade/transport/resupply unit, since they're perfectly good for freight transport.
--
Jared Lessl

This would be good I think. Replace the camel with the balloon.

Also for the record I loved the unit workshop. And, if I recall correctly, it cost the same amount to upgrade from an inferior unit, as to build it straight from scratch.

hHydro · December 8, 2000, 20:04

As I said before, if the balloon tech was granted earlier in the game than flight (as it really should be - the first manned balloon flight was in 1784) and it was a little cheaper than planes (as it should be? feedback?) then it would make an interesting unit for scouting, transport, trade, and although this never occured in OUR history, there's no reason why it couldn't be used in battle. Just give it very low health to reflect it's inability to stand against anything capable of firing at it. If the unit workshop is used, it just becomes a Chassis. Easy as pie.

quote:

Originally posted by beyowulf on 12-07-2000 01:42 PM
This would be good I think. Replace the camel with the balloon.

Also for the record I loved the unit workshop. And, if I recall correctly, it cost the same amount to upgrade from an inferior unit, as to build it straight from scratch.

All hail the unit workshop. If a balloon chassis was made you could just put the trade 'module' on the balloon chassis instead of the regular (mounted?) chassis if you wanted.

Separate thread on unit workshop at http://apolyton.net/forums/Forum6/HTML/001962.html?1

Christantine The Great · December 8, 2000, 21:14

I really don't think that there should be a trading airship. The goods it might carry would probably be too heavy for a airship to carry without not being able to get off the ground. Ship travel would be cheaper (And easier).