The Altera Centauri collection has been brought up to date by Darsnan. It comprises every decent scenario he's been able to find anywhere on the web, going back over 20 years.
25 themes/skins/styles are now available to members. Check the select drop-down at the bottom-left of each page.
Call To Power 2 Cradle 3+ mod in progress: https://apolyton.net/forum/other-games/call-to-power-2/ctp2-creation/9437883-making-cradle-3-fully-compatible-with-the-apolyton-edition
Announcement
Collapse
No announcement yet.
Do you think airplanes should be able to sink ships?
I'll have to somewhat aggree with GePap there. No disrespect, korn. I respect your modding abilities, and I don't doubt that your solution would work for someone who just really wants airplane action at all cost, just for the sake of it. It's clever. It's ingenious. But from the more casual user point of view it's rather unwieldy to have to load the warheads AND the airplanes separately, then load each warhead onto a plane, then individually cary it, launch it, go back to port for more warheads, etc. It's probably realistic, no doubt, but that kind of realism doesn't exist anywhere in the rest of the game. E.g., that BB can roam around the seq for ever, and I don't ever have to load ammo onto it manually. The whole game is at a different... wossname... level of abstraction, and that kind of "only one type of unit needs you to load its ammo manually" gameplay kind of sticks out and is fairly inconvenient.
Some of us are less of an inventor, and more of your average point-and-drool gamer.
That's in the end the whole reason for asking for support from the game engine, instead of making our own Incredible Machine contraptions that need manual winding and reloading for each shot.
well this thread was started by the same person who said "Can you sink ships with airplanes with the new patch? if u cant im not playing it?"
so if it bothered him that bad, then even instead of making a completely new unit he could of made airplanes be able to carry cruise missiles which pack quite a punch
so this problem can be somewhat alliveated in the editor...then what you are left with are two arguments for aircraft being able to sink ships
1) it'll make aircraft more balanced (and therefore more fun)
2) it'll make the game more realistic (and therefore more fun)
i disagree about the balanced part and ralf gives a good summary here
I think its a very good idea that airplanes cant sink ships, and I believe that decision is gameplay-related, rather then reality-related. Partly it has to do with the fact that modern ships in Civ-3 is generally more shield-expensive then airplanes:
The only exception is the Stealth bomber, with a hefty prizetag of 240 shields, but that unit comes rather late in the game.
In addition to above generally more expensive navy shield-costs, remember that foreign warships outside your coastal cities, far away from their harbour-equipped homecities cannot heal their battlewounds easily, until 5 hospitals (= 5 x 120 shields = 600 shields) + the small Wonder "Battlefield medicine" (= 500 shields) have been built. Even then the healing-advantage is on the coastal city-defenders side, because an naval attacker cant move and heal its injuries at the same time. It must be inactive for one turn (and therefore loose momentum).
Now - IF Firaxis really should let fighters and bombers sink battleships for example, it could lead to big gameplay-unbalancing consequences. Remember that fighters and bombers cannot get killed other then by counteracting enemy-fighters. Sending airplanes to sink modern ships would be a 100% riskfree operation, the way air-attacks are currently designed in Civ-3. Even a carrier + 4 jetfighters (= 160 + 400 shields) would be at an disadvantage, because the landbased defender, with lots bombers and jetfighters in his cities, would probably initiate the attack-wave in advance, in order to fend off naval attacks and transport-landing operations, prepard as he is. And the attacker has always an succesfull battle-outcome probability advantage against single unprepared (= unfortified) enemy-units.
One could argue to above; "Well, then they should add offensive airplane-attacking abilities to modern warships, as well". But then we are talking MAJOR unit-ability alterations, with unforeseen gameplay-consequences - requiring weeks and weeks (if not months) of inhouse playtesting all over again; for this single unit-ability alteration alone.
At the end of the day; would it really be worth it? Isnt their OTHER additions and feature-alterations the Firaxis-team can emphasize instead?.
If you want to counteract enemyships lurking outside your coastal cities, just build your own damn ships and coastal fortresses, and use your artillery, for crying out load. Try to live (and have fun) with those rules instead. And stop whining about above airforce-vs-navy limitation, as if it is some kind of major gamebreaker. It simply isnt.
and as for being more realistic, possibly but then again Civ3 has nothing to do with realism
hopefully firaxis can give us a patch that has a toggle switch in the editor at least, so we could have it both ways, but as far as being helpless because your airforce can only severly damage an opposing navy, that is not the case
unhurt veteran destroyers will make quick work of 1hp battleships, then they can return to port and heal any damage they might have suffered
In the meanwhile, aircraft carriers could be given a big bombard attack, with a long range to simulate torpedo bombers etc which
can launch from aircraft carriers.
I know you can make MOBILE airunits too, that can move across
the sea like the old aircraft could.. this makes units like helicopters, it MAY be able to attack ships especially if given
a artilerry bombard setting (then it wouldn't be an air unit though).
Frankly, the argument that, since certain aspects of Civ are inherently unrealistic and can't be fixed without making an entirely different game, it is not worthwhile to fix unrealistic things that can easy be fixed just doesn't hold water. The reason should be obvious - let's make it as realistic as possible within the limitations of the game engine.
That aircraft can't get hurt bombing ground units & ships under the current rules is NOT an arguement against letting aircraft sink ships. Modern units can just as easily be given a defensive anti-air capability, and that should be part of the deal.
As to killing ground units, air units alone have just not destoyed major ground units alone, even taking "destroyed" to mean rendered incapable of further combat rather than killing everybody. The basic rule for an abstracted game should be that if something happens only as a freak circumstance in real life, it should be ommitted from the game unless it can be modelled in such a way to make it just as rare. If air units can destroy ground units at all, it will happen routinely. However, in real life most air attacks on ground units are pretty integrated with friendly ground unit operations - "close air support". The way air power in Civ3 works today with respect to ground units models what happens 99% of the time in real life pretty well (within the limits of the game engine). Letting air units kill ground units would not.
BTW, 60% of combat tank loses are returned to service within two weeks unless the owner has fled the battlefield, tank loses are usually 10 times the tank crew loses, and any modern army has spare tanks in the logistical pipeline. Again, wacking an armored division down to 1 HP so it needs to limp off and "heal" is a pretty good model of reality.
The reason they can't do this is because they have to set it such that bombard either kills or does not kill, and in a fit of utter stupidity they made it possible for SHIPS TO BOMBARD SHIPS. If bombard could kill, naval combat would simply cease to exist, with both sides simply building masses of battleships and bombarding each other to death.
No other units in the game can both attack another unit of the same type normally, and also attack a different way without being shot at in return. Removing the ability of ships to bombard ships would solve a LOT of problems.
Originally posted by Sevorak
The reason they can't do this is because they have to set it such that bombard either kills or does not kill, and in a fit of utter stupidity they made it possible for SHIPS TO BOMBARD SHIPS. If bombard could kill, naval combat would simply cease to exist, with both sides simply building masses of battleships and bombarding each other to death.
No other units in the game can both attack another unit of the same type normally, and also attack a different way without being shot at in return. Removing the ability of ships to bombard ships would solve a LOT of problems.
-Sev
Isn't "masses of battleships bombarding each other to death" pretty much a description of a sea battle between 20th Century battleships?
I think the other ships would still have their missions -
Transports to carry troops
Carriers to carry aircraft, which have a longer reach than the battleship's bombardment
Destroyers as (1) cheap scouts to find the other guys battleships and (2) escorts to stack with transports because of the submarine threat.
Submarines can't be bombarded by battleships, and continue as before.
However, nothing says that just because aircraft bombardment can kill ships you have to let ship bombardment do it. They can program one and not the other - let ship bombardment factors only work against shore targets.
Originally posted by GePap
barefootbadass:
Airplanes can sink ships, period. We can always give ships the ability to hit back, which would allay your fears. The fact is that carriers are the most important ships of all in terms of naval combat, not BB's (as much as I love BB's).
I never said otherwise, but it would unbalance the system if aircraft were merely changed to be able to kill ala cruise missiles(the unit in the game). Anyway, the system as it is effectively models reality as an abstraction. Carriers are still very important in dominating naval battles or in coastal invasions. Basically changing bombers to be something besides a bombardment unit would involve changes to several elements of the game, and is IMO unnecessary, and fretting over this difference is a bit trite, since air power is as important in the game as it is in real life, period.
Wouldn't it be possible to build a non-immobile ground unit, give it a high defense and medium attack strength. Give it about move 3-4, ability to treat ALL terrain as roads, and a limited bombardment ability. This could then be your divebomber! Like the ones they used to take out the battleships at Pearl Harbour. This way, you could take out enemy ships, but the flip-side is that you would be susceptible to ground attack.
On a related issue, is their any way to give modern naval vessels (and some ground units) the ability to bring down air units (at least fighters!!) Any info on this would be appreciated.
And not being able to sink ships with air (or any other bombardment, like artillery on the coast or from battleship bombardment) is not right. Oh yeah, nukes should also be much nastier, killing all units (including ships) in the target space and half those at radius 1 (maybe have a modifier for units at radius 1 but in a fort). Maybe have ICBMs (should be like H-Bombs, bigger than tactical nukes) kill 1/4 of units out to radius 2, and 3/4 of city population. Plus more pollution at radius 2. Plus cause lots of damage to units not killed. Maybe they could make these options in the mods?
How can the CivIII bombardment system be justified when cruise missiles kill a unit when 1000lbs (normally what aircrafts carry) bombs cannot?
Yes bombing didn't win the Vietnam war. However, aside from being uncommited, the US lost because of massive foreign aid from communist nations, not because they didn't kill the ground troops they bombed. While the US loses were high, the north VN loses were much more horrendous.
Some people have said that air can attack sea units without being damaged. Doesn't the AS mission solve this? (Adding combat bonus for AGEIS cruisers when defending against air would also help to solve this) There is no reason why air unit shouldn't be able to sink ships.
Tweet
Comment