Stealth bomber shot down by Spitfire

[georges bonbon]

In my last game a Stealth Bomber was shot down by something that looked like a Spitfire (probably the unit was a fighter, which I never use).

This is really hilarious, considering the height and speed of Stealth Bombers in air compared to WWII planes.

[Cookie Monster]

IIRC a stealth bomber in Civ3 terms is not entirely invulnerable. One of the big advantages of the stealth bomber is that there is a very very low chance of being intercepted and shot down by enemy fighters. You may have just gotten unlucky.

[Jaybe]

I have also had a stealth bomber downed by a fighter, and yes, it was an "amusing" shock!
Imagine over Taliban Afghanistan: A stealth bomber doing lazy-eights waiting for a targeting order in a presumed threat-free environment. Even a prop-driven aircraft could have shot it down if it knew where it was, possibly even with 20mm cannon. (Of course, an AWACS would probably have spotted it way too soon.)

[G'Kar]

As Jaybe suggested, almost any plane with an engine that runs and a gun can shoot down a stealth bomber.

The scenario is easy to imagine, the B-2 drops a bomb, the bomb bay door gets jammed open, stealthiness is compromised, P-51 scrambles to intercept the target and lets loose with a couple hundred rounds, ...B-2 fleet decreased by one.

Of course you can simulate a fighter escort in Civ by sending your fighters on a "bombing" mission to hit the same target first. Thus your fighter fights with the enemy fighter before the B-2 enters the scene.

[Kuciwalker]

Regardless of the unit doing Air Superiority, the chance for the Stealth Bomber or Fighter to be shot down is the same: one in twenty. The Stealth planes have a defense of zero, so they automatically die (in fact, they can be captured when you take a city), but the Stealth flag means they are only intercepted 5% of the time.

[bobbo008]

yeah, 5% for stealth units.

although other units are 50%. so that means if you send a non-stealth fighter to "simulate fighter escort" will only work 1/2 the time theoretically. then they have to win or the AI fighter can intercept next turn.

[Jaybe]

... fighter escort" will only work 1/2 the time theoretically.

I much prefer 2/3 (I changed it to 67%)!
C3C may change things a bit with the availability of AA units.

[Elias]

There are lots of unrealalistic things about civ3.such as a worrior
injuring modern armor. they couldent even get close enough
much less hurt it.

[Jaybe]

Elias, that is a very old argument that is still invalid. Armor is vulnerable in mountains/cities/woods/canyons. Losing hitpoints can also be from lack of supplies, breakdowns, etc. A "warrior" unit with imagination, and lack of good intelligence by a tank unit is all it takes.
(What am I TALKING ABOUT! I don't think I've lost an MA HP to a warrior yet. Tank HP, yes but not MA).

Just because ZERO (one less than ONE) Abrams tanks were lost directly to enemy action in Iraq doesn't mean that units of them COULD not have been lost.

[G'Kar]

Jaybe,

There were coalition tanks damaged beyond operability directly due to enemy action. They may have all been repairable, but not cheaply.

[Elias]

I was fighting a civ who was behind the times a little and they had a lot of worriors so under the right circamstances(pardon my terible spelling) that could happen. by the way the people
in Iraq had Rpgs not Stone axes.

[Jaybe]

A warrior/spearman/pikeman in the modern age has RPGs also. It just isn't a modern professionally-trained unit. Just because the graphic doesn't show it ....

[Elias]

Where did you hear that?

[G'Kar]

That's the fundamental Temporal Displacement-Technological Diffusion Theory (copyright mine).

Many people believe units progress throughout the ages wether we can see it on the screen or not. So a warrior is still called a warrior but he may have black market access to an M-16 or a rocket propelled grenade. Thus when he takes a HP off your tank that was really RPG damage you sustained.

edit: rocket propelled grenade, NOT rock propelled

[Jaybe]

Elias, I'll put it this way:
It is obvious that a "warrior" cannot damage tanks (hardly even support vehicles) with an ax. Therefore, he MUST have had more modern weapons -- otherwise the believability disappears!

It's called rationalization.