Naval history and civ3 thread for NYE and korn and whoever

[vonManstein]

Originally posted by SpencerH
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.

Exactly.

Early in the war, subs usually attacked from the surface at night, since they were faster and more maneuverable. In addition, this was before convoys were reintroduced en-mass.

Surfaced, the sub could catch almost any merchant ship, except some fast converted liners used for troop ships. Moreover, when convoys were reintroduced, the convoys speed was determined by the slowest ship in the group, which was usually ~5-8 for the slow convoys, and ~6-12 for the fast convoys.

However, as radar technology increased throughout the war, destroyers could easily spot surfaced subs. Snorkels helped this a bit allowing subs to remain submerged while using their diesels, but they were still slower submerged using a snorkel than surfaced. And once radar technology became more advanced, they could easily spot a snorkel or periscope from a distance.

That's why the Germans focused on making a true submersible, one that would perform better submersed than surfaced. They tried a sub powered by a hydrogen peroxide reactor, but it was too unstable, and would explode at random.

They ended up making an electro-boat, which was faster submerged (22knots, iirc) than surfaced. However, it didn't see any action on its patrols before the wars end.

[KrazyHorse]

Do you have similar figures for other nations' losses, most importantly the Italians, French, Germans, Japanese and Americans?

[notyoueither]

KH. I'll see what I can find.

[nbarclay]

In the Pacific, America lost one carrier (the Wasp) and Japan lost one (the Taiho, I think) to submarine attack. Also, as I recall, it was a sub that finished off the carrier Yorktown after the battle of Midway as it was being towed home. And if I remember right, a submarine attack put Saratoga out of action for a fair while at a rather inconvenient time. Out of six carriers in America's pre-war and early-war Pacific fleet, that's one sunk, one finished off after almost being sunk by aircraft, and one put out of action temporarily by subs.

In regard to aircraft attacking ships, aircraft carriers completely dominated surface action in the Pacific campaign in World War II. The only battles where surface ships played much of a role came when the other side's full-sized carriers weren't around. (And even when Japan managed to lure America's fleet carriers away in the last big naval battle in the Pacific, their battleships were driven off by a combination of destroyers, destroyer escorts, and escort carriers that put up such a fierce fight that the Japanese overestimated what they were up against.)

Argue all you will about what constitutes "destroying" a "unit," but I don't think you'll be able to come up with any remotely plausible definition under which surface ships can destroy units but carrier-based aircraft cannot. (And I for one, as someone with a long-standing interest in carrier battles, am significantly annoyed at having carriers in Civ 3 rendered so much weaker than they should be.)

I do think that ideally, there should be a separate type of bomber unit for carrier-based and anti-ship operations. Standard land-based bombers should have a much smaller chance of hitting ships than more specialized aircraft, while carrier-based bombers (which are also the type that would be most effective for land-based anti-carrier operations) should be shorter ranged and less effective against land targets (due to their smaller bomb payloads).

By the way, has anyone else noticed how ridiculously short-ranged bombers are in Civ 3? In World War II, bombers from England flew all the way to Berlin and back, and the B-29 had an even longer range. So why can't my Civ 3 bombers strike more than one or two cities deep into enemy territory even when our borders are adjacent? As it is, my blitzkreigs are often so quick that after the first turn, bombers would be too busy rebasing to get in range to do any good.

Nathan

[notyoueither]

I'm not entirely happy with the source. It is good, however they list only the Oklahoma and Arizona as lost at Pearl Harbour. True, California and West Virginia were raised, repaired, and returned to active duty. However they were sunk, if only in a few feet of water. I am sure that some, or at least 1 Cruiser was sunk at Pearl Harbour. They (it) are not on this list. At any rate, it will have to do until I can find a better source.

The one bone of contention that I can forsee is that of Yorktown. I have put her down as lost to air attack. She was crippled by Japanese carrier aircraft at Midway. She was attempting repair and escape when she was torpedoed by a Japanese sub. Which came first, the chicken or the egg? Well, she would not have been where she was, when she was, were it not for the mauling she suffered at the hands of Japanese naval aviators. Hence I count her lost to air action.

As for total quantities of particular classes to serve, I don't have that many fingers, even though I can factor with my toes. Suffice to say the USN had *oddles* in every category. *Oddles and oddles* when it came to CVL, CVE and Cruisers.

Source: http://www.history.navy.mil/faqs/faq82-1.htm

USN Capital Ships: Losses by Category

BB and BC
Lost: 4
Sub;
Air; Oklahoma, Arizona, California, West Virginia
Surf;

CVAs
Lost: 4
Sub; Wasp
Air; Hornet, Lexington, Yorktown*
Surf;

CVE and CVL
Lost: 7
Sub; Block Island(eu), Liscome Bay
Air; Princeton, Bismarck Sea, Ommaney Bay, St. Lo
Surf; Gambier Bay

CRs
Lost: 10
Sub; Indianapolis, Juneau
Air; Chicago
Surf; Astoria, Houston, Northampton, Quincy, Vincennes, Atlanta, Helena


The first item of interest that I note is that USN losses were comparatively light as compared to those of the Royal Navy. This despite the fact that the United States prosecuted one of the more epic naval wars of history. The conclusion may be drawn that the battle for the Atlantic and the Med waged by the Royal Navy was no less epic.

Total losses of capital ships were 25 ships. 5 of them (20%) were to submarines. Of note is that fact that the USN lost only one CVE, Block Island, in the European Theatre. Of course she was lost to a UBoat. I hate it when that happens.

7 Cruisers and 1 CVE were lost in surface action against the Japanese, a good many of them victim of the excellent Japanese torpedoes carried on Destroyers and some Cruisers. That's 8 out of 25 for 32%.

It should come as no surprise then, that the lions share of USN capital ship losses were to air craft. 12 out of 25, nearly 50% (48% actually) were lost to air craft. This should be no surprise, especially given the large start for the naval aviators at Pearl Harbour.

There they are. Hope you enjoy them.

Anybody know a good site for Italian naval losses with lists of sunken ships? Didn't think so.

[nbarclay]

Originally posted by notyoueither

The first item of interest that I note is that USN losses were comparatively light as compared to those of the Royal Navy. This despite the fact that the United States prosecuted one of the more epic naval wars of history. The conclusion may be drawn that the battle for the Atlantic and the Med waged by the Royal Navy was no less epic.

It depends on how you define "epic." In the Pacific, the reason U.S. losses were so light was that the war was so lopsided. Keep in mind that Japan lost as many big carriers at Midway alone as America did in the entire war (although numbers of ships sunk overlook many sad tales of ships that were hit badly but survived). Keep in mind that in the latter half of the war, America had significant advantages in number of carriers, number of aircraft, quality of aircraft, and quality of pilots. Keep in mind that in the last carrier action of the war, the Japanese carriers were reduced to being little more than unarmed bait used to lure our carriers out of position because Japan couldn't provide them with the aircraft they needed to be even a marginally effective fighting force.

After 1942, the Pacific war was certainly not epic in the sense of being a closely fought struggle between evenly matched forces. But it was an epic without parallel in terms of the size of the forces involved and the tonnage of capital ships destroyed. Of course to see how high those casualty figures were, you'd have to look at the Japanese losses, not the American ones.

In regard to the Atlantic, I think the true epic struggle was the one between the convoy escorts and the U-boats. Fighting involving capital ships was essentially a side show by comparison, although it certainly wasn't a side show the Allies could afford to lose. Ironically, counts of capital ship losses show very little hint of that deeper (if you'll pardon the pun) struggle.

Nathan

[notyoueither]

British capital ship losses tend to show a fairly deep struggle.

You have a point about the UBoats vs the convoy escorts and the UBoat hunters being the biggest story. However, Bismark, Tirpitz, Scharnhorst, Gniesneau and others put in a good show for the surface forces of the Kreigsmarine.

[Chronus]

and Japan lost one (the Taiho, I think) to submarine attack

Incorrect.

In the battle of the Philiipian Sea (the "Great Mariana Turkey Shoot"), only two major Japanese ships were sunk . . . the Taiho and some other large carrier (I can't remember the name). BOTH were sunk by American subs.

And let's not forget the famous David vs. Goliath scene where the American sub, the Archerfish, sank the mighty Shinano (sp?). As you may recall, the Shinano was a Yamamato (sp?) class battleship that was converted to a carrier . . . the largest carrier, if I remember correctly, in WW2.

The list I had mentioned earlier mentions one other major Japanese carrier sunk by an American sub . . . I just need to go and get that book.

Anyway, that's a total of four major Japanese carriers sunk by American subs.

[korn469]

here's what i found with respect to US capital ship losses in WW2

BATTLESHIPS
U.S.S. ARIZONA BB39 bombs & torpedos Pearl Harbor 12-07-1941
U.S.S. OKLAHOMA BB37 torpedo Pearl Harbor 12-07-1941

AIRCRAFT CARRIERS
U.S.S. LEXINGTON CV2 torpedo Coral Sea 05-08-1942
U.S.S. YORKTOWN CV5 torpedo Midway 06-07-1942
U.S.S. WASP CV7 torpedo Solomons 09-15-1942
U.S.S. HORNET CV8 Santa Cruz 10-26-1942

AIRCRAFT CARRIER-LIGHT
U.S.S. PRINCETON CVL23 kamikaze Leyte Gulf 10-24-1944

AIRCRAFT CARRIERS-ESCORT
U.S.S. BLOCK ISLAND CVE21 torpedo Atlantic 05-29-1944
U.S.S. LISCOMBE BAY CVE56 torpedo Tarawa 11-24-1943
U.S.S. SAINT LO CVE63 bomb Leyte Gulf 10-25-1944
U.S.S. GAMBIER BAY CVE73 gunfire Leyte Gulf 10-25-1944
U.S.S. OMMANEY BAY CVE79 kamikaze Sula Sea 01-04-1945
U.S.S. BISMARCK CVE95 bomb Iwo Jima 02-21-1945

HEAVY CRUISERS
U.S.S. NORTHAMPTON CA26 torpedo Lunga Point 11-30-1942
U.S.S. CHICAGO CA29 torpedo Rennell Island 01-30-1943
U.S.S. HOUSTON CA30 gunfire-torpedo Soenda Strait 02-28-1942
U.S.S. ASTORIA CA34 gunfire-torpedo Savo Island 08-09-1942
U.S.S. INDIANAPOLIS CA35 torpedo Philippine Sea 07-30-1945
U.S.S. QUINCY CA30 gunfire-torpedo Savo Island 08-09-1942
U.S.S. VINCENNES CA44 gunfire-torpedo Savo Island 08-09-1942

LIGHT CRUISERS
U.S.S. HELENA CL50 torpedo Kula Gulf 07-06-1943
U.S.S. ATLANTA CL51 gunfire-torpedo Guadalcanal 11-13-1942
U.S.S. JUNEAU CL52 torpedo Guadalcanal 11-13-1942

source: http://www.navsource.org/Naval/losses.htm

it agrees with nye's source and not nye about how many battleships the US lost in WW2
an interesting little side note is the last US capital ship sunk in the war was by a submarine

After 1942, the Pacific war was certainly not epic in the sense of being a closely fought struggle between evenly matched forces.

agreed, look at this hypothesis at this site

In other words, even if it had lost catastrophically at the Battle of Midway, the United States Navy still would have broken even with Japan in carriers and naval air power by about September 1943. Nine months later, by the middle of 1944, the U.S. Navy would have enjoyed a nearly two-to-one superiority in carrier aircraft capacity! Not only that, but with her newer, better aircraft designs, the U.S. Navy would have enjoyed not only a substantial numeric, but also a critical qualitative advantage as well, starting in late 1943.

also

In fact, by 1945 the U.S. Navy was larger than every other navy in the world, combined!

As scary as it sounds, by the end of the war, the United States was really just beginning to get 'warmed up.' It is perhaps not surprising that in 1945, the U.S. accounted for over 50% of total global GNP.

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

one more thing

In the pre-war years, the IJNAF had chosen to train a very small number of pilots to a very high degree. The modern air force which most closely follows this path is the Israeli Air Force. Note how seriously the Israelis were affected by the loss of about 100 aircraft and pilots in the Yom Kippur war of 1973. The Japanese were at least equally vulnerable to attrition prior to the Pacific War. How could the Japanese have compensated for the loss of 300 pilots at Midway by pre-war standards? If they had had no further losses at all, it would have taken them two or three years to train that many pilots at pre-war rates.

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

also besides the enormous economic advantage the Americans had, they also had an intelligence advantage

When the carrier Wasp had to be sent to the Atlantic, the
lineup of naval power in the Pacific became six Japanese carriers
to three American. Admiral Isoroku Yamamoto, the architect of
Pearl Harbor, was well aware that this superiority would be short
lived. He had spent several years in the United States and did
not underestimate its productive capacity.

Yamamoto knew he must strike quickly. If he could
concentrate all six of his operational carriers against the
American three, the outcome could not be doubted. Midway Island, 1,136 miles northwest of Pearl Harbor, would be the target. The attacking fleet would serve as bait to draw out the Americans, then finish off their fleet.

Yamamoto's undoubtedly brilliant mind tended toward
convoluted, overly complicated plans. At Midway, he divided his
fleet into three task forces, each powerful in itself, but too
far apart for mutual support. He moved his main carrier striking
force of four carriers into a single formation. This meant that
if one was discovered by the Americans, all were subject to
attack. If the Americans remained ignorant of his plans and
reacted as expected, his victory was assured. If, however, they
learned of his far-flung forces, they could concentrate on the
most dangerous and defeat them. This is what happened, thanks to
abundant, quickly decoded and analyzed intelligence.

At Pearl Harbor, Rochefort and his code breakers worked
around the clock attacking JN-25b. Finally in April, the pieces
came together. Although only portions of each Japanese message could be read, enough could be pieced together to give Admiral Chester W. Nimitz, the commander in chief of the Pacific Fleet, the plans and objective of the Japanese effort.

With this information in hand, Nimitz could maximize the
impact of his limited forces. On June 4, 1942, the U.S. fleet
crushed the Japanese at the Battle of Midway (all four Japanese
carriers from the main striking force went down) and changed the
course of the Pacific war.

Meanwhile, both the American and Japanese high commands were
looking at the Solomon Islands, where their conflicting
objectives would meet on the island of Guadalcanal. At this
point, JN-25b was still a mystery, but direction finding, coupled
with the ability to read lower-level codes and ciphers, gave the
Navy a reasonably good picture of Japanese intentions. American
Marines landed on Guadalcanal before the Japanese could fortify
its beaches.

source: http://www.chinfo.navy.mil/navpalib/...acts/magic.txt

_____________________________

ok now i have a question, what factors make naval units weak in Civ3

here's my list

*naval units are too slow
*railroads in the industrial and modern age gives land unit infinite movement and it becomes impossible to outflank a widely dispersed defense force with even a well placed amphibious assault
*trade routes are too difficult to bloackade

please if we can come of with a list of reasonable suggestions then hopefully we can get firaxis to make a few changes

[SpencerH]

*naval units are too slow
*railroads in the industrial and modern age gives land unit infinite movement and it becomes impossible to outflank a widely dispersed defense force with even a well placed amphibious assault
*trade routes are too difficult to bloackade

I agree that these are points for discussion with regard to in the role of naval forces in CIV3. A couple of questions arise from these points including how much faster should naval units be?

If infinite rail movement is removed, what will be the counter to the infinite movement of troop carrying naval vessels? After all, there is no supply in CIV3. Amphibious assault's such as are used in CIV3, that are comparable to the landings at Inchon and Normandy in scope, should be highly precarious.

We have discussed the importance of Naval power for and against trade in previous threads. In my opinion, linking overseas trade with naval power is the most important factor for reenergizing its use in CIV3.

[Venger]

Wow, so much to talk about...

1) Korn, like your mods, but you need to adjust the privateer strength in relation to Frigates and Man O'War. The privateer should take your atypical caravel, even galleon. But a Privateer should not have a better than 50% chance to attack and sink a British Frigate, much less a Man O' War or War Galleon (add a war galleon, well armed, holds 3).

2) Subs in combat - well, you gotta have some perspective, understand the theater of operations, and how that's changed now. Now - not every ship that was torpedoed was torpedoed by a sub - so when looking at historical data, remember planes and surface ships also used torpedoes.

3) If this debate re: aircraft vs. subs is to be valid, you must take into account the actual battles in the war - submarines are a useful tool, however they do not project power. The Pacific war was a story of carrier battlegroups - all the largest battles involved major air power, and air power was how power was projected in the region.

4) The submarine is so different today - nuclear power, SLCM standoff capability, etc.

5) The airplane checkmates the submarine - every time. The submarine is an incredibly effective tool, but it has it's limitations - it's most effective against lightly armed quarry that cannot attack it back. The technology that has allowed it to advance has also allowed for improved ASW.

Aw well, just some rambling thoughts...

Venger

[korn469]

If infinite rail movement is removed, what will be the counter to the infinite movement of troop carrying naval vessels? After all, there is no supply in CIV3. Amphibious assault's such as are used in CIV3, that are comparable to the landings at Inchon and Normandy in scope, should be highly precarious.

SpencerH

railroads should still increase the movement of units, but something more reasonable like 6-12 spaces instead of infinite movement, defenders would still have the advantage but it wouldn't be so overwhelming like it is today, i mean if you don't have marines (which in normal civ3 are underpowered imo) and you land 10 tanks beside of one of their cities your attack group will lose all of its movement, and as long as they have a railroad link even if you did catch them with their forces concentrated on the other side of a huge continent they can still rush their entire army from 20 squares or more away without any problems at all, and then after sweeping the units from the beaches they can redeploy without any problems

1) Korn, like your mods, but you need to adjust the privateer strength in relation to Frigates and Man O'War. The privateer should take your atypical caravel, even galleon. But a Privateer should not have a better than 50% chance to attack and sink a British Frigate, much less a Man O' War or War Galleon (add a war galleon, well armed, holds 3)

venger i had already started tweaking the naval side more today, and since you commented on that i will change privateers so they are less powerful against frigates, feedback is always important

here is some interesting information about sailing ships

In the late 17th and early 18th centuries commercial ships were generally called "merchant ships", however mariners reserved such a term for the three masted, square rigged carrier. These ships were large and intended for passengers and cargo. The carrier was a 280 ton ship measuring 80 feet in length. While such a ship could be armed with up to 16 cannons, it is doubtful that a typical crew of about 20 could manage more than three or four such guns. This ship sports finer lines and a little more sail power than the Dutch Flute (below) and could make a trip from England to America in about 4 weeks...

Perhaps the best known ship, the Schooner is a little of all of the best features in a pyrate ship. Unique to the Schooner is a very narrow hull and shallow draft. The pyrates of the North American coast and Caribbean were partial to the Schooner because, for a 100 ton ship loaded with 8 cannons, 75 pyrates, and 4 swivel guns, it was still small enough to navigate the shoal waters and to hide in remote coves. The Schooner could also reach 11 knots in a good wind. In short, it was a small, quick, and sturdy work-horse for gentlemen of fortune...

The Frigate was the "Man-O-War" of the time weighing in at 360 tons ant 110 feet. This ship carried 195 men for a crew to man the three masts of sails and the 26 guns. The frigate was placed at the head of most major sea shipments or convoys. The sight of this heavily armed vessel often sent pyrates away without a trace of their handywork

source: http://www.piratesinfo.com/browser.p...ide_link_id=22

i'll post the changes i've made later...i also tried giving naval units treat all terrain as roads so i could lower their movement but they would still be fast, this is so they could have blitz which could really make things interesting, but it doesn't work hopefully firaxis will fix treat all terrain as roads for naval units (i emailed them about it)

one question what would the war galleon's purpose be and what role would it fill?

3) If this debate re: aircraft vs. subs is to be valid, you must take into account the actual battles in the war - submarines are a useful tool, however they do not project power. The Pacific war was a story of carrier battlegroups - all the largest battles involved major air power, and air power was how power was projected in the region.

how about the war in the atlantic where u-boats were kinda important?

that is why civ3 won't ever be entirely realistic, no game could perfectly simulate every single instance of armed conflict from 4000bc to 2050ad even if it tried

[SpencerH]

Originally posted by korn469

railroads should still increase the movement of units, but something more reasonable like 6-12 spaces instead of infinite movement, defenders would still have the advantage but it wouldn't be so overwhelming like it is today, i mean if you don't have marines (which in normal civ3 are underpowered imo) and you land 10 tanks beside of one of their cities your attack group will lose all of its movement, and as long as they have a railroad link even if you did catch them with their forces concentrated on the other side of a huge continent they can still rush their entire army from 20 squares or more away without any problems at all, and then after sweeping the units from the beaches they can redeploy without any problems

I agree that unlimited railroads give an unreasonable defensive capability (thats why we use it), but its the only counter to the equally unreasonable offensive capability of conducting amphibious landings pretty much at will. Its not as if the D-day invasions could have been mounted at Hamburg (even without interference from the German navy). It was impossible from a supply perspective. In the case of Inchon, the landings were smaller and were therefore able to be supplied from the beach until overland routes were available.

A possible solution might be if amphibious landings could only occur at a terrain called "beaches".

how about the war in the atlantic where u-boats were kinda important?

Although caravans were a micromanagement pain in CIV2 they were A raison d'etre for navies. We need overseas trade that can be interupted or affected by naval power (without the caravans).

[Venger]

Originally posted by korn469

one question what would the war galleon's purpose be and what role would it fill?

Your war galleon was simply a large galleon with many cannon - it basically allows you to send a transport ship out that has a chance to defend itself. It was used by the Spanish to haul treasure - when you care enough to send the very best. Not quite as good as a British Frigate or Man O' War (hard to maneuver, but gunned to the hilt). But a privateer would be unlikely to tackle one with only a pinnace or sloop...

And yes, privateers loved shallow drafts in their boats...argh.

how about the war in the atlantic where u-boats were kinda important?

Yes, BUT - the Germans didn't deploy the U-Boats in order to attack Allied sea power, but rather merchant shipping. Despite the raid on Scapa Floe, it was simple predation on allied merchant shipping.

that is why civ3 won't ever be entirely realistic, no game could perfectly simulate every single instance of armed conflict from 4000bc to 2050ad even if it tried

No, but we can sure try! I like the way you've enriched the navies - navies are so very important in history for many nations (nearly ALL great powers), adding units helps give a richness that is so sorely missing from Civ3.

Consider adding (if possible) an amphibious carrier - can carry few air units and a couple land units. Something akin to the Tarawa class carrier. Can hold harriers and choppers, and a Marine Expeditionary Force. I tried to do one in Civ2, but never was able to get it to work. Also tried a chopper that could carry light infantry - that didn't work either.

Don't model those crappy French carriers, those suck...

Venger

[nbarclay]

Originally posted by notyoueither
British capital ship losses tend to show a fairly deep struggle.

You have a point about the UBoats vs the convoy escorts and the UBoat hunters being the biggest story. However, Bismark, Tirpitz, Scharnhorst, Gniesneau and others put in a good show for the surface forces of the Kreigsmarine.

As I recall, Tirpitz never engaged in combat at all, although rumors that she was out and about caused significant damage in at least one case where a convoy was scared into scattering. The most famous of the Atlantic surface battles, the hunt for the Bismarck, only sunk a total of two capital ships - minor by Pacific standards although certainly important in terms of what Bismarck could have done to convoys had she gotten away.

Unfortunately, as others have noted, Civ 3 denies warships their proper target of either destroying merchant shipping or cutting it off with blockades. That leads to ridiculous situations where warships often have nothing better to do than bombarding railroads, roads, mines, and irrigation projects along the coast. Worse, there is simply no way ironclads or frigates, and probably not even destroyers, could fire far enough inland to have much of an impact on a tile's infrastructure.

Back to WWII, I might also note that of the five battleships and battlecruisers England lost, two, the Prince of Wales and Repulse, were lost to the Japanese in the Pacific shortly after Pearl Harbor. So using British losses as a means of estimating the ferocity of surface warfare in the Atlantic is fallacious.

By the way, most of my reading about World War II was back around the time I was in junior high, about 20 years ago. That's why my list of carriers lost to submarines in the Pacific was incomplete; not every such case stood out in my memory after so long. I was just trying to list the examples I knew about offhand to make the point that subs played a fairly significant role, not to give a reliably complete listing. Sorry if anyone interpreted it otherwise.

Nathan

[korn469]

Ancient Naval Units
*Galley 0.1.2 10|1 (sink in sea, sink in ocean) {Caravel} NONE

*War Galley 2.2.3 30 (sink in sea, sink in ocean) {Sloop} Map Making

Middle Age Naval Units
*Caravel 0.1.4 40|2 {Galleon} Astronomy

*Sloop 3.3.5 4[4]1 40 {Frigate} Astronomy

*Frigate 6.5.6 8[4]1 60 {Ironclad} Magnetism

*Man-O-War 8.6.6 8[4]1 60 {Frigate} Magnetism

*Galleon 0.2.5 50|4 {Transport} Magnetism

*Privateer 4.2.7 50 (hidden nationality, zoc) {Commerce Raider} Navigation

Industrial Era Naval Units
*Ironclad 10.9.8 10[5]1 90 {Destroyer} Steel

*Transport 0.6.8 100|8 Mass Production

*Destroyer 12.15.12 12[5]1 110 (can see submarines, zoc) {Aegis Cruiser} Mass Production

*Battleship 25.20.10 16[6]2 200 Mass Production

*Carrier 0.12.10 200|5 (radar, doesn't carry bombers) Advanced Flight

*Submarine 16.6.10 110 (can see submarines, zoc) Mass Production

*Commerce Raider 15.10.11 130 (hidden nationality, zoc) Mass Production

Modern Naval Units
*Aegis Cruiser 16.24.12 12[5]1 160|3 (can see submarines, radar, can carry cruise missiles)

*Nuclear Submarine 10.14.9 150|3 (can see submarines, can carry cruise missiles and tactical nukes)

venger et al

how do those changes look? any comments? please?

also i've thought about the tarawa carrier but that won't work unfortunantly
afaik carriers cannot load land units, and i know for a fact that if a unit has foot soldier or tactical missile marked that it cannot be on a carrier, marking bombers and stealth units as foot soldiers is what prevents them from landing on carriers in the blitz mod

if firaxis does allow modders to change movement along railroads and fixes the treat all terrain as roads issue then i think that naval units might become much more useful

[notyoueither]

What else does *marking bombers and stealth units as foot soldiers* do? Does it allow them to skate along rails to another city prior to embarking on a mission?

I notice nuc subs are slower than diesel. Also much weaker in attack. Just wondering what the reasoning is behind that.

I like the DDs and Raiders (incl subs) having zoc. Lets them get their nips in.

What? No Cruisers? :Runs screaming from the thread:

[korn469]

nye

What else does *marking bombers and stealth units as foot soldiers* do? Does it allow them to skate along rails to another city prior to embarking on a mission?

nothing as far as i can tell

I notice nuc subs are slower than diesel. Also much weaker in attack. Just wondering what the reasoning is behind that

subs to me represent attack subs and nuclear subs represent ssbn and ssgn subs

i was thinking of adding a nuclear attack sub to seperate ww1/ww2 subs from modern attack submarines, but with the level of abstraction i'm not sure if this is required and there are some modern classes of diesel subs such as the kilo so that conventional subs aren't completely obsolete i'm not sure though

[notyoueither]

Source: http://www.geocities.com/CapitolHill/9226/ww2.html
I can't find the web master's name, but he (I presume) has a great site. Some information had to be verified or completed elsewhere, but the story on this site is very complete and is a good read. Check it out if these things interest you.

Italian Capital Ships: Losses by Category

BB and BC
Lost: 2
Sub;
Air; Conte di Cavour**, Roma***
Surf;

CRs
Lost: 11
Sub; Diaz, Bande Nere, Trento
Air; Pola, Attendolo, Trieste
Surf; Colleoni, Zara, Fiume, Di Giussano, Da Barbiano

Italy did not employ any Carriers of any size during the war.

** November 11, 1940.
http://www.comandosupremo.com/1940.html
*The H.M.S. Illustrious conducts a bombing of the Italian base in Taranto which damaged 3 battleships and crippled Italy's chance of securing the Mediterranean. Italian battleship Conte Di Cavour is sunk in shallow water and put out of action for the remainder of the war.* It has been suggested by some (authors, not posters) that Taranto served as a model and perhaps inspiration for Pearl Harbour.

*** Sunk by German bombers while attempting to reach Malta to join the Allies as part of a large force led by Admiral Bergamini. Bergamini and most (or all) of the crew of Roma were killed by a single radio guided bomb launched from a Do217 which found it's way into one of her magazines.

In reading for the Italians the value of a Fleet Air Arm was driven home for me more strongly than ever. Time and again the Italian fleet was left with it's pants down (almost literally) by a lack of coordinated air assets. This weakness was exacerbated by their lack of radar. The Zara and Fiume were lost while attempting to assist Pola when they sailed blindly into the guns of HMS Warspite, Barham, and Valiant (who watched them coming on their own radar). Have you ever shared the feelings of those British commanders while you watched the AI in any computer games?

What else? Hmmm. Well, the more I read the more I dismiss the notions of complete Italian ineptness and lack of spirit in WWII. From past reading I am aware that the Artillery generally acquitted themselves quite well. Now I know how much skill and courage the sailors of Regia Marina displayed. Especially considering they had no air craft, they had no radar, and the British were reading all (or most) of their communications! Too bad they were on the wrong side until September 1943.

As for the numbers, assumptions about winners and losers are confirmed since Italy lost over 50% of her Cruisers in 39 months. The Battleships proved very survivable. Cavour and Roma were lost to air attack (Roma to a fluke) along with 3 Cruisers yielding 38.5% of Italian losses for air craft.

Only 23% of Italy's capital ship losses were to Submarines. This is perhaps a bit surprising, considering the higher proportion of British losses to subs and the fact that many of them were in the med.

It might not be surprising, given the confines of the Med, that surface action accounted for as many losses as air craft. Consider the lack of radar and recconaissance. 5 more Cruisers round out the numbers, accounting for the remaining 38.5% of capital ship losses.

[Chronus]

subs to me represent attack subs and nuclear subs represent ssbn and ssgn subs

Okay, that explains some things. Perhaps the name "sub" could be renamed to "Nuclear Attack Sub"? I picture "Sub" as the WWII variety as the game does.

i was thinking of adding a nuclear attack sub to seperate ww1/ww2 subs from modern attack submarines

If you do, I humbly suggest you make the WWII sub attack rating lower than the defensive rating of the ssbn and ssgn subs. Todays submarines can sink other ships from miles away due to increased sonar technology. A WWII sub would probably be sunk by an ssbn or ssgn long before it detected it or was even within range to fire.

[Venger]

Originally posted by korn469
Ancient Naval Units

how do those changes look? any comments? please?

I like the balance alot better, though I think there is a problem with the commerce raider re: destroyer strength. I also think that nearly all naval vessels should attack as well as they defend - except for submarines, which clearly have a more potent attack than defense. Ships of the line, however, are pretty much the same whether they are attacking or defending. Overall though, the values look better.

also i've thought about the tarawa carrier but that won't work unfortunantly
afaik carriers cannot load land units, and i know for a fact that if a unit has foot soldier or tactical missile marked that it cannot be on a carrier, marking bombers and stealth units as foot soldiers is what prevents them from landing on carriers in the blitz mod

if firaxis does allow modders to change movement along railroads and fixes the treat all terrain as roads issue then i think that naval units might become much more useful

Do naval units have the ability to ZOC - so if I move a battleship next to another, can it take a pot shot at me (it should be able to)? Also, you should be able to double movement and give 2 attacks, correct? That's be okay for naval units, as long as ZOC shots work on these.

Venger

[Venger]

Originally posted by korn469
subs to me represent attack subs and nuclear subs represent ssbn and ssgn subs

i was thinking of adding a nuclear attack sub to seperate ww1/ww2 subs from modern attack submarines,

In Civ2 I reduced the strength of the sub and added a Fast Attack Sub, much higher movement and power.

but with the level of abstraction i'm not sure if this is required and there are some modern classes of diesel subs such as the kilo so that conventional subs aren't completely obsolete i'm not sure though

Trust me, conventional subs ARE obsolete - they just haven't been sunk yet... it'll be interesting if countries now getting submarines, like Iran, ever fight other third rate navies, and use their subs. If they tried to confront a modern navy (US, Britain, Russia, maybe even the Frogs), they'd be relegated quite easily to new coral reef starter kits.

Venger

[korn469]

Ships of the line, however, are pretty much the same whether they are attacking or defending. Overall though, the values look better.

i'll look at changing the commerce raider some more, it is a new unit, but the reason i gave some units a higher value in one area (besides gameplay reasons) is because i consider tactic also figure into a.d.m and some units have more aggressive or more defensive tactics than others

Do naval units have the ability to ZOC - so if I move a battleship next to another, can it take a pot shot at me (it should be able to)? Also, you should be able to double movement and give 2 attacks, correct? That's be okay for naval units, as long as ZOC shots work on these.

yes naval units have zoc but a zoc shot is fixed at what seemed to be an automatic 1hp damage so a 1.1.1 naval unit with zoc would automatically do 1hp damage to a 25.25.10 naval unit and it doesn't increase if you increase hitpoints

if you give a unit blitz it has as many attacks as it has movement points, so a 10 movement battleship with blitz would have 10 attacks, and to me i feel that this is unbalancing and that is why i was trying to give naval units treat all terrain as roads so a battleship would be able to move 12 but would only have four attacks (and each attack would cost 3 movement)

Trust me, conventional subs ARE obsolete - they just haven't been sunk yet... it'll be interesting if countries now getting submarines, like Iran, ever fight other third rate navies, and use their subs. If they tried to confront a modern navy (US, Britain, Russia, maybe even the Frogs), they'd be relegated quite easily to new coral reef starter kits.

from what i've read about the kilo it is a threat but only in coastal waters, because it doesn't have the speed or the range to cruise around the ocean, but it is quiter than a nuclear sub so that is why it is a threat, but it is probably overrated, i know if it was me i would rather be stationed on a 688 attack sub than a kilo

the only problem with calling a sub a nuclear attack sub means it would need uranium and that would push it back to fission at least, but i want a sub that is important during in the industrial but if it is strong enough to compete then, the modern version of it would probably be too overpowering those are the dilemmas i'm faced with

__________________________________________
ok lets say that civ3 is completely alternative history and albert einstien, enrico fermi, and a few other scientists were never born and a nuclear reactor didn't happen until like 1980, hypothetically would other forms of engines that didn't require oxygen replaced diesel engines in submarines? like fuel cells or hydrogen peroxide engines or something else?

[SpencerH]

Originally posted by korn469

ok lets say that civ3 is completely alternative history and albert einstien, enrico fermi, and a few other scientists were never born and a nuclear reactor didn't happen until like 1980, hypothetically would other forms of engines that didn't require oxygen replaced diesel engines in submarines? like fuel cells or hydrogen peroxide engines or something else?

I would say no. The limiting factor for conventional submarine underwater activities has been (and is) the efficiency of the batteries not the power source.

[notyoueither]

Originally posted by korn469

__________________________________________
ok lets say that civ3 is completely alternative history and albert einstien, enrico fermi, and a few other scientists were never born and a nuclear reactor didn't happen until like 1980, hypothetically would other forms of engines that didn't require oxygen replaced diesel engines in submarines? like fuel cells or hydrogen peroxide engines or something else?

OK. It's civ right? We're discussing it on Poly right? Isn't the answer obvious?

Bannnnannnna PoooWWWeR!!!

Have a good day.

[Venger]

Originally posted by korn469

the only problem with calling a sub a nuclear attack sub means it would need uranium and that would push it back to fission at least, but i want a sub that is important during in the industrial but if it is strong enough to compete then, the modern version of it would probably be too overpowering those are the dilemmas i'm faced with

Well, THE advance for submarines was nuclear power - unlimited range, impressive submerged speed, ability to keep speed and endurance submerged without the need for diesel engines. To me, I think you have it covered with a Submarine unit, and a Fast Attack Sub. Yes, fission MUST be aquired for the Fast Attack Sub.

Venger

[TCO]

A nuclear submarine is a true submarine. Nautilus was an incredible advance and was more potent than any previous submarine. This was proved by several of the (announced and secret) missions which Nautilus did immediatly after commisioning.

[IGD]

Naval Power is a very complex issue, especially as it has adapted to technological change over the years, this is impossible to model accurately within CIV. The game does a pretty good job, however there are some obvious imbalances which might help.

Submarines : The arguments that have been given in this forum previously regarding the WWII level submarine are pretty valid I believe. This weapon,certainly the U Boat, was primarily a commerce raider, and a pretty effective one, it's key advantage was of being able to avoid and evade warships to enable it's pretty small weapon load to be expended upon the primary target - commercial shipping. This tactic nearly crippled the UK in the early part of WWII. That is not to say that there weren't some spectacular successes in sinking warships, indeed allied submarines were more geared toward this type of mission. The effectiveness of the WWII submarine was severely reduced once ASDIC and RADAR became widespread, indeed their losses mounted. Most of these losses were from RADAR fitted aircraft.

To model all this in CIV would be very complex I don't believe any change is really necessary in pre nuclear sub units abilities.

Post WWII the submarine became a much more potent weapon, although it's abilities have been rarely tested in combat. The arrival of the Nuclear submarine heralded the ability to remain submerged for very long periods without the need to surface and "Snort" (Recharge batteries) and the advent of sophisticated passive SONAR techniques enabled the submarine to "see" without being seen. This enabled the ICBM to be put to sea in a submarine and a whole array of submarine technology to be developed to counter it. Hence the cold war saw the "Bomber" (Ballistic Missile Submarine) being developed by the Nuclear Nations and the development of the Hunter Killer Nuclear submarine primarily designed for hunting other submarines. These submarines however represent power projection on a grand scale. The modern Battleship equivalent, virtually undectable, except by another submarine, their utility in Anti Surface Warfare against surface combattants, although largely untested is enourmous and seriously underplayed in CIV3. (The sinking of the BELGRANO by CONQUEROR in 1982 kept a whole Navy in port in fear of the submarine) The humble torpedo, still potent, is not the only weapon in the arsenal. The Russians were the first to get serious about submarines as platforms for anti ship missiles, but the West was not far behind. Modern submarines carry sophisticated precision anti ship missiles and cruise missiles. It would be nice to see this modelled better in CIV Nuclear submarines should cost much more to buid (They are damned expensive in reality) but should carry a much bigger punch and be virtually undectable to anything but other submarines or specialist ASW units (These don't exist in CIV unless you assume they are with a carrier (is it a single unit or a group - more later)

Carriers : There should definately be two types of carrier in CIV3. The present one is fine as a WWII type model (Although it should carry 6 instead of 4 aircraft in my opinion and have some limited Air Defence capability). The modern Nuclear Carrier is not modelled. This is a massive ommission since we see the modern Carrier being a tool of massive political influence in the modern world. These units should be expensive to build, carry a large amount of offensive air power and be assumed to have within it a group of specialist units making it capable in ASW, AsUW and Air defence (Air superiority missions around it should be automatic with a high percentage kill rate). That is not to say they should not be sinkable, just that it should take a lot of effort to do so.

One more thought - the AEGIS cruiser is probably the most formidable Anti Aircraft unit that exists, (Until the arrival of the UK's Type 45 destroyer, I hope !) this is also underplayed in CIV3, the AEGIS should be more powerful, similarly it's land attack capabilities should allow far reaching precision strikes to reflect it's NFS and Cruise missile capabilities.

Just some thoughts

IGD

[SpencerH]

There have been a few posts dismissing the abilities of the conventional sub in an era of nuclear powered vehicles. I just wanted to point out that conventional subs are generally more quiet than their nuclear brethren. As a result, there have been occasions where these vessels have "sunk" carriers in war games. A feat that is no small achievement.

[Venger]

Good post IGD. In Civ2, I gave the Aegis cruiser the ability to attack air units - so not only did it have good defensive capability, it could actually shoot down bombers that were nearby. I'd like to have seen units with different strengths vs. air, land, sea - but I doubt we'll ever see that in Civ3 just due to the nature of the changes.

However, there MUST be a risk for aircraft attacking ships. Aircraft own ships, but they also take heavy tolls at times to do it. Having aircraft able to attack shipping with impunity, as they can now, is nonsensical and pure gameplay anthrax.

Venger
P.S. The thing about the Belgrano was that really was the ONLY ship the Argentines had that was worth a damn and could pose a threat to the British surface fleet. I always thought it was ironic that the Belgrano was refitted with many British missile systems for use...tragic loss of life though. Still, it was one of those moments when you think Argentina realized "uh, do we know what we got ourselves into here?"