Aircraft can't sink ships... OMG.

[Stretch]

I know this has been mentioned before but its *SO* silly and unrealistic that it deserves to be mentioned again. and again. and again.

Clearly in reality aircraft can sink ships.. so easliy that the battleship was made obsolete by the airplane.

PLEASE change this.

Thank you for listening.

[Green Giant]

Did you really need to start a new thread when there is already one for the exact same subject?

[KoalaBear33]

From a historical view, you might be right. But from a gameplay point of view, I think what has been done is good. If aircraft can actually destroy ships then ships will be almost useless. Aircrafts can already bomb cities and attack other aircraft. If they also attacked ships then what's the point of having a ship? Carriers might be somewhat useful but other ships will be useless. People would just build airplanes and it would be disadvantages for anyone to attack a city. Most people would just load up on aircrafts and land units and no one would even build a ship (unless a carrier was absolutely necessary).

KoalaBear33

[Schnitzelnator]

Originally posted by KoalaBear33
If aircraft can actually destroy ships then ships will be almost useless.

Bingo! Just like in real life.

Originally posted by KoalaBear33
Aircrafts can already bomb cities and attack other aircraft. If they also attacked ships then what's the point of having a ship?

They can bomb ships as well. They just can't destroy them.

Originally posted by KoalaBear33 Carriers might be somewhat useful but other ships will be useless.

Bingo! again...

Originally posted by KoalaBear33 People would just build airplanes and it would be disadvantages for anyone to attack a city. Most people would just load up on aircrafts and land units and no one would even build a ship (unless a carrier was absolutely necessary).

Now this is just nonsense. They can't destroy ground units, remember?

[Imran Siddiqui]

Let's see, a bunch of bombers able to totally destroy a bunch of ships/troops? No, there will always be at least one that manages to survive. Law of Diminishing Returns here at work. After the first few die, then it gets increasingly harder to target the remaining last ships/troops to kill.

[Seeker]

The Bismarck

The Repulse

The Prince of Wales

The Midway Carrier Task force...

and so on...

all sunk entirely by planes, some of the most important naval engagements in history.

I cannot understand how ANYONE could defend this

[Faeelin]

Originally posted by Seeker
The Bismarck

The Repulse

The Prince of Wales

The Midway Carrier Task force...

and so on...

all sunk entirely by planes, some of the most important naval engagements in history.

I cannot understand how ANYONE could defend this

Then they couldn't get galleons of knights through the enemy airspace.

[ElitePersian]

Originally posted by KoalaBear33
If aircraft can actually destroy ships then ships will be almost useless.
KoalaBear33

I disagree with this cause it would take more than 1 or 2 runs to destroy it. Lets say it takes 5 or 6...by that time, the ship could still run around and bombard some cities and units, and could get out of the operational range of the aircraft (if the aircraft cant relocate cities OR if the ship simply moves far away from the aircraft).
With this said, how could a ship be useless?

[ElitePersian]

Also, i disagree with aircraft not being able to destroy units completely. It makes sense that aircraft could not completely wipe out an army (there would still be a few left over - which is refltected by having the unit in the red zone), but remember, UNITS can heal.
So, im gonna make 2 suggestions on how to address this;

1) If a unit gets attacked by an aircraft and loses life - it should not be able to regain health.

OR

2) Let aircraft completely wipe out armies.

[ElitePersian]

hopefully a mod or patch will change this whole issue, i dont like the way it is.

[AceCiv]

I suggest adding a 5% chance of bombers wiping out units which are already damaged. This would still allow the strategy of building a destructive air force without allowing it to overwhelm other units in the game.

(Actually, I came up with 5 rather arbitrarily... what odds seem reasonable to y'all.?)

[Jon Miller]

There is a reason why now naval combat is done jsut between carriers (the other ships just support the carriers, in an actual naval combat aall the others would mostly be defense for the carrier)

while I can understand planes not being able to completely destroy land troops (I actually do have an argument against this) in the sea is where planes trully shine

a plane attack on any sort of sortie of ships has been shown time and time again to eliminate every ship

itsd not like with armies where you have so many people and they can hide and stuff

there is no where for surface ships to hide in the sea

the reason why I think that bombardment shuold be able to destroy land armies (but it should not be easy) is that those armors are models of groups of men as an effective fighting force

yes the planes (or artillery) cannot destroy everyone, but it can make it so the army cannot fight anymore

so if an land army would lose its last hp (to bombardment), instead of losing it it maybe should have a chance of

a) losing combat effectiveness (no hp gain, no movement, 50% decrease of defense/attack stats)

and/or

b) losing moral/experience (goes from elite to veteran, from veteran to normal, from normal to conscript, if conscript then modify a) to read "no hp gain, no movement, 100% decrease of attack/defense stats")

hey this is a pretty good idea

Jon Miller

[Ballz1998]

Originally posted by Seeker
The Bismarck

The Repulse

The Prince of Wales

The Midway Carrier Task force...

and so on...

all sunk entirely by planes, some of the most important naval engagements in history.

I cannot understand how ANYONE could defend this

I can... its a game and it was most likely made that way so as not to unbalance the game. If the game were as real as real life then it would take an unimagineable number of hard drives and a processor that doesnt exist yet. So instead of that they probably decided that planes would be too powerful in the context of the game if they could actually destroy units. Instead they are there for support. Making them important but not invincible.

[kittenOFchaos]

The point of carriers is two fold...one to allow strikes on the enemy, secondly to provide air cover for your bships etc...

It is disappointing that planes cannot attack shipping -shipping which could be defended by ftrs f/carriers and nearby land bases.

HOPE WE CAN GET IT CHANGED!

[dexters]

Clearly, you guys forgot the Aiegis Cruiser from Civ 2.


Great anti-air warships and they can serve as Carrier /battleship escorts.

They can work like fortresses where they have a range beyond the immediate unit, so they can fire at incoming planes without the plane actually going over the ship.

Just because fighters can target warships doesn't mean they will win.

On a related note, I think the current problem with Civ 3's apparent combat bonuses is that the game works with probabilities. If you're read the manual, you'll see that a knight has something like 4 out of 6 chance to beat a spearman (4 attack power of the knight + 2 defense power of spearman = 6) so with 6 as the denominator, and 4 is the attack power of the knight. (without defensive bonuses being factored), and that means spearman has a 2 out of 6 chance of beating the knight. This problem causes the knight beats tank effect so many have talked about. The probability engine needs to be refined to account for these technological differences. In real life, a knight has no chance against a Tank. Sure, if you have a very able knight, he may be able to take out the Tank crew by surprising them, but head to head, a tank crew can take out a knight even before the knight sees the tank.