MOD: Modern Naval/Air Combat Fix

[aznblader]

his patch includes all changes from the previous "prepatch fix mod" by Anunikoba:

http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?s=&threadid=7714

PLUS:

Increased range of Paratroopers to 8:
To make them a lot more useful

Fixed bombardment strength of Cruise Missile to 18:
There was a bug that set this to 28 in the previous mod

Increased range of Helicopters to 6:
Same reason as for the Paratroopers

Increased attack strength of Nuclear Sub to 10:
So that they can defeat a regular Sub from the previous patch.

Increased bombardment strength of all AIR units by 4 points:
(not in addition to the original mod)
Gives some of the advantage sthat carriers and aerial bombardment SHOULD enjoy.

Increased movement rate of all MODERN naval units by 3 TIMES:
So it doesn't take ten years for a battleship to move a couple of thousand of kilometers.

The old changes from Anunikoba's mod can be found in the OldPatchReadme.doc

To install, just copy the civ3mod.bik over to your Civ3 dir. A backup of the original is included.

Email aznblader@yahoo.com if you have any problems of suggestions.

[blorq]

but should nuclear subs really be that superior in attack to "regular" subs? when you get down to it, the biggest difference is that nuclear subs don't need to stop to refuel or surface to recharge their batteries from the diesel. the only advantage should be movement.

additionally, i agree with regular subs not being able to carry missiles. if you consider a regular sub to be the ww2 style submarine, then they did not carry any sort of missile (cruise missiles didn't even exist). however, nuclear subs (the sub version of modern armor) should be able to carry cruise missiles as well as nukes.

[aznblader]

Originally posted by blorq
but should nuclear subs really be that superior in attack to "regular" subs? when you get down to it, the biggest difference is that nuclear subs don't need to stop to refuel or surface to recharge their batteries from the diesel. the only advantage should be movement.

additionally, i agree with regular subs not being able to carry missiles. if you consider a regular sub to be the ww2 style submarine, then they did not carry any sort of missile (cruise missiles didn't even exist). however, nuclear subs (the sub version of modern armor) should be able to carry cruise missiles as well as nukes.

i was thinking that nuclear subs would be much quieter than diesel, and noise is the most important part of a sub's effectiveness. in addition, i'd assume that a nuclear sub is all around more advanced over the regular sub considering decoys, sonar, etc etc.

yeah... i didn't really notice that about the regular subs being able to carry missiles. you can change that yourself if you like... it just carried over from the pre mod patch that i was working off of.

[Navyman]

Actually a diesel sub while running submerged is much quieter than a nuke sub running submerged.

A diesel sub running submerged is using just its electric motors and gearbox while a nuke sub running submerged is using its nuclear reactor (which means all the motors and pumps for coolant systems are running), using the steam generated to turn a turbine which in turn uses a gear reducer. The extra mechanical systems used in the nuke make it a tad bit louder.

The main disadvantage of the diesel sub is not that it needs refueling but that it needs air for the diesel engine. So, theoretically a nuke sub can stay submerged indefinitely, a diesel sub will have to surface and stay at the surface for a while every two weeks so the diesel engines can run and charge up the batteries.

Sorry about the long post but hey, at least it shows that I know something

[aznblader]

Originally posted by Navyman
Actually a diesel sub while running submerged is much quieter than a nuke sub running submerged.

A diesel sub running submerged is using just its electric motors and gearbox while a nuke sub running submerged is using its nuclear reactor (which means all the motors and pumps for coolant systems are running), using the steam generated to turn a turbine which in turn uses a gear reducer. The extra mechanical systems used in the nuke make it a tad bit louder.

The main disadvantage of the diesel sub is not that it needs refueling but that it needs air for the diesel engine. So, theoretically a nuke sub can stay submerged indefinitely, a diesel sub will have to surface and stay at the surface for a while every two weeks so the diesel engines can run and charge up the batteries.

Sorry about the long post but hey, at least it shows that I know something

i'm humbled. =)

still... a nuclear sub would outclass a regular, older sub, wouldn't it?

[Leonidas]

While the older (WWII) variety sub had its limitations, the newer modern conventional subs (SSKs) are almost on par with nuclear attack subs (SSNs) and nuclear ballistic missile subs (SSBNs).

Newer versions like the U212 and U214 (Germany/Italy) can remain submerged for a month, are very stealthy, and can fire a variety of torpedoes and missiles, including anti-sub/anti-ship missiles and cruise missiles.

Same goes for the Sauros Class (Italy) and Scorpene Class (Spain) subs.

In a recent naval exercise off Hawaii, an Australian conventional sub successfully stalked and "sank" an American Nuclear attack sub.

The world. . . she is a-changing. . .


BTW: in this version of the Mod, can ALL fighters now use the Air Superiority command successfully?

Also: If possible it would be very helpful if the Coastal Fortress could be fixed to actually attack enemy ships as it should.

Thanks for all the work. . .

[Barnacle Bill]

If equal technology is used in their construction, a conventional submarine operating on its battery will have a tactical combat advantage over a nuke boat due to lower noise emissions, except at the very most advanced levels of technology where advanced sound silencing negates the higher radiated noise from the nuke and makes it an equal playing field.

Nuke boats have much higher speed capabilities, which is an advantage in evading torpedos that have actually been launched at you.

Conventional submarines have a much slower transit time than nukes because they can't run at high submerged speed for very long. If they run on the surface, or at periscope depth using their snorkel, they will be detected easily by surface ships, patrol aircraft, etc...

In Civ3, the initial submarine is like a WWI/WWII submarine. It should not even be able to see other submarines. It should have an attack capability that lets it easily sink transports and have a good shot at sinking a destroyer if it is the attacker. Its defense relative to the destoyer's attack should be such that the destroyer has a good shot at sinking the sub if it is the attacker. In other words, the advantage should go to whoever shoots first. It's speed should be pretty slow.

The Civ3 nuke sub should be as fast as any modern ship, and have an attack ability such that it can sink anything (even battleships & carriers). Its defense should be strong enough to give it a slight advantage against destroyers if the destroyer attacks it. It should be able to see submarines. If a nuke boat attacks another nuke boat, the advantage should be with the attacker. It should be expensive - not as much as a carrier or battleship but more so than any other ship.

A hypothetical modern conventional sub for Civ3 should have the same attack strength as its nuclear counterpart, weaker defense, slower speed (same as the WWI/WWII boat), and significantly lower cost.

To get very realistic with subs, the above nuke sub is an SSN, and should not be able to carry missiles (or maybe cruise missiles but not ballistic missiles). There would be another nuke sub for the SSBN which would differ from the SSN as follows: carries ballistic missiles, weaker attack, same defense, slightly slower (still faster than a conventional sub).

[aznblader]

Originally posted by Leonidas
While the older (WWII) variety sub had its limitations, the newer modern conventional subs (SSKs) are almost on par with nuclear attack subs (SSNs) and nuclear ballistic missile subs (SSBNs).

Newer versions like the U212 and U214 (Germany/Italy) can remain submerged for a month, are very stealthy, and can fire a variety of torpedoes and missiles, including anti-sub/anti-ship missiles and cruise missiles.

Same goes for the Sauros Class (Italy) and Scorpene Class (Spain) subs.

In a recent naval exercise off Hawaii, an Australian conventional sub successfully stalked and "sank" an American Nuclear attack sub.

The world. . . she is a-changing. . .


BTW: in this version of the Mod, can ALL fighters now use the Air Superiority command successfully?

Also: If possible it would be very helpful if the Coastal Fortress could be fixed to actually attack enemy ships as it should.

Thanks for all the work. . .

re: conventional subs vs nuke subs.

since nuke subs are available so much later than conventional, i'd assume that the accompanying hardware is also much more advanced, so it's doesn't take a stretch of the imagination to see a nuke sub being slightly more powerful on the offense.

about the air superiority... no that hasn't been fixed. =\ even though it ups the chance of interception, the mechanism itself is still broken in the game. only a real patch can fix it.

[Yaga]

Don't forget torpedos...

Modern Submarine weapons make them far, far more destructive than their WWII counterparts. Originally, torpedoes had very little in terms of both explosive power and guidance systems: You pointed them at where you thought the target would be after the torpedo had crossed a specific distance, set timers or suchlike, came to the surface, fired them, then ducked back underwater and listened for explosions.

Modern Mark 48 torpedoes are not only far bigger in terms of destructive power, but they also house their own sonar and guidance hardware which allows them to home in on the specific target, based on it's noise signature, turn to follow it, have multiple reactions concerning what to do when it loses a target, etc etc etc. All this requires a greater amount of hardware and technical knowhow on the part of the crew, but has the added trade off of being able to fire torpedos submerged, fire a spread against multiple targets both front and rear, and then, also, dive much, much deeper then their WWII counterparts.

However, once detected, a submarine is pretty much dead. Most of their defensive capabilities rely on not being detected, or having their target lose them once they are detected. Not too sure how this would work in game play, other than to have their positions disappear once they've attacked.

So, IMHO, Nuclear Submaries should own the seas until AEGIS cruisers show up, however be woefully s****ed if they're detected.

[Yaga]

Don't forget torpedos...

Modern Submarine weapons make them far, far more destructive than their WWII counterparts. Originally, torpedoes had very little in terms of both explosive power and guidance systems: You pointed them at where you thought the target would be after the torpedo had crossed a specific distance, set timers or suchlike, came to the surface, fired them, then ducked back underwater and listened for explosions.

Modern Mark 48 torpedoes are not only far bigger in terms of destructive power, but they also house their own sonar and guidance hardware which allows them to home in on the specific target, based on it's noise signature, turn to follow it, have multiple reactions concerning what to do when it loses a target, etc etc etc. All this requires a greater amount of hardware and technical knowhow on the part of the crew, but has the added trade off of being able to fire torpedos submerged, fire a spread against multiple targets both front and rear, and then, also, dive much, much deeper then their WWII counterparts.

However, once detected, a submarine is pretty much dead. Most of their defensive capabilities rely on not being detected, or having their target lose them once they are detected. Not too sure how this would work in game play, other than to have their positions disappear once they've attacked.

So, IMHO, Nuclear Submaries should own the seas until AEGIS cruisers show up, however be woefully s****ed if they're detected.

[aznblader]

i completely agree about the aegis cruiser vs submarine. the sure death on detection is the reason why submarine defense was left unchanged. the hard part is to modify the damage of the submarine so that they own the seas, and modify the the aegis cruiser so that they own submarines. that would completely screw up the naval balancing.

[aznblader]

i completely agree about the aegis cruiser vs submarine. the sure death on detection is the reason why submarine defense was left unchanged. the hard part is to modify the damage of the submarine so that they own the seas, and modify the the aegis cruiser so that they own submarines. that would completely screw up the naval balancing.

[rrrob]

AEGIS cruisers aren't anti sub ship, destroyers are. I think there is only one AEGIS cruiser and that is the Ticonderoga class cruiser. It is used in a defensive role, able to intercept incoming missiles and has some anti-aircraft capabilities. It's sole offensive power comes from the Tomahawk and Harpoon missiles it can carry, it doesn't really have any big cannons or anything. Don't think its sonar is that great, but it has a big-ass surface radar.

Destroyers and possible some frigates are the only sub-hunting vessels so an AEGIS cruiser shouldn't really rule subs, sub rule AEGIS & carriers, AEGIS rule destroyers, destroyers rule subs. That's more realistic and would make a really good game balancing relationship.

[xane]

I agree with rrob, although if you look at modern naval units, most have some form of anti-sub capability, but some ships are superior in one form of offense/defence.

AEGIS is specifically an anti-missile defence, nothing to do with subsurface combat, but an AEGIS cruiser will have some anti-sub capability.

A better example would be the OH Perry class (frigate) or A Burke class (destroyer) that have impressive anti-submarine systems.

Doesn't anyone here play Harpoon ???

[Barnacle Bill]

In real life, with modern as opposed to WWII submarines, the only truely effective offensive anti-submarine system is another submarine. I know from personal experience in naval excercises that, even with unrealistic handicaps on the sub, destroyers & ASW aircraft are pretty helpless against a well-handled modern submarine. The problem is that submarines can't perform all naval missions, so you still need other ships to do what the subs can't. So it is a matter of teamwork, unless your entire naval strategy is to deny the seas to your enemy. ASW surface ships should not really have any significant ability to attack submarines, just to defend themselves and anything stacked with them if the submarine attacks (even then, the sub should win more often than the skimmer). If you want to go sub-hunting, you need another sub. In a Civ3 mod, I'd model that by giving nuclear (i.e. modern as opposed to WWII) subs a significantly higher attack & defense factor than any other ship. However, since they can't carry troops, launch aircraft, bombard coastal squares, etc... you still need the skimmers for that stuff.