Do you think airplanes should be able to sink ships?

[Seeker]

"Isn't "masses of battleships bombarding each other to death" pretty much a description of a sea battle between 20th Century battleships?"

No. Torpedo Boats, Cruisers, Destroyers, Light Cruisers (fast), Battlecruisers, and even Corvettes all had their place in the intricate evolution of 20th century naval warfare.

Not to mention converted light Carriers, heavy carriers, subs...

I was hoping to see more units and a more sophisticated naval warfare.

I got less units, and a radical simplification.

Some more air units would've been good.

The 'Bomber' unit (stealth or no) is really a Strategic bomber like B-17 or B-52. It does not really simulate attack tankbuster planes like Sturmovik, P-47c, A-10 Fairchild, etc.

I would've liked to see a wider range of air and naval units through different eras:

Early 20th century:
Naval: Torpedo Boat, Torpedo Destroyer, Primitive Attack Sub, BB, CR, Light Carrier.
Air: Zeppelin, Biplane, Primitive Bomber (Gotha)
Obsolete: Advanced Ironclads (still used by Russians in 1905!)

Mid-Century:
Naval: Fast Cruiser, Battlecruiser, Corvette, Attack Sub, Heavy Carrier.
Air: Dive Bomber (stuka, dauntless), Torpedo Bomber, Attack Bomber(sturmovik, B-25), Fighter/bomber(P-47C, P-51N, Mosquito), Fighter, Strategic Bomber, Transport Plane
Obsolete: Primitive Sub, Zeppelin, Primitive Bomber, Biplane, Torpedo Destroyer

Late Century:
Naval: Missile Destroyer, AEGIS Cruiser, Missile Sub, Nuclear Attack Sub, Missile Frigate (carries helicopters), Supercarrier
Air: jet fighter, jet fighter/bomber, followed by stealth fighter/bomber, stealth bomber. Attack helo, Transport Helo.
Obsolete: all previous except: transport plane, attack bomber

[khearn]

According to http://www.marshallnet.com/~manor/ww2/japcv.html The japanese lost 22 fleet carriers in WWII, 9 to submarines, and 13 to carriers. None at all to surface ships.

Of 12 japanese battleships put out of action in WWII (The Yokosuka wasn't sunk, just badly damaged enough that she was never put back into action), 6 were taken out by carriers, 1 by submarine, 2 by battleships, 2 by other surface ships, and one by a magazine explosion (oops!). Again, half were taken out by aircraft.

Yeah, Civ isn't totally realistic, but come on. The majority of japanese capital ships lost in WWII were killed by aircraft, so it's totally unrealistic to keep it from happening at all.

A ship at sea has no place to hide, can't dig a hole and climb in, and once it takes a few direct hits it is completely destroyed (unless it gets sunk in a shallow harbor like Pearl, but that was a nearly unique case).

But on the ground it's different. Troops on the ground can dig in very effectively, and are historically extremely difficult to destroy by bombardment alone. A grunt in a foxhole or a tank in a revetment can survive having a bomb hit awfully close without being killed. A few direct hits will send a ship to the bottom, but not really do that much to a large unit of infantry or armor.

Look at the immense artillery barrages in WWI, but when the arty lifted and the infantry advanced the defenders were still there and shooting back. Look at the Gulf War. The USAF pounded the Iraqi positions for weeks, but it wasn't until the tanks started rolling that they gave in.

Look at Afghanistan. In the north there were troops opposing the Taliban, in the south, nobody. Where did the Taliban collapse? Up north, where there were troops to finish the job the bombs started. Look at Tora Bora right now. B-52's are dropping tons of bombs, C-130's are dropping daisy cutters, AC-130's are blasting away, but when the ground troops move in the Al Qaeda troops are still there, just pretty beat up.

Aircraft are historically deadly to ships, but can't take out land troops by themselves.

I'd say let aircraft sink ships, but give ships some degree of air-defense. And don't let aircraft destroy ground units, you should still have to have people on the ground to finish that job.

Keith Hearn

Delenda est Barney

[Jaybe]

I voted 'I like it as it is.' But --

Okay, a naval unit is a number of ships and so it is 'reasonable' that you don't sink them all. OTH, if you knock a battleship down to 1 HP it is reasonable to assume that you have sunk the battleships in the battlegroup. With this assumption, you should not be able to restore the full strength of the unit by spending a turn at a harbor.

So, I would also like it with you can sink the whole unit with bombardment.

Historically, at Pearl Harbor most of the battleships were in action a year later. At Midway, Japanese carriers were sunk with many aircraft and (most important) great loss of elite air crews that were either on the carriers or had no place to land.

If you were to stereotype 'bombers' as B-17s; well, in WWII B-17s were virtually useless against naval shipping since they couldn't survive doing a low altitude attack, and a ship could usually evade a high altitude bombing run.

In other words, you could go either way with this one and nitpick it to any conclusion you want.

[Skanky Burns]

Originally posted by Jaybe
Historically, at Pearl Harbor most of the battleships were in action a year later. At Midway, Japanese carriers were sunk with many aircraft and (most important) great loss of elite air crews that were either on the carriers or had no place to land.

Thats like getting seven battleships sunk deep in enemy territory, but building another seven and saying "I have not lost any battleships. I had seven before, and i still have seven now."

The point is that the ships at Pearl Harbour were sunk. Just because they were rebuilt doesnt mean they were never sunk at all. And they were sunk by aircraft too.

Historic precedents are pointless however. The only reason to change something is if it will make the game more fun.
I believe that letting aircraft/arty sink ships will make the game more fun.