Can aircraft sink ships?

[Faeelin]

From my experience, that's a negative. Before I complaing, I want to make sure that's the case. If it is, I'm really pissed. Although it is realistic. Because as we all know, the reason the Japanese lost WW2 is because they destroyed the aircraft carriers instead of he battleships.

[TheDarkside]

you mean destroyed the battleships instead of the carriers

[redstar1]

Noticed this as well. Threw bomber after bomber at a galleon and got it to the last health point but couldn't sink it, ever.

Dave

[Schnitzelnator]

I've said it before, I'll say it again.

You should be able to destroy ships and armored units (artillery, tanks) with airstrikes.

Bah.

[Green Giant]

You cannot destroy units with air power. It is an excellent design desision by Firaxis. Otherwise you could defend your entire empire with fleets of planes like in Civ 2 and SMAC. I Found it to be unrealistic and a lame strategy. No army in the history of the world has ever been destroyed by air power alone. Despite my other complaints, kudos to firaxis on this one.

[Schnitzelnator]

Originally posted by Green Giant
You cannot destroy units with air power. It is an excellent design desision by Firaxis. Otherwise you could defend your entire empire with fleets of planes like in Civ 2 and SMAC. I Found it to be unrealistic and a lame strategy. No army in the history of the world has ever been destroyed by air power alone. Despite my other complaints, kudos to firaxis on this one.

You are wrong.

[redstar1]

Yeah thats Bollocks.

You are telling me that if I send 100 bombers after a trireme its an 'excellent design decision?'. Wake up. As for defending your empire with fleets of aircraft.... you ever heard of the Battle of Britain? Air power is the foremost form of power projection in warfare today and this should be represented as such in Civ 3. Of course it can be balanced by giving units anti-aircraft abilities ie SAMs.

Dave

[CapTVK]

While I haven't played the game yet I see no problem with bombers being able to destroy ships. Air units don't work like Civ2 anymore, you can only send them on bombing runs. It should be possible for a bombers to destroy a battleship with a number of runs (let's say 4 or 5). This way you would need a HUGE bomber fleet to effectively stop an invasion and the invader would take a few hits at sea but still be able to land with his forces reasonably intact.

[Wexu]

Well, bombers are still battleship's nightmare. Couple of bombers can lower battleship's hp's so much that it's an easy pick for another battleship to sink.

[adaMada]

Not trying to be nasty to anyone, but I have to agree that airplanes not being able to kill units is stupid. I personally think that in Civ 3 we have an all around good game, but I think it's pretty stupid if bombers can only damage units. It makes them, more or less, pointless. Now, if fighters (except the F-15, which should be considered a mix) could only damage ground units and not kill them, maybe that'd make some sense, but it seems really stupid to have bombers that can only hurt units. I hear what people are saying about the issue with people making their entire defense out of planes, but that has to be considered secondary to the idea of people being able to walk a warrior through hundreds of bombers and planes and still have the warrior alive. Ok, this isn't very likely, but it still makes no sense that a fleet of bombers shouldn't be able to destroy a lone tank.

Personally, I think this should be addressed in the next patch -- though I appreciate Faraxis trying new things, and think most of them have worked out in this game, this one's stupid .

Oh, yes -- I have played (and do own) Civ 3, but haven't gotten close to that far in a game, so can't speek from any experience here...

-- adaMada

[Green Giant]

Ok I kinda see your point with bombers attacking sea units, but its gotta take a lot of bombing runs. Keep in mind the battleship unit represents more or less(at least in my mind) a fleet that is composed of battleships, not just one. I still stand my ground though that bombers should never be able to fully destroy ground units.

As for the Battle of Britain, it was the fact that Britain still had a sizeable army along with what was left of the french army, which made Hitler want to get total air superiority before op. sea lion. If Britains ground troops were weak Hitler would have just invaded.

[Green Giant]

Originally posted by adaMada
I personally think that in Civ 3 we have an all around good game, but I think it's pretty stupid if bombers can only damage units. It makes them, more or less, pointless.
-- adaMada

Yes, it makes just having bombers and a small garrison for ground troops pointless.

[Darkknight]

Originally posted by Green Giant
You cannot destroy units with air power. It is an excellent design desision by Firaxis. Otherwise you could defend your entire empire with fleets of planes like in Civ 2 and SMAC. I Found it to be unrealistic and a lame strategy. No army in the history of the world has ever been destroyed by air power alone. Despite my other complaints, kudos to firaxis on this one.

I agree, there are always survivors.

[adaMada]

Originally posted by Green Giant


Yes, it makes just having bombers and a small garrison for ground troops pointless.

I see where you're coming from, but there's one problem with what you're saying...

Though you shouldn't be able to win a war with bombers, with this current approach, you can't win a battle against a single unit with them. I understand what you mean about this stopping people from using bombers for everything, but bombers should be able to operate independently of ground forces. In other words, you shouldn't have to have some ground units around to make use of them -- that's the point of bombers, to be able to attack from a long range away and destroy units (not just damage them).

Perhaps a compromise -- what if bombers were less and less efficient as the hit points of a unit goes down? That makes LOTS of sense if you assume that a single unit is really a group of those units... as more and more little "sub-units" (that we assume are there) are destroyed, it becomes harder for non-precision bombers to destroy the last few (hard to get them all). On the other hand, when there are lots of "sub-units" (aka a field full of tanks), it's incredibly easy. Of course, this would change for precision bombers, but even then there could be a small reduction... Personally, I don't think bombers need to be crippled at all, but if Firaxis thinks so, then why don't they try to strike some middle ground >?

Just a suggestion...

-- adaMada

[Wulfram]

Originally posted by Darkknight


I agree, there are always survivors.

There's always survivors from any type of attack, ground troops tanks or aircraft. The point is that aircraft can effectively destroy ground troops (and certainly ships) by removing there effectiveness as a fighting force. Bombers are weakened enough by not being able to capture cities (in Civ2, I can't get Civ3 yet)

[Venger]

This is just one more thing that make me think of Civ3 being CivCTP...

Anyone who thinks air units shouldn't be able to destroy ground units is a freaking retard. Ask an NVA unit about their combat effectiveness after a B-52 arclite mission. Not to mention how aircraft changed the entire face of naval operations.

I was so excited when I heard about air superiority missions and such in Civ3, but it sounds like playtesting didn't reveal the absolute absurdity of a wave of bombers not being able to destroy a Trireme.

Venger

[Kc7mxo]

Pearl Harbor.

Battle of Midway.

Any questions?

[Faeelin]

Originally posted by TheDarkside
you mean destroyed the battleships instead of the carriers

I'm going to pray that was an attempt at sarcasm to my sarcasm.

Personally, I thnk that this is a fair option.

Naval units can be sunk by aircraft. Ground units can be destroyed down to red, not destroyed, BUT they can't move on their next turn. IRL, the germans couldn't mvoe troops around france because they were under constant air attack.

[Green Giant]

Originally posted by Faeelin


BUT they can't move on their next turn. IRL, the germans couldn't mvoe troops around france because they were under constant air attack.

That could lead people to be able to freeze opposing armies, seems like a cheap tactic.

[Case]

Bloody hell! What the f**k have Firaxis been smoking?
Air power has proved decisive both at sea and on land, and modern ships are at aircrafts mercy - just look at the Falklands war, and the billions the US navy spends on building Aegis Anti-aircraft warships to protect their fleet from aircraft.

[Zanzin]

It's pretty obvious that Airpower, whilst you can't obvioiusly WIN a war with it (airplanes can't invade cities, can they?) is quite an effective tool. It should be able to destroy boats, tanks, men, whatever, just like Civ2.

That it can't as it stands.....is a fair bit of a travesty

[Comstr]

WTF?!!?

If this is correct...what the hell is the point in building an AEGIS cruiser, or can't you do that either?

[BiggN]

I Personally think, that Bombers should be able to destroy ANY unit, that isn't in a City or that is not in a Fortress.

Maybe then that would make a bit more sence then them just not being able to destroy anything.

[Faeelin]

Originally posted by Green Giant


That could lead people to be able to freeze opposing armies, seems like a cheap tactic.

People fight wars to win. Are you saying the US attacks on Iraq from the air in Desert Storm were cheap? Maybe, by your logic, but it win with only 700 casualtiies agains thte owrld's 6th largest army.

[GodSpawn]

All this talk about bombers being sufficient to destroy an army is strange...

Let's look at a real-world situation right now: Afghanistan. Now, does it look to you like a bombing campaign is going to be sufficient - or will ground troops be required?

[Lawrence of Arabia]

Bombers should be able to completly destroy
-Tanks
-Panzers
-Modern Armor
-Cannon
-Artillery
-Radar Artillery
-Mechanized Infantry
-Battleships
-Cruisers
-Destroyers
-AEGIS cruisers
-Carriers
-Frigate
-Man o' War
-Privateer
-Triremm
-Galley
-Transport
-Aircraft that don't scramble to intercept

Bombers should not be able to completely destroy
-Submarines
-Nuclear Submarines
-Marines
-Paratroopers
-Infantry
-Draftees
-Musket Men
-Musketeers
-Immortals
-Warrior
-Any mounted unit
-Archer
-Bowman
-Longbowman
-Chariots
-War Chariots
-War Elephants
-Settlers
-Workers
-etc

Bombers should only be able to destroy mechanized land forces, all sea forces except submarines and Nuclear Submaries and airplanes that do not scramble to intercept. All mounted units from Ancient/Middle ages cannot be killed along with any 'personel' units (likie warriors etc)

[Faeelin]

Uh.... you'll notice how the NLA is now moving in and making advances.

That aside, you can't apply afghanistan, which is a rough, mountainous, cold, barren, desolate, worthless wasteland to the entire world. By your logic, air power would be useless in Iraq or the plainsof Russia or even France. Actually, your also comparing the flat thing called THE OCEAN to Afghanistan. And most intelligent people knew it would involve US troops all along.

[Case]

This throws a lot of legitimate strategies out the window. For example, Australia's anti-invasion defence plans since the 1920's have been centred around using aircraft to attack and destroy approaching invasion fleets. With Civ 3's stuipid set up this highly sensible strategy would be impossible

Is it possible to edit aircraft so they can destroy ships, or is this 'hard coded' into the game engine?

[Capt Dizle]

I certainly don't want to go back to a situation where you can take a fleet of aircraft and destroy all the defenders and drop in a paratrooper. Or send in howitzers along railroads and blitz through a civ in a turn or two.

That was pretty lame.

[adaMada]

Originally posted by jimmytrick
I certainly don't want to go back to a situation where you can take a fleet of aircraft and destroy all the defenders and drop in a paratrooper. Or send in howitzers along railroads and blitz through a civ in a turn or two.

That was pretty lame.

Why not? Could the bombing not be considered "softening up", followed by ground troops? Ok, maybe it had negative affects on game play (or maybe they were positive, i'll leave it up to you to say), but it seems semi-realistic to me...

-- adaMada