I want a Hybrid

Fighter · August 21, 2002, 04:50

Thats right, I want a hybrid Civ game. Air and Sea combat handled as in Civ2 but with everything else Civ3.

Aaaarrrghhhh I hate air units, sea units only slightly more useful.

NeoStar · August 21, 2002, 04:59

You could remove the 'immoble' tag for air units and give them movement points - but they can be attacked by groundies and have infinite fuel. Plus the AI will not use them that way.

Better to give naval / air units higher rate of fire like 4-5 and select 'lethal bombardment'. That will get results...

TacticalGrace · August 21, 2002, 05:07

Quote:

Originally posted by Fighter
Thats right, I want a hybrid Civ game. Air and Sea combat handled as in Civ2 but with everything else Civ3.

Aaaarrrghhhh I hate air units, sea units only slightly more useful.

You preferred the way planes were handled in civ2? didn't think it odd that bombers could be "shot down" by a phalanx fortified in the mountains? Or that land units couldn't underneath a bomber which floated over a square for a whole year?

And as for naval units, they are the same except that civ3 allows bombardment and now fleets actually make sense (just like in real life)

Fighter · August 21, 2002, 05:12

Yes I prefer Civ2 planes, your right though, they werent near perfect. However the fact that I usualy dont even bother building planes in this one makes my point. Planes in 3 have taken a step back from 2.

I dont actualy mind fleets all that much in Civ3, if I were to mod it up I would mainly just up the bombard level a bit, as it stands though land based bombardment is vastly superior.

TacticalGrace · August 21, 2002, 06:38

Quote:

Originally posted by Fighter
Yes I prefer Civ2 planes, your right though, they werent near perfect. However the fact that I usualy dont even bother building planes in this one makes my point. Planes in 3 have taken a step back from 2.

I dont actualy mind fleets all that much in Civ3, if I were to mod it up I would mainly just up the bombard level a bit, as it stands though land based bombardment is vastly superior.

The main problem with 3 is that they can't sink ships or kill units. This, as we all know because it's been debated a million times, can be fixed in the editor. A pity it doesn't work out of the box but that's modern gaming for you.

but they are useful, expecially if you are under attack. If you have the upper hand they are pretty unnecessary though, I'll grant you that.

anyway, bombers in 3 are more realistic. The main use of bombers in WWII was disruption of logistics (simulated in civ3 as destroying railways) and destroying production capacity (try sending a few bombers at the enemy cities and you'll do just that by killing pop. and destroying factories). Of course a lot of the time the bombers miss and destroy a temple or something. But has anyone here been to coventry Cathedral?

Wormwood · August 21, 2002, 16:24

Quote:

Originally posted by Fighter
Thats right, I want a hybrid Civ game. Air and Sea combat handled as in Civ2 but with everything else Civ3.

Aaaarrrghhhh I hate air units, sea units only slightly more useful.

I want all the features of Civ 3 (especially culture) with the graphics of civ2

Fighter · August 21, 2002, 17:40

I agree that bombers work better in theory, but I find they tend to fall out of the sky way too easily and they only realy work en mass. What I realy want is for A) Fighter support on bombing runs and B) slightly higher survival rate.

As for ships, I dont know why, in this game I just find them too expensive and not useful enough until Battleships come along and even then no real point in most cases.

Jaybe · August 21, 2002, 18:17

Quote:

Originally posted by Fighter
I agree that bombers work better in theory, but I find they tend to fall out of the sky way too easily and they only realy work en mass. What I realy want is for A) Fighter support on bombing runs and B) slightly higher survival rate.

As for ships, I dont know why, in this game I just find them too expensive and not useful enough until Battleships come along and even then no real point in most cases.

Bombers fall out of the sky so easily because it's usually JET fighters that shoot them down in the game. Fighters (the Spitfires) have such a short time before they are upgraded that it is unlikely to see them in action. That they only seem to work en mass is realistic, ESPECIALLY before guided munitions. Reference WWII, Korea and Vietnam. It often took SEVERAL missions, often of HUGE numbers of aircraft, to knock out installations and key bridges.

The only real complaint I have about air units is there is no functional bomber escort. This can be simulated within the current mechanics of the game by preceding your bomber runs by doing bombing missions with your jet fighters (Recon missions don't seem to be interceptable). I have personally modded fighter defense strengths to be almost as much as attack strengths, but have not yet been challenged by enemy interceptors enough to test it.

At any rate, consider adjusting air unit strengths in the Editor to suit your taste, then hope that the AI you are attacking even has oil!!

--
Naval units are quite useful to (1) serve as pickets, early warning system of incoming naval invasion; (2) destroyers of those invasions; (3) bombardment of far shores where YOU are invading.

I use "(1)" all the time, I usually overbuild on "(2)" just in case. Sometimes a naval encounter does not occur, but once in a while it does. It is SO much more convenient to clobber his transports at sea than to have to take out 8 times as many ground units on your soil. Once in a while it comes in quite handy.

Coracle · August 21, 2002, 20:16

Quote:

Originally posted by Fighter
Thats right, I want a hybrid Civ game. Air and Sea combat handled as in Civ2 but with everything else Civ3.

Aaaarrrghhhh I hate air units, sea units only slightly more useful.

That is exactly how I feel about Civ 3, too.

Air and sea units were more historical - and FUN - in Civ 2. Remember the drama of trying to sneak a transport loaded with freight and spies around the far side of an enemy civ's continent? Remember how great it was to leave a cruiser on patrol and catch an enemy's transport? "Nine units destroyed"! In Civ 3 they don't even tell you how many units were lost if you sink a transport.

In Civ 2 by forcing a civ to deliver a caravan/freight across an ocean we at least had some ability to use naval units correctly to threaten enemy trade. But in Civ 3 even privateers and subs can't effect enemy trade at all. And that was their purpose; it was not to attack enemy warships.

Bombers in Civ 2 had some quirks. But they were actually EFFECTIVE and worth building, unlike those in Civ 3, where even now any types of bomber is limited to an absurdly low range of '8' In Civ 2 we could leave bombers on a tile INTERDICTING it - preventing enemy movement onto it unless the bomber was shot down. In Civ 3 it is almost impossible to do that and prevent an enemy from launching a huge counterattack on your invasion force, especially as you have unlimited MP's on RR's - also crazy.

You forgot one thing - Espionage. It was also better in Civ 2. And more fun.

Fighter · August 22, 2002, 04:06

I also find with espionage that it is usualy cripplingly expensive, I rarely have the money to throw around on the espionage actions in the game.

Tiberius · August 22, 2002, 04:31

Quote:

Originally posted by Fighter
I also find with espionage that it is usualy cripplingly expensive, I rarely have the money to throw around on the espionage actions in the game.

I usually find myself in the same situation. I sometimes try to buy a city 2 or 3 times in a row and then I realize that I've wasted all my money for nothing.

In Civ2 espionage was too powerful. Now it is too weak.