Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Air superiority "bug" solved?

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #16
    Hrm.

    What if they give subs the ability to attack without being attacked back? Seems reasonable. Maybe Firaxis can just flag them ZoC? I don't know.. haven't played very much Civ 3 yet... why in the world am I posting instead of playing... be back in 12 hours.
    Caelicola

    Comment


    • #17
      Originally posted by GP
      You don't understand the capabilities of submarines. I spent several years of my life as a submarine officer. Submarines can easily take out most surface ships. Actually we usually just call them targets, not surface ships.
      yup
      but in fact battleship in civ 3 is a whole task force. subs are packs of subs. dont tell me task forces do not have anti-sub choppers and destroyers. balance, balance

      Comment


      • #18
        Originally posted by LaRusso


        yup
        but in fact battleship in civ 3 is a whole task force. subs are packs of subs. dont tell me task forces do not have anti-sub choppers and destroyers. balance, balance
        Dunno, with ships I tend to consider them as individual units .. i.e, one bship represented is one bship imagined.. Whereas with most modern units I go for battalion level.

        Comment


        • #19
          Unless you want the world naval forces in Civ 3 to barely rival some 3rd world dictators idea of a navy, the ship units have got to represent naval task forces or battle groups headed up by one or more ships of the type depicted. Thats why a lot of the rules desiged to work on a macro level (like being unable to bomb and completely sink ship units because not even at Pearl Harbour or Midway did everything get sunk) do not make any sense at all when you want to build smaller scale scenarios and 1 unit really does equal one actual ship.
          To doubt everything or to believe everything are two equally convenient solutions; both dispense with the necessity of reflection.
          H.Poincaré

          Comment


          • #20
            True, true.. but how else to explain the individual presensce of ships? I mean, Bship, destoryer, sub, carrier, AEGIS cruiser.... And the carrier battlegroup, with cruiser and destroyer escorts and shawdowing subs having a defense of only 8?

            Comment


            • #21
              OMG
              cmon, those are abstractions. like hanging gardens and oracle. it's all for fun

              Comment


              • #22
                Originally posted by LaRusso


                yup
                but in fact battleship in civ 3 is a whole task force. subs are packs of subs. dont tell me task forces do not have anti-sub choppers and destroyers. balance, balance
                Oh that's fine. I'm just reacting to the earlier poster who seemed to be talking about real life. And he has never "looked through the cross-hairs"...if you know what I mean....

                I'm not making any comment about how the game should be. Just don't make a historical accuracy argument off bad info...

                Comment


                • #23
                  One mile equals one mile...

                  Originally posted by Altuar


                  Dunno, with ships I tend to consider them as individual units .. i.e, one bship represented is one bship imagined.. Whereas with most modern units I go for battalion level.
                  I agree here, the ships are a single transport - otherwise their cost doesn't make sense (a squadron of carriers would cost more than most countries defense budgets).

                  Venger

                  Comment


                  • #24
                    The ship units MUST represent individual ships.

                    Compare a US CVBG's combat elements:

                    1 Carrier
                    2 Ticonderoga class AEGIS CG
                    1 Arleigh Burke class AEGIS DDG
                    1 Spruance class DD
                    1 Oliver Hazard Perry class FFG
                    2 Los Angeles class SSN

                    The now defunct SAG built around a BB was virtually identical, except for the replacement of the Carrier by the Battleship.

                    Now, let's look at the units Civ style.

                    Each of them includes 2 AEGIS cruisers (15.12.5) and two destroyers (15.10.5). They also include 1 frigate (not represented, but a fair assumption would be around 12.7.5) and two nuclear submarines (6.4.3).

                    Look at the Carrier unit and the Battleship unit.

                    Apparently, the one unit at the core of a battlegroup matters so much that its offense suffers if the core ship lacks guns. The Carrier is 1.8.4, the battleship 18.12.5. Suddenly, when a Battleship is at the head of the battlegroup, its attack suddenly increases by 1800%? Its defence gets 50% better when a Battleship's the core of a group? It moves faster with a Battleship at the core of the group? If you believe this, you're taking abstraction to new highs.

                    -Sev

                    Comment


                    • #25
                      This is a bad bug considering it's the only defense for bomber attacks
                      It does not belong to man who is walking to direct his own step.
                      Jer. 10:23

                      Comment


                      • #26
                        How did this thread come up again?

                        Comment

                        Working...
                        X