CivIII Navy and Air force - Page 2

foo12 · July 16, 2002, 15:46

Quote:

Originally posted by Nuclear Master
were can i download the pc editor

Just download the latest version of the PC patch (1.21f at the time of this writing). Open it in Windows and install the patch; even tho you don't really have Civ3 for Windows installed, the patch won't balk. From the Civ3 directory created by the patch, move Civ3Edit.exe and CIV3EDIT.HLP to the same directory as your install of Civ3 Mac. Launch Civ3Edit.exe in Windows to use the editor.

Kri77777 · July 16, 2002, 20:05

Yeah, it would be nice to cut off suply lines. But, the other thing to consider is the complexity in counting that. If you start saying about supply lines then you need to acount for suplies. Example, can a city support itself with the food it produces and for how long (thus, a number needed to count food). How much ammunition do they have (another number [and let's not forget that if we do that, we also have to start creating supply lines for out in the field]). See what problems it creates?

NeoStar · July 17, 2002, 08:21

Quote:

Originally posted by Trip

(only if you block ALL coast tiles next to ALL their cities and ALL of their neighbors

Now that is ridicolous. That would only work if you could build galleys till the end cause you'd have to pump out a million of them.

I dont agree with those who want the CTP style trade - in that game (from the little I remember) the stuff you traded was hardly essential. One stupid privateer cutting off your one supply of oil every turn would be bloody annoying, especially if it was over a HUGE ocean.

Dida · July 17, 2002, 14:17

What were you talking about? did you ever play CTP? In that game, trade was 10 times more important than in Civ3. You will get huge sum of gold by trading. In Civ3, I rarely do anything trading. If I really need one of their resources, I will use my military to capture it. Because I know the AI will want 100000 gold per turn in exchange for it.
CTP style trade made Navy really important too. The primary role for the Royal Navy was to keep Britain's overseas trade route safe, not for heavy duty shore bombardment.

NeoStar · July 17, 2002, 18:03

Really? How did you defend a trade route over a big distance? I only played CTP a few times - maybe I should have traded more

HazieDaVampire · July 17, 2002, 18:08

Quote:

Originally posted by NeoStar
I dont agree with those who want the CTP style trade - in that game (from the little I remember) the stuff you traded was hardly essential. One stupid privateer cutting off your one supply of oil every turn would be bloody annoying, especially if it was over a HUGE ocean.

That happened in real life over on this side of the Empire, cept it was german u-boats, and some of it managed to get through!

I'd love to hunt down enemy shipping with a nuclear sub, or trying avoid sub, or trying to hunt it down to prevent it sinking my trade ships!

NeoStar · July 18, 2002, 00:07

Quote:

Originally posted by HazieDaVampire

That happened in real life over on this side of the Empire, cept it was german u-boats, and some of it managed to get through!

We we're alone for a while, after you Brits lost Singapore. We held out though, those Japanese midget subs weren't invincible!

HazieDaVampire · July 18, 2002, 12:44

lol, the British midget subs were cool!

A crew in one of them was sent to plant limpit mines on a Japanese battleship, and when they got there they hid under the battleship, (with about 1m of water above them, and 1m below them was the sea bed!) the frogmen got out and planted the mines, then got back in the sub. By then the tide had gone out and the battleship was now lying on top of them!
After a hole load of flooring the pedal they got away, when the explosives went off the battleship went down to the bottom of the sea bed (only 3m down from where it was already!) The Recon spitfire found it hadn't gone under, so the crew were told to go set the explosives again, but they got lucky cuz the Japanese gave in to peace the day before they were went to go out!

snuggs · July 18, 2002, 13:31

A supply/command system would certainly be complicated, but it's a separate issue from enhanced trade.

CTP trade sucked because they were just objects on the map which you had to juggle without much caring what they were or to whom you were trading them. Besides, playing on large maps the whole thing soon came to look crazy. Thank God I'm not epileptic, all those furs and spices crossing the screen I knew not where (and the routes themselves were all screwed up, particularly around the narrow latitudes).

I wanted to like CTP but before I was through the first age it was making me angry, very angry. It was full of things that should have worked but didn't. Now we have Civ3 which despite not being particularly innovative is at least FUN and better reflective of history.

Tassadar500 · July 18, 2002, 14:07

nicely said snuggs

NeoStar · July 18, 2002, 18:21

Quote:

Originally posted by HazieDaVampire
...by then the tide had gone out and the battleship was now lying on top of them!
After a hole load of flooring the pedal they got away, when the explosives went off the battleship went down to the bottom of the sea bed (only 3m down from where it was already!) The Recon spitfire found it hadn't gone under, so the crew were told to go set the explosives again, but they got lucky cuz the Japanese gave in to peace the day before they were went to go out!

Good to see you got some revenge - I wonder what you'd have to have done to get that job! Probably crossed Churchill himself or something.

One of the less known things about them Japanese midgets, they fitted some kind of rocket on one and hit a building in Sydney

HazieDaVampire · July 18, 2002, 18:31

****ers

HazieDaVampire · July 18, 2002, 18:37

They did that in london, cept it was and Irish dude with a missle firing it at the MI5/6 HQ! And it wasn't to long ago, and it wasn't a miget sub, and it wasn't fired from the water! But it was fired from over the water! I wonder, is this the same man who fired a rocket at sidney? hmmmmmm, maby he moved to Ireland and has changed nationality!? hmmmm

NeoStar · July 18, 2002, 19:10

Didn't they (IRA) say sorry or something? I doubt it'll improve their image - but at least they admitted fault.

I remember hearing about a similiar missile sub attempt by the Germans in NY. Makes you wonder how many ideas the Allies stole from Axis, eh?

HazieDaVampire · July 18, 2002, 19:15

The Germans were Axis

NeoStar · July 18, 2002, 19:32

I KNOW

Sorry, that was badly worded. BOTH Japan and Germany seem to have came up with the idea for missile subs.

Tassadar500 · July 18, 2002, 22:05

Lol i think we should get back on the topic of civ!

NeoStar · July 19, 2002, 03:14

Quote:

Originally posted by Nuclear Master
Lol i think we should get back on the topic of civ!

Oh yeah...c-i-v...that was a computer game, right?

The_Hawk · July 19, 2002, 17:49

Quote:

Originally posted by Taso_84
Jet fighters are a joke. In CTP2 interceptors were the best investment because of their versitility and power. In civ3 Jetfighters are useless and anybody who builds them is just dumb because they help u in no way.

They should've made jetfighters like interceptors in CTP2 where they cant bombard but they can just conventionally attack.

I take it that you've never been bombed by an enemy plane in any of your games..... ever. Jet Fighters are the only plane that can run the "Air Superiority" mission, which seems to be the only defense against Bomber attacks. For that purpose alone (and only for that purpose since they suck at bombardment themselves) Jet Fighters are valuable. They are more of a defensive air unit to me.

The_Hawk · July 19, 2002, 18:02

I agree with some of the other posts. Air and naval combat needs to be improved to make them more meaningful. In real life, air and naval combat IMO, outweigh ground combat, which is usually mop up. You usually receive your highest rate of casualties in ground combat.

As for Civ3 I find that they're value increases when used in tandem. In the open sea, Bombers can bring Destroyer and Battleship HP down to one and then your own naval ships can mop up. This is important when travelling long distances, since you don't have a coastal city nearby to pull your ships into and heal. Battleships are better for attacking other navy ships than they are for bombardment, because they're not as accurate as I believe they should be. Not to mention, they're value as escorts for those transports full of your countrymen.

As for the home front, Jet Fighters are good for 2 defensive purposes: Air Superiority, to defend against enemy bombardment, and Recon, to see several squares in enemy territory (great for eleminating some measure of surprise). I also like to park my Jet Fighters in coastal cities to use the Recon mission and inspect the ocean for potential on-coming assaults.

As for Bombers, I tend to build Stealth Bombers more than regular Bombers and use them in assaults and in defense from oncoming enemy ships during assaults. In essence, long range artillery.

I understand the whole balancing issue, but IMHO they should be able to destroy naval ships to make it more realistic.

HazieDaVampire · July 19, 2002, 18:40

They should be able escort bombers to increase the bombers chance of survival!

Optimizer · July 23, 2002, 19:00

The naval units of Civ 3 are too slow and too expensive. Please read my Maritime Manifesto for ideas of how the naval part of the game could become more interesting.

Chakra · July 24, 2002, 03:55

Just this,
when I'm playing Civ3:PTW with my friends, will I have to suffer the ridicule and derision of these fine people if one of their cavalry units will decimate one of my Panzers (as I have seen happen all too frequently) - or will Firaxis finally, just finally, stop this nonsense about Elephants trampling Mechanized Infantry underfoot? I understand this was not completely relevant to the post, but I've just played a very frustrating game, and the question of inadequately designed units just infuriates me.