Can aircraft sink ships?

[Venger]

Another Civ3 debacle

This is just one more thing that make me think of Civ3 being CivCTP...

Anyone who thinks air units shouldn't be able to destroy ground units is a freaking ******. Ask an NVA unit about their combat effectiveness after a B-52 arclite mission. Not to mention how aircraft changed the entire face of naval operations.

I was so excited when I heard about air superiority missions and such in Civ3, but it sounds like playtesting didn't reveal the absolute absurdity of a wave of bombers not being able to destroy a Trireme.

Venger

[Kc7mxo]

Pearl Harbor.

Battle of Midway.

Any questions?

[Faeelin]

Originally posted by TheDarkside
you mean destroyed the battleships instead of the carriers

I'm going to pray that was an attempt at sarcasm to my sarcasm.

Personally, I thnk that this is a fair option.

Naval units can be sunk by aircraft. Ground units can be destroyed down to red, not destroyed, BUT they can't move on their next turn. IRL, the germans couldn't mvoe troops around france because they were under constant air attack.

[Green Giant]

Originally posted by Faeelin


BUT they can't move on their next turn. IRL, the germans couldn't mvoe troops around france because they were under constant air attack.

That could lead people to be able to freeze opposing armies, seems like a cheap tactic.

[Case]

Bloody hell! What the f**k have Firaxis been smoking?
Air power has proved decisive both at sea and on land, and modern ships are at aircrafts mercy - just look at the Falklands war, and the billions the US navy spends on building Aegis Anti-aircraft warships to protect their fleet from aircraft.

[Zanzin]

It's pretty obvious that Airpower, whilst you can't obvioiusly WIN a war with it (airplanes can't invade cities, can they?) is quite an effective tool. It should be able to destroy boats, tanks, men, whatever, just like Civ2.

That it can't as it stands.....is a fair bit of a travesty

[Comstr]

WTF?!!?

If this is correct...what the hell is the point in building an AEGIS cruiser, or can't you do that either?

[BiggN]

I Personally think, that Bombers should be able to destroy ANY unit, that isn't in a City or that is not in a Fortress.

Maybe then that would make a bit more sence then them just not being able to destroy anything.

[Faeelin]

Originally posted by Green Giant


That could lead people to be able to freeze opposing armies, seems like a cheap tactic.

People fight wars to win. Are you saying the US attacks on Iraq from the air in Desert Storm were cheap? Maybe, by your logic, but it win with only 700 casualtiies agains thte owrld's 6th largest army.

[GodSpawn]

All this talk about bombers being sufficient to destroy an army is strange...

Let's look at a real-world situation right now: Afghanistan. Now, does it look to you like a bombing campaign is going to be sufficient - or will ground troops be required?

[Lawrence of Arabia]

Bombers should be able to completly destroy
-Tanks
-Panzers
-Modern Armor
-Cannon
-Artillery
-Radar Artillery
-Mechanized Infantry
-Battleships
-Cruisers
-Destroyers
-AEGIS cruisers
-Carriers
-Frigate
-Man o' War
-Privateer
-Triremm
-Galley
-Transport
-Aircraft that don't scramble to intercept

Bombers should not be able to completely destroy
-Submarines
-Nuclear Submarines
-Marines
-Paratroopers
-Infantry
-Draftees
-Musket Men
-Musketeers
-Immortals
-Warrior
-Any mounted unit
-Archer
-Bowman
-Longbowman
-Chariots
-War Chariots
-War Elephants
-Settlers
-Workers
-etc

Bombers should only be able to destroy mechanized land forces, all sea forces except submarines and Nuclear Submaries and airplanes that do not scramble to intercept. All mounted units from Ancient/Middle ages cannot be killed along with any 'personel' units (likie warriors etc)

[Faeelin]

Uh.... you'll notice how the NLA is now moving in and making advances.

That aside, you can't apply afghanistan, which is a rough, mountainous, cold, barren, desolate, worthless wasteland to the entire world. By your logic, air power would be useless in Iraq or the plainsof Russia or even France. Actually, your also comparing the flat thing called THE OCEAN to Afghanistan. And most intelligent people knew it would involve US troops all along.

[Case]

This throws a lot of legitimate strategies out the window. For example, Australia's anti-invasion defence plans since the 1920's have been centred around using aircraft to attack and destroy approaching invasion fleets. With Civ 3's stuipid set up this highly sensible strategy would be impossible

Is it possible to edit aircraft so they can destroy ships, or is this 'hard coded' into the game engine?

[Capt Dizle]

I certainly don't want to go back to a situation where you can take a fleet of aircraft and destroy all the defenders and drop in a paratrooper. Or send in howitzers along railroads and blitz through a civ in a turn or two.

That was pretty lame.

[adaMada]

Originally posted by jimmytrick
I certainly don't want to go back to a situation where you can take a fleet of aircraft and destroy all the defenders and drop in a paratrooper. Or send in howitzers along railroads and blitz through a civ in a turn or two.

That was pretty lame.

Why not? Could the bombing not be considered "softening up", followed by ground troops? Ok, maybe it had negative affects on game play (or maybe they were positive, i'll leave it up to you to say), but it seems semi-realistic to me...

-- adaMada