Can you sink ships with airplanes with the new patch? if u cant im not playing it?

[Disk Killer]

That being said, I fully support an option in the editor for those unhappy with the design decision. Of course, some will still complain that they shouldn't have to use the editor......

[GePap]

1 unit = 1 ship

I'm sorry Dish Killer, but the notion that Fixaris is trying to pass off, that 1 unit equals an entire fleet, and thats why your airpower can't sink it is nonesense. Are you telling me that if I have 40 BB's in the game, then I have actually 280? Preytell who even had 280 BB's? Humm? I know, NO ONE

Lets use your (and Sorens) Civ3 game terms: At midway the US had 3 carriers, so that is one in Civ speak, and it carried 6 fighters (I don't think carriers should be able to carry multi-engine bombers. They did only once, for Doolite, and that was only for one take-off. They simply could not have landed back on). The Japanese have 2 carries, as you said. Thats 12 fighters. The japanese keep 1 fighter doing interception, the other bomb units at midway. US sends all 6 fighters at 1 Japanese carrier. lets say that 1 gets stopped by the japanese, the japanese fighter is destroyed, and thus the other 4 fighters make it through. If they all hit (with a ROF 1) then, unless tha carrier is elite, the Carrier is sunk. That still leaves one entire japanese carrier to flee home, like Soren said. So, even if fighters got to sink ships, midway happens.

A better argument is the theoretical. With only 3 carriers, and for the loss of one, the US sank 4 carriers. If the US had had a big enough carrier fleet, would any japanese carriers gotten away? If at any time one side had a very large nummerical advantege and got the tactical advantage over the enemy, the entire enemy battlegroup would be sunk, all of it. The example of repulse and prince of wales was brought up, and it was a good one- no ships got to limp home since the entire group was sunk- yet civ3 as it can't model that, even though civ2 could. And as for using historical data- If we ever got to have WW2 scenerios for this game, how would the American playuer ever be able to destroy the Japanese fleet, or the other way around? As is, unless you use BB's or destroyers (highly historically inaccurate) then thier carrier group will survive for ever unless you take a city in which it is stattioned in (also highly inaccurate).

Please Dish Killer: don't try to use historical fact for your argument when the weight of historical evidence is overwhelmingly against you. Stick to explaning it in terms of gameply decisions (and as i belive, bad ones at that)

[Jaybe]

Cruise Missles sink ships! (and 'Clams Have Legs!')

Cruise Missles (Ground Based as they are), are KILLERS (literally). They are unique in the 'bombardment' arena with that.

I thought in the Editor with [version 1.07f] that they had only '2' RoF, but in [version 1.17f] their RoF is '3' as is usually documented (can do 3 hit points of damage).

[Venger]

Originally posted by Disk Killer
A) I look at the individual units in Civ3 to be the equivalent of a battle/transport group.

When it comes to naval vessels, I think you are more accurately seeing a single ship represented.

B) Japan lost 4 carriers of the 9 carriers they had at the battle of Midway.

This is utterly incorrect. Only 4 carriers participated in the fleet action at Midway, the Akagi, Hiryu, Soryu, and Kaga. The Hosho was a crappy little boat with 8 planes on it. The Zuiho was less crappy but still not a fleet carrier, and was dedicated to action against Midway proper - she didn't engage the American carriers.

[quote] The rest of the carrier group [groups, actually] limped home. Civ3 equivalent: 2 carriers both damaged down to 1 HP each.[/url]

That's a Fantasyland equivalent.

D) Pearl Harbor was devastating for the US Navy, but it is historical revisionism to describe it as "pretty much destroying the US Pacific Fleet";

That was the Navy's assessment - and is why the US had ZERO battleships available at the battle of Midway.

There were TWENTY Navy ships in harbor at the time of the attack. This is the most obvious air power attack on surface assets in World History;

Oh my God...please read naval history of the Pacific before returning to the thread. The battle of Midway had far more ships. As did the battle of Coral Sea...and Leyte Gulf...and...you get the picture...

and yet it succeeded in the loss of only 15% of the US Fleet at Pearl Harbor. And in 2 1/2 years, all other damaged vessels were back in service.

Sigh...the ONLY reason there were any returns to service was because they were sunk in 40 feet of water...

Any other questions?

How does it feel to be so incorrect on this matter?

Venger

[simwiz2]

air power is simply useless as it is. great, lets build some bombers so we can have half the runs fail, not even be able to actually destroy anything (lets see, this ship is almost completely damaged, i shouldnt bomb it because firaxis said not to destroy ships ) so someone builds some bombers, and the opponent uses that production to build alot more tanks. guess who wins this battle? hint: NOT the air power right now air power is a waste of time.

the ability to sink ships could easily fix this

[Vonotar]

Originally posted by Rust
Ships have little use as it is, why completely destroy their power.

The Modern Navy is closely linked with the Airforce, look at Afganistan where planes involved in the bombing campaigns took off from Aircraft carriers.

Fact is that having an Airforce does reduce the ability of Ships, however UNTIL YOU HAVE THE ABILITY TO FLY the Navy is of vast importance.

The modern Navy is mostly concerned with transportation.

[whosurdaddy]

Yea, i hardly ever post here, but this is ridiculous that airplanes can't sink ships!!!!! Do you all know that Battleships are no longer even used in the world's navies??? Why? Because aircraft have practically completely taken over the antiship role. This means that even countries without any navies whatsoever have a chance against other people's naval forces (i.e. argentina vs britain, falkland islands war). My aircraft carriers are now practically useless in an antishipping role, complete anathema to history!!!! Well, good luck to anyone out there on making that World War 2 battle of the Pacific scenario .... oh wait, even if that scenario was possible we dont even have any scenario tools anyway

[gachnar]

What a bunch of raving whiners.

You refuse to play the game because you dont like the rules?

I understand. You dont want to actually have to diversify. You want to be able to go all air power and win.

I will concede that even with the 1 unit = Many ships (which Soren stated was the design, not even an arguable point), it is possible to sink every ship in a battlegroup with air power.

But it hasnt happened much, and there are many more instances of bombers castrating entire battle groups, but being unable to finish them off.

I support Firaxis:

1) Because this improves gameplay by forcing whining losers to diversify and coordinate (Imagine how boring it would be to gut a few destroyers and then sweep in and finish them off with subs)

2) Because they have to listen to brats like you and they still try to help people.

[korn469]

air power is simply useless as it is. great, lets build some bombers so we can have half the runs fail, not even be able to actually destroy anything (lets see, this ship is almost completely damaged, i shouldnt bomb it because firaxis said not to destroy ships ) so someone builds some bombers, and the opponent uses that production to build alot more tanks. guess who wins this battle? hint: NOT the air power right now air power is a waste of time.

the ability to sink ships could easily fix this

the ability of air units to sink ships neither makes jet fighters better, nor does it make the game more realistic, the game is completely unrealistic as it is now, but if air units are simply allowed to sink ships that means

WW2 bombers would then have a fairly easy time sinking Aegis cruisers while Fighters and Jet Fighters would struggle to sink Ironclads and would be virtually ineffective against Battleships

the reason that air units can't completely destroy either sea or ground units is because firaxis feels that this balances the game and encourages the player to use combined arms tactics

[Raleigh]

Im sure a system could be worked out to let airpower sink ships while maintaining balance.

At least an editor option for this would be nice.

Someone said navy is useless in the game? Now that bombardment can destroy improvements, just let a few frigates loose against even a modern empire. They will destroy every coastal city in sight, by destroying their surroudning mines and irrigation and roads and then their improvements! Especially since artillery and planes can't sink them! Utterly devestating!

[korn469]

Raleigh

if you haven't noticed citizens, buildings, and tile improvments all have a natural resistance to bombardment

before the current patch it was four, so if a catapult tried to bombard a city it would have about a 50% chance of killing a citizen or destroying a building, while a stealth bomber or a battleship would have about a 67% chance of doing the same

in the patch they raised the defense value to 8, so now all of those pesky frigates have about a 20% chance of actually destroying a tile improvement, where as an ironclad has about a 33% chance of doing the same

so one shot out of three doesn't seem like too much of a threat, certainly not when you can build ships to protect yourself from this, and far from devistating

[Wrong_shui]

Originally posted by gachnar
What a bunch of raving whiners.

You refuse to play the game because you dont like the rules?

I understand. You dont want to actually have to diversify. You want to be able to go all air power and win.

I will concede that even with the 1 unit = Many ships (which Soren stated was the design, not even an arguable point), it is possible to sink every ship in a battlegroup with air power.

But it hasnt happened much, and there are many more instances of bombers castrating entire battle groups, but being unable to finish them off.

I support Firaxis:

1) Because this improves gameplay by forcing whining losers to diversify and coordinate (Imagine how boring it would be to gut a few destroyers and then sweep in and finish them off with subs)

2) Because they have to listen to brats like you and they still try to help people.

Jesus, take that **** out your mouth and grow some balls

[King of Rasslin]

Learn to play, newb

How are u complaining about reducing a ship to 1 hp? With combat balanced, a Man-O-War could sink an injured battleship.

You just want to go mass-air and blow up anything that gets near your cities. You probably only play on Pangaea because you ignore the naval side of the game.

Make mayb 3 or 4 destroyers and your bombers and them can stop just about any enemy navy. They also tend to retreat after being reduced to 1 hp.

This game just requires more thinking than Civ 2. Its ok, some people can't handle it.

And a ship at 1 hp is as good as dead, Midway and other battles were exceptions, but i think it is more of a balance choice to make it so you actually have to build water units.

[Hurry]

I can to a point agree that you easily could skip building a fleet if bombers would be able to sink ships. On the other hand, the current rules are totally unrealistic, and can only be justified by game balance considerations. The worst part of the current rules is that aircraft carriers are next to worthless.

As some have pointed out, simply allowing bombers to be able to sink ships with nothing else changed in the rules, would be just as unrealistic. In order to have balanced, and to at least an extent, realistic rules about air-ship combat, the rules would at least need to be changed in the following ways:

* Less chance of hitting ships than ground units (especially for older air units - this is because ships were hard to find. Or maybe less chance of finding the longer way the air unit has to move).
* Anti-aircraft capability of ships (i.e. bombers could also be shot down)
* Working carriers and airsuperiority missions (which I guess is fixed in the patch I have downloaded but not yet installed)

I believe Firaxis again gave priority to simplicity and gameplay over realism.

[sachmo71]

God damn, how many times are we going to have the same freaking conversation? Should aircraft be able to sink ships? It doesn't ****ing matter, because it probably isn't ever going to be changed. Contrary to some of the arguments I have seen in other threads, it would be a large undertaking to change the way airpower works in the game. This isn't what is bugging me, though. What I find utterly insane is that SOME people who went out and spent $50 on a game they have been waiting years for will refuse to play it because of this one ****ing issue! It doesn't make a whole lot of sense, but I guess I'm just one of those people who try and get the most out of every penny I spend. Hey, I have some friends whom I would love to give your copy of the game to. Just let me know. I'll pay for the shipping.