Airplane sinking ships conundrum...

[gopher]

Can I assume here that when we try to attack ships, we like to use the Bomber planes?

Because, the bombers in Civ3 are based on the Liberator/B-52 type plane (going by the description in Civpedia and tha graphic). I.E. they are more "Carpet Bombing" types.
The main point here is that these types of planes CANNOT sink ships. It is true. When we talk about planes sinking ships (b/f Gulf War), we are talking about specialized torpedo bombers or dive bombers. In the Japanese invasion of the Philipines, the US B-17's in Clark AFB had a go at them for a bit, and didn't even score a hit. Planes with bombsights, made for bombing cities and ravaging troops in the field (like Afghanistan!) cannot hit ships, because the ship is too small, and moving, unlike, say a division, city, or factory. The bombadeer would not be able to hit it. The reverse is true too....try imagining a bunch of torpedo bombers lining up to hit Berlin.
If we are ever going to get planes that sink ships, I want a "Torpedo Bomber" plane, one that can sink ships, but has a fighters stats when against land based targets.

[Wrong_shui]

All of you shut up with your 1 unit = 1 ship, we know the score.

We are just saying we want naval combat portrayed as it is in real life, i.e aircraft and aircraft carriers.

I didnt do two tours of duty and take shrapnel in my head to have a bunch of hippies deny history.

[korn469]

I didnt do two tours of duty and take shrapnel in my head to have a bunch of hippies deny history.

and what history would that be? B-17's sinking Aegis Cruisers, or F/A-18's being completely ineffective against a WW2 battleship?

really even if they allowed air units to sink ships jet fighters would have a problem sinking Ironclads because they have a bombard strength of 2 and a rate of fire of 1, against a veteran ironclad you'd need around 6 jet fighters to have a decent chance of sinking an ironclad, so this doesn't solve the problems present with air units

plus it upsets game balance and makes naval forces even weaker than what they are

if we are going torealistic lets start with naval movement, even on a small map the fastest ships in the game are moving less than six km a day, so even if ship movement was increased 25 times (giving an Aegis Cruiser a movment of 125) it would still only be moving around 6 km per hour on a small map, and i'm pretty sure that an Aegis Cruiser can go a little faster than that

[sachmo71]

Damn that's funny. Hippies indeed. But each ship represents mult...nevermind.

[korn469]

hehe and speaking of realism,
i mean we are a democracy who has a president that not only never dies, this leader never even has to run for office
it's not like it hasn't been done before, in tropico you hold elections every so often

and how about Alexander the great?
in a 13 year time frame (less than a turn) he built a huge empire, how could that be in the game in a realistic manner (without making each turn the exact same length of some small time frame like a month)?

the game is unrealistic, and there are other options to give the game a better balance, multiple moves for aircraft is one thing more hitpoints (for better combat results) is another

i agree that air units are too weak but this alone won't give the air units the right balance of power and it won't make the game any more realistic

[Smash]

The problem was probably the ai bombing the crap out of everything.You probably would not be able to leave a boat out of a city.
It would be nice,but I can see a bunch of problems with the ai here.It happens in civ2.They took care of it with, well you know and aegis ability.The difference is a stack in civ2 defends differently than civ3.With this combat system,it would be a nightmare.It might be too many calculations to do for each individual combat.

[CB2034]

my favorite colloqialism is if u guys dont mind

That dog dont hunt, but i got one over here that'll make a bulldog brake his chain

[Aurochs]

Aircraft should not be able to sink ships in Civ III.

Bombardment is a strategic action taken to weaken, disrupt, or force the enemy to abort his plans. It destroys only on the tactical level. This is a strategical-level game. Bombardment should have its strategic effect, IMO. On sea as well as land.

.....
Incidentally, here's my take on the units:
1 Destroyer = 1 Squadron of 8-10 destroyers
1 Battleship = 1 SAG of 1-4 battleships, 2 cruisers, and 6-8 destroyers and frigates.
1 Carrier = 1 CAG of 1-2 carriers, 2-3 cruisers, and 6-8 destroyers and frigates.
1 Transport = 1 convoy/phibron of whatever transports are necessary, plus a couple of frigates or escorts
1 Submarine = 1 worthless game unit, mildly useful if you want to disband it to speed up building something in a port city

I just wanna know what the deal is with the sub...they cost almost as much as a destroyer for much less than half the ability. Only thing I can think of is maybe you could use them to surreptitiously blockade an opponent's harbors...but I haven't tried it. Pre-patch the AI always knew they were there anyway. Mebbe the patch'll make 'em better. Still doesn't sound that useful though.

.....
And on the 'ships are sitting ducks' theory:
Contrary to popular belief, modern navies are not sitting ducks, who line up neatly in a tight row, sit still, and don't bother to defend themselves. They're loaded with SAMs, anti-missile missiles, AAA guns, and point-defense guns. They travel in dispersed formation, zigging and zagging through the waves, with covering fields of fire and layered defenses. They have radar and helicopters operating over the horizon to warn them of incoming attacks, so they can turn their best front to the threat axis.

From what I understand, attacking a modern surface group is primarily a case of overwhelming the defenses with incoming missiles. They can only track and shoot down so many at a time. (That's what makes the AEGIS superior...the ability to engage many more incoming air threats simultaneously.) But they can stop a lot, so only a relative few get through before the aircraft have expended their limited munitions and pulled out. A few ships may be sunk or heavily damaged, and a few more somewhat damaged, but the chances of sinking an entire group with one strike are fairly low. More likely, the strike will force the group to abort its mission and head back for repairs, or await reinforcements (which would arrive well within the time period covered by a single game turn).

WWII-era was substantially different, but it would come out close enough in game terms. The main difference is that there'd be a lot more aircraft casualties because they had to get a lot closer to release their ordnance. But in Civ III, there are no aircraft casualties anyway.

[The ANZAC]

This could be remedied in two steps:
1. have torpedo bombers, with attack ships flag on
2. after they become obsolete, make a tech and have Exocet Air to Ship missiles. I'm not sure if you can do this in Civ3 but give aircraft the ability to carry missiles and then give the Exocet a very short range and you have planes that could attack ships indirectly as well as cities could defend themselves.