MOD: Modern Naval/Air Combat Fix

[mrbilll]

I only know them from reputation, but those first missile launch systems reminded me of the saying about the dancing bear- Whether the bear dances WELL or not is irrelavent. The fact that the bear dances AT ALL is what's impressive.

Both tactical and strategic launch systems have gone through several generations, improving by leaps and bounds, as I'm sure you know. What does this have to do with Civ3? Nothing! But it's still fun to talk about.

[BelSlavin]

The Civ3 cruise missle.

Hi all!
I sure hope the nice people over at Firaxis takes all your suggestions into account with their patch! I agree that the naval units especially need some work.

I especially agree with the problems surrounding the subs in the game. However, my biggest concern is with regards to the cruise missle.

Several things could improve this unit in the game--even though many people would never bother to build them.

How about these suggestions:
1) Out of the box, it seems as if cruise missles can only be loaded into transports(sound right)? It seems to me that it would be much more interesting if they could be loaded into the combative vessels, the AEGIS seems like a very logical choice. Perhaps on the order of 5. Other vessels could also carry them, but perhaps in smaller numbers. Thus allowing ship-launched cruise missles.

However this would be contingent on:
2) Increased range! Two makes no sense! I think this has been addressed in a mod now it's 6?

3) Regardless of the ship they can be loaded on, they can't be loaded into ships in port? This doesn't make sense either. Other units can be (L)oaded in a city but not cruise missles? Hmmm.

4) Are they too expensive? They are used once--obviously--and usually kill the targetted unit (depending on the circumstances). Seems a hefty trade off. Maybe they should be cheaper.

Anything else?

[Barnacle Bill]

The problem with Regulus was that you had to surface and send a weapon crew topside to launch it. They carried just 1 on the back of the boat in a big watertight cylindrical container which opened to reveal the launcher. It was basically just like the German WWII V1. The enemy it was created to fight was really the USAF

After WWII, the USAF advanced the notion that all military combat forces were obsolete except for high-altitude long-range nuclear bombers. The other services scrambled to find ways to make themselves relevent in the nuclear age. For the USN, that was stuff like Regulus and and this huge carrier from which they proposed to launch high-altitude long-range nuclear bombers with USN markings instead of USAF The justification was that even the bombers needed a base (a lot of the late war Pacific island invasions were to get bases from which the B-29's couyld hit Japan). The Army developed ballistic missiles, up through IRBM's.

The USAF killed the Navy's monster carrier idea by demonstrating in-air refueling - there was no place in the world the big bombers could not reach. They tried an RAF-style grab for the carrier-based planes, but the "Revolt of the Admirals" checked that (the Navy brass broke the rule about staying out of politics and cashed in all the chips they had with Congress). Somehow the Air Force did grab all land-based missiles with a longer range than "tactical", though.

Korea killed the Air Force notion that the Army wasn't needed anymore (demonstrated what carriers could do in the absense of an enemy fleet, too). Polaris is what finally gave the Navy its nuclear justification.

The Civ3 cruise missile apparently models the ones the USAF drags around on trailors, not the ones launched from ships or planes.

[BelSlavin]

Originally posted by Barnacle Bill
The Civ3 cruise missile apparently models the ones the USAF drags around on trailors, not the ones launched from ships or planes.

Yeah, thus I have no problem with the fact that they have 1 MP to get around on land with prior to bombardment; however, allowing the combative vessles to load up with a few of them would be a nice thing. It's ugly (for lack of a better word) to have transports sitting around with your ships if you desire to launch off cruise missles from sea. Maybe my point is moot.

[Jayis Solis]

This has been a great source of information from those who would have somewhat direct knowledge of naval combat.

Since we are on the subject of submarine roles and capabilities-- couldn't a Civ III nuclear sub carry one marine unit in addition to missiles? Or is that being too nit-picky?

[vette_21]

Make the Aegis Stronger

I believe that the Aegis Cruiser should have a and equal or higher attack value then the Battleship, and if nothing else a significantly higher defense value then the battleship. My reason? Ship vs Ship combat in modern times is mostly fought with missiles, thus the 16 inch guns (I am thinking American battleships) aren't as much of a factor. The battleship should be much better at shore bombardment. I also think that the aegis shouldn't have a special anti-submarine capability, that is the job of the Spruince Destroyer. I would give the Aegis a free shot at air units attacking like a bombardment or something.
So here is my suggested recap:
Aegis: Make Attack as strong or stronger then battleship
Make Defense stronger then battleship, due too the
Aegis system.
Take away Aegis ability to see subs and make a modern
Destroyer to fill that task.
Give the aegis the ability to bombard air.

Oh i like the idea of the modern ships carrying Cruise Missiles.

I know some of this stuff may be tough or impossible to do in a mod I am just thinking out loud here. Maybe the Civ III people will take notice. Who knows.

[Dev]

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.

Do you think you can fit one of them batteries in my laptop ?

I noticed someone mentioned Harpoon4, I played a good deal of 1 & 2 but I think the last thing I heard about #4 was it was supposed to be released like a year ago.

oh and btw how do you navy guys feel about planes not being able to sink your ships ?

1918 deja vu.

/dev

[mrbilll]

To answer Jayis- Subs have been outfitted for covert and spy ops from WWII to the present day. But usually, the mission is along the lines of special ops, surveillance, and extractions. Tom Clancy type stuff. For an undetected insertion/extraction, with small numbers of people, they're great. But for some kind of conventional assault involving a large number of people, they'd be a recipe for disaster.

As conventional supply or transport vessels, they've been pretty dismal. The Japanese tried to use them as supply vessels in WWII. This has always struck me as one of the silliest uses of a sub, and I think history bears me out. The Germans did some of that too, but at least they understood what a sub is REALLY good for. They just aren't very efficient in non combat roles. As for a marine detachment, it's physically possible- just not something you'd want to do.

[Albatou]

Nuclear Aircraft Carrier = $7 billion
Seawolf class SSN = $2 billion
Michigan ("Trident") class SSBN = $1.3 billion
Ticonderoga ("Aegis") class Cruiser = $1 billion
Los Angeles class SSN = $800 million
Arleigh Burke ("Aegis junior") class destroyer = $750 million
US Mech Infantry Division= $4.5 billion

Winning the cold war? Priceless.
There are some things that money can't buy. For everything else.....

Sorry, couldn't resist.

[mrbilll]

well put.

[B-line]

Nuclear subs and modern conventional sub are best used in two seperate arenas.

Nuclear subs produce a huge wake in both terms of water and heat. If a nuke travels in shallow/warm water it is highly visible from the air (typically space) through the use of infred sensors. I have seen a satelite picture of a US nuke trversing the globe, everywhere it had been ..for days.. was clearly visible as a solid trace accros the map. ...but give them the cold deep waters near the antartic and they riegn supreme.

Conventional subs are quiet and small, they make liitle impact on there surroundings. They operate best in the shallow waters of the pacific or on the continental shelves (hugging coastlines) and patrolling habours.

Either sub is superior to the other in its own territory.

Nuke sub can travel significantly faster then almost any serface vessel, while convential subs travel close to surface vessel speeds.

In Civ game terms subs should be invisible when not moving or when only moving one square, when they move faster they are easily detectable. Further nuke subs should always be visible when in shallow water.

A submarines biggest fear is aviation.. because a good sub commander is only detectable after an attack (which is almost always a success) and then only aircraft can respond to the subs attack before it hides again.

A secondary fear is an escorting submarine to the attackers target that the attacker did not detect.

Surface vessels are only a threat in terms of providing a platform for aviation.

A surface vessel can not detect a conventional sub (while the sub is running on batteries) whilst the surface vessel is traveling at any speed greater then..!I am a sitting target! because of its own engine and propeller nosies...and a nuke sub can travel so fast that it can run away.

[Barnacle Bill]

On the scale of Civ3, a ground unit is basically a division. No way you are getting a marine division on a sub, even if you make the officers hot-rack

[Admiral PJ]

As far as i know all submarines need to resurface to take clean air for their large crews, modern nuclear subs have Space age air scrubbers to clean out the CO2 but they aren't perfect.
Perhaps subs should have a random chance to be spotted, and unable to hide in shallow coastal waters.

I've seen Britainss biggest nuclear Trident missile submarine on the sea surface in scotland on the Clyde( the latest in the year of 1995 at least) , we were on a carferry - its quite nice knowing your boat is making a giant nuclear craft wait for you
It was an unforgettable site, more like a swimming jetblack skycraper, this new class has a square box like nose .. and we watch the subs go past from my Uncles window, you can clearly see the conning tower and rudder fin breaking water from a couple of miles away.

AdmiralPJ - no not in the navy, just a fan.

[mrbilll]

Conventional or Deisel, subs don't need to entirely surface to ventilate. They have snorkeling masts, which do the same thing for a sub that they do for a snorkelling swimmer. They also have a very low visual profile. What you see up close, transiting a harbor in broad daylight, is impressive. What you see on the open ocean is much harder to spot. And without satellite or night vision aid, you're not going to spot a sub snorkelling in the middle of the night.

As for surfacing, that's not really the case. Barring mishap or malfunction, a nuclear sub can theoretically stay submerged indefinitely. It is often desirable to surface partially for various operations, but if the need is great enough, the sub does not need to come up- ever!

The power supply lasts for years. Fresh water and oxgen are processed from the ocean. The atmospheric equipment can keep the air breathable, if not pleasant, for weeks on end. The biggest limitation is food, and a modern sub can store enought to keep the crew going for months.

To prove this point, the first Nuclear sub built (the Nautilus, appropriately enough) circled the world- underwater!

[Barnacle Bill]

Originally posted by mrbilll
Fresh water and oxgen are processed from the ocean. The atmospheric equipment can keep the air breathable, if not pleasant, for weeks on end. The biggest limitation is food, and a modern sub can store enought to keep the crew going for months.

Sea story time, kiddies!

To pack in the maximum amount of food, you line the decks forward with cans. This effectively lowers the cealing about 6", resulting in even average height guys routinely hitting their heads on stuff in the overhead. The standard 90 day load-out for deployment pretty much requires this. One of my Captains was about 6'5" and ordered the Cheif Cook to get 90 days on board without "walking on cans" during our Med run. The Cheif Cook looked at the schedule, saw we were only going to be out 30 days at a time, and cheated.

Port visit to Athens got cancelled and we stayed out much longer than scheduled. The last two week, all we had left was flour & spam.

During that same run, the 02 genny broke down. The back-up is these chemical canisters called oxygen generators. They create a lot f heat, so they are "burned" in a "candle furnace". The standard candle furnace wasn't keeping up, so we rigged another one in the engine room. Even that didn't fully keep up, so we were running a little low on O2 and you had a headache most of the time. I used to go down to the candle furnace after watch and breath until my headache went away so I could get to sleep.

We pulled into La Spezia after 72 days submerged (my personal record but others I know have much longer), on Thanksgiving Day. Of course, I had the duty first night in port...