Planes vs Ships - can they sink them?

[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?

[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.

[Fried-Psitalon]

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?

Realism is the worst argument for unbalancing gameplay.

[Fried-Psitalon]

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.

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...

..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.

[aracuan_76]

I DONT AGREE

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.

[BigBadButch]

Originally posted by Fried-Psitalon


Realism is the worst argument for unbalancing gameplay.

Exactly.

[aracuan_76]

Originally posted by BigBadButch

Exactly.

your view.
not for those who want a game worthy of representing history.

[terje439]

Originally posted by BigBadButch

Exactly.

"Can YOU build a civilization to stand the test of time"...
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.

[Saldrin]

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.

[snafuc4]

Re: I DONT AGREE

Originally 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.

These are all Pacific examples; look too at Atlantic and North/Barents sea: loss of Tirpitz, any number of Atlantic convoy raids, etc etc

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".

Yup, although infantry in forest, jungle or mountains should be less damaged

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.

I don't agree that the bomber should be more expensive, but

PS:the bad thing that excpet fighters there is no antiaircraft gun to defend.

Totally agree!

[swat-spas2]

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.

[Fried-Psitalon]

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.

[BigBadButch]

Originally posted by aracuan_76


your view.
not for those who want a game worthy of representing history.

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.

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.

[BigBadButch]

Originally posted by aracuan_76


your view.
not for those who want a game worthy of representing history.

Oh, and not just my view, but also Fried-Psitalon's and possibly others.

[enderw]

Lethal air bombardment fix

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.