Why the rules whiners are wrong

[Evil_Eric_4]

The submarine should be impossible to target for a bombing

Even as far back as WW2 The airplane has proven itself a capable
ASW weapon. Its even more important now.

[n.c.]

So let me see if I understand: a problem with past games (air vs. navy) was solved not by simply making the combat a bit more even, but pretending that planes cannot sink ships?

This is bad enough. Worse is that many people don't seem to question it at all. Worse still is that some actually defend it.

[Green Giant]

IMO each unit represents several of its kind. If you want me to explain the evidence to you I will but it is fairly obvious. When has an air power destroyed an entire battle group? When has air power destroyed an entire army?

Can anyone tell me when, at any point, did any game in the civ series claim to be a realistic simulation? Everything is abstracted, if it wasn't the game would be a micromanagement nightmare and a bore because the play balance would be off the wall. Nukes destroying entire cities? Yes in real life its true but how fun would it be to get wiped out in one turn? You want realism in war, go play Operational Art of War, its a great and very realistic wargame. I like things the way they are, fun and balanced.

EDIT: I must add though that I do agree with you on the complaint of fighters not working. Its so obvous its incredible. I don't know if I have ever seen anything that bad, a whole unit that is so important in the late-game, totally worthless.

[n.c.]

Originally posted by Green Giant
When has an air power destroyed an entire battle group?

When have navies been immune from air attack? Firaxis' solution was worse than the problem.

-"Everything is abstracted"
There is a big difference between abstract and absurd.

-"I like things the way they are, fun and balanced."
Were they not in Civ II/SMAC? If not, weren't the solutions less problematic than the ones devised by Firaxis?

[codemast01]

Originally posted by Green Giant
When has an air power destroyed an entire battle group? When has air power destroyed an entire army?

When have cruise missiles destoryed an entire army. Cause that's what happens in Civ3. Yet a group of bombers cannot sink a ship.

Another point. People keep saying air power is too powerful comared to the navy. The truth is air power has become more powerful since WWII. Navies have moved from ship to ship combat to air to ship combat. The battleship has waned in importances as a fighting unit while the carrier has gained in importance. Other ships are built to protect the carrier. (The term carrier battlegroup hints at the carrier's importance) To make a long story short, air power is suppose to be superior to naval power.

Can anyone tell me when, at any point, did any game in the civ series claim to be a realistic simulation?

True. However war and Civilization are intertwined. (If you don't think Friaxis thought war is important, just look at all the stuff you can build. I don't know the exact numbers but I would venture to say that nearly half of the things you can build in Civilization are units) So at least make war as realistic as possible.

[WhiteElephants]

So at least make war as realistic as possible.

How and where would you propose the realism end? Should we worry about the armor penetration values for our M1A1 Abrams agaisnt the side armor of another modern battle tank? Should we have a counter that tells us how many bullets our units have left? Should we know which units are fatigued and fresh? Should it cost gold to replace hit points? Should we be informed when the squad leader is killed?

[codemast01]

Originally posted by WhiteElephants


How and where would you propose the realism end? Should we worry about the armor penetration values for our M1A1 Abrams agaisnt the side armor of another modern battle tank? Should we have a counter that tells us how many bullets our units have left? Should we know which units are fatigued and fresh? Should it cost gold to replace hit points? Should we be informed when the squad leader is killed?

There is no need for sarcasm. Realistic as possible means : Try to avoid glaring unrealistic situations like swordmans destroying tanks and airplanes (the focus of modern naval battles) that are unable to sink ships. The modern navy revovles around the carrier and its planes.

[Ancientfool]

A simple 'check box' that allowed you to mark units as destroyable via bombardment (in the editor) would solve the entire controversy. People who want carriers to be sunk by aircraft could just flag the carriers as vulnerable. Easy.

Will they do it? beats me.

[n.c.]

This discussion sounds familiar . . . .

[Monoriu]

Originally posted by codemast01


There is no need for sarcasm. Realistic as possible means : Try to avoid glaring unrealistic situations like swordmans destroying tanks and airplanes (the focus of modern naval battles) that are unable to sink ships. The modern navy revovles around the carrier and its planes.

Other "glaring unrealistic situations" in the game include:

1. Pyramids serve as granaries in all cities.
2. Takes 200 years to produce a band of warriors.
3. San Francisco suffers more corruption than New York because its further from Washington DC.
4. Takes 50 years to move from New York to Boston.
5. The Spanish fleet moved faster becasue of Magellan's expedition.
6. The Iroquois are famous and feared because of their mounted warriors.
7. USA does not need any electricity plants because they have already built the Hoover dam.

Do you need more? Do you understand what I am saying? The focus of Civ 3 is not realism.

[jackshot]

Originally posted by Monoriu


Other "glaring unrealistic situations" in the game include:

1. Pyramids serve as granaries in all cities.

BTW, it is now thought that the Egyptians did not use slave labor to buld the pyramids. Instead they enticed commoners to haul tons of stone around by virtue of an elaborate food distribution system. Laborers worked for the food, and huge Nile-based infrastructures of transportation and storage were put in place to make it happen.

Just thought I'd mention it. But I'm sorry, it's Civ and I expect a cartoony, what-if version of history. Otherwise the whole thing is nothing but a lot of arbitrary +1's and 50% bonuses and so many turns until completion.

[TheDarkside]

Originally posted by WhiteElephants


How and where would you propose the realism end? Should we worry about the armor penetration values for our M1A1 Abrams agaisnt the side armor of another modern battle tank? Should we have a counter that tells us how many bullets our units have left? Should we know which units are fatigued and fresh? Should it cost gold to replace hit points? Should we be informed when the squad leader is killed?

It's a shame when exaggeration and sarcasm gets introiduced...
but regardless, If you read my posts I'm not trying to argue for the realism extreme. I'm trying to voice support for a compromise. First it's a few planes can destory entire fleet, now planes are nothing to be feared again by navies. Can't we find a middle ground here?

[Akka]

Originally posted by Evil_Eric_4




Even as far back as WW2 The airplane has proven itself a capable
ASW weapon. Its even more important now.

I suggested to make submarines immune to airplane bombing on a balance issue, so that someone could not just produce carriers and rule the sea. He would have to produce destroyer/battleship to escort the carrier (BTW the combat values of submarines just plain suck, the normal sub should be AT LEAST 8/3 rather than 6/4 and the nuclear one 10/4 AT LEAST).

Now, airplanes were useful to track down and sink submarines in WW2 only when they were already spotted (ie naval fight already engaged) or were close from the surface (then they were possible to see from the air). So its not completely illogical to make them immune to bombing. Just a little simplification to make a unit actually worthless something good

[HunterAssasin]

I don't think submarines should be immune to bombing, if you can see it through an AEGIS cruiser or whatever you should be able to order bombers to bomb in the general vicinity but have a greatly reduced chance to hit against them.

[Akka]

Originally posted by HunterAssasin
I don't think submarines should be immune to bombing, if you can see it through an AEGIS cruiser or whatever you should be able to order bombers to bomb in the general vicinity but have a greatly reduced chance to hit against them.

Make sense. If they increase the stats of the submarines (which are barely able to sink trireme actually), then your idea fits well in the game.