Thread Tools
Old March 12, 2002, 22:03   #1
faded glory
Civilization II Multiplayer
King
 
faded glory's Avatar
 
Local Time: 21:40
Local Date: October 31, 2010
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: Fascist party of apolyton.
Posts: 1,405
Combat Sucks
Why the hell cant bombers sink a ship? That is just -bleepin- lame.


Did 117 fix this? I havent DLed it yet.


Some of the other things are just ridiculous. I lose tanks to cavalry. Bleh!
faded glory is offline  
Old March 12, 2002, 22:32   #2
simwiz2
Warlord
 
simwiz2's Avatar
 
Local Time: 16:40
Local Date: October 31, 2010
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: New Jersey, USA
Posts: 116
because firaxis was unable to impliment a REAL combat system - so having bombers destroy ships right now would be unbalancing.

maybe someday, if they get a combat system with firepower, actual separate categories for planes, ships, subs, foot units, armored units, etc. then they would be able to fix this glaring flaw. But sid seems to be adament that civ3 should regress to the civ1 combat level.
__________________
The Civ3 world is one where stealth bombers are unable to sink galleons, Man-O-Wars are a powerful counter to battleships, and knights always come equipped with the AT-S2 Anti-Tank Sword.

The Simwiz2 Combat Mod Version 2.0 is available for download! See the changes here. You can download it from the CivFanatics Thread or the Apolyton Thread.
simwiz2 is offline  
Old March 12, 2002, 22:57   #3
Cyclotron
Never Ending StoriesThe Courts of Candle'Bre
King
 
Cyclotron's Avatar
 
Local Time: 16:40
Local Date: October 31, 2010
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: Cyclo-who?
Posts: 2,995
Or, it could just be a gameplay issue. Designing your own combat system is definitly no cake walk. Sometimes the dichotemy between what is a good game and what is real life can only be solved with a compromise that may not be entirely both. That's just how it is sometimes.
__________________
Lime roots and treachery!
"Eventually you're left with a bunch of unmemorable posters like Cyclotron, pretending that they actually know anything about who they're debating pointless crap with." - Drake Tungsten
Cyclotron is offline  
Old March 13, 2002, 01:34   #4
Whoha
Alpha Centauri Democracy GameACDG3 Morgan
Emperor
 
Whoha's Avatar
 
Local Time: 16:40
Local Date: October 31, 2010
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: The TOC is supposed to be classified guys...
Posts: 3,700
korn made this mod with dive bombers that actually can sink ships, but you lose the dive bomber after its run(sound familar?)
Whoha is offline  
Old March 13, 2002, 01:47   #5
notyoueither
Civilization III MultiplayerCivilization III PBEMInterSite Democracy Game: Apolyton TeamC3C IDG: Apolyton TeamApolytoners Hall of FameCiv4 InterSite DG: Apolyton TeamPolyCast TeamPtWDG Gathering StormC4DG Gathering Storm
Deity
 
notyoueither's Avatar
 
Local Time: 15:40
Local Date: October 31, 2010
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: of naught
Posts: 21,300
Yes, korn made an intermediate range anti ship missile that he called a dive bomber. Or maybe it was Kamikaze.

The ship sinking *option* *could* be added to the editor. Apparently the editor is one of the game components more actively under development.

There is hope, hopefully.

Salve
notyoueither is offline  
Old March 13, 2002, 09:59   #6
korn469
Emperor
 
korn469's Avatar
 
Local Time: 16:40
Local Date: October 31, 2010
Join Date: Apr 1999
Location: In the army
Posts: 3,375
Quote:
Why the hell cant bombers sink a ship?
faded glory

personally i don't think that this is a major problem in the game, and out of all of the things to focus on in the combat system i don't see why people embrace this and act like fixing this will be a panacea to all of civ3's combat problems

anyways, to bandage the combat system open up the editor and go to combat experience then change the normal civ3 values to the following

conscript 8
regular 12
veteran 16
elite 20

and then multiply the rate of fire of all units by 4

that should fix 90% of the problems with poor combat results, and while tanks on defense still might lose to cavalry on offense, tanks will then almost never lose to cavalry on defense, and you will then never see another spearman beat a tank

or you can download one of the various mods that have tweaked combat

Quote:
if they get a combat system with firepower
simwiz2

SMAC did not have firepower and although it had some of the special abilities there were no complaints about this being gone, so this leads me to believe that it is the lack of hitpoints that is causing all of the bad combat results, and that simply adding firepower would not fix civ3, while increasing hitpoints could

that being said, if all units had a RoF, a FP, and an Armor value in addition to an attack and defense value that worked slightly different than they currently do i could see how a person could develop a really great combat system

it could work like this
lets say it is based on dice for now

unit 1 has an attack of 10, a defense of 6, a RoF of 2 a firepower of 2, an armor of 5, along with 10 hitpoints

unit 2 has an attack of 4, a defense of 10, a RoF of 5 a firepower of 1, an armor of 1, along with ten hitpoints

unit 1 rolls two ten sided dice for attack and five six sided dice for defense

unit 2 rolls five 4 sided dice for attack and one ten sided dice for defense

unit 1 rolls the following
attack: 8, 4
defense: 6, 4, 4, 2, 1

unit 2 rolls the following
attack: 4, 3, 3, 2, 2
defense: 9

so when we pair their attack and defense rolls up, one attack from unit 1 hit unit 2 inflicting 2 hitpoints worth of damage, and one attack from unit 2 hit unit 1 inflicting 1 hitpoint worth of damage

of course with computers the calculations could be way more complicated, and with SMAC like special abilities you really could have a system capable of handling about anything
korn469 is offline  
Old March 13, 2002, 11:19   #7
Tarquelne
Warlord
 
Local Time: 16:40
Local Date: October 31, 2010
Join Date: Dec 2001
Posts: 208
"i don't see why people embrace this"

It's because it's the most obvious unrealistic characteristic of the combat system. (Not necessarily truly the most unrealistic characteristic - just the most obvious one.) The fact that planes can sink is a very important factor in RL naval warfare.

********
re: Civility thread.

Note the lack of "IMO" or "I think" - I maintain that the above is fact.
Tarquelne is offline  
Old March 13, 2002, 12:13   #8
korn469
Emperor
 
korn469's Avatar
 
Local Time: 16:40
Local Date: October 31, 2010
Join Date: Apr 1999
Location: In the army
Posts: 3,375
Quote:
It's because it's the most obvious unrealistic characteristic of the combat system
my opinions in responce

first air power in real life has never completely destroyed an entire group of ships, not in WW2
Dunkirk: nope
Pearl Harbor: nope
Coral Sea: nope
Northern Atlantic: nope
Midway: nope
Guadal Canal: nope
Leyte Gulf: nope
nor anytime since then, naval units not being able to shoot down planes is just as unrealistic

second ships in civ3 are slow, and a small navy in conjunction with your airpower can easily rid your coasts of intruders, and in real life, no nation depends totally on airpower to maintain naval supremacy in its territorial waters

even if airpower could sink ships then the results of those sinkings would be that fighters and jet fighters couldn't damage most naval units (inculding galleys, caravels, frigates, and ironclads), while world war 2 bombers would easily sink entire fleet of Aegis Cruisers

bombers landing on aircraft carriers is more unrealistic then airpower not being able to sink an entire fleet...doolittle might have taken off from aircraft carriers, but he certainly didn't try to land on them...just imagine trying to land a squadron of B-29's on a WW2 aircraft carrier

it just seems to me that the people upset about airpower not sinking naval units don't have a navy theirself, because the realize that naval units are so slow they are mostly useless, and that is a much worse problem than airpower not being able to sink them

the worst combat problem in civ3 (IMO of course ) is bad combat results, spearmen beating tanks, ironclad sinking battleships, and i would say most of that comes from hitpoints being too low...you fix hitpoints and most of the combat problems disappear, and then it also makes being at 1 hp much worse
korn469 is offline  
Old March 13, 2002, 15:11   #9
simwiz2
Warlord
 
simwiz2's Avatar
 
Local Time: 16:40
Local Date: October 31, 2010
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: New Jersey, USA
Posts: 116
"my opinions in responce

first air power in real life has never completely destroyed an entire group of ships, not in WW2
Dunkirk: nope
Pearl Harbor: nope
Coral Sea: nope
Northern Atlantic: nope
Midway: nope
Guadal Canal: nope
Leyte Gulf: nope
nor anytime since then, naval units not being able to shoot down planes is just as unrealistic

second ships in civ3 are slow, and a small navy in conjunction with your airpower can easily rid your coasts of intruders, and in real life, no nation depends totally on airpower to maintain naval supremacy in its territorial waters"

Ship units are one or 2 ships at most. As for pearl harbor, many ships were sunk. Or did we rest all the 1-hp ship "units" in port for a turn and have them magically regenerate their lost ships for free? And of course ships should be able to kill or damage planes, it should be like a simultaneous bombard, with a CHANCE to kill. possibly the plane is destroyed and the ship is damaged, perhaps the other way around, perhaps both units withstand the attack with only damage, perhaps the planes drop bombs but are then shot to pieces, and the ships the sink because of the bombholes, so both would be destroyed.
__________________
The Civ3 world is one where stealth bombers are unable to sink galleons, Man-O-Wars are a powerful counter to battleships, and knights always come equipped with the AT-S2 Anti-Tank Sword.

The Simwiz2 Combat Mod Version 2.0 is available for download! See the changes here. You can download it from the CivFanatics Thread or the Apolyton Thread.
simwiz2 is offline  
Old March 13, 2002, 17:43   #10
korn469
Emperor
 
korn469's Avatar
 
Local Time: 16:40
Local Date: October 31, 2010
Join Date: Apr 1999
Location: In the army
Posts: 3,375
out of all of the battleships sunk or damaged (eight i do believe) at pearl harbor, only three didn't return to service, two of them were two old to be worth repairing and only the arizona was damaged beyond repair, and that was after a complete surprise attack where non of the antiaircraft or damage control stations were properly manned, and the Japanese still lost 10% of their fighter force

same thing with midway except the american surprised the Japanese that time, at the coral sea neither side was surprised and neither fleet was really damaged i think they lost an aircraft carrier apiece

i will do a more in depth post later on tonight, but realistic or not (which civ3 isn't realistic anyways) it won't improve combat

and i'm pretty sure that each ship represents more than 2 ships at the most...especially with destroyers and submarines
korn469 is offline  
Old March 13, 2002, 17:58   #11
The Andy-Man
Prince
 
The Andy-Man's Avatar
 
Local Time: 21:40
Local Date: October 31, 2010
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Tory Party of 'Poly
Posts: 523
nope, its fair to say that naval units in civ games represent 1 ship, USA has 70subs i beleive, not to hard to build in civ3, and they all work indipendantly anyway, Battlships are also singular (even the biggest naval powers in the late 19th C never had more then about 7 i think). Destroyers and cruisers are cheep and so easy to mass produce as well.

Civ3 just misssed out on having a naval equivilent of armies.


as fro bombers, if the bomber got a good bombing run and put a few BIG holes in the hull, i donmt see why it WONT sink.


place, airial superiority is a good defence against navy, (land based air). ie, land based aircraft will attack the carrier bassed ones and attack that fleet. makes naval blockades more tricky to.
__________________
eimi men anthropos pollon logon, mikras de sophias
The Andy-Man is offline  
Old March 13, 2002, 18:12   #12
Ghengis Brom
Chieftain
 
Ghengis Brom's Avatar
 
Local Time: 16:40
Local Date: October 31, 2010
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: of Baltimore, The City That Bleeds
Posts: 76
Quote:
Originally posted by korn469
out of all of the battleships sunk or damaged (eight i do believe) at pearl harbor, only three didn't return to service, two of them were two old to be worth repairing and only the arizona was damaged beyond repair, and that was after a complete surprise attack where non of the antiaircraft or damage control stations were properly manned, and the Japanese still lost 10% of their fighter force

same thing with midway except the american surprised the Japanese that time, at the coral sea neither side was surprised and neither fleet was really damaged i think they lost an aircraft carrier apiece

i will do a more in depth post later on tonight, but realistic or not (which civ3 isn't realistic anyways) it won't improve combat

and i'm pretty sure that each ship represents more than 2 ships at the most...especially with destroyers and submarines
This is prolly gonna stir up even more debate but here goes anyway. Recently aireal(sp?) photos of Pearl Harbor taken during the attack have been analyzed using modern computers and software. After the analysis digitally enhanced versions of the photo show a large distinctive cigar-shaped shadow in the middle of the harbor with what appears to be thin trail going through the water from the shadowy object directly toward the Arizona. It's not conclusive but it does indicate that there may have possibly been a Japanese sub in the Pearl during the attack and why the Arizona was so badly damaged.
Ghengis Brom is offline  
Old March 13, 2002, 18:15   #13
player1
Emperor
 
player1's Avatar
 
Local Time: 23:40
Local Date: October 31, 2010
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: Belgrade, Serbia
Posts: 3,218
Quote:
Originally posted by The Andy-Man
nope, its fair to say that naval units in civ games represent 1 ship, USA has 70subs i beleive, not to hard to build in civ3, and they all work indipendantly anyway, Battlships are also singular (even the biggest naval powers in the late 19th C never had more then about 7 i think). Destroyers and cruisers are cheep and so easy to mass produce as well.
In WW1 some powers had more then 100 Battleships.

In WW2 it was less then 40.

After WW2 Americans kept only 4 of them.

Today, battleship are not used anymore.

Too easy target for missiles.
And too expensive.
player1 is offline  
Old March 13, 2002, 18:16   #14
Grumbold
Emperor
 
Grumbold's Avatar
 
Local Time: 22:40
Local Date: October 31, 2010
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: London, UK
Posts: 3,732
Quote:
Originally posted by Tarquelne
"i don't see why people embrace this"

It's because it's the most obvious unrealistic characteristic of the combat system. (Not necessarily truly the most unrealistic characteristic - just the most obvious one.) The fact that planes can sink is a very important factor in RL naval warfare.

********
re: Civility thread.

Note the lack of "IMO" or "I think" - I maintain that the above is fact.
Its just as bad that those damageable ships cant damage planes.
__________________
To doubt everything or to believe everything are two equally convenient solutions; both dispense with the necessity of reflection. H.Poincare
Grumbold is offline  
Old March 13, 2002, 21:31   #15
Coracle
Prince
 
Coracle's Avatar
 
Local Time: 16:40
Local Date: October 31, 2010
Join Date: Feb 2002
Posts: 915
You know, I read threads such as this one about how SCREWED UP the entire combat system is (including stupid unit values) and I get more convinced than ever that Firaxis never playtested this very disappointing game.

I'm glad Civ II is still on my computer.

Coracle is offline  
Old March 13, 2002, 21:34   #16
Coracle
Prince
 
Coracle's Avatar
 
Local Time: 16:40
Local Date: October 31, 2010
Join Date: Feb 2002
Posts: 915
Quote:
Originally posted by Ghengis Brom


This is prolly gonna stir up even more debate but here goes anyway. Recently aireal(sp?) photos of Pearl Harbor taken during the attack have been analyzed using modern computers and software. After the analysis digitally enhanced versions of the photo show a large distinctive cigar-shaped shadow in the middle of the harbor with what appears to be thin trail going through the water from the shadowy object directly toward the Arizona. It's not conclusive but it does indicate that there may have possibly been a Japanese sub in the Pearl during the attack and why the Arizona was so badly damaged.
It has been suggested that was a Jap torpedo that STUCK in the bottom of the harbor and just kept its propeller running.

No one know for sure.
Coracle is offline  
Old March 13, 2002, 23:07   #17
Tarquelne
Warlord
 
Local Time: 16:40
Local Date: October 31, 2010
Join Date: Dec 2001
Posts: 208
In an attempt to head off a big naval-airpower discussion, I want to exapand on my first post.
Quote:
Originally posted by Tarquelne
"i don't see why people embrace this"

It's because it's the most obvious unrealistic characteristic of the combat system.
This statement was certainly picked up on....

Quote:
(Not necessarily truly the most unrealistic characteristic - just the most obvious one.)
I should have been more clear here. Or maybe just put the statement more strongly: The way Civ3 hadles air bombardment vrs. ships isn't necessarily unrealistic.

Quote:
The fact that planes can sink is a very important factor in RL naval warfare.
I thought that was the most important sentence. VERY IMPORTANT FACTOR. The previous note on the # of battleships in use is a telling point. How about "The role of airpower can not be understated."? Well, I certainly could, but I think we're in the ballpark. In many ways the planes are now more important than the ships. (Not _all_ ways, possibly not the most important ways, but many....)

But that airpower principle is one that most people know - planes are the natural "predator" of ships. It's a classic "rock beats paper", sort of thing - a big, huge, hundreds-of-people-on-board ship _can_ be sunk by a single aircraft. The fact that it generally takes swarms of single aircraft is beside the point.

Ship or Ships: I think it's bloody obvious that a single, say, Pikemen in Civ3 isn't a single pikeman. OTOH, it isn't so obvious that a single Battleship in Civ3 isn't a single ship. Ships do fight battles alone - generally as a result of either bad planning or much work by the enemy, but it happens. A lone pikeman doesn't fight a battle by himself - he's simply killed. And then there's the costs - a single pikeman isn't going to cost as much as a building - so a Pikemen unit must be a group. A single BB, however, can be easily imagined to cost as much as a building.
Now, I'm NOT saying that the above proves that a ship-unit in Civ3 should be thought of as a single ship. I think the above does, however, demonstrate why it'd be easy to believe so. And that's all you need to foster the _percieved_ poor realism of the ship-bombard rule.

The Naval Airpower discussion: I don't believe that anyone here needs to be told the facts. I think we can all agree that the planes have been quite important since WWII, and remain important, right? And that planes can sink ships right? And that it often takes lots of planes, and they don't often get _all_ the ships in a fleet, harbor, or whatever, OK? Still all together? If so, then there's no need to discuss it anymore. (Though I wouldn't mind being told the # of ships sunk by planes since 1943 vrs. the number sunk by ships.) What still should be a matter of debate, though, is the bombardment vrs. ships rule in Civ3.

My thoughts (again): It's fine as is. (I don't think it unbalanced or significantly unrealistic that most other rules.) However, I think it'd be more fun if the occasional ship were sunk via bombardment, and the occasional unit were destroyed by bombardment. (So I'd support whatever kill-probability yeilds "occasional" kills.)
Tarquelne is offline  
Old March 14, 2002, 00:31   #18
Tuberski
 
Tuberski's Avatar
 
Local Time: 16:40
Local Date: October 31, 2010
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: ACK!! PPHHHHTTBBBTTTT!!!
Posts: 7,022
I agree with Tarquelne.

Whatever may be the case in the real world, we are stuck with the combat system that we have. Shouldn't we be thinking of better ways to use the system instead of complaining about.

I'd be happy if we could do both in the same thread. Offer a complsaint about something, and then a way to get around the complaint...if possible.
__________________
"I think Bigfoot is blurry, that's the problem. It's not the photographer's fault. Bigfoot is blurry, and that's extra scary to me. There's a large out of focus monster roaming the countryside. Look out, he's fuzzy, let's get out of here."
Tuberski is offline  
Old March 14, 2002, 00:55   #19
korn469
Emperor
 
korn469's Avatar
 
Local Time: 16:40
Local Date: October 31, 2010
Join Date: Apr 1999
Location: In the army
Posts: 3,375
ok
here is what we know...the Manhattan Project costs 800 shields

according to this study

http://www.brook.edu/dybdocroot/FP/P...T/MANHATTN.HTM

the real Manhattan Project was 20 billion dollars in constant 1996 dollars...and i kinda doubt that a single WW2 battleship cost 5 billion in constant 1996 dollars but it is possible

anyways

i just wanna say this

my point has always been that airpower is vitally important to military operations no matter if they are on the land or sea and that civ3 needs to reflect this, but that a combination of increasing airpower's bombardment along with increasing hitpoints, and then topping it off with allowing airpower to perform many missions in the game would allow airpower to become stronger without it sinking ships

my other point is that the airpower should sink ships argument usually comes in two flavors, the first is it will fix combat which i do not believe to be so, the second is that it is "unrealistic" and even looking beyond the entire Civ3 is quite possibly one of the most unrealistic games ever, depending on the scale of operations, which are huge considering that the smallest unit of time in civ3 is one year then airpower not sinking ships is more historically "realistic"

however when i argue that airpower can't sink ships, i am saying that on an operational level in virtually all cases, airpower cannot destroy an entire fleet of ships, instead it can severly wound them

but i have NEVER argued that on a tactical level an airplane can't sink a ship, of course it can!
korn469 is offline  
Old March 14, 2002, 01:17   #20
notyoueither
Civilization III MultiplayerCivilization III PBEMInterSite Democracy Game: Apolyton TeamC3C IDG: Apolyton TeamApolytoners Hall of FameCiv4 InterSite DG: Apolyton TeamPolyCast TeamPtWDG Gathering StormC4DG Gathering Storm
Deity
 
notyoueither's Avatar
 
Local Time: 15:40
Local Date: October 31, 2010
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: of naught
Posts: 21,300
Midway. All of the Japanese Fleet Carriers sunk. Gone. Blotto. No raising from the bottom. Never came back. Never reached home port to be able to heal. The Japanese began with some Carriers in a stack, they ended with none.

At any rate, the issue with the Air/Sea combat system is not necessarily realism per se. No game like Civ3 is ever going to be fully *realistic*. It can't be by the very definition of the genre.

The issue is flavour and atmosphere. Many of us would prefer a more meaningful system for the interaction between aircraft and ships. We are not wrong. These are our preferences. Preferences cannot be wrong. They can be well founded or misguided, moral or immoral, ethical or unethical, common or uncommon, etc, etc; they are never right or wrong.

BTW. It would require much more than a simple *sink ship* flag in the editor. Ships would also have to be able to shoot back. Other adjustments would be desirable too. Some of us were exploring the possibilities some time ago, but the thread seems to have died. It is becoming apparent to me that I can have that effect on threads.

Salve
notyoueither is offline  
Old March 14, 2002, 02:18   #21
korn469
Emperor
 
korn469's Avatar
 
Local Time: 16:40
Local Date: October 31, 2010
Join Date: Apr 1999
Location: In the army
Posts: 3,375
Quote:
Midway. All of the Japanese Fleet Carriers sunk. Gone. Blotto. No raising from the bottom. Never came back. Never reached home port to be able to heal. The Japanese began with some Carriers in a stack, they ended with none.
are you sure about that?

how about the following Japanese carriers at midway that WERE NOT sunk

Seaplane Carriers

Chitose - 20 observation seaplanes
Kamikawa Maru - 8 observation seaplanes
Carrying seaplane group to be set up at Kure Island
Chiyoda
Nisshin - carrying 2 motor torpedo boats and 6 midget submarines

light carrier
Hosho - 8 Nakajima Type 97 torpedo bombers (Kate)

also the Japanes scuttled the Hiryu and the Akagi

and a great deal of the Japanese fleet at midway was unhurt

plus the Americans were attacking with fighter which only have a bombardment of 2 and the Japanese had battleships stacked with the carriers so the fighters would have attacked the battleships first and the battleship would have so defeated them

sheesh why are you trying to bring up something as unrealistic as that?!

fighters damaging battleships in civ3? it's preposterous really

i'm just joking around with you, and just trying to point out that on second look things usually aren't as clear cut as they seem
korn469 is offline  
Old March 14, 2002, 02:26   #22
GePap
Emperor
 
GePap's Avatar
 
Local Time: 15:40
Local Date: October 31, 2010
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: of the Big Apple
Posts: 4,109
Gameplay issue
The inability to sink ships with planes is a gameplay issue. it forces players into taking actions they might not want, and it also makes the game easier- In real life, and civ2, if I wanted to counter a naval invasion, a strong enought airforce was enough, as in real life. In real life, air superiority is key, which is why the US has twelve carriers and thus the most powerful fleet in the world. in civ3, why even build carriers? So, when aircraft can't sink ships, i am forced to build ships, and heaven help if my coatline can't support heavily industiral cities to build ships at anything other than glacial speed.

Second, In civ2, when planning an amphibious invasion, i always had to worry about their airpower- now, if the have no ships in the area, your set. Since the Computer is not the smartest, it becomes less capable of stopping invasions since its naval policy is not very good, most of the time.

Planes siking ships, which just from realism standpoint they should be able to, also would make the game more challenging and make more varied strategies possible, and i am always for game ideas that open up more avenues for play.
__________________
If you don't like reality, change it! me
"Oh no! I am bested!" Drake :(
"it is dangerous to be right when the government is wrong" Voltaire
"Patriotism is a pernecious, psychopathic form of idiocy" George Bernard Shaw
GePap is offline  
Old March 14, 2002, 02:45   #23
korn469
Emperor
 
korn469's Avatar
 
Local Time: 16:40
Local Date: October 31, 2010
Join Date: Apr 1999
Location: In the army
Posts: 3,375
Quote:
Planes siking ships, which just from realism standpoint they should be able to
if anyone can give me ten different examples of an entire fleet being sunk by airpower alone, and i will never ever say it is unrealistic again, i promise

Quote:
Planes siking ships, also would make the game more challenging and make more varied strategies possible
well fighter and jet fighters can't sink ships because they are too weak, ironclads could survive their attacks so you're left with bombers and stealth units...then if you incorporate shooting back, then bombers would die about half the time when attacking battleships if they compare bombard strength, and it still doesn't make airpower as powerful as we want it, because it takes an entire turn to rebase an air unit this brings me to another point

Quote:
when planning an amphibious invasion, i always had to worry about their airpower- now, if the have no ships in the area, your set.
since it takes a turn to rebase bombers, most amphibious invasion are going to be successful no matter if bombers can sink ships or not
korn469 is offline  
Old March 14, 2002, 02:53   #24
notyoueither
Civilization III MultiplayerCivilization III PBEMInterSite Democracy Game: Apolyton TeamC3C IDG: Apolyton TeamApolytoners Hall of FameCiv4 InterSite DG: Apolyton TeamPolyCast TeamPtWDG Gathering StormC4DG Gathering Storm
Deity
 
notyoueither's Avatar
 
Local Time: 15:40
Local Date: October 31, 2010
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: of naught
Posts: 21,300
Quote:
Originally posted by korn469
are you sure about that?

how about the following Japanese carriers at midway that WERE NOT sunk

Seaplane Carriers

Chitose - 20 observation seaplanes
Kamikawa Maru - 8 observation seaplanes
Carrying seaplane group to be set up at Kure Island
Chiyoda
Nisshin - carrying 2 motor torpedo boats and 6 midget submarines

light carrier
Hosho - 8 Nakajima Type 97 torpedo bombers (Kate)

also the Japanes scuttled the Hiryu and the Akagi
korn, korn, korn... I will grant you persistence, a virtue/vice I am also guilty of. BUT...

Fact is the Japanese began with 5 (?) FLEET Carriers. Carriers capable of duking it out with anybody in the world. I don't think a sea plane carrier counts in the same league, does it? Is it even represented in the game? Or is it a support vessel, like so many other support vessels that are not represented in this game. I don't even think they were all represented in WitP (a game that took hours to simulate 1 week of the great Japanese-American conflict.)

Scuttling? Yes, that is exactly what navies do when a ship is damaged beyond their ability to recover due to the presence of enemy activity. The result is the same. They were irrevocably sunk, never to be seen again. They were lost due to aircraft alone. I do not envisage ever seeing a *should we scuttle this ship or risk it's capture?* optional dialogue box in any civ game I may ever play.

Quote:
and a great deal of the Japanese fleet at midway was unhurt

plus the Americans were attacking with fighter which only have a bombardment of 2 and the Japanese had battleships stacked with the carriers so the fighters would have attacked the battleships first and the battleship would have so defeated them

sheesh why are you trying to bring up something as unrealistic as that?!

fighters damaging battleships in civ3? it's preposterous really

i'm just joking around with you, and just trying to point out that on second look things usually aren't as clear cut as they seem
Oh, joking around... OK. I kind of detected that with the Kamikaze unit you proposed in that other thread.

But it still comes down to preferences. Some of us are blood thirsty, sea going types who want more bang for our Air/Naval buck. Hope that's OK with you Blitzer types. And if it isn't, tough torpedoes

Salve
notyoueither is offline  
Old March 14, 2002, 07:03   #25
Grumbold
Emperor
 
Grumbold's Avatar
 
Local Time: 22:40
Local Date: October 31, 2010
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: London, UK
Posts: 3,732
I'm amazed there's enough of this horse left to flog. I suppose someone somewhere is still arguing that having three attack dice and two defence dice in Risk is unrealistic with large armies. Its a game and games have rules, some of which you may not like.

Instead of nitpicking endlessly why not just keep asking Firaxis nicely for expanded editor options. If one of them happens to be the relative fatality chances of ships v planes then you can all play the game the way you want to while arguing (somewhere else hopefully) which one of you has the most accurate settings in this deeply inaccurate game
__________________
To doubt everything or to believe everything are two equally convenient solutions; both dispense with the necessity of reflection. H.Poincare
Grumbold is offline  
Old March 14, 2002, 14:43   #26
notyoueither
Civilization III MultiplayerCivilization III PBEMInterSite Democracy Game: Apolyton TeamC3C IDG: Apolyton TeamApolytoners Hall of FameCiv4 InterSite DG: Apolyton TeamPolyCast TeamPtWDG Gathering StormC4DG Gathering Storm
Deity
 
notyoueither's Avatar
 
Local Time: 15:40
Local Date: October 31, 2010
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: of naught
Posts: 21,300
Grumbold.

It is these discussions that Firaxis sees. If we no discuss they no think they have to change something. Comprende?

BTW. They have said they are working on the editor. That is why it is far from pointless for people to mention what they would like to see in it.

Salve
notyoueither is offline  
Old March 14, 2002, 14:55   #27
korn469
Emperor
 
korn469's Avatar
 
Local Time: 16:40
Local Date: October 31, 2010
Join Date: Apr 1999
Location: In the army
Posts: 3,375
notyoueither

here are some US production figures from WW2

88,430 tanks
274,941 aircraft
650,000 jeeps
64,500 landing craft
10 battleships during the war 8 of them 35,000 tons or more
17 large aircraft carriers able to carry 100 aircraft and displacing more than 27,000 tons
more than 80 smaller carriers able to carry from 21 to 45 aircraft
49 cruisers
368 destroyers
6,500 other naval vessels

as can be found by exploring this site

http://www.ndu.edu/inss/macnair/mcnair50/m50c9.html

also part of the reason for the dispariety between army and naval production is that

Between 1918 and 1933, the United States produced only 35 tanks

while the US pacific fleet had 8 battleships, 3 carriers, 21 cruisers, 67 destroyers, and 27 submarines, with another 3 cruisers, 13 destoyers and 29 submarines in the US Asiatic Fleet

http://www.naval-history.net/WW2CampaignsPacific.htm

anyways...instead of arguing about wheather Midway or Pearl Harbor were on the Operational level or on the tactical level, and arguing about if airpower can destroy fleets on the operational level i will instead say the following

_______________________________

in the default set of of civ3 rules, airpower and bombard units can't destroy units because of balance considerations, and i agree with this

however, units that were on the receiving end of the bombardments should not heal that turn, as per SMAC rules, so if an infantry unit in a city with a barrack gets bombarded on a turn by several units and is down to 1hp it should not heal at the begining of the next turn, this would make bombardment more worthwhile

also as per SMAC rules, highly damaged units should move slower than undamaged units, so units in the red should move at least one square slower, this would improve the game without major revisions of the rules and it would make bombardment units stronger
korn469 is offline  
Old March 14, 2002, 17:04   #28
simwiz2
Warlord
 
simwiz2's Avatar
 
Local Time: 16:40
Local Date: October 31, 2010
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: New Jersey, USA
Posts: 116
"out of all of the battleships sunk or damaged (eight i do believe) at pearl harbor, only three didn't return to service"

If those sunk ships were out at sea, would they have been raised? Also, sure some may have been returned to service, but was it for free? Im almost certain it would have cost some gold or shields to fix up those ships. The biggest problem now is you bombard the crap out of a ship and it rests in a harbor city, is back in action in 1 turn, and cost the enemy nothing.

Also the arizona wasnt raised, and was sunk. So that is a destroyed battleship unit.
__________________
The Civ3 world is one where stealth bombers are unable to sink galleons, Man-O-Wars are a powerful counter to battleships, and knights always come equipped with the AT-S2 Anti-Tank Sword.

The Simwiz2 Combat Mod Version 2.0 is available for download! See the changes here. You can download it from the CivFanatics Thread or the Apolyton Thread.
simwiz2 is offline  
Old March 14, 2002, 18:11   #29
korn469
Emperor
 
korn469's Avatar
 
Local Time: 16:40
Local Date: October 31, 2010
Join Date: Apr 1999
Location: In the army
Posts: 3,375
simwiz2

i was trying to bow out of this debate, because like grumbold said we have flogged this horse to death but i'll bite

Quote:
If those sunk ships were out at sea, would they have been raised?
well if they were out at sea then it is doubtful that the japanese would have taken them by surprise, and with damage control and antiaircraft stations manned then it would have been a much harder task, especially when the battleships were actually moving

japanese airpower didn't sink another battleship after Pearl Harbor, and i think they may have only destroyed four other large carriers, and until later in the war, long after the IJN had already lost the war i don't think that the japanese lost many battleships to airpower alone

so Pearl Harbor is an aboration

then in civ3, each turn is a year in length at the shortest, and WW2 turns are two years each...so battles in Civ3 are not the same as battles in real life, probably the coral sea and midway would have been a single encounter in civ3 and not two different battles

Quote:
Also, sure some may have been returned to service, but was it for free? Im almost certain it would have cost some gold or shields to fix up those ships. The biggest problem now is you bombard the crap out of a ship and it rests in a harbor city, is back in action in 1 turn, and cost the enemy nothing.
this is incorrect,
you pay upkeep on units even, while some forms of governments get free units this is just an abstraction to show that those forms of governments devote a significant part of their GDP to the military

also for those of you who value naval realism above all else, why aren't you arguing against the slow speed of ships? they move at around a mile a day or something...isn't this wrong?

the Iowa class battleship had a top speed of like 33 knots per hour, and could easily go around the world in 2 years (1 WW2 turn) so why isn't this an issue?
korn469 is offline  
Old March 14, 2002, 18:11   #30
Captain
King
 
Captain's Avatar
 
Local Time: 16:40
Local Date: October 31, 2010
Join Date: May 2001
Location: by Divine Right
Posts: 1,014
Quote:
Originally posted by simwiz2

If those sunk ships were out at sea, would they have been raised? Also, sure some may have been returned to service, but was it for free? Im almost certain it would have cost some gold or shields to fix up those ships. The biggest problem now is you bombard the crap out of a ship and it rests in a harbor city, is back in action in 1 turn, and cost the enemy nothing.
Yes. But in Civ 3, your airplanes bombing that ship are invulnerable to anti-aircraft fire, so it sortof balances that out.

Most modern ships have an abundance of anti-air missiles, alongside their anti-ship missiles. Navies recognize the danger of air and have equipped ships with significant countermeasures.

This isn't to say that the combat is good. I agree it needs some revamping.
Here are suggestions for improvement:

-> The injured unit reduced movement is a good idea. Please reintroduce that.

-> HP's based on experience is kind of silly. Stats should be improved instead. HP's should depend on armouring and number of troops (like the army idea). Units costing pop points should have higher HPs as they represent how the scale of warfare since nationalism has increased. Also, how when chemical energy (gunpowder) replaces muscular energy, battles lasted much longer and consumed more people.

->has anyone tried to make a "fleet"? basically create an army for water units that can simulate a fleet?

->bombard needs revision so we can try to target specific things. Even in the days of catapults, they generally had some kind of aim - even if it was bad. You should be able to say, I want to hit bldgs, or citizens, or the friggin' units instead of it being so random.

->fix precision bombing in the same way, so we get to choose. right now it's really dumb. If I want precision, I'm looking to hit either units or military buildings, not civilians. That's terror/carpet bombing instead, which should be an option too.

-> scale of ADMs should be improved. Mods take care of this, but an "official" stance would be nicer.

-> fix the unlimited RR movement already! (personal beef with this). I play mostly ancient/medieval for the sole sake of avoiding RRs. they are ugly and ruin gameplay. They make land units way too quick.

-> I like UUs, but not based on CIV! That's not only ridiculous, it's genetically/racially abhorrent. Base it on Government Form, or tie it to certain buildings instead. Then you can choose which UUs to invest in, instead of being hardcoded in.

(*I have real problems with the decision Firaxis made. If I don't want hardcoded civs for obvious reasons, then I have to disable them - which means less units and less variety.
But I understand it, since many ppl like it, and maybe it was the only way the AI could handle it).

->Some other means of generating a great leader. They weren't all military geniuses. Or different KINDS of leaders. That can't be that hard to do. Great Military leaders can build armies and hurry Militaristic Wonders. Civilian leaders can pacify people in the city they reside so there is never any disorder, or hurry non-military wonders. you casn think of more, but I've left it at two types.

Military leaders you get the same way you do now.
Civilian leaders you may get when completing wonders, or when arranging a peace treaty, or when achieving something (maybe providing some use for demographics screen).
Higher chance of leaders during Golden Age and WLTKDs.

-> Fix razing. Warriors, or any other units, that can only move one tile per turn, attack once per turn, and kill a maximum of one other unit per turn, should not be able raze a size 15 metropolis in one turn. You can't kill 15 units in a turn with one unit, so that unit shouldn't be able to raze a whole city in one turn. (Note: IRL, if 1 turn=1 year, razing is possible. But since turns don't actually mean that, think of it the way I said above.)

Razing should be like force conscripting workers (or refugee units that are useful as pop only.) and should depend on # of units. Five units in said city would raze it in 3 turns. Three units would take 5 turns.

-> Give me MAD! the right way. Nuke invulnerability now is better than civ 2, but still a far cry from true MAD.

-> Fix culture flipping. 'nuff said.

-> the air versus ship thing mentioned above. Ships should be able to fire on air, and air should be able to sink ships. AA or SAM equipped land troops should be able to fire on air. Air should not be able to kill ground completely, as it is.

->repair costs to fix units? I don't know about this one.


On the plus side:
++ I like no healing in enemy territory. Makes sense. Makes it tougher too. Gives incentive to having high culture (since it slows approaching enemies), this is possibly the best use of culture yet.

++ I like the abstracted air units. Civ 2 was silly with planes floating in midair between turns.

++ I like the strategic resources requirements. This is great! Cutting off someone's iron supply or horses supply in the ancient era is really crippling. I once sacrificed a city to keep a resource instead. And colonies are useful. If you can't wait the thirty turns for borders to expand or to build that settler, and you need iron now, it's very useful.

++ The luxury resources also add to combat because of strategy involved. I get to move more troops to the front lines because I don't need them for martial law.

++ Stacked units no longer die when the first does. This is great! Now those piles of enemy troops are something to be feared, not easy pickings.

++ Capturing non-combatants. workers and settlers, artillery. Good idea. I have to be careful defending them.

++ Generally a tougher AI has been good. It's still beatable but less the pushover that it was in Civ 2.


Comments?
__________________
Proud Citizen of the Civ 3 Demo Game
Retired Justice of the Court, Staff member of the War Academy, Staff member of the Machiavelli Institute
Join the Civ 3 Demo Game $Mini-Game! ~ Play the Civ 3 Demo Game $Mini-Game!
Voici mon secret. Il est très simple: on ne voit bien qu'avec le coeur. L'essentiel est invisible pour les yeux.
Captain is offline  
 

Bookmarks

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is On

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 17:40.


Design by Vjacheslav Trushkin, color scheme by ColorizeIt!.
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.2
Copyright ©2000 - 2010, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Apolyton Civilization Site | Copyright © The Apolyton Team