Air Units: IF only we could make them realistic

[codemast01]

Osama and the Taliban didn't fight back with galleries and spears. (If they did they would have been slaughtered) They had modern weapons like AK-47s.

Tanks vs. Spearmen is not a realistic situation... And same goes for airplanes, their bombs not destroying galleys is not realistic. Bombers attacking galleys is not realistic.

Yes all this is true. Why not ask that something be done to fix it instead of saying that CivIII is only BASED on reality and is not suppose to be realistic. This is similar to saying a car is not suppose to provide the best protection for its driver because perfection is not the goal. No... People demand the company make a safer car. Realism and perfection might not be goals but both should be strived for.

[Grrr]

Yes it is totaly true that civ is an unrealistic game, and Faeelin has overexagerated with his point of 5000 F-18s in a squaron. 20-25 is more likely!

[whosurdaddy]

Originally posted by Grrr


YEAH RIGHT!?!
If these GREAT F15s of yours can target indivuals, then why don't they just fire a cruise missle at Osama Bin Laden. No the propoganda may say so, but in all reality, the guiding systems arent't that great. I have heard of at least 5 missiles going totally astray in the Kosovo bombing. No F15s are NOT 100% accurate, far from it!

Ummm, if you dont think modern day laser and satelited guided weapons can target single individuals, ships, etc. then i dont know what world your living in. Oh, by the way, they have tried to fire cruise missles at osama bin laden, but missed not due to faulty technology but to due to faulty intelligence. As for a ship in the open ocean with nowhere to hide (especially without aircover or anti-aircraft defenses, such as a galley), gimme a break, they are sitting ducks for modern day warplanes. THATS WHY THE MAIN ANTI SHIP WEAPON OF THE UNITED STATES SINCE THE BEGINNING OF WORLD WAR II HAS BEEN AIRPLANES!!!!!!!!!

[Grrr]

Originally posted by whosurdaddy


Ummm, if you dont think modern day laser and satelited guided weapons can target single individuals, ships, etc. then i dont know what world your living in. Oh, by the way, they have tried to fire cruise missles at osama bin laden, but missed not due to faulty technology but to due to faulty intelligence. As for a ship in the open ocean with nowhere to hide (especially without aircover or anti-aircraft defenses, such as a galley), gimme a break, they are sitting ducks for modern day warplanes. THATS WHY THE MAIN ANTI SHIP WEAPON OF THE UNITED STATES SINCE THE BEGINNING OF WORLD WAR II HAS BEEN AIRPLANES!!!!!!!!!

I admit that yes, a galley has no chance, but don't believe that it can target Osama Bin Laden.

[Green Giant]

Tanks the size of whole cities is not realistic.

Health bars for military units is not realistic

A single number representing city population is not realistic

Pyramids magically puting granaries in every city is not realistic

The weather does not change, that is not realistic

There are no natural disasters, that is not realistic.

Conquering an entire civilization with 3 tanks is not realistic.

I could go on and on. Somebody please, please, tell me when Civ 3 EVER has or ever claimed to be realistic? Anyone, anyone?

You want ultra realistic combat, go play Operational Art of War. I will keep playing Civ and enjoy the balanced gameplay.

whiners

[Grrr]

Originally posted by Green Giant
I could go on and on. Somebody please, please, tell me when Civ 3 EVER has or ever claimed to be realistic? Anyone, anyone?
whiners

Hey Green Giant
In one of the original promotional statement by Firaxis, it stated that the aim was to "Make the most realistic civilization experience to date"
While some things, such as tanks the size of cities are not realistic, they are acceptable. Maybe you want to play civ with a magnifing glass to find a tank. Others like warriors destroying tanks, are not REALISTIC, and a menace to gameplay.

[elcapjtk]

I think you all are having logic and history recognition problems. Battle of Midway, many planes take down 4 Japanese Carriers as well as one American carrier, as well as some other support ships.

F-15's have laser guided missiles, and wood blows up and burns really really well.

Ooops owned

[N. Machiavelli]

Originally posted by Green Giant
Somebody please, please, tell me when Civ 3 EVER has or ever claimed to be realistic? Anyone, anyone?

"More interactions, alliances and realistic artificial intelligence responses...."

-The same realistic AI that now hates you in spite of a peaceful history, constant gifts, and alliances. Why? Because you have 3 more riflemen than they do.


"Active world generator creates more realistic maps and organic terrain features."

-With all the silks in the world exisiting only in a single 3 x 3 patch.


"Rewrite history with the greatest civilization of all time!"

"Together we can make Civilization III a potent platform for not only exploring factual history...."

-At least Civ2 actually gave you historical scenarios so that you could 're-write' history.

[korn469]

when was the last time people actually used galleys?
the vikings?

plus also each battle in civ3 isn't really a single engagement, it is a number of engagements, because the shortest unit of time in civ3 is one year, so desert shield would have been one turn while desert storm would have been only part of a turn

in civ3 the following US civil war battles all took place in the same turn

Ft. Henry & Ft. Donelson: Gen. Grant captures two forts on the Tennessee and Cumberland Rivers. Confederates forced out of Kentucky and yield much of Tennessee
Monitor vs. Merrimac: First ironclad battle in history ends in a draw as the Merrimac withdraws after daylong exchange of fire. Union blockade of South is maintained
Shiloh (Pittsburgh Landing): Grant overcomes Southern forces with heavy losses for each side: 13,000 Union casualties, 11,000 for South
New Orleans: Farragut seizes New Orleans for Union after boldly attacking Southern position. 11 Southern ships sunk
Peninsular Campaign (Yorktown, Seven Days' Battle, Fair Oaks): After continual prodding by Lincoln, McClellan decides to attack Richmond via the South. He moves his large army down the Potomac, marches on Richmond, and then assumes a defensive position rather than pushing for victory. Gen. Lee takes command of Southern troops
Bull Run (Manassas) 2nd battle: McClellan replaced by Gen. Pope. Lee and Gen. Stonewall Jackson defeat Union troops again at Manassas and Pope is replaced by McClellan
Antietam: Heavily outnumbered, Lee's troops face McClellan in bloody fighting. Over 23,000 casualties (more than all previous American wars combined). Lee retreats to Virginia
Fredericksburg: Gen. Burnside attacks Lee's fortified position and suffers 10,000 casualties (to Lee's 5000).
Chancellorsville: Gen. Hooker defeated by Lee, but Jackson is mistakenly shot by his own men and killed.
Vicksburg: After a long siege, Vicksburg surrenders to Grant. All of Mississippi River is now in Union control
Gettysburg: Over 165,000 soldiers participate in the largest battle in the Western Hemisphere. After three days of fighting, Lee retreats, leaving 4,000 dead Confederates. Total casualties: 23,000 Union, 28,000 Confederates
Chattanooga: Reinforced with troops from the East, Grant is able to push Southern troops back and prepare for assault on Atlanta and the heart of the Confederacy

and that is just the major battles, all of this in one turn...so draw the conclusions you want from that

[Atahualpa]

Is it really that hard to add a possibility of an aircraft to sink a ship?

I mean you could just draw another random number if the ship is down to 1 health and compare it with bombard strength of airplane and defense of ship and then see if it is sunken or not.

Or it could be that the first attack can at best result in the ship loosing all but 1 health.
The next attack then could determine if the ship was destroyed or not. Based on possibility: bombard strength against defense strength.


But much more important would be the ability to destroy workers with bombards!
I can a hundred thousand times destroy the road to his oil resources in a second he has built it up again.
Like if people could build roads under heavy bombardment.

Ata

[HalfLotus]

I dont know how realistic the air combat is, but it's play balanced pretty well. I like that air/land/sea combat is set up to reward combined arms. It makes for a better strategy game. Though it sound like some you are looking for a better historical simulation.

[Sandman]

Does anyone else feel that the inclusion of stealth aircraft is wrong?

The US air force has only bought 21 stealth bombers, and has decided to not buy any more. No other country has them, or is planning to make similar aircraft.

What will undoubtably become a footnote in aviation history should not be included in the game.

[Cookie Monster]

While were on the subject of airpower in Civ3 I have a quick question. I hope someone here will be able to answer it. All in all I'm pretty content with the air system as it stands with one exception........

The patch seems to have fixed the air superiority bug. I am now shooting down enemy bombers with my patrolling fighters. My question is how do you shoot down the enemy fighter planes that are on air superiority missions? I was thinking of sending in my own fighters to areas that are defended by AI fighters and have them perform strike missions hoping that the AI fighters would "dogfight" my own attacking fighters. Has anyone tried this?


Your thoughts are appreciated.

[Murtin]

Personally, I just don't want the kind of realism people ask for when they require that modern military units should never lose to ancient units. I'll agree that it would add realism. I always get at least a little annoyed trying to figure out how that old floating wooden thingy known as a frigate could get at (and sink!) my lovely brand new nuclear sub.

I don't want that kind of realism because I don't think its real world consequences would make a good game. Civilizations don't remain standing for 5000 years fighting each other. Historically, what happens is that somebody makes some technological breakthrough and then expands all over the place, conquering or wiping out their neighbours.

And it wouldn't be fun having to suffer a humiliating defeat and then start over all the time just because your neighbour beat you to horseback riding. Or iron working. Or gunpowder. Or steampower... and so on.

[The Kaiser]

This whining about realism just gets discussions nowhere. Civ3 is abstract in it's depictions and suggestions should be concentrated on making the game better and more fun to play rather than a total historical exercise.

Exceptional events do happen in military history from time to time like the battle of Isalandwana (or however you spell it) when the Zulu warriors defeated the "Modern" British soldiers etc. So why do people keep coming up with this lame argument about the Phalanx vs Tank issue. So what if it's a little unrealistic! If it is your Tank unit you admittedly will be very disappointed to say the least to loose to a Phalanx, but if you are struggling in a game and the Phalanx belongs to you then you be blessing the day when Firaxis made such a combat resolution possible.

And on to the Galley vs F-15 debacle. All through Naval history countries have tried to keep there ships up-to-date by "Up-gunning" them to the latest standard. Notice the WW2 era Battleships that post war were fitted with anti-air missiles to replace their regular flak guns (i.e USA Iowa class). So I know this is going to sound a bit bizarre, but if a Galley has survived through to the modern era, how do we know it hasn't been fitted with the latest light-weight SAM missile defense?