Battleships

Fiji · October 12, 2000, 06:43

are battleships overstrenght in CIV II?
historically, the BB type of ship was finnished when aircraft became able to carry 500 pounds worth of torpedo.
Now, in CIVII, it usually takes 2 or 3 bombers to kill a BB ... isn't that a little much?
I'd like to see a real life BB do that (well, no, I wouldn't ... I only like war when the casualties are binary)

problem is ... what exactly does the BB unit represent?
1 BB, several BB, 1 BB + support craft, an entire fleet?

Bohlen · October 12, 2000, 11:04

First off, vet battleship units are just great. I've been trying to play more naval warfare games lately and this unit is by far the best naval unit for bombarding a coastal city.

I'd like to think that all single civ icons represent groups of related units. For me, the battleship unit consists of multiple battleships and the bomber unit of multiple bombers. I guess you could use any amount when talking about the number of units that is represented by a game icon. It's all relative. I really don't think the game designers made any one game icon to represent one single unit of that type.

suas333 · October 12, 2000, 21:29

right, just like a population points count as like 10,000 people, i think each unit counts as an army division of some kind.

Fiji · October 13, 2000, 06:15

Well, maybe the spy and diplomat represent just one person (probably not, they represent an entire team)

but I still think, if the BB unit represents several BB, that the battleship unit is too hard to kill via air power.
so the designers probably ment it to represent 1 or more BBs with a few dedicated airdefence DDs

ok, problem solved

Mark von Wagner · October 16, 2000, 17:24

A good view of the naval units is that each unit represents a task force, rather than a single unit. Thus, you have carrier task forces, battleship task forces, cruiser task forces, etc.

Deathwalker · October 17, 2000, 05:51

Given the advances in missle defence and anti aircraft weapons it is not beyond belief that know does osome of the larger warships could fight of aircraft. Though the effectiveness of these technologies has not bee fully tested except in the falklands when two light aircraft cariiers fought of the Argentina airforce with out loosing hug amount of ships like in some of the battles at the end of WW2 were aircraft alone could wipe out an entire fleet.

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

Fiji · October 17, 2000, 06:27

hence my original problem, there is no way a battleship (or a group of battleships) can ever seriously hurt aircraft attacking it, but add the escorts, et voila, you've got a bomberkiller.

anyone care to guess as to the numbers of people in a musketeer unit (or riflemen or paratroops or ...)

October 18, 2000, 04:59

cruise missles solve the battleship problem for the ai. may work for the human too. although the ai wastes vast resources devloping 30 to 40 cruise missles.

when I play the high levels, cruise missles decimate my battleships and carriers to the point I don't bother building them. But I agree air units should be much more effective against them. But remember modern battlehsips (refitted Missouri/Iowa/Wisconsin) were outfitted with phalanx weaons systems to replace old aa guns. Although they were never really battle tested.
[This message has been edited by Dissident Aggressor (edited October 18, 2000).]

Fiji · October 18, 2000, 06:34

Phalanx is a last-ditch measure, combined with the vintage radar and tracing system, an upgraded BB still needed a DD screen

October 18, 2000, 17:32

agreed. but that is something that can't be implimented in civ2. An actual battle group vice individual units. A battleship would be doomed on it's own without escorts. They just wouldn't be able to handle large numbers of aircraft.

As for number of ships/men in a unit. I always figured battleships and carrier units to be 1 ship. Although cruisers/destoryers would be maybe 5 to 10 ships. And I count infanry/ mech infantry to be 1 division. aircraft to be one squadron etc. Just little things to add more realism to the game. I know it's not really a war game, but close enough.

Case · October 19, 2000, 01:12

The US Navy reckons it takes 3 ships to keep one on station in a distant part of the world (eg one on station, one in transit to or from the station, and one refitting/training). As your battleships never need to return to base to resupply I alway go on the assuption that one battleship = 3 battleships in various stages of readyness.

N35t0r · October 19, 2000, 16:22

quote:

Originally posted by suas333 on 10-12-2000 09:29 PM
right, just like a population points count as like 10,000 people, i think each unit counts as an army division of some kind.

Exept for nukes

N35t0r · October 19, 2000, 16:25

The way you can keep a trireme on the other end of the world for nearly 6,000 years is somewhat strange, though.

October 19, 2000, 16:30

lol. I can see a caravan. as they used to loot and sell what they needed for food. But a tireme? Oh well I'm thankful. Because it usually takes forever until I get a caravel.

Fiji · October 20, 2000, 06:03

there are loads of things not quite realistic (like, who cares)
like sending some poor phalanx on a walk around the poles

like i said, who cares?

jcarkey · October 30, 2000, 19:11

I think battleships are protrayed accurately. If the attack cost is so high it has to be something relativeley good. And think that level bombers like I think that the bombers in CIV are, they weren't very accurate. They just picked a general area and "Bombs away!"

And was the Missouri refitted with the Phalanx system? I thought it was a museum in Pearl Harbor?

------------------
What if the Hokey-Pokey is really what its all about?

Contact me at cpoland@mail.win.org

Fiji · October 31, 2000, 07:11

yes, but take bismark for example.
it goy it's rudder jammed by a stringbag attack (stringbags ... as in biplanes)
several US BBs got sunk at pearl harbour
and the only instance where a BB killed anything that resembled a CV was when basically everything the japanese had left attacked 3 tiny CVEs

I don't recall any occasion where something like a B17 attacked a BB

but like i said a few posts back, if the BB unit represents a BB taskforce (with a DD screen) THEN ít's perfectly ok for a BB unit to kill a fighter unit

Shogun Gunner · October 31, 2000, 11:33

quote:

Originally posted by Fiji on 10-31-2000 06:11 AM
yes, but take bismark for example.
it goy it's rudder jammed by a stringbag attack (stringbags ... as in biplanes)
several US BBs got sunk at pearl harbour
and the only instance where a BB killed anything that resembled a CV was when basically everything the japanese had left attacked 3 tiny CVEs

I don't recall any occasion where something like a B17 attacked a BB

but like i said a few posts back, if the BB unit represents a BB taskforce (with a DD screen) THEN ít's perfectly ok for a BB unit to kill a fighter unit

Last major battleship actions where they killed/sunk other large units:

Spanish-American War 1898 (Maine was sunt by a spy, right?)
Russo-Japan Conflict 1906(is that the right year Japanese just totally destroy a Russian fleet by "crossing the T" which is a naval term for crossing in front the enemies line of ships to concentrate fire and minimize exposure to enemy guns.)
Jutland WWI (don't recall number of ships sunk or types)
Bismark action WWII (pretty serious firefight after the Bismark couldn't steer -- check out the footage of that battle if you want to see some serious BB action)
Leyte Gulf WWII
Other Pacific encounters in WWII
Am I missing any? It does seem to be rare occurance. Considering the number of actual actions versus the amount of opportunities for action.

Many more BB's lost due to airstrike (never by a B-17, I believe the Japanese sunk the Prince of Wales and another UK ship near Singapore by level flight bombers. No British air cover - not smart. I think the Ark Royal was the carrier slated to go with the task force, but had turn back for repairs in the Carriberean). There's Pearl Harbor and Midway also.

Mostly WWII Pacific theatre for your big airstrikes sinking big ships.

edited for sp
[This message has been edited by Shogun Gunner (edited October 31, 2000).]

Caesar the Glutton · November 2, 2000, 12:36

I never seem to have much use for a large navy. I'd like to use naval warefare more, but it seems I always get tied up in land battles.

------------------
Nam si violandum est ius, regnandi gratia violandum est: aliis rebus pietatem colas

Jim W · November 9, 2000, 23:09

quote:

Originally posted by Fiji on 10-20-2000 06:03 AM
there are loads of things not quite realistic (like, who cares)
like sending some poor phalanx on a walk around the poles

like i said, who cares?

Send a phalanx on a walk around the poles? Ridiculous! I use a horseman. Or sometimes a horseman on a trireme.

Jim W

Jim W · November 9, 2000, 23:13

quote:

Originally posted by Jim W on 11-09-2000 10:09 PM
Send a phalanx on a walk around the poles? Ridiculous! I use a horseman. Or sometimes a horseman on a trireme.

Jim W

Sorry, that should be:

Send a phalanx on a walk around the poles? Ridiculous!

I use a horseman. Or sometimes a horseman on a trireme.

Jim W

Fiji · November 10, 2000, 07:11

Yes, it's ridiculous
just imagine, a few thousand men clad in bronze on a walk where it's minus 30 or 40 or 50

or fortifying a warrior unit in a vast swamp
oh, wait, that actually happend here in belgium when the romans invaded

or marching an army through a vast desert
oh, wait again, didn't alexander the great do that?

or warriors attacking an armor unit
hmmm, WW2, Italy invading ethiopia

is there anything in CIV that didn't happen in real life

Bereta_Eder · November 10, 2000, 17:36

WOW Never thought about these things

Although there is something that is not very realistic in CIV 2.
In modern era there seem to be a constant ww2 or ww3 or ww4 you ge the picture. Everybody is fighting YOU. Assuming you are the most powerful civ... Not very realistic

Mercantile · November 10, 2000, 17:59

Think of everyone fighting you, the way Libia, Pannama, Iran and Iraq fought the USA, backwards nations fighting the supreme, seems realistic to me. The difference being that when sneak attacked, We annihilate and the US spanks

Bereta_Eder · November 10, 2000, 23:17

True. But not the WHOLE WORLD against you

Then again there are 147 or so countries on Earth whereas only 7 in CIV...

Ah, CIV you got to love it

By the way why is Civ 3 taking so damn long?????

Fiji · November 13, 2000, 07:19

there are between 190 and 210 nations on earth, depending on who you ask
(places like French Guinee, saint Pierre, Tahiti, American Samoa, East-Timor are the ones that change the count)
but how many CIVs are there?
"the west" - NATO
The slavic Civ - most of east-europe
the islamic Civ - ranging from mauretania to indonesia
the latin Civ - everything from the us-mex border down to the antarctic

still, this state of constant world war doesn't appear to exist irl

East Street Trader · November 13, 2000, 08:25

Liked the examples, Fiji.

I suppose Hannibal's men didn't face minus 40 but they did face plenty of snow and ice - plus more uphill than you get at the poles.