I gotta ask: What were they thinking?

[hatless]

i really hope we do'nt have to pay for multiplayer

[Admiral PJ]

Well, if a submarine surfaces it is vulnerable - even to cannonball fire piercing its vulnerable pressure hull. I do'nt know how often nuke subs surface, but I assume they have to refresh their air supply sometimes - CO2 scrubbers aren't 100% reliable.
Well its not impossible, you can be sure if a sub attacks first it will destroy the frigate though.

Its a case of gameplay over reality, its better that low tech resource starving civs still have some fight in them against ultra modern 'doom-armies' or you might as well retire from the game when you've conquered half the map - it will get boring without some competition. And don't think the AI can make up for this - it will never be as good as a human millitary tactician.
(unless powered by a 30,000mhz 10,000GB RAM supercomputer)

Head and Programmer for Mantra - the God of God games

[kittenOFchaos]

Brutus66
"There WERE beta testers involved with this, right? Oh yeah, I guess that's us... "A huge amount of the apolytoner whining has been from people that said they'd pay to be part of the beta test

[Sevorak]

Ah, submarines. My one complaint about Civilization combat since Civ 1.

Submarines should not be in the game. The combat model is fine, it just does not have the capacity to deal with submarines. Removing submarines would not seriously change the game much - submarines would simply join attack helicopters as important real-life units which are not found in the game.

Submarines are just too different. They deserve a class of their own, which Firaxis simply does not have time to address, and I respect that. I just think they should have left well enough alone and not included submarines.

Why do submarines, as currently implemented, not work? Several reasons.

Firstly, the vagueness of the term submarine. Splitting diesel submarines and nuclear submarines is a good start, but not when the only difference is being able to carry a nuclear weapon or not. Plus, with the nuclear submarine they are lumping together two distinct kinds, the attack submarine (SSN) and the ballistic-missile submarine (SSBN). Obviously, the SSBN should not be in the game (it carries nuclear weapons), simply because its design is to hide and be silent for 3 months at a time. It is not built for combat, it is built to be silent and hide. That leaves the diesel submarines (SS) and nuclear attack submarines (SSN). Yet the current Civ sub is an attack sub that carries nukes(?!)

Secondly, the way submarines are incorporated into attack and defence, and the way in which they are not distinguished from other units in that regard. Ships should not simply be able to attack submarines, or even detect them for that matter. WWII - era diesel submarines needed to surface and snorkel to recharge their batteries every now and then, so any ship would have some chance to detect them. Nuclear submarines are designed not to have to surface at all, and they don't - sorry Admiral PJ, but you happen to be wrong. As a matter of fact, even when firing missiles they shoot them out in waterproof canisters so they don't have to surface to do so. Ideally, when dealing with WWII-era diesel subs, there should be a percentage chance of finding them (like Stealth's percentage chance to be intercepted) at which point the ship, of whatever type, gets one attack (like a zone-of-control free shot), and the submarine submerges. Ideally, only Destroyers and AEGIS cruisers should be able to attack submarines and be able to destroy them. Those two units would also be the only ones capable of finding nuclear submarines, with a percentage chance for that as well. Ships incapable of finding nuclear submarines should be automatically destroyed by them, while diesels might get a free shot instead. Some ships, like battleships, cannot fire at submarines AT ALL and should be automatically destroyed by both types of submarines.

This works the other way, too. Submarines should have a difficult time seeing Galleys, Caravels, Privateers, and the like. Wooden sailing ships just don't make that much noise - submarines are optimized to hear other modern ships, not ancient relics. See Ehime Maru incident (and that wasn't even wooden and sailing) and USS Greeneville for reference. For that matter, some submarine weapons might not even recognize the wood thing as a target, causing a missile, say to fly straight through it without detonating.

The problem with the way the attack and defence ratings work is that if one side fails, the other side immediately gets to score a hit. This is incompatible with submarines, whose main defence is not being found. Therefore, even while in real life a submarine wttacking a battleship is in no danger at all, in Civ, the battleship's defence (12) against the submarine's attack (6) means that it has a 2/3 chance to auto-find the submarine (though it lacks sonar) and hit it (though it lacks weapons with which to do so).

Thirdly - the AI always knows where everything is, so the submarine's cannot-be-found ability is simply useless. Theoretically, only the correct ships can see submarines but the AI always knows the entire map and the location of every unit on it. This is why its frigates can attack your submarines, always successfully, and fight to the death, setting up a situation that never should happen.

A proper implementation of submarines would have them as the feared naval units they are - at any moment, they might simply pop one of your units like a barbarian vs. a worker. No flag, like Privateers. WWII scenarios would be especially good with this, given the German U-Boats' raids on shipping throughout the Atlantic (and the American subs' raids throughout the Pacific for that matter). Firaxis just doesn't have the time to do it.

Submarines are a special passion of mine: I hate to see them in Civ as just upgraded Ironclads.

-Sev

[n.c.]

Originally posted by cerebros
Ideally, unit combat would work with each unit having a weapon & armour level. For example, spearmen might have a weapon level of 2 and an armour level of 2 (better than no armour at all - value 0, and better than crude leather armour - value 1, they wear breastplates and things). Tanks would have a weapon & armour level of 20.

Sounds a bit like hit points relating technology and actual abilty to withstand damage.

I remember a game where a battleship had 4x the hit points of a warrior, and just returned a game where the reverse can be true with certain morale levels.

[Venger]

Dive! Dive!

Sevorak -

I think submarines can and do work with the proper rules. The biggest problem as implemented is that the submarine cannot occupy the same space as another ship, whereas they can in real life. Hence, any ship can detect them when they bump into and cannot move into their square...

I created two sumarines from one in Civ2 - the normal submarine, and the fast attack submarine, with enhanced firepower and movement. This covered your difference quite well.

As to capabilities in the new combat system, an older sub should not be able to carry missiles, the new unit should be able to carry two missile units, either cruise or ICBM.

As to detecting ships, a heavy transport makes tons of noise in the water, but so can a creaking hull... but this is a minor complaint. If only one nation had submarines against wooden hulled ships, you'd simply sail the oceans surfaced and dive to attack...

As to defense ratings, I know what you mean, but most modern warships have ASW systems, so the counter attack portion isn't too bad. Think of damage from fighting an ironclad or frigate as reduced endurance due to ordinance expenditure...

All in all, I think submarines can be done right - if we can solve detection...

Venger

[Sevorak]

Venger,

Wooden creaking hulls just don't make the kind of sound sonar techs look for. It would likely be either classified as a biological or simply filtered out. But then again, in a hypothetical world where one civ had subs and one had wooden ships, they'd probably figure out a way to detect them.

Most modern warships have ASW systems, but two glaring examples - the carrier and the battleship - do not, and I can't conceptualize a submarine imploding from lack of ammo

Hmm, well, rethinking, I guess you can assume a 'default' loadout of ASW helos and S-3 type fixed wings on the carrier. Since we're working on rationalizations. The battleship, though....

My main complaint was always the detection, really, it's just that the reality of the situation - the AI knows all and sees all - is what constitutes the problem. That, and the inability of ships to pass obliviously over it.

-Sev

[Ludwig]

Cerebros is on the right track in analyzing the combat system - by thinking about NUMBER. However, I think you have to think of the number of troops involved in a different way.

If you have a stack of twenty tanks, and they are attacked by knights, and one of the tanks is destroyed, how should you react?

You could say, "No tank division has ever been destroyed by crusaders on horseback, damn it!"

But you could ALSO say, "It isn't all that unusual to have 5% casualty rates during a campaign, even when the enemy is dramatically inferior technologically."

The combat system only looks broken if you think that units should be considered singly. Looked at in the aggregate, and considering that turns are years-long and represent campaigns and not individual battles, the outcomes are near enough.

[n.c.]

Originally posted by Ludwig
If you have a stack of twenty tanks, and they are attacked by knights... how should you react?

"Where the hell did those Medieval units come from in the Modern Age?"

Oops, wait! I thought we were talking about a game based on reality. Must have gotten caught up in that "Rewrite history" stuff I saw somewhere. (Where was that?)

[Mortis]

Originally posted by Sevorak

Why do submarines, as currently implemented, not work? Several reasons.

Firstly, the vagueness of the term submarine. Splitting diesel submarines and nuclear submarines is a good start, but not when the only difference is being able to carry a nuclear weapon or not. Plus, with the nuclear submarine they are lumping together two distinct kinds, the attack submarine (SSN) and the ballistic-missile submarine (SSBN). Obviously, the SSBN should not be in the game (it carries nuclear weapons), simply because its design is to hide and be silent for 3 months at a time. It is not built for combat, it is built to be silent and hide. That leaves the diesel submarines (SS) and nuclear attack submarines (SSN). Yet the current Civ sub is an attack sub that carries nukes(?!)

-rememebr the scope of the game. with combat on this scale, things have to be at least somewhat absracted. not to mention, surely you are aware that the LA class SSN's carry Tomahawk cruise missles which have a nuclear capability?


Secondly, the way submarines are incorporated into attack and defence, and the way in which they are not distinguished from other units in that regard. Ships should not simply be able to attack submarines, or even detect them for that matter. WWII - era diesel submarines needed to surface and snorkel to recharge their batteries every now and then, so any ship would have some chance to detect them. Nuclear submarines are designed not to have to surface at all, and they don't - sorry Admiral PJ, but you happen to be wrong. As a matter of fact, even when firing missiles they shoot them out in waterproof canisters so they don't have to surface to do so. Ideally, when dealing with WWII-era diesel subs, there should be a percentage chance of finding them (like Stealth's percentage chance to be intercepted) at which point the ship, of whatever type, gets one attack (like a zone-of-control free shot), and the submarine submerges. Ideally, only Destroyers and AEGIS cruisers should be able to attack submarines and be able to destroy them. Those two units would also be the only ones capable of finding nuclear submarines, with a percentage chance for that as well. Ships incapable of finding nuclear submarines should be automatically destroyed by them, while diesels might get a free shot instead. Some ships, like battleships, cannot fire at submarines AT ALL and should be automatically destroyed by both types of submarines.

-again, this isn't harpoon. 100% realism isn't the goal here. although I concede that frigates sinking subs of any kind is absurd.

This works the other way, too. Submarines should have a difficult time seeing Galleys, Caravels, Privateers, and the like. Wooden sailing ships just don't make that much noise - submarines are optimized to hear other modern ships, not ancient relics. See Ehime Maru incident (and that wasn't even wooden and sailing) and USS Greeneville for reference. For that matter, some submarine weapons might not even recognize the wood thing as a target, causing a missile, say to fly straight through it without detonating.

-if the "enemy" has such units, I would be remiss in my responsiblities as a commander if I did not train my troops/sailors in how to recgonize/eliminate that threat. as for weapons...a return to medium caliber deck guns in retractable housings backed up by radar fire control would suffice against any wooden vessel. IIRC, the Ehime Maru was not a "primitve" vessel. something went very wrong there for the sub not to have detected her.

The problem with the way the attack and defence ratings work is that if one side fails, the other side immediately gets to score a hit. This is incompatible with submarines, whose main defence is not being found. Therefore, even while in real life a submarine wttacking a battleship is in no danger at all, in Civ, the battleship's defence (12) against the submarine's attack (6) means that it has a 2/3 chance to auto-find the submarine (though it lacks sonar) and hit it (though it lacks weapons with which to do so).

-you proceed from a false assumption. namely that because historically no one has ever built a BB with ASW capability that it can't be done.

Thirdly - the AI always knows where everything is, so the submarine's cannot-be-found ability is simply useless. Theoretically, only the correct ships can see submarines but the AI always knows the entire map and the location of every unit on it. This is why its frigates can attack your submarines, always successfully, and fight to the death, setting up a situation that never should happen.

-this is a coding issue, and probably a tough one. how possible is it really to seperate the AI from the game engine?


A proper implementation of submarines would have them as the feared naval units they are - at any moment, they might simply pop one of your units like a barbarian vs. a worker. No flag, like Privateers. WWII scenarios would be especially good with this, given the German U-Boats' raids on shipping throughout the Atlantic (and the American subs' raids throughout the Pacific for that matter). Firaxis just doesn't have the time to do it.

-in truth, all aspects of combat in the game could be fleshed out...at which point it becomes a very different game.


-Sev

[TCO]

Originally posted by Admiral PJ
Well, if a submarine surfaces it is vulnerable - even to cannonball fire piercing its vulnerable pressure hull. I do'nt know how often nuke subs surface, but I assume they have to refresh their air supply sometimes - CO2 scrubbers aren't 100% reliable.

You can go a whole war patrol without ventilating. Can go under the icecap, etc...

[Kc7mxo]

The combat system only looks broken if you think that units should be considered singly. Looked at in the aggregate, and considering that turns are years-long and represent campaigns and not individual battles, the outcomes are near enough.

Um. No. My modern armor should NOT lose to conscript riflemen, no longer how damn long they fight.

rationalization is for the weak minded. u want to rationalize away your problems, fine, go ahead. but that doesn't make them any less of a problem.

As it stands, the combat system isn't terrible, but it allows terrible things to happen.

[Baloo]

If you think that the way combat is implemented in Civ III is there for the sake of gameplay and playbalance, I'm all for you.

But on the other hand, if you try to explain the unrealistic combat outcome with lame excuses such as "accidents happen" and "didn't it happened before in history? Once, twice?".... well, I think you've smoked too much.

[korn469]

i think most of you are going about this in the wrong way, balance should be decided not only by historical fact, but shields, resources, and tech levels also figure into the equation

not only is it a shame that a spearman can beat modern armor from a historical viewpoint, but then you also must see if the game is balanced on a unit attributes alone

think of it like this...if a player invests 100 shields into a unit but it loses 75% of the time to a unit that costs 25 shields then the game isn't properly balanced (saying of course they are both in the same role)

for example if swordmen cost 100 shields and could defeat a spearman 10% of the time, but an archer which cost 10 shields could defeat a spearman 95% of the time and both filled the role of an ancient era assault unit

[Sevorak]

-you proceed from a false assumption. namely that because historically no one has ever built a BB with ASW capability that it can't be done.

I knew someone would bring this up. Yes, it is a valid point, but in that case, why bother assigning specific attributes to ANY unit? Especially in a game that purports to at least be loosely based on history. What that reduces units to is "small unit with combat values x and y" and "larger unit with combat values x and y", where x and y represent any weapons system necessary to achieve that numerical ranking. I mean, you might as well ask for your laser infantry with rocket packs at that point. Sure, no one's done it, but that isn't to say it can't be done. Right?

Aside from that, incorporating a sonar dome into a BB armour scheme simply boggles the mind. That, and adding something like VLS ASROC, which isn't that good anyway (since it's now out of use)....it's hard to argue that whatever ASW modifications you'd conceivably do to a battleship warrant the same defensive rating as against any other ship. I'd call the ASW destroyer's ASW setup superior to any hypothetical ASW setup you could drop on a BB, just because you can always do it better on a destroyer. That is ALWAYS true, just because the bombardment nature of a battleship requires certain things that exclude certain other possibilities. Unless you want to strip off the 16"/50's and call it a Large ASW Ship - but then, we're back to the "ship-that-can-do-everything, values x and y" deal. I mean, history bears out the fact that putting ASW on a battleship is impractical - otherwise, don't you think it would have been done by now? Military engineers don't make a habit of ignoring good ideas.

-Sev