How to stop planes bombing your ships? - Page 2

Tuberski · November 22, 2002, 00:54

Oh, and load it in 5 minutes, which is actually damn fast.

ACK!

Jaybe · November 22, 2002, 01:20

Quote:

Originally posted by Baggio
Interesting concept Jaybe....didn't think if it this way but its logical.

Still they should have some sort of anti-aircraft ability especially carriers, due to its value and cost they wouldnt want to neglect anti-aircraft abilities. At present all ships are defenseless against air attacks.

If not, at least leave it to another specialised ship or escort unit......that would make gameplay more varied and interesting.

Anti-air defenses (especially gun defenses) main effect is to deter hits, not destroy the bombing unit. That is reflected in the defense strength of the naval unit. A carrier's defenses are also mitigated by its fragility, where a single hit can disable it from being a mobile airbase. Also, keep in mind that bombardment cannot SINK a naval unit (unless you have given them Lethal Sea Bombardment).

Something I have done is increase the defense strength of AEGIS Cruisers to a 12, reflecting increased anti-air/sub/missile capabilities.

mullenstephen · November 22, 2002, 01:55

Quote:

Originally posted by CorpusScorpius

B-2 is too big & more than likely too heavy. I am not sure but the B-2 would also be too tall to fit in the hangar deck inside of the carrier.

yes, this is obvious. the statement was sarcastic, hence the head being pounded into the wall. i was merely making a comment on the absurdity of it. no matter, the moment has passed.

Jaybe · November 22, 2002, 02:21

Another point regarding naval units close to enemy coasts is to beware of enemy cruise missiles, which CAN sink ships. Rarely a problem with the AI, but in an MP game, watch out!

Zero · November 22, 2002, 02:32

it is clear that firaxis didnt spend as much time in naval and air units as much as they did with land units. I personally think some of the land units dont even make any sense either. Why would you wanna build musketmen? its a total piece of crap if you evaluate its cost VS performance... its twice the cost for a +1 def of a pikemen. Yuck.

BTW Not trying to bash firaxis, but there are many things that are kinda quirky with the game...

PS, someone asked why you should even bother building airplanes in civ3. It works wonder for pillaging from distance. You CAN use land artilleries, but airplane just seems to do the job better with their wider range.

Dis · November 22, 2002, 03:01

ahh yes FC's. I forgot about them. I forget stuff now I've been out 3 years. Fire controllmen I think they are called.

Dis · November 22, 2002, 03:04

Aircraft are useful. I just build them just so I'm not left out. Because the ai will use bombers I have to at least build fighters.

And I agree about musketmen. In real history it seems they were around a long time. They served a very important role for many, many years. Rifleman on the other hand had a much short time span.

planetfall · November 22, 2002, 11:56

re stopping planes.

I used to use 1 jet for AS and the rest as bombers. But when the AI sends 5 bombers at my stack, the jet only seems to defend vs the 1st sortie. The others get a free ride.

Now I reverse and put on 1 bomber and the rest jets on AS. I have also increased the movement of carriers +1 so stacks of carriers and BS are easier to move. I usually have 2..3 carriers with my battle group for DDay landings.

Rarely do I have the AI attack this stack. Occassionally the Iroquois do a kamikazee bomb mission. But this is the only AI I have seen even attempt attacking ships.

Yes it is a pain to create your own battle group of BS/transports/carriers/DS/AEGIS but it is effective once the crazy thing gets built.

I have not tested the range of AS and tried to move the group as 3 tiles. If they are all together the BS will take the first hits. I would much rather lose some BS than a single loaded transport of armor or carrier full of planes.

== PF

Panag · November 22, 2002, 16:22

hi ,

there goes nothing in world above a carrier with two F-15's in it , they should almost anything down , .....

but , its more intresting to move your carrier in ( to bomb ) and then out to stay out of enemy range

have a nice day

Madine · November 22, 2002, 19:31

I agree that naval combat was a disappointment in this game.

Baggio · November 22, 2002, 20:31

Not to mention a lack of mordern era ships except for the AEGIS cruiser and nuclear submarine, which is quite useless except for launching nukes.....which makes all the civs turn against you.

I would like to see cruise missiles being able to be used instead of nukes by the subs......how about 16 of them in a sub man! Then we will truely haf to emply AEGIS cruisers to spot these damn machines before they sneak up on one of our cities.

PrinceBimz · November 23, 2002, 01:05

I use a carrier with a full load of fighters on AS missions to help shoot the AI planes down and keep them from attacking my ships. If I am able to down enough of the AI aircraft I will start putting the fighters on bombing runs. Then I can use them against the AI ships or to help clear the beaches if I am doing a landing invasion.

benjdm · November 23, 2002, 09:20

I put 2 AC's in the stack, one loaded with fighters on AS, one with bombers.

Billster2k3 · November 23, 2002, 11:40

Let's try to remember, when debating the realism of Civ3's naval unit capabilities, that, in the real world, there has not been a large-scale naval battle in nearly 60 years. At that time there were no AEGIS Cruisers, F-14's, and nuclear-powered carriers or subs. Probably a very realistic depiction of what large-scale naval warfare would be like with modern military hardware is that which appears in Tom Clancy's "Red Storm Rising." Using this model, yep, if we send a bunch of transports across the ocean escorted by a few destroyers, they are going to be bombed into oblivion. To counter air attacks one would need to send carriers and AEGIS cruisers as escorts for the convoys. The AEGIS are indeed used to defend against incoming missles while the carrier-based aircraft are used to try to prevent enemy bombers from getting/staying in range to hit the convoys. It requires a coordinated effort using multiple naval resources. This being the case, the modern naval model in Civ' is fairly reasonable. The moral is, if you have a limited number of carriers available you can either project power or defend convoys but not both. If you want to be a true modern superpower and go around the world kicking butt, you gotta build more carriers.

Panag · November 23, 2002, 14:31

hi ,

a small

that helps , carrier holds 8-12 costs a bit more , the defense is a bit more , aegis holds a couple missiles , you can give them a bigger range let them cost a bit more , nuke sub can hold both cruise and nuke missiles , holds 8-16 , costs a lot , not every country can build it , .....

have a nice day

Billster2k3 · November 23, 2002, 17:21

hi panag,

That sounds good. Though they should be new units and not modifications to the existing units. Some countries (i.e., India) have carriers and such but they are significantly underpowered compared to, say, the USS Nimitz. Your suggestions would, as new units, make a more realistic naval arsenal in that, as you suggest, some countries would have the resources to build the bigger, badder ones, some whould be able to build the regular ones, and some would be unable to build any.

have a nice day yourself

P.S. - MING! Oh, Ming! Could we make it required that, in order to be more civilized, we all have to start and end our posts as panag does? We could call it "The Panag Protocol."

Dis · November 24, 2002, 03:47

I say we have a unit workshop like that other game

Panag · November 24, 2002, 08:01

Quote:

Originally posted by Billster2k3
hi panag,

That sounds good. Though they should be new units and not modifications to the existing units. Some countries (i.e., India) have carriers and such but they are significantly underpowered compared to, say, the USS Nimitz. Your suggestions would, as new units, make a more realistic naval arsenal in that, as you suggest, some countries would have the resources to build the bigger, badder ones, some whould be able to build the regular ones, and some would be unable to build any.

have a nice day yourself

P.S. - MING! Oh, Ming! Could we make it required that, in order to be more civilized, we all have to start and end our posts as panag does? We could call it "The Panag Protocol."

hi ,

, well huh , it can be done , but then you have to look very carefully at what the unit is when playing , ..... just make them unique to that civ and it goes

have a nice day