Airplane sinking ships conundrum...

[Frugal_Gourmet]

You guys realize this is *NOT* a simple patch, right?

Simply adding this is as a feature or as a togable option opens up a whole score of tricky game balance issues.

Just one example.. If you make airplanes capable of sinking ships, then you've only got one unit (the carrier) at sea who can defend against airplanes. But there are scores of other examples: perhaps increasing the value of air units should increase their cost, perhaps ship units should be able to retaliate, etc. etc.

Adding this feature would require revamping the entire game's combat system and play-testing for balance for many months.

So, puh-leeze, don't keep saying.. "just make this an option" in the patch. It's not that simple, guys.

[Venger]

Re: Airplane sinking ships conundrum...

Originally posted by Frugal_Gourmet
You guys realize this is *NOT* a simple patch, right?

Simply adding this is as a feature or as a togable option opens up a whole score of tricky game balance issues.

Better to leave it goofy as is...

Just one example.. If you make airplanes capable of sinking ships, then you've only got one unit (the carrier) at sea who can defend against airplanes.

Well...yeah! Sorta like real life - good luck without a carrier.

But there are scores of other examples: perhaps increasing the value of air units should increase their cost, perhaps ship units should be able to retaliate, etc. etc.

How about making bombardment of any kind have a chance to destroy any unit with 1 HP?

Adding this feature would require revamping the entire game's combat system and play-testing for balance for many months.

Wow, play-testing for balance for many months, that WOULD be a departure wouldn't it...

So, puh-leeze, don't keep saying.. "just make this an option" in the patch. It's not that simple, guys.

And how do you know? Can you forward me the Civ3 source code?

Venger

[Allemand]

No, it's not simple, but it's not that hard either.

I would only give aircraft a small chance to sink a ship. And ships could have a chance to destroy aircraft. Of course, Firaxis can change it any way they like. They have enough experience with aircraft destroying ships and ground units in previous games, so I'm confident someone there could come up with some compromise rules.

[Frugal_Gourmet]

Re: Re: Airplane sinking ships conundrum...

Originally posted by Venger
Well...yeah! Sorta like real life - good luck without a carrier.

Umm.. non-carrier ships have been able to blow up aircraft since FOREVER, dude.

Wow, play-testing for balance for many months, that WOULD be a departure wouldn't it...

Naturally, not. Like I said, it will take a long time -- not a simple patch.

And how do you know? Can you forward me the Civ3 source code?

Common sense with some experience. Game balancing a strategy game is always an arduous process. Course, I know you were just being a smart ass.

[Frugal_Gourmet]

Originally posted by Allemand
I would only give aircraft a small chance to sink a ship. And ships could have a chance to destroy aircraft. Of course, Firaxis can change it any way they like. They have enough experience with aircraft destroying ships and ground units in previous games, so I'm confident someone there could come up with some compromise rules.

Welp. I agree with you in theory somewhat, but I tend to think balance is a great challenge. However, if this ever gets done (and we all know it won't), either:

a) it will take a very long time
or, b) we will be whining about game balance issues for many months more.

[Frugal_Gourmet]

Re: Re: Airplane sinking ships conundrum...

Originally posted by Venger

How about making bombardment of any kind have a chance to destroy any unit with 1 HP?

Oh yeah, I forgot...

I was going to grudgingly admit that the above idea is probably a good one, and *might* work as a reasonable fix.

[Venger]

Re: Re: Re: Airplane sinking ships conundrum...

Originally posted by Frugal_Gourmet
Umm.. non-carrier ships have been able to blow up aircraft since FOREVER, dude.

Without air cover, any naval force since 1940 has been a floating reef...

Venger

[Venger]

Re: Re: Re: Airplane sinking ships conundrum...

Originally posted by Frugal_Gourmet
Oh yeah, I forgot...

I was going to grudgingly admit that the above idea is probably a good one, and *might* work as a reasonable fix.

That had to hurt...

But I think it's the most reasonable solution - I think with this change, bombardment can make a real claim to being a revolutionary step between Civ2 and Civ3. Without it, bombardment doesn't cut the mustard...

Venger

[Allemand]

Amen.

[Libertarian]

The mustard?

[Venger]

Originally posted by Libertarian
The mustard?

Do you really not know that phrase? It's an American colloqialism that basically means doesn't do the job well enough to be passable.

Venger

[Asharak]

More Meat, Less Mustard Please...

How did this thread get sidetracked into a discussion of colloquialisms? Not that I have a problem with 'cut the mustard' -- it's a very good phrase, and you have good taste Venger.

However, to return to the subject, I too might like to see SOMETHING changed about the bombardment issue. I agree there are balance issues, but they shouldn't take months to fix. With the experience Firaxis has at this, it should be doable.

I'm mildly fond of the idea of letting any bombardment destroy units at 1 HP, except bombardment (historically speaking) isn't that accurate. It's extremely hard to completely eliminate a division of infantry with artillery fire -- rather, artillery has been historically used only as a softening tactic for a proper assault, something which Civ emulates very well. In the case of airplane bombardment of land targets, until recently the same applies. WWII era bombing runs were not the precision affairs that modern aerial bombardment is (alright, the precision of modern bombing is arguable, but that's a whole other thread for a whole other forum on a whole other website). So I could see modern-era Stealth Bombers being able to do it, but not earlier units.

On the other hand, since this thread was started about aerial attacks on naval vessels, torpedo dive bombers from their earliest days were and are effective at sinking ships... however, are they that effective at sinking entire fleets? (and please don't bring up Pearl Harbour, this isn't about fleets in port) The age-old question of just what is represented by a 'unit' in Civ plays a factor, here. I think everyone agrees that 1 Spearman is more than ONE man running around... but do we feel that 1 Battleship represents 6-8 or more actual ships? If it's only 1, then bombardment should have a chance to sink it (after all, they can focus all their attention on it), but as the number of units in a unit, if you will, increases, it gets more and more likely that at least a few will avoid being totally destroyed.

I guess, then, what I'm trying to say (heck, you don't think I know what I'm trying to say when I start a post, do you? consider yourself lucky if I figure it out by the time I finish...) is that if we're consistent with the logic we apply to the game's representation of units (ie since 1 spearman = many spearman, 1 ship must = many ships), the inability of planes to completely eliminate a fleet makes some sense... one does usually need to move in to mop up what's left...

Since this is getting quite long enough for me, I'll leave the issue of airplane-invincibility to another poster...

[Andy91]

I disagree that a ship unit equals many ships, and I take issue with saying that because it applies to land units it automatically applies to naval units. I have always thought of ships as single units, and I'm sure that I'm not alone in this. Regarding combat capabilities, a lone spearman makes no sense in the large scale of civilization. However, a single ship does. Single ships can be effective in the large scale of this game. Also, if a single naval unit represents a fleet, then how can a single cruise missle sink all of them? Also, I find it hard to believe that a fleet of submarines can only carry one tactical nuclear missle. And if you argue that submarines are an exception and only represent a single sub, then they are completely unbalanced and would very rarely be able to sink any other fleet in its entirety. I think the only reasonable approach is that naval units are single ships, and that airstrikes should be able to sink them.

(Hope this makes sense to everyone else)

[gachnar]

Andy91:

Unfortunately, just because you imagine it as one ship doesn't mean that it is.

For evidence: Lets look at how you use them. In Civ, normally you send out a carrier by itself, or at least, you want to. I mean, the planes will take care of everything. You send out Battleships that act independantly to bombard targets. Destroyers also move about doing whatever you do with Destroyers.

Right now, how many ships do you think the US (or UK, or Russian) Navy has operating by themselves? Now, I'm no navy man (or woman), but last I checked they didnt like sending out the USS Nimitz all alone. I think it happened about never. Even the Kiev (one of the last actively used battleships) never opperated without its battlegroup.

Buy you say that you think 1 unit = 1 ship. So, I'm sure you send out each of your carriers with an escort of 3 destroyer units. I mean, we are being ultra-realistic here. And probably 2 destroyers with your battleship.

And sure, subs are a bit confusing, since they are often sent out alone, even though they are also often sent out in small groups. And (I know this will probably make some people so mad they will refuse to play the game, and insult Firaxis just thinking of it), I would support changing a subs attack to a bombardment style attack, provided that they be allowed to retreat from attacks, since in the real world, subs can be bastards to destroy.

But now I'm interested. You say you think of them as individual ships. Do you use them as such? Do you actually wait to build a battle group? Or do you weild them like most large navies weild battle groups?

[korn469]

how about ship speed??

should it really take a caravel 25 years to sail from europe to North America if it left 1490? a 50 year round trip sounds a little bit much