Why doesn't the AI build destroyers?

[MudDuck13]

In my game on regent mode, the AI just builds battleships, NEVER destroyers. Destroyers are my favorite ships (to sink) so this is a major disapointment. Has anyone had AI's that actually build destroyers?

Also, I'm in the modern age and have all strategic resources except uranium, but can still build swordsmen and longbowmen. Why? I don't want them on the build list. Ironclads and privateers should also be removed from the list. Is this the same with everyone else?

[Kekkonen]

Do _you_ build destroyers? I think I've only built one, just to see what it looks like. The unit is a bit redundant; I think it has the same requirements as a battleship but it's nowhere near as powerful. Their upkeep costs are the same and I think they appear at the same time. By then, you're likely to have at least a few high-production coastal cities which can build a battleship in a resonable time, so you don't even have that excuse to build a destroyer.

Now, if a destroyer didn't need oil, you might have a reason to build one occasionally. As things stand now, I really don't see the point.

[MudDuck13]

That's the whole problem! Destroyers are made useless in the game because they have the same movement as battleships. They should have 2 more moves than battleships and battleships should be more expensive. Don't you understand, destroyers are my favorite ship and it bites that they play no role in the game. Also, what happened to normal cruisers? Why couldn't they be put in as a mid level ship between destroyers and battleships. I love naval battles, but this game is lacking compared to CivII. Please tell me they will patch this or something.

[Kekkonen]

I agree. Destroyers should be small, nimble and fast. The speed increase alone would make them worthwhile as sort of "fire squad" units (to e.g. protect your small island settlements if you find yourself in a war you didn't prepare for).

[FrankBullit]

That's what happens when they let Ernest Borgnine do the naval programming! Just another design decision that I totally fail to understand.

[Fredric Drum]

You may then want to change destroyer speed in the editor.. after reading this, I think I will.


Fred

[Sevorak]

You might want to note as a realism thing, if you're at all concerned about that, that battleships are faster than destroyers. Modern destroyers aren't anywhere near small either, the new DD-21 for the USN being projected to 14 000 tons displacement (which in WWII would have been termed a heavy cruiser or battlecruiser).

-Sev

[Akka]

Destroyer should be faster, and they should have the ability to see submarine. After all, they are the submarine hunters, and this would make them useful.
I suggest giving submarine a bonus when attacking any ship but a destroyer or an AEGIS cruiser.

About the warriors and Longbowmen still in the production queue : it's because they can upgrade to nothing, so the game think they're not obsolete. To patch this, I simply changed them in the editor so they are made obsolete by riflemen, and then can be upgraded and do not show anymore in the build queue. Should be put into the official patch I think.

[Venger]

The AI in my game built two of them, came up to my coast, and got a mouth full of artillery from my shores...

The naval units, alas like other things, are BROKEN!

Destroyer has a 12 attack, the same as the battleship defense? Huh?

I got battleships the very next tech from Destroyers...huh? Who's gonna bulid a destroyer when I can get a battleship?

A destroyer has the same move as a battleship? Huh? WW2 era machines (seeing as the battleship went bye bye in that war) the destroyer is noticeably faster than a battleship (note - an american nuclear carrier will likely outrun nearly every ship made - interesting tidbit. Speed is classified but I hear WELL in excess of fourty knots.)

I want to have some time to enjoy destroyers before getting the battleship. Gameplay testing, GAMEPLAY TESTING!

Did ANYONE making Civ3 play Civ2 and use their naval units?

Venger

[Sevorak]

Venger,

Interesting statistics you may want to know.

Modern Destroyer (Spruance class DD) - about 30-31 knots
WWII Era Battleship (Iowa class BB) - 33-35 knots

Nuclear powered aircraft carrier - between 30.6 and 33 knots - NOT forty - the numbers have been declassified - read here. The key is to not believe Tom Clancy, who is overly fanciful in nearly all of his books

Anyway, I treat Destroyers as modern destroyers (since they look like it) and since a modern destroyer would wreck any battleship just by lofting in missiles from well beyond gun range, I don't see a problem with it.

-Sev

[Venger]

Originally posted by Sevorak
Venger,

Interesting statistics you may want to know.

Modern Destroyer (Spruance class DD) - about 30-31 knots
WWII Era Battleship (Iowa class BB) - 33-35 knots

You are comparing out of era models - plus the most advanced battleship made. Your typical same era destroyer was tiny compared to today. Most battleships were in the low to mid twenties.

Nuclear powered aircraft carrier - between 30.6 and 33 knots - NOT forty - the numbers have been declassified - read here. The key is to not believe Tom Clancy, who is overly fanciful in nearly all of his books

Uh, this isn't from Tom Clancy, this is from people who are in a position to know. Note the 30+ knots listed on most carriers, and as far as I know, the top speed of both carriers and all our subs is never released with an exact number...

Anyway, I treat Destroyers as modern destroyers (since they look like it) and since a modern destroyer would wreck any battleship just by lofting in missiles from well beyond gun range, I don't see a problem with it.

So why do you get destroyers before rocketry? I'd rather not live in Civ3 Combat Fantasyland...

Venger

[dexters]

The realism debate enters the fray again.

Realism for its own sake is pointless. It's about gameplay. I agree with the sentiment here that the Destroyers can be a bit redundant but their chief advantage is for you to field a relatively large fleet faster and for less.

You can have three destroyers patrolling your coasts before you get your second BB out.


But yes, Civ 3's naval units needs a little more tweaking. They may want to consider giving Subs the ability to load cruise missles. I would have preferred a token upgrade for the ironclad to something like an advanced frigrate in the industrial era and leave destroyers for the modern era. I prefer mass producing small cheap ships for coastad duties, and ironclads are too whimpy to be of much use.

[player1]

Destoyer stats 12/8/5 cost 120
Battleship stats 18/12/5 cost 200
As you can see for a price of one Battleship, you can buy almost 2 Destroyers.
2 Dest. are better force then one battleship (esspecialy if you consider a combat system, no FP, weaker yout can beat stronger, etc...)

Plus two destoyers can bombard twice, compared to one battleship.
If you ask me, I would build Battleship only in high Ind. cities & Dest. in all other cities.

[Venger]

Originally posted by player1
Destoyer stats 12/8/5 cost 120
Battleship stats 18/12/5 cost 200
As you can see for a price of one Battleship, you can buy almost 2 Destroyers.
2 Dest. are better force then one battleship (esspecialy if you consider a combat system, no FP, weaker yout can beat stronger, etc...)

Plus two destoyers can bombard twice, compared to one battleship.
If you ask me, I would build Battleship only in high Ind. cities & Dest. in all other cities.

Can't the battleship bombard twice?

The destroyer should be something in the neighborhood of 8/8/7, not 12/10/5.

Venger

[player1]

No they can't!
Still battleships have range of fire 2, while destoyers 1.

I thnik that Destoyers are usefull this way.
But if you make them more powerfull, they could be to much usefull.

Still considering the cost, AEGIS Cruiser (160), with similar abil. of Destoryer look pretty weak.
But considering that it has radar and that it can see subs, it's ok!

Only naval units that bother me are Privateer (they should have attack of 2) & Subs (they should have attack of 10).