The problem with air units

[FrantzX]

Many people have been wondering why airplanes cannot sink destroy land and sea units in Civ III. The answer is very simple. The developers have played SMAC/X.

For those who haven't played SMAC/X, air power was the end all, be all. While needlejets were OK, choppers were the most unbalanced thing in the whole game. With the ability to attack multiple times a turn, all you had to do was stick your best weapon on them, build a ton, and air blitz your poor target. Follow up with air dropped troops for garrisons and the slaughter was complete.

Has anyone come up with a system that allows airplanes to destroy other units while avoiding this?

[Dis]

so because of that the japanese can't sink battleships in pearl harbour?

I agree choppers were overpowering. but surely there are other ways to balance air units out.

[Spatzimaus]

I wish I could remember how it happened, but someone used the editor to declare bombers as "foot units" or something, and it allowed them to sink ships or kill units, but only if that unit started the fight with 1 HP left.

Honestly, I think that's the good solution; you'll still be able to pull a Pearl Harbor if you bring enough planes along, but for most "harassment" work the planes won't be able to destroy units.

[Surgeon]

Srcew reality. It's a game balance thing. Same goes for corruption, you'll be glad that the corruption is like it is when MP comes out.

[Libertarian]

Srcew reality.

That easily might have been on one of those cubicle-spanning motivational banners at Firaxis. Complete with misspelling.

[Grumbold]

Originally posted by Dissident
so because of that the japanese can't sink battleships in pearl harbour?

I agree choppers were overpowering. but surely there are other ways to balance air units out.

I see this as an arguement over relative scales. If we could define how many aircraft were represented by one air unit and how many ships were represented by one naval unit then it should be reasonably straightforward to compress that into Civ combat results based on WW II examples. For instance 30 air units attack a stack of 10 ship units, one ship unit should be sunk, two heavily damaged and two lightly damaged at the cost of 10 planes destroyed and 12 damaged.

Civ 3 stepped back from complexities at any level and air to ground or sea combat is one area where oversimplification has made it unsatisfactory for many people. I don't think you can balance the air problem without gearing the whole game toward massed fleets rather than ships moving independantly.

[Akka]

Re: The problem with air units

Originally posted by FrantzX
Has anyone come up with a system that allows airplanes to destroy other units while avoiding this?

Of course there is a solution. It was even said some millions times :
each time a plane bomb any unit with firearms, there is a chance for this unit to inflict damages to the plane. Ships have then a possibility to shot down airplanes. Now you just have to find the balance between the chances for a plane to damage a unit and the chances for the unit to damage the plane.

If we could define how many aircraft were represented by one air unit and how many ships were represented by one naval unit then it should be reasonably straightforward to compress that into Civ combat results based on WW II examples.

I can guess that a modern ship unit in the game is one to six ships in reality, one for big units (battleships, carriers, nuclear submarines) and more for smaller/cheaper units (destroyer, submarines...). I base this assumption on the simple number of ships you have in a game, and compare it at how many ships navies in world have.
Then, you count that there is 4 aircraft units on one carrier, which means that each air unit is about 20-40 planes.
This is of course VERY ROUGH consideration, but I think it gives a good idea.

[Grumbold]

I think you'd need to scale further than that. A quick scan of the US Navy website comes up with a figure of 12 carriers, 27 Aegis cruisers, 59 destroyers, 53 attack subs, 18 ballistic subs and over a hundred ancillary craft operating in their current navy.

[Evil Robot]

Originally posted by Grumbold
I think you'd need to scale further than that. A quick scan of the US Navy website comes up with a figure of 12 carriers, 27 Aegis cruisers, 59 destroyers, 53 attack subs, 18 ballistic subs and over a hundred ancillary craft operating in their current navy.

You do realize that even a huge Civ3 map is only about the size of North America? A "world" that large would not need to or be able to support that large of a navy.

[Grumbold]

Originally posted by Evil Robot
You do realize that even a huge Civ3 map is only about the size of North America? A "world" that large would not need to or be able to support that large of a navy.

I'm not certain what you are using to measure the world. Base it on the number of cities that can fit and you get one possible answer. Base it on the amount of time a vessel will take to circumnavigate the map and you get a completely different one. All sizes of map are supposed to be representing an entire earthlike world.

[Barnacle Bill]

Originally posted by Grumbold
All sizes of map are supposed to be representing an entire earthlike world.

That is the key right there - take the number of tiles the map is across and divide the diameter of the earth by it - the result is the width of a tile.

[Grrr]

Originally posted by Barnacle Bill
That is the key right there - take the number of tiles the map is across and divide the diameter of the earth by it - the result is the width of a tile.

OK so what is the result for a 256x256 world.

[Akka]

Originally posted by Barnacle Bill


That is the key right there - take the number of tiles the map is across and divide the diameter of the earth by it - the result is the width of a tile.

Here is another problem
Where will you count the size ?
The perimeter of the Earth is at max at the equateur (a little more than 40 000 km), but it decrease when you go to the polar points, when it end up being 0.
So will you say that the size of the map is the largest perimeter (in this case, it's 40 000/256 => 156 km a square.
If you say that we should make an average, then that's 312 km long a square...

[Atahualpa]

I am not saying that bombers should be sinking ships with a 100% chance.
But it must be possible!

For example: the first ship can only maximum bring it down to 1hp. Then the next with a chance of 50% or 33% can finish it off.
You still then need at least 3times (1 to bring it down and 2 to finish it off) or 4 times more bombers than ships!!! I think that is fair.

Oh and I can understand that bombers cannot destroy land units, BUT artillery surely can!!!!

ata

[Barnacle Bill]

Originally posted by Akka le Vil


Here is another problem
Where will you count the size ?
The perimeter of the Earth is at max at the equateur (a little more than 40 000 km), but it decrease when you go to the polar points, when it end up being 0.
So will you say that the size of the map is the largest perimeter (in this case, it's 40 000/256 => 156 km a square.
If you say that we should make an average, then that's 312 km long a square...

Or treat it as a Murcator projection - the tiles at the equator represent more actual surface area than the tiles at the poles.