Naval history and civ3 thread for NYE and korn and whoever

notyoueither · March 27, 2002, 22:11

OK korn. The gauntlet has been dropped by one of us and the other seems to be fool enough to pick it up. I'm not sure which is which since this topic has been simmering for a while. However, we should really stop spamming other threads, so here's one for you, me and whoever else cares.

I'm a little under the weather today so I will give you the first say. Or, if you wish to wait, I will respond to your last post in Zylka's thread when I have the enregy. Take it easy on me, I'm an old man.

Anybody else interested? Here's the place. Let's just keep the minutia of historical details out of other people's threads. I get the impression a lot of people are tiring of it.

SpencerH · March 27, 2002, 22:25

Quote:

Let's just keep the minutia of historical details out of other people's threads. I get the impression a lot of people are tiring of it.

Yes, its much easier for them to discuss something they know nothing about if they're not constantly interupted by people who bother to read or who have done what they're discussing (so poorly).

notyoueither · March 27, 2002, 22:26

Do we have a problem SpencerH?

[Edit]I guess your missive can be read 2 ways. Especially after I reread it.[/Edit]

SpencerH · March 27, 2002, 22:36

Not at all! I was refering to those who find it oppressive to discuss anything beyond whether the CIV colours match their outfits (without being too direct).

bigvic · March 27, 2002, 22:57

So what about the naval strategy, guys? I've personally modded the hell out of my game in that area to more acuratly (I think) reflect historical realities and improve the game. Can we take it as a given that planes definately sunk ships in history? Yeah, thats a good starting point.

SpencerH · March 27, 2002, 23:07

Planes definitely sink, and have sunk ships, including modern ships. No one expected the exocets to do so much damage to the British ships in the Falklands. That was nearly 20 years ago. Defense against such low flying missles is very difficult so my bet is that modern air launched anti-ship missles would do a huge amount of damage to everything except the mothballed American Battleships.

bigvic · March 27, 2002, 23:32

Speaking of, in my mod, I've given battleships ability to tote missiles. Seems rational in light of the last usage of 'em in Gulf war. Aegis cruisers, too. Other things I've done...
*Upped galley's attack to 2, move to 6, gave them 1 bombard factor (primitve artillery/landing parties)
*Upped caravel's attk to 3, def to 3, gave 2 bombard, move of 9
*upped galleon to 4/4, 3 bombard, 8 move
*made all the above naval power as well as transport - I hate not having a real maritime power option til frigates
*upped frigates to, um, 6/4, 10 move, 4 bombard w/ rof of 2, can trans. 2 units, gave them trans capabiliy

I'll have to check the rest, if you want to know, later, as I'm running out of time here and must do something w/ my life other than sit at this soul sucking machine, but basically upped moves for more modern ships to 18 - 20 rangefor trans and aegis cruisers, 8 for ironclads, 11 for privateers (a favorite of mine!), 12 - 16 for bb's, cv's, subs & destroyers. Also increased combat & bombard factors. Basically, since I play on hugeworlds chock full o' civs, I get sick of slow *ss ships that take longer to reach destination than rr movement. Anyway, got to go.

Inverse Icarus · March 27, 2002, 23:43

i left my rules alone for the most part (waiting for MP, me and friends set a "default rules set"), but i'd really like to see a revamp of naval combat.

i know, i know, everyone b1tches about something, and my thing is multiplayer. but i like to b1tch.

naval combat should be expanded to such a degree that it should be extemely useful on a pangea map (i find myself focusing far less on naval superiority).

i saw a special on the History Channel about the Japanese in WW2, and how they developed submarine aircraft carriers. it was pretty frikken cool.

korn469 · March 28, 2002, 00:04

ok well since we are talking about what modifications we've made to civ3's naval and air units i'll start with the changes i've made to the blitz mod

Ancient Naval Units
Galley 0.1.2 10|1 (sink in sea, sink in ocean) {Caravel} NONE [Naval Transport]
War Galley 2.2.3 30 (sink in sea, sink in ocean) {Sloop} Map Making [Naval Power]

Middle Age Naval Units
Caravel 0.2.4 40|3 {Galleon} Astronomy [Naval Transport]
Sloop 3.3.4 4[4]1 40 {Frigate} Astronomy [Naval Power]
Frigate 6.4.5 8[4]1 60 {Ironclad} iron, saltpeter Magnetism [Naval Power]
Man-O-War 8.5.5 8[4]1 60 {Frigate} iron, saltpeter Magnetism [Naval Power]
Galleon 0.3.5 50|4 {Transport} Magnetism [Naval Transport]
Privateer 5.2.6 50 (hidden nationality, zoc) {Commerce Raider} iron, saltpeter Navigation [Naval Power]

Industrial Era Naval Units
Ironclad 10.9.6 10[5]1 80 {Destroyer} iron, coal Steel [Naval Power]
Transport 0.8.8 90|8 oil Mass Production [Naval Transport]
Destroyer 14.12.11 12[5]1 100 (can see submarines, zoc) {Aegis Cruiser} oil, iron Mass Production [Naval Power]
Battleship 30.20.10 16[6]2 200 oil, iron, coal Mass Production [Naval Power]
Carrier 0.18.10 200|5 (radar, doesn't carry bombers) oil, rubber Advanced Flight [Naval Carrier]
Submarine 16.6.10 100 (can see submarines, zoc) oil Mass Production [Naval Power]
Commerce Raider 15.10.11 (hidden nationality, zoc) oil, iron Mass Production [Naval Power]

Modern Naval Units
Aegis Cruiser 16.24.11 12[5]1 160|3 (can see submarines, radar, can carry cruise missiles) aluminum, uranium [Naval Missile Transport]
Nuclear Submarine 10.14.9 150|3 (can see submarines, can carry cruise missiles and tactical nukes) aluminum, uranium [Naval Missile Transport]

Industrial Era Air Units
Fighter 5.5.2 12[4]6 100 (blitz,) {F-15} oil, rubber [Air Defense]
Bomber 0.2.2 10[8]8 120 (blitz) oil, rubber [Air Bombard]
Helicopter 0.2.3 0[0]6 100 (can see submarines/invisable units) oil, rubber [Air Transport]

Modern Air Units
Jet Fighter 15.15.3 15[5]8 150 (blitz, radar) oil, aluminum [Air Defense]
F-15 18.18.3 15[5]8 150 (blitz, radar, precision strike) {Jet Fighter} oil, aluminum [Air Defense]
Supersonic Bomber 0.8.3 14[8]8 180 (blitz, radar, precision strike) [Air Bombard]
Stealth Fighter 0.6.3 18[4]8 150 (blitz, radar, stealth, precision strike) oil, aluminum, uranium [Air Bombard]
Stealth Bomber 0.3.3 20[8]8 300 (blitz, radar, stealth, precision strike) oil, aluminum, uranium [Air Bombard]

i also changed the chance to successfully intercept an air mission to 90%, chance to intercept a stealth mission to 9%, and i increased hitpoints to the following levels

conscript 4
regular 6
veteran 9
elite 12

so now being at 1 hp is much worse than it is in normal civ3

that is what i think it would take to balance air and naval units
____________________________

civ3 historical interpretations

*ships are a number of units
*a battle on the map can correspond to a number of real life battles
*with relative parity in technology and trainings, entire fleets don't get sunk by airpower
*battleships when they have damage control and AA stations manned are usually hard to sink with ww2 era attack planes
*there is not enough difference between naval and land attack planes to need two classes
*submarines are highly underrated both in civ3 and historically
*a.d.m ratings represent both equipment and tactics

so lets pick a topic to argue over

bigvic · March 28, 2002, 00:34

[QUOTE] Originally posted by UberKruX
i left my rules alone for the most part (waiting for MP, me and friends set a "default rules set"), but i'd really like to see a revamp of naval combat.

Oh come on, man, live dangerously! That editor may blow for setting up historic scenarios, but if your not messing around w/ it your really missing out on some fun. Besides, it helps w/ historic accuracy. anyway, thats for another thread.

Yeah, I saw that show about the Jap carrier/subs. Really cool.

What I like about my mod most, is that it gives the option for naval pwer before the frigate, and if you click the box that designates early naval units get used for "power", the AI does a good job of using them as such. I mean, w/o modding it, there's no possibility of Spanish Armada battles, though lepanto style fights are still viable.

bigvic · March 28, 2002, 00:42

Korn, we're getting almost off topic, but could you point me to a thread that shows me how to do this? I mean, are you using agraphics editor? How do you actally create new units instead of mod existing ones? Teach me, sensei.

korn469 · March 28, 2002, 00:49

bigvic

goto the files section and find the huge thread for gramphos's copy tool, and you can then copy units and buildings, which you can then edit, you can give them new graphics but i haven't did this yet, though i invite you and nye to try out the blitz mod...

if you have any problems though feel free to pm me and i'll try to help

bigvic · March 28, 2002, 01:02

Korn
Kool! Will try. Got some time coming up next week, & though I've promised myself to get away from my computer, I'm probably not being entirely honest w/ myself.

The Rook · March 28, 2002, 02:12

My opinion is, ships should upgrade only in special circumstances. Frigates could upgrade to Ironclads. Battleships were converted to Aircraft carriers, but that's about it. You can't turn a gally into a caravel into a galleon into a transport.

Tarquelne · March 28, 2002, 02:23

Quote:

Originally posted by korn469
*ships are a number of units

All caps coming up. I'm not trying to yell at you.... just yelling in general.

HOW MANY SHIPS IN A CIV3 NAVAL UNIT?

Are you thinking a "task force", a fleet, a big fleet, a little fleet, four, 500, what?

I'm getting tired of people assuming that a unit is multiple ships, but not specifying how many. It matters.

Quote:

*submarines are highly underrated both in civ3 and historically

How often did subs sink warships? IIRC, it was pretty rare compared to merchant/cargo ships. While subs were VERY effective at sinking merchant craft, they were too slow and vulnerable to be of any real use against warships, esp. "on the high seas".

Subs aren't all that good in Civ3.... and I think that's OK, because Civ3 doesn't have the merchant shipping that subs are best at fighting.

Also, the German subs in WWII were extra effective due to the poor Allied response to them through a significant part of the war. For awhile Allied merchants didn't convoy, and for quite awhile there were few-to-no long range aircraft made available for sub spotting/hunting. Yeah, I know, when the Allies did have an intelligence, air, and/or radar advantage the U-boats were dead meat. I'm talking about the streatches of the war where the sub-hunters didn't have those advantages.

The Americans in the pacific had torpedo problems, and, IIRC, sinking Japaneese merchant shipping _never_ became the SSs primary goal - most of those merchant sinkings were performed after the sub. had given up on scoring on a BB or CV that mission.... anyway, in spite of all that, the American's might have been "extra effective" too, like the Germans. The IJN didn't think much of escort officers (like they didn't think much of captial ship damage control officers), so the quality of anti-sub escorts was often pretty rotten.

My point: To make subs as effective as they were in WWII the game might have to assume that the anti-sub forces are as poorly managed as they often were in WWII. And note, it wasn't really because the subs were new and novel threats that the Allies and the Japaneese had so much trouble with them. The Allies were loathe to release bombers to anti-sub work because so many of the high command were convinced that in using those bombers against German cities (Dresden, et al) they could knock Germany out of the war. Not convoying, and not following blackout procedures on the US east coast, was just plain stupid. The Japanesse, with thier poor attitude toward the less-glamours positions, had their own stupidities. Do we, in Civ3, really want to assume that the anti-sub forces in the game are just as clueless? I think that the "natural" effectiveness of submarines (ie - their effectiveness when the other side isn't being an idiot) is considerably less than WWII peaks of effectiveness.

I do think that WWI and II subs should be murder vrs. merchant-type units, and that modern subs are quite nasty.... but I'd be very leary of giving the pre-nuclear subs in Civ3 a boost - unless some sort of "merchant shipping" is added to the game. The subs should be usefull against it.

OTOH - I think a "highly effective subs are much more fun" argument trumps any realism issues. But lets be clear that the highly effective subs are there because they're fun, not because realism demands it.

Tarquelne · March 28, 2002, 03:56

Quote:

*with relative parity in technology and trainings, entire fleets don't get sunk by airpower

What about numbers? Civ3 can give us situations where there's LOTS of bomber units attacking a single 1 hp ship unit. A-historical numbers of planes, I'm sure.

Go ahead, ssume the training and tech are on par - but what about the numbers?

Try this: Translate 1 Civ3 BB and CV unit into "real life". Now translate, oh, say, 30 bomber units into "real life". Do you really want to say that those 30 bomber units can't sink the 1 BB+1 CV units? How about 50 bombers? 100? 503?

I assume at some point you'll say "Yes, _that_ many "real life" bombers could utterly wipe out (for game purposes.... some minor vessels could escape) that many "real life" ships.

So: In real life terms, how many "bombers" (do assume appropriate support craft) does it take to sink a whole "fleet."

Now, more to the point: How many Civ3 bombers do you think it should require to sink a Civ3 ship-unit?

It'd be interesting if you did the same thing, nye.

(I still think the best thing to do is throw away the realism arguments and just look at game-play issues.)

SpencerH · March 28, 2002, 10:13

Quote:

Originally posted by Tarquelne

(I still think the best thing to do is throw away the realism arguments and just look at game-play issues.)

I think Tarquelne may have hit the nail on the head on this issue. In reality, ships are vulnerable to aircraft. The question for CIV3 is how will allowing aircraft to kill units effect the game? I'm not sure of that (we'll know when the new patch comes out), but I am sure that I dont want aircraft to be as dominant as they were in previous versions. One mod I used for CIV2 was the creation of mobile AA units to protect my ground forces. I guess I'll do the same here (if I can).

bigvic · March 28, 2002, 22:43

Quote:

Originally posted by SpencerH

The question for CIV3 is how will allowing aircraft to kill units effect the game?.

As far as the question of game balance goes, my question, in regard to naval units, is...Did they really mean for it to be this way? Maybe I'm giving these guys too much credit, but How can airplanes NOT sink ships, and what possible role could "game balance" play? I think it was a screw up in the rush to get the game out by xmas.

korn469 · March 28, 2002, 23:54

Quote:

HOW MANY SHIPS IN A CIV3 NAVAL UNIT?

to me in on a standard sized map in the industrial era between 2-5 capital ships with escorts and auxillary ships for battleships, aircraft carriers and Aegis Cruisers, then for subs and destroyers they are wolf pack type units with maybe 10-30 ships with auxillary ships

Quote:

How often did subs sink warships? IIRC, it was pretty rare compared to merchant/cargo ships. While subs were VERY effective at sinking merchant craft, they were too slow and vulnerable to be of any real use against warships, esp. "on the high seas".

lets see...

Battleships
BARHAM (31,100t, 1915) Sank by U-boat, torpedoes, off Sollum, Egypt, 41/11/25
ROYAL OAK (29,150t, 1916) Sunk by U-boat torpedo, Scapa Flow, Orkneys, 39/10/14

2 of 3

Battlecruisers
0 of 2

Fleet Carriers
ARK ROYAL (22,000t, 1938) Torpedoed (13th) by U-boat and sunk, W Mediterranean, 41/11/14
COURAGEOUS (22,500t, 1917, ex-cruiser, carrier from 1928) Sunk by U-boat torpedo W of Ireland, 39/09/17
EAGLE (22,600t, 1924) Sunk by U-boat, torpedo, W Mediterranean, 42/08/11

3 of 5

Escort Carriers
AUDACITY (ex-Hannover, German prize, 11,000t deep, 1939; as 9/41) Sunk by U-boat torpedo, N Atlantic, 41/12/21
AVENGER (13,785t deep, 2/3/42) Sunk by U-boat, torpedo, W of Gibraltar Straits, 42/11/15

2 of 3

Cruisers
BONAVENTURE (5,450t, 24/5/40) Sunk by U-boat, torpedoes, S of Crete, 41/03/31
CAIRO (AA ship, 4,200t, 1919) Sunk by U-boat, torpedo, off Bizerta, Tunis, 42/08/12
DUNEDIN (4,850t, 1919) Sunk by U-boat, torpedo, between W Africa and Brazil, 41/11/24
GALATEA (5,220t, 1935) Sunk by U-boat, torpedo, off Alexandria, 41/12/14
HERMIONE (5,450t, 25/3/41) Sunk by U-boat, torpedo, E Mediterranean, 42/06/16
NAIAD (5,450t, 24/7/40) Sunk by U-boat, torpedo, E Mediterranean, 42/03/11
PENELOPE (5,270t, 1936) Sunk by U-boat, torpedeo, Anzio area, W Italy, 44/02/18

7 of 28

14 of 41, or a third of all british capital ships

source: http://www.naval-history.net/WW2BritishLosses1Major.htm

Quote:

Try this: Translate 1 Civ3 BB and CV unit into "real life". Now translate, oh, say, 30 bomber units into "real life". Do you really want to say that those 30 bomber units can't sink the 1 BB+1 CV units? How about 50 bombers? 100? 503?

I assume at some point you'll say "Yes, _that_ many "real life" bombers could utterly wipe out (for game purposes.... some minor vessels could escape) that many "real life" ships.

it depends on how you classify a bomber, does it only include strategic bombers like b-17's, b-29's etc or do you include dive bombers like the dauntless with bombers or with fighters?

that will make a big difference

i feel that bombers are only strategic bombers, each air unit to me is in the 40-100 units range

so 3,000 B-17's attacking 2 battleships and 2 aircraft carriers plus escorts...unless they were in port this is highly unlikely that so many air units would try to simultaneously sink the ships, since ships are mobile and would be a challenge for the bombers, but forgetting that

The U.S. Strategic Bombing Survey reported after the war that 50% of all bombs dropped from 25,000 feet from B-17s in the European theater landed within a one-kilometer(0.62 land miles) diameter circle around the aiming point.

source: http://www.combinedfleet.com/ijnaf.htm

normal bomb load for a B-17G

16 × 500 lb bombs carried internal, and
2 × 4,000 lb bombs, one on each hardpoint

source: http://www.ophetweb.nl/ww2w/ww2htmls/boeib17.html

so that means 48,000 500lb bombs and 6,000 4,000lb bombs, more than enough power to sink those ships, but could they hit them with enough bombs to sink them all?

but against 3,000 dauntless dive bombers they would almost certainly be sunk (but to me the dauntless would fall under the classification of a fighter in civ3 and not a bomber)

Quote:

I still think the best thing to do is throw away the realism arguments and just look at game-play issues.)

i agree and i feel that my gameplay changes are balanced, more balanced than the stats in normal civ3

Chronus · March 29, 2002, 01:05

I've got to agree with Korn regarding subs. I don't have the book with me but I recall looking at a list and counting the number of military ships lost by the Japanese throughout the war and how they were sunk. Aircraft, of course, sank the most. I don't think anyone is disputing that. Subs came in second. No, I'm not talking merchant ships and such (the list actually had the names of the ships sunk and didn't bother listing any merchant vessels), these were actual capital ships (i.e. carriers, battleships, etc.) that were sunk by American subs. It was quite impressive.

However, Korn, where on earth do you come across giving a submarine a higher attack value and faster speed than a nuclear sub??? I'm sorry if you already explained this above . . . I didn't have the time or will to read everything.

notyoueither · March 29, 2002, 03:29

Facts are very interesting things. When they are presented there is a presenter. The views of the presenter very definitely have a selective effect on the facts that are presented. Hence, *there are lies, d*mn lies, and then there are statistics.*

No offence to korn is meant. Since debate is a form of contest, he will of course present the facts that support his views. Just as I will. What is very interesting, is what a look at some of the same subjects that he draws his submarine loss statistics from will also reveal. I almost have to think he handed me a slam dunk. Very decent of you korn.

BTW, slight differences in our totals (korn's and mine) may be attributed to methods of counting. I for instance have not included any ships flagged under Commonwealth countries, even if they are listed by my source. Information on the RCN, RAN and RNZN is incomplete; my source only lists their ships if constructed in British ship yards. I have counted ships of the RN that were crewed by other nationalities (it happened). Losses that I feel could be challenged or argued I have listed with * to indicate that I made a judgement in placing them in one category over another.

source: http://www.naval-history.net/NAVAL1939-45RN.htm

British Capital Ships: Numbers and Losses by Category

BBs and BCs
Total: 20
Lost: 5
Sub; Barham, RoyalOak
Air; PrinceOfWales, Repulse
Surf; Hood

CVAs
Total: 17
Lost: 3
Sub; Courageous, ArkRoyal
Air;
Surf; Glorious

CVE and CVL
Total: 47
Lost: 5
Sub; Eagle, Audacity, Avenger
Air; Hermes
Surf;
Mishap; Dasher

CRs
Total: 86
Lost: 26
Sub; Cairo, Calypso, Bonaventure (to Italian Subs), Dunedin, Galatea, Penelope, Hermione, Naiad
Air; Cornwall, Dorsetshire, Calcutta, Coventry, Curlew, Gloucester, Southampton, Fiji (to an Me109), Trinidad*, Spartan
Surf; Exeter, York*, Manchester, Edinburgh*, Charybdis,
Mine; Neptune
Mishap; Curacoa, Effingham

Thus I count 39 capital ships lost. 3 were lost to mishap and 1 to mines. Mishaps and mines are not represented in Civ3 so they can be put aside. That leaves 35 capital ships lost in combat.

Of the 35, a high proportion were lost to submarines. Not all UBoats though. Gotta give the Italians some credit. [Edit] Clarification. Italian subs got 3; Cairo, Calypso and Bonaventure. The way I structured it it only looks like the Bonaventure.[/Edit] So I count 43% of losses due to subs. Very significant.

What is most significant for the dreams of booming guns for many of the people on these forums is that only 7 ships, 20% were lost to surface action. By 1939, the days of the gun line were done. The fate of empires on the high seas were no longer determined by the crash of thunder and the whirr of grape shot. In fact, it is significant that the Battleship was largely abandoned after 1945.

What's left? Oh! Look at that will ya! 13 out of 35 capital ships lost were to Aircraft.

Let's see, that leaves 100 minus 43 less 20... ummm, errr... 37% of RN losses were to death from above. Suck on that you *realists.*

Ahem. Sorry. I let myself get a little carried away there for a minute. Now, where was I. Oh yeah...

BTW. I have not tried to argue that sinking of ships by aircraft should be implemented in Civ3 due to realism above all else. What I have said, a few times, is that I believe that it would enhance the enjoyment of the game for many of the players. That's why it should be in.

Will it lead to better balance? I don't know. I haven't had a chance to try it. If there is no effective AA for ships, then definitely not! Will it lend more flavour to the naval game? Yes, I believe it could. Only time, and the next patch will tell.

TCO · March 29, 2002, 04:37

submarines had an incredible effect at sea. Saying that the anti-sub measures were stupid is kinda coulda/woulda thinking. You could also imagine how much more effective the subs could have been with more emphasis (German) and better torpedos (American). When you look at the amount of men involved in sub ops vs surface or air ops, it is clear that subs had a huge per capita impact.

BTW, subs are naturally stealthy. Anti-sub ops are naturally difficult. The best defense a surface ship has is to run fast and zig a lot. This will make it dificult for the sub to get into firing position. Even if the sub is nuclear and capable of high speeds, it can not do so at periscope depth.

TCO · March 29, 2002, 04:46

btw, great post, notyoueither.

SpencerH · March 29, 2002, 08:21

Its interesting to note that 10 of the 14 vessels sunk by torpedo that Korn cites were in the Med or the approach to the Med not in the open seas.

Tarquelne · March 29, 2002, 16:34

# of ships sunk by subs.

Right, right. Sorry, sorry, I typed my previous post while trying to do three things at once, and completely missed my own point.

Thus:

Quote:

Originally posted by SpencerH
Its interesting to note that 10 of the 14 vessels sunk by torpedo that Korn cites were in the Med or the approach to the Med not in the open seas.

What I wanted to concentrate on was the "slow and vulnerable" bit. Subs don't zip up to cruisers, fire some torps, and zoom off again. They didn't integrate well into fleet battle/maneuver plans. Quite the opposite - to be effective they need to lie in wait, hidden. Realistically, I think the subs in Civ3 should be significantly slower than the other ships of thier period. And (much more importantly) I don't think that realism would make them less fun, or hurt gameplay. I think "realisitic" subs (as I see them) would make naval warfare more interesting.

Here's what I did:

I forget the exact figures, but:
Replace Destroyer with Cruiser, adjust cost and combat stats appropriately. Lose "can see subs." (More realistic at the Civ3 scale.) I assume the Cruiser, BB, and CV units all have some destroyers tagging along. If you want to hunt a sub you have to feel around for it - but the sub _is_ slow. (And usually won't survive attacking you anyway.)
Carriers can see subs. (Patrols.)

Make the sub slower, cheaper, increase the attack rating. So, if there were any merchant shipping, it'd still be effective against them. Against warships the subs need to hide near where the enemy ships will be scooting by. They're not longer stealthy destroyer-varients. (Which is what korn's reminded me of. (Though I do agree that korn's changes are, overall, a big improvement. The fast-ish subs just bugged me.))

I'd also like them to retreat....

Aircraft vrs. planes: Sure, planes sank lots of ships. How often did they destroy a whole "task group"? Heck - how often are large-sized land-troop formations completely destroyed? Unusual, isn't it? Maybe _no unit_ should EVER be completely destroyed in combat. Or maaaaybe we could concentrate more on the gameplay, less on the questions-of-fact.

Except for subs.

Which reminds me: "ASW stupidity." I think there's a world of difference between not using your forces at optimal efficiency on the one hand, and (this is the other hand now) forgetting (it would seem) every ASW lesson of WWI or denying the ASW efforts proper support because they aren't "cool".

notyoueither · March 29, 2002, 16:49

The suggestion that since aircraft seldom destroyed an entire force they should not be able to sink ships can equally be applied to subs (never sank an entire force of war ships) and surface units (navies almost never duke it out to the bitter end, someone always runs).

And the fact remains that the entire Japanese Carrier force at Midway was put to the bottom by the naval aviators of the USN.

Then there's ForceZ. A BB unit (PrOfWales and Repulse) was completely destroyed by Japanese aircraft.

I don't buy the suggestion that the BB and CV include escorts as part of the unit. DDs are in the game. If you wish to escort your capital ships with lighter, expendable units do it. If you don't, then don't. I just don't agree with saying that DDs are here, DDs are there. Man they're everywhere.

Any good mod

would add cruisers and reduce the strength of DDs a tad relative to BBs.

SpencerH · March 29, 2002, 17:07

The speed of a non-nuclear sub depend on whether it's on the surface (and can use its diesal engines) or underwater (in which case it must use its batteries for power). I believe that on the surface they were not slow by any standards, but were slow once submerged. From what I remember, the tactics used by the German U-boats against merchantmen in WWII were to move into position in an extended line and wait for contact. Once a convoy was located the other subs within range would race (on the surface) to intercept. Personally I've increased the movement in my game to 4 (in line with the other ship movement increases I've done).

Nuclear subs are a whole other matter. Their CIV3 stats are totally out of line with the speed and capabilities of these ships.

Tarquelne · March 29, 2002, 17:15

Quote:

Originally posted by SpencerH
I believe that on the surface they were not slow by any standards but were slow once submerged.

Really? Must have simply misremembred then, or was thinking of WWI subs or something - I thought most WWII subs couldn't cruise quite as fast as most merchant ships even on the surface.

Err... hmm... does it make a difference? Are the "Submarines" in Civ3 WWII subs or WWI subs? I've been speaking of them as WWII subs, but someting inbetween WWI and II might be more appropriate.

SpencerH · March 29, 2002, 18:13

Quote:

Originally posted by Tarquelne

Really? Must have simply misremembred then, or was thinking of WWI subs or something - I thought most WWII subs couldn't cruise quite as fast as most merchant ships even on the surface.

Err... hmm... does it make a difference? Are the "Submarines" in Civ3 WWII subs or WWI subs? I've been speaking of them as WWII subs, but someting inbetween WWI and II might be more appropriate.

I think my choice of language "not slow by any standards" was poor. A quick check of a WWII vintage U-boat gives a cruising speed of 12 knots and max of 18 on the surface and 4 and 7 underwater. Not slow on the surface, but I think you're right about the comparison to merchantmen. Once the Convoys were past the U-boat line they had trouble (or couldnt) catch up. It's been a while since I read U-boat history though.

SpencerH · March 29, 2002, 18:23

My few remaining grey cells kicked in and I recalled that the reason the u-boats couldnt keep up with the convoys was because of the escorts. They had to stay submerged. If they were on the surface they were faster but a target, especially once air cover was available.