Reply With Quotenope.
You know, they fixed this with conquests. And now we are going backwards in gameplay. It's like they don't want us to play a pacific war scenario.
And planes can't attack ships in port either.
Well a question to you all - can air units sink ships? After playing the desert war campaign it appears to me they can not, anyone else been able to sink a ship with air units?
nope.
You know, they fixed this with conquests. And now we are going backwards in gameplay. It's like they don't want us to play a pacific war scenario.
And planes can't attack ships in port either.
50% damage max, same as for ground unit strikes.
can this be changed in one of the xml files? i haven't even tried to mess with those yet, but I want lethal bombing back.
While there might be a physics engine that applies to the jugs, I doubt that an entire engine was written specifically for the funbags. - Cyclotron - debating the pressing issue of boobies in games.
Hmm.. another anti-Mitchell diehard, eh?Originally posted by terje439
Well a question to you all - can air units sink ships? After playing the desert war campaign it appears to me they can not, anyone else been able to sink a ship with air units?
Has no-one at the prog team ever heard of torpedo bombers then? Even Fairy Swordfish were quite effective for their time (which lasted a /long/ time, IIRC; they were still being used to effect (at a greatly reduced rate, natch) in the first years of WW2)
just as I feared then
It doesn't look like a straightforward change to the xml files to fix this. Much like modifying the Gunship to go over shallow water. I may be wrong, but it looks like the xml doesn't distinguish between collateral damage to sea units and to land units, so it just has one number for the limit: 50%
I haven't done any unit modding yet though, so someone might know better than I.
-Drachasor
"If there's a child on the south side of Chicago who can't read, that matters to me, even if it's not my child. If there's a senior citizen somewhere who can't pay for her prescription and has to choose between medicine and the rent, that makes my life poorer, even if it's not my grandmother. If there's an Arab American family being rounded up without benefit of an attorney or due process, that threatens my civil liberties. It's that fundamental belief -- I am my brother's keeper, I am my sister's keeper -- that makes this country work." - Barack Obama
well, im fine with it going to 100% for both
While there might be a physics engine that applies to the jugs, I doubt that an entire engine was written specifically for the funbags. - Cyclotron - debating the pressing issue of boobies in games.
Of course, there are no torpedo or dive bombers in Civ IV and I don't recall many instances of stealth bombers being used against naval targets
Even in WWII ships could take a massive beating from the air and survive. At Pearl Harbor 21 ships were sunk or damaged in a purely air attack. All but three of those were repaired and back in action, and two of those were deemed too old to bother repairing! (The Arizona was the only ship damaged too badly to repair).
In any case, it just seems like a fair play balancing only going to 50% damage. You have to built at least a bit of a navy if you want to project power onto the high seas, can't just control the land/air/sea with one kind of unit
I have noticed Air units just (die)dissapear once you conquer a city
while we are at it...
the lack of a destoyer bombarding coastal areas as well...
anti steam and proud of it
CDO ....its OCD in alpha order like it should be
On the other hand it DID happen quite a few times tooOriginally posted by fxer
Of course, there are no torpedo or dive bombers in Civ IV and I don't recall many instances of stealth bombers being used against naval targets
Even in WWII ships could take a massive beating from the air and survive. At Pearl Harbor 21 ships were sunk or damaged in a purely air attack. All but three of those were repaired and back in action, and two of those were deemed too old to bother repairing! (The Arizona was the only ship damaged too badly to repair).
In any case, it just seems like a fair play balancing only going to 50% damage. You have to built at least a bit of a navy if you want to project power onto the high seas, can't just control the land/air/sea with one kind of unit
And I do not want to control the sea by naval units, however I DO want those naval units to be at risk if going withouth airsupport to cover them.
The problem is that there are very significant balance issues with bomber lethality. Since bombers aren't terribly expensive, you can field a sizable force with very little warning. If your opponent is technologically behind by more than 1-2 techs, lethal bombers would end the game. Instantly. Immediately. WWII bombers were not weapons of extermination, they were weapons of devastation - different.
Even if you were technologically on-par, not having oil could mean the end of the game. Heck, you could be technologically ahead by 1-2 techs (just not to Rocketry yet) and you're dead the moment your technologically inferior colleague catches up and starts lobbing bombs at you.
Uncounterable killing mechanisms are bad for balance; that's why CIV has none.
well, I agree that bombers could be way to powerful, however after WW1 nations started to build their own airforces, at the outbreak of WW2 most navies wanted their own airwing. WW2 also marked the end of the era of battleships, for the first time you get naval battles fought by navies incapable of seeing eachother even through binoculars.
So not having planes beeing able to sink a ship, while maybe game-balancing, really becomes very "untrue"/unrealistic. Then why not look at the possibility to balance airplanes in some other manner?
I still don't like it. Civ4 has made leaps and bounds with the AI to keep up in tech. If you are fielding bombers against longbowman or musketmen then you are playing too low of a level.Originally posted by Fried-Psitalon
The problem is that there are very significant balance issues with bomber lethality. Since bombers aren't terribly expensive, you can field a sizable force with very little warning. If your opponent is technologically behind by more than 1-2 techs, lethal bombers would end the game. Instantly. Immediately. WWII bombers were not weapons of extermination, they were weapons of devastation - different.
Even if you were technologically on-par, not having oil could mean the end of the game. Heck, you could be technologically ahead by 1-2 techs (just not to Rocketry yet) and you're dead the moment your technologically inferior colleague catches up and starts lobbing bombs at you.
Uncounterable killing mechanisms are bad for balance; that's why CIV has none.
If you were fielding bombers against Machine guns (only one era removed), that would still be a slaughter for the defending player by the time they got to Flight themselves. Look at the tech chain leading to Flight.
You could even be fielding Bombers against Marines and it wouldn't matter; no oil = you're dead unless you have a huge tech lead, if bombers are lethal.
well if you look at todays military actions, would you not say that control of the skies is fatal to the one not in control?
Well they should have put in a couple more techs before flight and ww2-era bombers that also included a basic air defense tech as well.
For example ww1 era bi-plane type- basic bombers/land attack aircraft. Lethal but very low powered. At this point there could also be a tech like bofors anti-aircraft artillery or something. So this would give people a chance to have air defense capabilities before the really lethal flight with ww2 type bombers come around so even if ppl are some techs behind they will still have the chance to have an at least half decent effective air defense capability.
Make air defense units cheaper so people can deploy them quickly.
Realism is the worst argument for unbalancing gameplay.Originally posted by terje439
well if you look at todays military actions, would you not say that control of the skies is fatal to the one not in control?
They could have added all that extra technology, units, and so on...fighting to balance it just so, tweaking the techs somehow to make them interesting for builders and warmongers alike...Originally posted by Killazer
Well they should have put in a couple more techs before flight and ww2-era bombers that also included a basic air defense tech as well.
For example ww1 era bi-plane type- basic bombers/land attack aircraft. Lethal but very low powered. At this point there could also be a tech like bofors anti-aircraft artillery or something. So this would give people a chance to have air defense capabilities before the really lethal flight with ww2 type bombers come around so even if ppl are some techs behind they will still have the chance to have an at least half decent effective air defense capability.
Make air defense units cheaper so people can deploy them quickly.
..or they could have just limited bombers to half-strength maximum damage, and concentrated on balancing and refining slightly larger issues, to re-examine this one, possibly, in an expansion pack.
Dear gentlemen,
sorry to intervene to your conversation.But i will DEFINATELY agree with the guy from Norway.civilization is a game which represents history above all.and battles in history form the history.therefore i consider it COMPLETELY UNACCEPTABLE for some certain units to not have the lethal ability.its impossible,i m bashing my head to the wall when i m seeing that a group of bombers cant sink a galley!!!
bombing raids have the target to weak the enemy infantry or fortifications.depend on the size of the bomber,sometime they could even dissapear them.in civ iv i think the best is to decrease the energy bar of foot units to a very low level,so with the first attack they will ready to die.
but in naval units i m absolute:dont forget that the dominance and ruler of the king in sea,the battleship,was dissapear when the carrier appears(airplanes).perl harbor was not the only example;
*british attack on taranto(3 battleships almost sunk,did not participate again in war)
*loss of battleship PRINCE OF WALES,REPULSE in the coast of singapoore,
*loss of the mightiest battleship ever,the japanese YAMATO.
therefore i think that in naval units bombers must do lethal bombardment.in land units,if not killing them make them very weak.dont forget that a saying sais"the question if u dont have air superiority is not if u loose the war,but how soon u ll loose the war".
thats why i believe bomber should be an expensive unit to built.and for those that think cause of bombers the game will end quickly,so be it;if u dont prepare yourself to go to war,build fighters to defend your skies,then u should loose!this is war,this is pure reality.
PS:the bad thing that excpet fighters there is no antiaircraft gun to defend.
Exactly.Originally posted by Fried-Psitalon
Realism is the worst argument for unbalancing gameplay.
your view.Originally posted by BigBadButch
Exactly.
not for those who want a game worthy of representing history.
"Can YOU build a civilization to stand the test of time"...Originally posted by BigBadButch
Exactly.
Well one of the tests of time is beeing able to defend yourself from new more powerful military research.
And I am not saying that the bomber should sink the ships in one attack (well galleys, sure then it should be one hit one kill). A BB should be worn down first before being sinkable. A CV with fighters flying interception should have better chance to protect their fleet.
I agree with the OP also. It was one of the first things I actually modded into my game: my jets have lethal bomb. My bombers, since they do collateral damage OTOH do not have lethal bombing.
If you do not have the flight tech and you are getting attacked, you have a few options; trade for the tech, find some allies to attack the player with the tech, or send spies/troops in to destroy the player's aluminum.
Later on, both SAMs and Mech Inf (minor, but small chance) will protect troops and cities from planes. Destroyers also have a small chance of intercept. After all it is a strategy game, we should have to work to overcome situations where we might get overpowered. Having planes only doing 50% damage just to keep a balance defeats the purpose of "thinking outside the box" IMHO. You have to tech in this game, either by research, agression, or trade. If you don't and you just sit and turtle then you deserve to get bombed to oblivion.
These are all Pacific examples; look too at Atlantic and North/Barents sea: loss of Tirpitz, any number of Atlantic convoy raids, etc etcOriginally posted by aracuan_76
*british attack on taranto(3 battleships almost sunk,did not participate again in war)
*loss of battleship PRINCE OF WALES,REPULSE in the coast of singapoore,
*loss of the mightiest battleship ever,the japanese YAMATO.
Yup, although infantry in forest, jungle or mountains should be less damagedtherefore i think that in naval units bombers must do lethal bombardment.in land units,if not killing them make them very weak.dont forget that a saying sais"the question if u dont have air superiority is not if u loose the war,but how soon u ll loose the war".
I don't agree that the bomber should be more expensive, butthats why i believe bomber should be an expensive unit to built.and for those that think cause of bombers the game will end quickly,so be it;if u dont prepare yourself to go to war,build fighters to defend your skies,then u should loose!this is war,this is pure reality.
Totally agree!PS:the bad thing that excpet fighters there is no antiaircraft gun to defend.
DDs have 30% AA. This is minor, but DDs are more powerful than fighters as well, so the intercept will put a bomber out of action for a few turns to heal.
I would much rather have fighters have lethal bombing, and use bombers as the city killers. While it was mostly dive bombers and torpedo bombers that did the ship-killing, these are only somewhat different in flight characteristic than a fighter plane since they are generally smaller (slower and fewer guns, generally less manueverable, but not so bad as a b-17 for example). Additionally carriers can only carry fighters and jet fighters in the first place. So if you leave it for fighters, who do not have collateral damage, and leave the bombers as is, I would be happy. This was the setup I used for my mod in conquests, fighters can kill navy, bombers can damage everything. Bombers have range on fighters as well, keep that in mind.
Every man should have a college education in order to show him how little the thing is really worth.
CIV is not a game of realism. It never has been. It never will be. The number of places this game takes a march off the deep end of reality are so myriad you could write a book about it.
Expecting realism to appear where you want it and ignoring it everywhere else is silly. As I said before, I'll say again - Realism is one of the weakest arguments for gameplay.
It doesn't matter if it's not realistic... if you're not having fun, it sucks.
Civ has never, in my view, sold itself as being an attempt to accurately simulate all of human history. It's a superb strategy game inspired by history.Originally posted by aracuan_76
your view.
not for those who want a game worthy of representing history.
As such, gameplay takes precedence over 'realism', which is a much harder quality to define.
In fact, in my view, gameplay would take precedence over realism even if it was an attempt to accurately simulate human history, because I, personally, would rather have a great game than an unplayable simulation.
Oh, and not just my view, but also Fried-Psitalon's and possibly others.Originally posted by aracuan_76
your view.
not for those who want a game worthy of representing history.
The way I see it, it wasn't so much planes as aircraft carriers that made Battleships obsolete. What about making bombers lethal only if the target is, say 1 (or 2?) squares away from the square the bomber or fighter is being launched from. Thus you can protect your shores mostly with aircraft, but if you want to rule teh waves you have to buld aircraft carriers so oyu can go gettem once they leave your shores. (We may also want planes to inflict "collateral damage" on any non-submarine ship attacking a carrier, since a battleship would get pretty beat up before moving close enough to engage a carrier.
Originally posted by aracuan_76
but in naval units i m absolute:dont forget that the dominance and ruler of the king in sea,the battleship,was dissapear when the carrier appears(airplanes).perl harbor was not the only example;
*british attack on taranto(3 battleships almost sunk,did not participate again in war)
*loss of battleship PRINCE OF WALES,REPULSE in the coast of singapoore,
*loss of the mightiest battleship ever,the japanese YAMATO.
therefore i think that in naval units bombers must do lethal bombardment.in land units,if not killing them make them very weak.dont forget that a saying sais"the question if u dont have air superiority is not if u loose the war,but how soon u ll loose the war".
thats why i believe bomber should be an expensive unit to built.and for those that think cause of bombers the game will end quickly,so be it;if u dont prepare yourself to go to war,build fighters to defend your skies,then u should loose!this is war,this is pure reality.
PS:the bad thing that excpet fighters there is no antiaircraft gun to defend.
It is better to be feared than loved. - Machiavelli
Posting Permissions
Bookmarks