Tweet
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.Comment
-
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.Comment
-
Re: Planes vs Ships - can they sink them?
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)Dom 8-)Comment
-
just as I feared then
Comment
-
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 ObamaComment
-
well, im fine with it going to 100% for bothWhile 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.Comment
-
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
Comment
-
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 beComment
-
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 there is a big difference between a battleship and a destroyer/submarine, still none of them can be destroyed, and I am pretty sure my bombers would not be able to sink a galley as well...
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.Comment
-
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.Comment
-
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?Comment
-
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.Comment
-
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.Comment
Comment