Naval combat

[Thrawn05]

Re: Ah yes, the great Aircraft Carrier

Originally posted by YC4B4U
I suppose an Aircraft Carrier is only as good as the aircraft it carries.

that is VERY true, in Civ3 and in real life. Carrier warfar is manly air dominant. If Carrier A had Zero fighters, and Carrier B had F-15s, odds are Carrier B will win. Carriers for the most part, are defensless by themselfs, and ryling soly on their fighters. Support ships suchs as destroyers and battleships help in defending the Carrier from enemy fighters (via Flak) and help in detecting enemy subs.

[Thrawn05]

Originally posted by steelehc
The Yamato was the largest battleship ever built, but also one of the slowest, and weakest. It's top speed was about 25 knots, with a range of 30-40 miles, compared with the Iowa's speed of 30+ knots, and 50 mile range.

True, but it was also easy to sink (it never got to okinawa (spell?)), so I couldn't just add another defensive point to it, since fighters would have a harder time destroying it. So I felt an extra movement point wouldn't hurt. It actually makes it better, since Japan in civ3 would be able to control the seas quicker and better then anyone else (TAKE THAT LIZ!!!).

[Willem]

Originally posted by steelehc
That last post of mine is screwed up. The second paragraph is my response to the first. I hope that helps.

Steele

Yes it did.

I am suprised you think this way. After all, what are the guns on battleships, cruisers, destroyers, etc... if they are not artillery and cannons? Ships have been sinking ships with guns for hundreds of years. And speaking of accuracy, the American Iowa class battleships have guns accurate to 5 yards at 30,000 yards or range. What moves faster? A ship, or a cannon shell?

Yes you have a point there. But Battleships are much more mobile than ground based Artillery, and their turrets are as well, so they'd be able to correct thier trajectory a lot quicker. And keep in mind here that we're not talking about a single Battleship, we're talking about a small fleet, or flotilla whatever. And I have never heard of ground based artillery being able to wipe out an entire flotilla. The odd one or two yes, which is reflected in the loss of hit points, but to me it would to much of a stretch for ground based artillery to take them all out.

[Navyman]

A small naval discrepancy but should be pointed out nontheless. The Ironclad unit depicted in Civ3 is the USS Monitor, yet the game allows the Ironclads to go into ocean squares. The real USS Monitor could not go into the ocean because by its design had pretty bad seakeeping qualities in rough seas. For historical accuracy and for a better fit into the game's rules, the game designers should have used the HMS Warrior model for the Ironclad. Also, the HMS Warrior was the most kick-butt ship of its time.

I know, I know, there are a lot of other issues that need to be fixed before such a trivial one but hey, it's good to keep a sharp eye out.

[Willem]

Originally posted by Navyman
A small naval discrepancy but should be pointed out nontheless. The Ironclad unit depicted in Civ3 is the USS Monitor, yet the game allows the Ironclads to go into ocean squares. The real USS Monitor could not go into the ocean because by its design had pretty bad seakeeping qualities in rough seas. For historical accuracy and for a better fit into the game's rules, the game designers should have used the HMS Warrior model for the Ironclad. Also, the HMS Warrior was the most kick-butt ship of its time.

I know, I know, there are a lot of other issues that need to be fixed before such a trivial one but hey, it's good to keep a sharp eye out.

Well it's easy enough to fix if it's really bugging you. Just set the appropiate special ability in the editor. I've been reading this from a number of people and I'm thinking of doing the same thing myself. But I'm wondering, how do you think that might affect the game play? Maybe they sacrifised historical reality in order to make the game play a bit better. Any opinions?

[Thrawn05]

Originally posted by Willem
Maybe they sacrifised historical reality in order to make the game play a bit better. Any opinions?

I do think they did sacrifised historical reality to. Particually when it came to the jet/stealth fighter and stealth bomber. Those planes, if you account for mid-flight refualing, could travel around the entire globe practicly. Its unfortunate that civ3 dosn't do this, at least for the stealth planes IMHO.

[Willem]

Originally posted by Thrawn05


I do think they did sacrifised historical reality to. Particually when it came to the jet/stealth fighter and stealth bomber. Those planes, if you account for mid-flight refualing, could travel around the entire globe practicly. Its unfortunate that civ3 dosn't do this, at least for the stealth planes IMHO.

Good point about the re-fueling planes. It's making me wonder if it would be possible to create an air unit that works that way, sort of like an air-born carrier. Thanks for the idea, I'll have to look into it.

[Quokka]

About the Ironclad and it not being Ocean going. I think it would work pretty well in the game. It would make the Frigate and Man-O-War worthwhile units. They are both Ocean going vessels. Right now they are practically useless with Ironclads coming on the next tech. The English UU is chronically underpowered and useless in the game, their UU is the top-of-class for only 4 turns or so. Weren't the first Ironclads in the US Civil War used as Coastal & River Monitors? If you want a blue water navy then you'd have to build Frigates. I like it, I'll buy the company.

[steelehc]

Originally posted by Willem

Yes you have a point there. But Battleships are much more mobile than ground based Artillery, and their turrets are as well, so they'd be able to correct thier trajectory a lot quicker. And keep in mind here that we're not talking about a single Battleship, we're talking about a small fleet, or flotilla whatever. And I have never heard of ground based artillery being able to wipe out an entire flotilla. The odd one or two yes, which is reflected in the loss of hit points, but to me it would to much of a stretch for ground based artillery to take them all out.

Good point. Let me consult my books. I think it's a wasted effort on my part. I cannot recall any action where more then one or two ships were sunk by coastal defense artillery.


Steele

[Optimizer]

There are some very good points here. We should concentrate on how naval warfare could be improved by the editor.

It is a little sad that the things that take away the fun from navigation are not bugs or flaws, but a poor system.

Things can be done, however. Please read my Maritime Manifesto for ways to make the maritime part of the game interesting.

[Dinner]

As long as you folks are discussing it you may want to take a look at how navel combat works in CTP2. It has a much greater unit depth and it has several nice features like sonar bouys, underwater cities, and other tile improvements. It's to bad we can't just copy these ideas into Civ3.

[Bautou]

Originally posted by Quokka
About the Ironclad and it not being Ocean going. I think it would work pretty well in the game. It would make the Frigate and Man-O-War worthwhile units. They are both Ocean going vessels. Right now they are practically useless with Ironclads coming on the next tech. The English UU is chronically underpowered and useless in the game, their UU is the top-of-class for only 4 turns or so. Weren't the first Ironclads in the US Civil War used as Coastal & River Monitors? If you want a blue water navy then you'd have to build Frigates. I like it, I'll buy the company.

I really like that idea too. Though frigates (and most other naval units anyhow) should be sped up a bit as naval movement would get even more bogged down under this plan.

[Encomium]

BTW, bombers have been given by me those attack and defense strengths, and I unclicked "immobile", and gave them all MP's of 6. Whatever this does to the game it will be less bad than the utter nonsense of bombers not being able to sink warships (I guess Sid never heard of Pearl Harbor, or Midway). If I have to change fighter values I'll do that too if it works beter that way.

Oh yes, another Sid Stupidity is that fighters are still unable to escort bombers. Guess he also missed the entire Air War in WW II.

[steelehc]

Originally posted by Encomium
BTW, bombers have been given by me those attack and defense strengths, and I unclicked "immobile", and gave them all MP's of 6.

Do the air missions still work? That would kindof defeat the purpose, if they didn't.

Steele

[Zachriel]

Originally posted by Encomium
Oh yes, another Sid Stupidity is that fighters are still unable to escort bombers. Guess he also missed the entire Air War in WW II.

Fighter escorts were only available when near the airbase. Bombers were often unescorted when going deep.