Planes vs Ships - can they sink them?

[SpencerH]

BTW air attacks on ships should be lethal IMO. The counter balance is being able to build carriers and anti-air promotion (which should also be available to MG units).

[nbarclay]

Originally posted by SpencerH

They had em they just werent as common as the Stuka or Stormovik (since they were mostly naval AC).

The Dauntless and Helldiver had similar capabilities, but I don't put them in the same operational category because to the best of my knowledge, they weren't really used the way the Stuka and Stormovik were. They were carrier aircraft, with their design driven by the need to be able to operate from a carrier flight deck and be able to target enemy ships accurately. The planes could be and were used against ground targets, but my impression is that that wasn't what really drove their design.

[nbarclay]

Originally posted by swat-spas2

The at-sea carrier battle does pose a problem. There are some issues still with it. First, a defender may apply his fighters in an interception role and shoot at the offending bomber runs. This fulfills the attack-defender shooting at the same time capacity. Second, if they do not, very often in real life the two carrier air wings would be seeking the other carrier and strike at it. This is a problem. The number of times this happens in game is probably small, your aircraft generally have softer targets than a carrier first.., but it is an issue for which I do not have a gameplay address with present implementation. Even in RL however, the Coral Sea problem is rare. If the other guy finds you first, your strike may never be launched at all, and you are dead meat unless you get those interceptors up right quick. Midway is a good example.. Japan shot down one strike, then was a sitting duck for the next because its fighters were on the deck.

Midway was something of a special case because America was able to use intercepted and decoded Japanese radio transmissions to set up an ambush. With the battle taking place so near an island, America could use land-based patrol aircraft to spot the Japanese fleet at the extreme limit of carrier aircraft's operating range - a range so long that the American fleet felt compelled to break from its normal doctrine in how it coordinated its dive-bomber and torpedo bomber attacks. That range and the ability to use land-based aircraft for scouting played significant roles in the American aircraft's being able to attack the Japanese carriers before the Japanese even knew that there were American carriers in the area. (Even spotting the patrol aircraft wouldn't tip the Japanese off that American carriers were present.)

You're also off target regarding how the Japanese carriers were caught with planes on their decks. What happened was that the Japanese had launched one strike against Midway and were involved in preparations for a second. (There were also some changes of orders regarding how the Japanese bombers should be armed that caused some delays, and landing the aircraft returning from the first strike against Midway caused additional delays if I recall correctly.) When the American aircraft attacked, the first planes to reach the target were the torpedo bombers, which had no fighter escort. Japanese fighters chewed the torpedo bombers up with (as I recall) not a single American plane and almost no men surviving. But the American dive bombers arrived while the Japanese fighters were still down low from attacking the torpedo bombers, and thus had no real problem with fighter resistance for their bombing runs against the Japanese carriers - carriers that were exceptionally vulnerable because they were in the process of fueling and arming their own aircraft to attack Midway. Three of the four Japanese carriers were destroyed.

As I recall (and it's been a long time since I read much on the subject) the Marianas Turkey Shoot followed a Midway-like pattern with the Japanese getting a sighting enough earlier than the Americans did to get in the first strike before America could launch an attack on the Japanese carriers. Not that it did them much good, since the American planes and pilots were so enormously superior by that time - not to mention America's advantage in number of carriers - that they were able to chew up the Japanese attackers easily.

But as I recall, some (and I think most) of the battles in between Midway and the Turkey Shoot followed a more Coral Sea like pattern, with both sides able to launch their airstrikes against the enemy carriers before the enemy aircraft could reach their own carriers. Keep in mind that it took a while for the planes to travel from one fleet to the other, leaving a window in which one side could spot the other a little bit sooner without being able to prevent the other side from launching a counterstrike that was, for all practical purposes, simultaneous. Civ isn't equipped to model that.

[SpencerH]

Originally posted by nbarclay


The Dauntless and Helldiver had similar capabilities, but I don't put them in the same operational category because to the best of my knowledge, they weren't really used the way the Stuka and Stormovik were. They were carrier aircraft, with their design driven by the need to be able to operate from a carrier flight deck and be able to target enemy ships accurately. The planes could be and were used against ground targets, but my impression is that that wasn't what really drove their design.

There was indeed a fundamental strategic difference in why they were built and how they were used. I should have written my post more accurately.

[Golden Bear]

I can see the reason for not making bombers fatal in this game.

In civIII I could basically neglect the naval portion of the game entirely. Artillery backed up with a few bombers would defend everything except convoys and I could usually make short rushes with those or make a long sneak attack, drop an airfield with a settler, and then airlift in massive followup.

Now the only way to drive away enemy naval units is to build my own navy.

Yes, bombers should be able to sink ships. However, if we get that, then we lose the naval game - and it is a publicly stated intention to beef up the naval warfare in CivIV.

For play reasons this is a good choice. For historical reasons... I think of it that a single ship in C4 represents a fleet. It would be tough to take out an entire fleet in most events, unless in the situation of enormous technological superiority.

I quite like the air warfare of C4 when both sides have fighters and bombers and will live with the naval portion.

GB

[Just_Matt]

Re: Carriers and other targets

I served on a flattop for more than 3 years. I can tell you that at sea were weren't an especially hard target without our CAP (except for some close-in weapons systems, but we weren't betting the farm on them). In a battle group the picket ships serve to detect and deter other ships, subs, and aircraft.

A modern destroyer is one Hellava-Bad-Mo-Fo (tm). Without the CAP and escorts, you'll stand a much better chance of getting close to (let alone damaging) the flattop than a destroyer.

For the record, yeah, it's st00pid that my stealth bomber can't prevent a rowboat from landing settlers on my continents. Rebasing planes between continents in Civ IV is also not realistic. They should have a midair refueling technology and you'd need to own airstrips along the way.

Of course, I'm still trying to figure out how the AI was able to use mounted knights so effectively against my gunship airwing. Throwing the lances into the rotors??? I just know know. Unless we talk about supply lines or support personnel (conveniently ignored in the game), it should be uber difficult for a knight to break my tanks, and it should be pretty much impossible for any non-modern ground-based unit to destroy a chopper.

[Fried-Psitalon]

I've said it before, I'll say it again: Realism is not an acceptable argument for overturning game balance.

[Dis]

sure it is.

We're not playing some fantasy game. This is supposed to be a kind of historical re-simulator.

[SpencerH]

Originally posted by Fried-Psitalon
I've said it before, I'll say it again: Realism is not an acceptable argument for overturning game balance.

Maybe not, but there are alternatives that would maintain the game balance you described while not ignoring those of us who wish to use a stealth bomber to eliminate a galleon.

[Urban Ranger]

Originally posted by Dis
sure it is.

We're not playing some fantasy game. This is supposed to be a kind of historical re-simulator.

I am slightly amused. Most people argue with the realism slant happily overlook other ahistorical elements. For example, the inability to build canals or build farms on hills. Or that you can found a city pretty much anywhere, with just a few limitations.

Nothing personal against you, Dis. You're just the last person who reiterate the same point.

[Kirghiz]

Well, I have tinkered with the Aircraft lethality in my game. I left the Bombers as they were and just adjusted the Fighters to be lethal. The advantage of the Bombers doing collateral damage outweighs the need for them to be lethal. It really isn't realistic for the bombers to be lethal either since they are mostly attacking an area as it were.

As for the fighters doing lethal damage, it really doesn't unbalance the game so much. It took six Jet Fighters to kill a pair of Grenadiers that were marching toward my ground forces. Lethal Jet Fighters by themselves aren't that bad. However, when you attack a city with Bombers first and drop everything down to 50% than bring in four Carriers worth of Jet Fighters to clean the city up it gets sort of monotonous. I was able to wipe out the cities' resistance long before my ground forces even got to the cities. I was able to conquer an entire continent without my ground forces really seeing any combat. It made the game sort of boring, and it also prevented my Tanks from gaining any experience.

It didn't unbalance the game so much because my Tanks would have run right over the Grenadier/Rifleman/Cavalry resistance anyway, but it did take some of the fun from it. I am going to drop the kill rate down to 80 or 90% because of this. Frankly, as far as Carrier aircraft attacking naval units, 80 or 90% is probably more realistic anyway. Aircraft Carriers run in groups in the real world, usually supported by some Destroyers, Cruisers, and Submarines. The support ships are there to keep enemy naval vessels away from the carriers, though the aircraft support them as well.

As for the person that mentioned the Gunships getting killed by Knights, I find Gunships pretty well useless against anything but Tanks, and they aren't real effective against Modern Armor either. Their Strength is too low, I bumped it up to 24 and gave them a 125% bonus against Armor, and a 25% bonus against Mounted Units. Infantry are still a good counter to them this way.

[Dis]

Originally posted by Urban Ranger


I am slightly amused. Most people argue with the realism slant happily overlook other ahistorical elements. For example, the inability to build canals or build farms on hills. Or that you can found a city pretty much anywhere, with just a few limitations.

Nothing personal against you, Dis. You're just the last person who reiterate the same point.

Yeah I know. But some things just don't feel right. Some things are easier to live with than others. We've never had canals, so I can't say I miss them.

[Ennet]

Originally posted by aracuan_76


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

If you want realism what other part of the gameplay is so realistic? Second have anyone ever heard of an army group(on land) that has been completly -or even near- killed by an air strike? True is that specially modern bombers can cause devestation to troops but in the end it's the infantry that will have to mop up the resistance. Often bombers have been used to target infrastructure primary, not enemy troops. In WWII bombers caused massive devestation and destuction and sure caused damage to enemy troops, but they were not the ultimate weapon, and did not finnish any battle i know of. (remember they built stuff like tanks too?)

Versus naval units there might be another case however.

[AnteX555]

It has been said here few times that bombers very mainly used against infrastructure in WW2. So I really would like to see that in civ4 too. I really miss those precision strikes in civ3 and I think they were very realistic if you compare to both iraq wars. But I think very few people really used those precision strikes in civ3.

And one question, I haven't played lot in modern era so could you tell me if AI is finally blessed with a skill to use aircraft carriers ?