Air Units: IF only we could make them realistic

[FNBrown]

Hey, if you really want to exploit your technological advantage to sink a primative navy, do what I do...

... launch tactical nukes at your enemy's galleys.

[Cookie Monster]

Bravo cutlerd!

"Try:

Pearl Harbour
Taranto
Coral Sea
Midway
Leyte Gulf"


I'll buy that arguement although entire fleets/task forces were not wiped out at those engagements. However I gather from your statement that it might be desireable to model aircraft sinking ships in Civ3 but not destroying tanks/troops etc. If that is correct then I think I would agree with you then.

[korn469]

cutlerd

There are many instances in the Pacific campaign of WW2 where aircraft sank large numbers of ships without direct support of ships on their side. In fact, one of the revelations of WW2 in the Pacific was that Battleships were obsolete and useful only as AA platforms and to perform shore bombardment in support of invasions.

i see...

You are, however, correct with regard to the efficacy of aerial bombardment against ground troops. Even the largest carpet bombing episodes of WW2 did not completely wipe out divisions of ground troops. What they did do was render them ineffective for combat, which CIV3 models quite nicely.

but wait a minute, up above you said that airpower sank large number of ships, but not every single ship in the entire fleet and in each example you presented some ships escaped, so wouldn't that represent only 1 hp also?

i think we all agree that civ3 is not a wargame and that it doesn't even attempt to realistically represent battles, so shouldn't we be arguing over game balance instead of realism?

to me one of the major reasons that air/bombard units reducing a unit to one hp isn't balanced because of the low number of hit points, as it is now a regular unit cannot go below 33% of their hitpoints, which means that in some circumstances that a 1hp unit might still be viable in a role besides cannon fodder, just increasing hitpoints would go a long ways towards balancing airpower (if RoF was also increased) and it would all other combat results better

if you want a wargame checkout The Operational Art of War: Century of Warfare it includes all of the TOAoW games (volume 1,2 and the expnasion) and you can snag it at amazon.com for 19.99 there is also a playable demo for volume 1 here
i've heard that volume 2 is better than volume 1 but i couldn't find a demo for it, plus afaik the demo doesn't contain the scenario editor which is what everyone says is the best feature of TOAoW

ps
it also has multiplayer

[Barnacle Bill]

Yes, the cost of techs somebody else has but you do not SHOULD be lower than if you are blazing a trail. However, only if you are in contact with them. The way the Aztecs & Incas got so far behind was that they were out of contact. Also, it should be in the form of lower costs or research bonuses - you should not be able to use an advance for which you lack the prereqs. I mean, how many Sherman tanks do you think the Roman Empire could have produced if you just gave them the plans, what would they use for fuel & ammo, etc?

Another piece of the problem is not enough combat eras. It took a long time to get aircraft with a significant ability to harm cities. A WWI aircraft basically couldn't do it. Massed WWII bombers could, but not fighters. A 1950's F-4 Phantom had a bigger bomb load than a WWII B-17. If the pace of tech development is balanced correctly, barring the "out of contact lag", the tech leader should get an edge that makes it worth being the tech leader, but it is unrealistic for two nations that have been in contact since they were both in the bronze age to be so far apart that one has WWII-era aircraft while the other is still in sailing ships.

[cutlerd]

Korn,

I agree with you. You can look at aircraft reducing a ship to 1 hp as meaning it sank some but not all of that particular fleet. I personally don't have a problem with the way aircraft cannot currently sink ships. I think it serves as a way to keep ships useful when, in real life, airpower dominates completely.

That said, however, I also wouldn't mind if aircraft did sink ships as long as ships got AA capabilities in return.

The end result is, I suppose, that I can live with it both ways.

Barnacle Bill,

I agree with your statement.

Devin

[Willem]

Originally posted by Grrr


How???
Also the minimum science How???

It's in the Editor.

[The Kaiser]

Nobody seems to addressing one of the serious imbalances and that is without Flight the game won't let you shoot a bomber down. Which is basically ridiculous!

I am a fan of the new mission based model for Air units, but at least under the old system a bomber could be lost when attacking a ground unit. Ok, so it left itself open to the totally unrealistic result of a phalanx shooting down a bomber, but it needn't be that way. If only Artillery was given a flak capability, it would go someway to addressing this imbalance, and it would also provide for another area that is missing, that of a mobile anti-air system for ground units.

[Willem]

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!!!!!!!!!

Well when you consider that Jet Fighters are travelling at, oh say, Mach One or so, and the galley is almost standing still in comparison, I'd say the odds of missing one on the first fly-by would be pretty good. And since the fighter only has a limited amount of ammo on board, it's not really that inconceivable that the galleys might get through, with a little bit of luck.

[N. Machiavelli]

Originally posted by cutlerd
Korn,

I agree with you. You can look at aircraft reducing a ship to 1 hp as meaning it sank some but not all of that particular fleet.

My only real problem is that it is impossible to sink a galley, regardless of attempts to 'upgrade', no matter how many B-2's I send at it. I could, in theory, send 'thousands' (assuming that one bomber in the game is representant of a bomber group, just as that one galley represents a task group) of bombers, carpet-bomb a radius of several miles, and *never, ever* sink those ships. Not even the supposed 1-in-a-thousand chance that a 1-HP spearman has attacking a fortified mech infantry, in a hilly, 30-pop city, across a river, etc......

Also, a 1-HP battleship 'mysteriously' bombards with the same firepower as a 5-HP does. Why? Is it true that the one or two ships surviving the bombardment can project the same amount of force that the full fleet could? It simply has a smaller chance of survival in a 1on1 slugfest than it's 5-HP counterpart.

The only way an aircraft carrier could beat a battleship in this game is to use it's aircraft to lower it to 1-hp, then hope that the random number gods are on its side when the battleship attacks it. Carriers are offensive weapons, not ranged-phalanxes.

[Willem]

Anti-Air?

I was just looking at the Editor, and I noticed that even with a Land/Sea unit, the Air Missions area is still available. Has anyone tried adding "Interception" to say an AEGIS Cruiser, to create anti-air capabiliity?

[korn469]

N. Machiavelli

i'm still saying that it comes down to a lack of hitpoints...using the civ3 combat calculator (i substituted a destroyer since they left out carriers because they both have a defensive strength of 8)

a 1hp battleship vs a 3hp carrier has a 30.3% chance of victory
a 1hp battleship vs a 5hp carrier has a 13.7% chance of victory

so if hitpoints were doubled and a regular carrier had 6hp then a 1hp battleship would have less than a 13.7% chance of victory and while reducing it to 1hp wouldn't destroy it the smart player would retreat and the carrier would be an offensive weapon while maybe not completely realistic it would be better than what we have now

[TinCow]

Originally posted by korn469
second thing is THAT NO NATION USES GALLEYS!

even the least advanced nation on earth is going to use a combustion engine on their ships, which would more likely resemble patrol boats than anything else

spearmean, galleys, etc just aren't going to exist along side f/a-18's and abrams tanks

Sure, no one uses galleys... but there are many instances of serious techinical imbalances in warfare. The Zulu uprising had British Riflemen and Cannons (for lack of a better Civ3 choice) facing off against Zulu Impis with spears. Hell, the Zulus even won a huge battle and slaughtered 2,000 of the British Riflemen before they were defeated.

Technical mismatching IS realistic. Remember, this is an alternate reality of history that you are playing... assume in this scenario that some wars DID have galleys facing off against F-18s.

Either that or do what I do... when old units are being used in a more advanced age... don't look at them as units by their names, look at them by their stats. In the Modern Age, spearmen and other such units are more like untrained crappy militia with AK-47s. Just because they animation makes them look like they have spears doesn't mean that you actually have to imagine them that way.

[cutlerd]

Either that or do what I do... when old units are being used in a more advanced age... don't look at them as units by their names, look at them by their stats. In the Modern Age, spearmen and other such units are more like untrained crappy militia with AK-47s. Just because they animation makes them look like they have spears doesn't mean that you actually have to imagine them that way.

I wish I could be there with you on this one, but the problem is that there are two separate problems at work.

1. The problem of the AI not upgrading units as aggressively as they should. I frankly think there should be a unit obsolescence function that says when certain advances are discovered, a pop up menu immediately asks if you want to upgrade all of your units to the new type. If you refuse, those units are immediately disbanded and the shields go to the cities if they are in the city.

This auto upgrade should happen not at one step but at two steps removed in technology.

For example, when a nation enters the Industrial Age they MUST upgrade all ancient units immediately. When a nation enters the Modern Age they must upgrade all Renaissance units immediately.

This will eliminate the problem of the AI keeping obsolete units around well after the time they should be disbanded.

2. The second problem is that sometimes you will simply have an AI that is so far behind the times it doesn't have the tech to upgrade units. This is where I think your proposal falls short. I can certainly imagine a Spearman unit in modern times being a group of militia with AK-47s IF the civ knows gunpowder...but I'm going to have a hard time believing that a civ that does not know gunpowder has guys with AK-47s.

My solution for this would be to to once again use the two age threshhold to propogate techs.

For example, no civ may be two ages behind the lead civ.

If I enter the Industrial Age, every civ automatically gains all techs required to reach the Renaissance Age. That, in conjunction with #1 above would then cause their units to upgrade and at least pull the civ to within reasonable levels of unit compatability.

Devin

[korn469]

TinCow

Sure, no one uses galleys... but there are many instances of serious techinical imbalances in warfare. The Zulu uprising had British Riflemen and Cannons (for lack of a better Civ3 choice) facing off against Zulu Impis with spears. Hell, the Zulus even won a huge battle and slaughtered 2,000 of the British Riflemen before they were defeated.

many instances? i think you are wrong on this one, most of the instances you are talking about are better represented by a massive barbarian uprising than by two civilization-states facing off against each other

just think of a single rifleman being attacked by 50 barbarian horsemen and that represents each situation much better

check out these two sites

http://www.clscc.cc.tn.us/Courses/ngreenwood/Lakota_and_Zulu.htm

-Little Bighorn and Isandhlwana illustrate similarities in conflicts between industrialized and non-industrial peoples
-The Lakotas and Zulus could acquire and use firearms, but not manufacture them.
-mistakes made by U.S. and British officers in these battles
-development of the myth of the "noble savages"
-ruinous aftermath for the Lakotas and the Zulus

http://www.anc.org.za/ancdocs/history/misc/isandhlwana.html

By the dawn of January 22, Chelmsford had left his main camp in search of the elusive enemy. Isandhlwana was down to half its strength; that is 2,000 men. While Chelmsford and the other half of the camp's contingent was chasing around the countryside the Zulu force of 20,000 warriors was resting in a steep ravine only four miles from the camp. It was an amazing and brilliant achievement to move an army of this size so close to the British position through countryside which was not exactly covered in forests and which was alive with British scouting parties. One can only marvel at the ability of the commanders; the stealth and discipline of the regiments. Undoubtedly this was the basis for the famous victory, for the attack was launched with great speed and surprise enabling the traditional Zulu "horns" to encircle the camp while the main body — the "chest" — charged at the weakest point. For half-an-hour the British poured out a desperate fire cutting down many warriors. Displaying great velour and determination the impis kept charging the lines of redcoats until they were able to come to close quarters with infantrymen Engels had described as "the best in the world for fighting at close quarters". On this occasion the assegais of African warriors proved too much for English bayonets and after a battle that had lasted little more than an hour there were very few survivors on the British side to tell the tale. Two thousand Zulu warriors had died in defence of their country and Cetshwayo remarked that "an assegai has been thrust into the belly of the nation".

if there are instances of preindustrial forces defeating western armies please inform me

plus you left out the worst defeat of the US army in history, which was at the hands of a native american by the name of little turtle

http://www.noacsc.org/ohiohist/region1/fort/facts.htm

*Fort Recovery is the site of the two largest Indian-military battles in the United States.

*Fort Recovery is the site of the worst defeat of an American army on American soil in the history of the United States. Over 65% of the entire U.S. Army was completely destroyed in three hours. Our country went virtually without an army for two years.

*The first battle at Fort Recovery (St. Clair's Defeat) resulted in the very first U.S. Congressional investigation. St. Clair was blamed for the defeat, but was exonerated of all charges when it was found the Secretary of War, Henry Knox, and his friend, William Duer, stole $55,000 of the $75,000 allocated to buy supplies for the newly formed army and used it to speculate on land.

*St. Clair's Defeat is the greatest victory of a native force (the Indians) over a white invading force (the army) in the history of the world.

http://www.indigenouspeople.org/natlit/turtle.htm

He led the confederation of Indians that defeated General Arthur St. Clair, at Fort Recovery on November 3, 1791. His force inflicted the worst defeat ever suffered by the U.S. Army at the hands of native Americans. St. Clair's army consisted of 1300 soldiers. In the battle, 602 were killed and about 300 wounded. The Indian force consisted of approximately 1000 warriors. Only 66 Indians were killed in this battle! It was the greatest defeat the Americans ever suffered at the hands of the Indians. Even worst than the loss suffered at the Battle of Little Big Horn or Custer's Last Stand. Custer only lost about 210 men compared to St. Clair's loss of 602 killed! Me-she-kin-no-quah lived the village of Ke-ki-ong-a'. Kekinonga means blackberry patch. This was the Miami capitol (Ft. Wayne, IN).

however...

http://www.earlyamerica.com/review/fall96/anthony.html

Indian scouts, spying on Wayne, called him "the Chief who never sleeps." Shortly before the Christmas of 1793, Wayne led a small group of men north to the area of St. Clair's defeat and built Fort Recovery. In June of 1794, 2,000 Indians attacked the fort.

"Although the Indians vastly outnumbered the defenders," Hollins wrote, "the well-trained dragoons and riflemen within the professionally built fort held out against overwhelming odds. The Indians were forced to retreat." Their defeat at Fort Recovery shook the Indians' confidence. Little Turtle relinquished his leadership. Two of the Great Lakes tribes decided to return to their camps.

Wayne continued moving north, establishing Fort Defiance (now Defiance, Ohio) in August 1794. Ahead of him were some 1,300 Indians outside of Fort Miami, the British-held stronghold near the present-day Toledo. Wayne sent one more letter to four Indian tribes with a last offer to negotiate. There were no positive responses.

On Aug. 20, 1794, Wayne's army attacked the Indians at Fallen Timbers, just south of Toledo. The battle lasted less than an hour. Fleeing Indians raced toward Fort Miami, where the British had promised protection. They were turned away because the British did not want to risk war with the United States.

Wayne moved south and built a new fort near the three rivers. Fort Wayne was officially dedicated Oct. 22, 1794. Peace with the Indian tribes was achieved with the Treaty of Greenville on Aug. 3, 1795.

i also disagree with this

Either that or do what I do... when old units are being used in a more advanced age... don't look at them as units by their names, look at them by their stats. In the Modern Age, spearmen and other such units are more like untrained crappy militia with AK-47s. Just because they animation makes them look like they have spears doesn't mean that you actually have to imagine them that way.

i would take 500 northern alliance militiamen from afganistan armed only with ak-47's over 10,000 of the best trained roman legionairs personally led by Julius Caesar himself, simply put the firepower of modern weapons would slaughter the romans

really i would take the seattle police force in riot gear with tear gas, rubber bullets, and waterhoses over a similar sized force of hoplites commanded by Alexander the Great

spearmen in civ3 don't represent militia forces armed with AK-47's they represent spearmen...militia forces are most likely represented by conscripts if at all

and that is only the representation, the reason that warriors appear in the late game is simply because firaxis didn't allow swordmen to upgrade, if all units had a proper upgrade path (which is possible using the editor alone) then once you research nationalism nothing below a rifleman would appear in the build queue

by simply doubling hitpoints and fixing the upgrade paths then aircraft are more effective, modern units virtually never lose to ancient units, and obsolete units don't appear in the build queue so the AI no longer builds them

it isn't an issue of realism or not...we already know civ3 isn't realistic
it's an issue of gamebalance and the failure of firaxis to make warriors obsolete, because as it is now, if you don't have iron then warriors will always appear in the build queue no matter how advanced you are, and if you do have iron then swordsmen will replace the warriors, but swordmen, longbowmen, cavalry, ironclads, frigates, and privateers will always appear in the build queue because firaxis failed to make them obsolete with tool that already exist in civ3

plus although a militia equipped with AK-47s might be able to win a guerilla war against a modern foe (provided they have another modern state providing them supplies) in civ3 a regular fortified musketman on a mountain is going to win about 55% of the time against regular marines, about 68% of the time against regular paratroopers, and about 54% of the time against mech infantry if it is in a fort, that is not realism that is game balance

yes while the entrenched militia unit might win some of the times, in civ3 a well entrenched completely obsolete defender win most of the time, which isn't right

[Willem]

Originally posted by korn469


and that is only the representation, the reason that warriors appear in the late game is simply because firaxis didn't allow swordmen to upgrade, if all units had a proper upgrade path (which is possible using the editor alone) then once you research nationalism nothing below a rifleman would appear in the build queue

by simply doubling hitpoints and fixing the upgrade paths then aircraft are more effective, modern units virtually never lose to ancient units, and obsolete units don't appear in the build queue so the AI no longer builds them

it isn't an issue of realism or not...we already know civ3 isn't realistic
it's an issue of gamebalance and the failure of firaxis to make warriors obsolete, because as it is now, if you don't have iron then warriors will always appear in the build queue no matter how advanced you are, and if you do have iron then swordsmen will replace the warriors, but swordmen, longbowmen, cavalry, ironclads, frigates, and privateers will always appear in the build queue because firaxis failed to make them obsolete with tool that already exist in civ3

plus although a militia equipped with AK-47s might be able to win a guerilla war against a modern foe (provided they have another modern state providing them supplies) in civ3 a regular fortified musketman on a mountain is going to win about 55% of the time against regular marines, about 68% of the time against regular paratroopers, and about 54% of the time against mech infantry if it is in a fort, that is not realism that is game balance

yes while the entrenched militia unit might win some of the times, in civ3 a well entrenched completely obsolete defender win most of the time, which isn't right

Then why don't you just go into the Editor and fix the problems you've mentioned yourself?

Why do so many people in this forum have the attitude that Firaxis has to do everything for them. The game comes with an Editor, it was designed so that anyone who didn't like the way things were playing could customize it, within certain limits, if they so wished. Granted it's not a perfect Editor, but there are other programs here that do have some capability to make some real additions.

Yes it requires time and a great deal of patience, and there are certain things you just can't change. But it seems to me that most of the complaints I've been hearing by members of this forum could be solved by spending some time with the Editor and the Civ3CopyTool. To much corruption? Adjust the settings so that it's not as severe, or create/manipulate improvements to help you reduce it. A problem with troop movement? Create a personnel carrier, or alter the settings of an existing unit, load it up and send it off with 8,10,100 units inside. And this whole issue of obsolete units is so ridiculously easy to solve, I really don't see why so much energy is being wasted in *****ing about it.