Should planes be able to sink Ships?

[Dis]

I won't believe it until it actually happens.

We do have AEGIS technology after all. Maybe if they brought a few hundred bombers they can sink a ship

[notyoueither]

I don't think they would be dropping bombs from 10 thousand feet up through sights.

More likely 50 of them lauch 100 anti ship missiles from a looonnng way out. [edit] Can I spell launch? I knew I could. [/Edit]

Care to be in that targeted carrier group?

Come on. Do you think the United States of America could not figure out how to annihilate surface units with B52 launched missiles? That they haven't? Give me a break.

I don't have to be conversant with modern tech to reason that whatever an F15 or A4 can carry, a B52 can carry about 100 times more. The Russians know this.

Salve

[Starker Kull]

Originally posted by Andrew Cory


Well, yes. But then, that's called progress. The solution is to start building more carriers, with fighters, to protect those ships. In real life, if one side has air superiority, they can make life hell for the other side. Game ballance would make it possible for both sides to compete in the fight for air superiority, not make it meaningless. Carriers rule the seas right now. They do this because Airplanes can take out hydroplanes (sorry, went for the meaningless symetry). The only real counter for this (IRL) is more airplanes. To take this out of the ballance is to freeze the sea game in an era just-pre WWII.

There is only one _good_ reason that I have heard against planes taking out ships: "the one icon doesn't represent 1 unit" argument. I think that this is only sorta true. While one legionary may represent 1000 men, I tend to think of one tank as representing about 16 tanks, and one marine (I placed the marine later in the game, beefed up its values, and made it an American UU) as representing about 8 actual soldiers...

By the same token, I tend to think of naval units as representing not more than 7-8 actual ships, and that decreases as time goes on. For instance, I think it is entirely realistic for 1 carrier icon to represent 1 carrier, 1 nuke-sub icon to represent 1 nuke-sub, and 1 Aegis cruiser icon to represent at most 2 Aegis cruisers. Since I can see an several bombers taking out 1 carrier, I can see 1 bomber icon (representing a dozen or so craft) taking out 1 carrier icon (representing 1 carrier)...

I should point out that those same bombers could _NOT_ take out land units for many of the same reasons, they just don't tend to in real life. Even the most devistating air battles to date (Afganistan, a few months ago) could not take Tora Bora, or even Kabul. Although I think we could have destroyed the average Afgan city, I don't know that I want to give a player that kind of power...

I agree with this whole passage. Let me extend it further. Just as artillery and bombing can NOT completely eliminate land based units, merely soften them up, I think that not only aerial bombing, but artillery bombardment should be able to sink ships, if one is foolish enough to park a ship by heavy coastal gun emplacements at the end of a turn. The "raider" strategy would still work (run in, bombard something, run out to sea again), and would tend to favor fast, little ships doing this kind of work instead of big, clunky ones, exactly what happens in reality.

As to the argument that it's unfair that battleships couldn't shoot back, guess what? Why do you think there are no more battleships around? The idea of the battleship, a ship with nothing but huge, long range guns was great from about 1890-1940. It is now quite obsolete, just for that reason. This is why we have AEGIS cruisers, so that we can shoot back, and effectively. This is why we have fighters doing air superority for carrier battle groups. This is why missile cruisers have replaced battleships, because they have a longer shoot range and are more survivable from air attack.

In addition, just as faster units on land can retreat from combat (well, now they merely have a chance to retreat ), the exact same thing should apply at sea; even more so. I think there should be the same chance you can retreat in the sail era as on land (what is that, 50% now, not taking into account unit experience), unless you are near a coastline, in which case you have 0% chance to retreat (sailing ship + lee shore + enemy to windward = Big Trouble) Make this 100% chance to retreat if faster, once you are at the steam driven ship era (unless you are near a coastline, in which case knock it back to the "standard" 50%). At sea, even a two knot difference in speed made all the difference in choosing when, or even IF, you fought. Once you did not have to worry about vagaries of weather and wind, your ability to retreat when faster was almost impossible to check. This is why the battleship as a concept was not good until these ships could just about catch anything that floated. Before, the most heavily armed ships were also the slowest, so you needed a broad cross-section of speed/gunsize ships to be able to engage all the types of boats the enemy could throw at you. The battleship made this briefly moot - then, it was more of a question of the best economic use of your resources (i.e. One great battleship, or 4 subs, or 3 destroyers - do you want to take on the enemy battleships, or merely take out his commerce and shipping?) Now, with airplanes and cruise missles, a broader spectrum of ships is again the tendency, rather than jack-of-all-needs like the battleship.

Also, if this is implemented, it gives a perfect idea for the English UU. Allow them, even though they are a sail ship, the ability to retreat like they were a steam driven ship. This would reflect the high discipline and seamanship of the Royal Navy throughout the sailing ship era, where it made a trememdous difference. Perhaps the Magellan's Wonder could have this tacked onto it as well.

Just some thoughts to make it more fun and match history.

[Ironikinit]

I haven't really thought through how many actual ships, men, or planes are in a unit.

I think of it differently than Andrew Cory, I know that much. Rather than units having fewer men or machines as time goes on, I just assumed they would have more, because armies got bigger as history progressed. The term "legion" suggests an actual Roman legion, that is, 3,000 to 4,000 men. The smallest self contained unit in modern armies is usually a division, which is about 15,000 people, so I kinda figured that a unit of infantry was a division. I really don't know, though. Maybe it's supposed to be a corps, a brigade, or as Andrew suggest with his marines example, a squad. I really don't think it's a squad, myself.

Even if a unit of infantry represents an army of 100,000, all that really means is that a transport doesn't represent a single ship. A battleship could still just be a single ship.

One problem is that the aircraft carrier arrives with the battleship, and the bomber comes close behind. (The aircraft carrier could be moved to advanced flight, then I'd have a reason to research it.) That doesn't give the battleship much time to dominate, esp. considering how quickly techs are typically researched in the late industrial period. It points up a problem with the model: tech is all or nothing. Units arrive on the scene as powerful as they'll ever be and don't improve with time.

Well, I have the feeling I've contributed exactly nothing, but I'm posting this anyway.

I still think that for play balance reasons, bombers shouldn't be allowed to sink ships under the current system. The current system works pretty well: transports move land units, carriers move air units, battleships protect them both. All are vulnerable to air attack, but must be attacked by missles or sea units to be completely destroyed. Therefore they cannot just be rubbed out by an unbalanced force until the arrival of rocketry.

If anybody comes up with something better and tests it out, that's cool. I'd like to hear about it. But when it comes down to it, I don't think it's a good idea to sacrifice play balance on the altar of realism. There are many other unrealistic instances in the game, yet for some reason this one gets all the attention.

[Libertarian]

Well, I have the feeling I've contributed exactly nothing, but I'm posting this anyway.

Now there's one for the archives.

[Andrew Cory]

Originally posted by Ironikinit
I haven't really thought through how many actual ships, men, or planes are in a unit.

I think of it differently than Andrew Cory, I know that much. Rather than units having fewer men or machines as time goes on, I just assumed they would have more, because armies got bigger as history progressed. The term "legion" suggests an actual Roman legion, that is, 3,000 to 4,000 men. The smallest self contained unit in modern armies is usually a division, which is about 15,000 people, so I kinda figured that a unit of infantry was a division. I really don't know, though. Maybe it's supposed to be a corps, a brigade, or as Andrew suggest with his marines example, a squad. I really don't think it's a squad, myself.

Even if a unit of infantry represents an army of 100,000, all that really means is that a transport doesn't represent a single ship. A battleship could still just be a single ship.

You do represent a _very_ valid view on things. The reason that I tend to think of things the way I do is because while armies have gotten smaller, numbers of actual units in the field have gotten smaller. That is, it may take about 100 guys just to put one plattoon actualy into action. What I would like to see (not that I think this could be done with a patch, but perhaps some future civ game) is the idea that if I have a unit out of my territory, it has to report back in every few turns for resuply. If it fails to do so, then I have to pay for its "in field upkeep". Certain units would be able to "live off the land", and not have to pay this...
(related note, a version of this related to trade would make small island nations competative...)

Originally posted by Ironikinit
One problem is that the aircraft carrier arrives with the battleship, and the bomber comes close behind. (The aircraft carrier could be moved to advanced flight, then I'd have a reason to research it.) That doesn't give the battleship much time to dominate, esp. considering how quickly techs are typically researched in the late industrial period. It points up a problem with the model: tech is all or nothing. Units arrive on the scene as powerful as they'll ever be and don't improve with time.

Again you are correct. One of these days, i am going to get around to actualy moving the carrier to advanced flight-- wasn't it there in Civ2?

Originally posted by Ironikinit
I still think that for play balance reasons, bombers shouldn't be allowed to sink ships under the current system. The current system works pretty well: transports move land units, carriers move air units, battleships protect them both. All are vulnerable to air attack, but must be attacked by missles or sea units to be completely destroyed. Therefore they cannot just be rubbed out by an unbalanced force until the arrival of rocketry.

If anybody comes up with something better and tests it out, that's cool. I'd like to hear about it. But when it comes down to it, I don't think it's a good idea to sacrifice play balance on the altar of realism. There are many other unrealistic instances in the game, yet for some reason this one gets all the attention.

One note: that "unballanced force" provides great impetus for upgrades, no? I do hope that they got around to fixing the whole thing with the computer and upgrades this patch...

I think that the Age of the Airplane is comming to an end, at least on water. With Rockets and missiles being so common, it is easier to send out a PT boat with really good weapons to knock out anything that gets sent against it, from about 1000 miles away. The Aegis cruiser, with it's extraordinary tracking/targeting capabilites just about makes the carrier obsolete as an actual naval weapon. Yes, you want them around as a mobile airforce for ground ops, but actual naval battles will be fought with missles...

[korn469]

But when it comes down to it, I don't think it's a good idea to sacrifice play balance on the altar of realism. There are many other unrealistic instances in the game, yet for some reason this one gets all the attention.

i have to say is two of the best examples of airplanes not being able to sink ships are Pearl Harbor and Dunkirk

what all of these "hey look at pearl harbor! airplanes sink ships!" type people forget is that most of the battle ships returned to service

i've posted this before but i think it deserves a second look

here is a report from the navy
found here http://www.history.navy.mil/faqs/faq66-1.htm

Of the more than 90 ships at anchor in Pearl Harbor, the primary targets were the eight battleships anchored there. seven were moored on Battleship Row along the southeast shore of Ford Island while the USS Pennsylvania (BB-38) lay in drydock across the channel. Within the first minutes of the attack all the battleships adjacent to Ford Island had taken bomb and or torpedo hits. The USS West Virginia (BB-48) sank quickly. The USS Oklahoma (BB-37) turned turtle and sank. At about 8:10 a.m., the USS Arizona (BB-39) was mortally wounded by an armorpiercing bomb which ignited the ship's forward ammunition magazine. The resulting explosion and fire killed 1,177 crewmen, the greatest loss of life on any ship that day and about half the total number of Americans killed. The USS California (BB-44), USS Maryland (BB-46), USS Tennessee (BB-43) and USS Nevada (BB-36) also suffered varying degrees of damage in the first half hour of the raid.

There was a short lull in the fury of the attack at about 8:30 a.m. At that time the USS Nevada (BB-36), despite her wounds, managed to get underway and move down the channel toward the open sea. Before she could clear the harbor, a second wave of 170 Japanese planes, launched 30 minutes after the first, appeared over the harbor. They concentrated their attacks on the moving battleship, hoping to sink her in the channel and block the narrow entrance to Pearl Harbor. On orders from the harbor control tower, the USS Nevada (BB-36) beached herself at Hospital Point and the channel remained clear.

When the attack ended shortly before 10:00 a.m., less than two hours after it began, the American forces has paid a fearful price. Twenty-one ships of the U.S. Pacific Fleet were sunk or damaged: the battleships USS Arizona (BB-39), USS California (BB-44), USS Maryland (BB-46), USS Nevada (BB-36), USS Oklahoma (BB-37), USS Pennsylvania (BB-38), USS Tennessee (BB-43) and USS West Virginia (BB-48); cruisers USS Helena (CL-50), USS Honolulu (CL-48) and USS Raleigh (CL-7); the destroyers USS Cassin (DD-372), USS Downes (DD-375), USS Helm (DD-388) and USS Shaw (DD-373); seaplane tender USS Curtiss (AV-4); target ship (ex-battleship) USS Utah (AG-16); repair ship USS Vestal (AR-4); minelayer USS Oglala (CM-4); tug USS Sotoyomo (YT-9); and Floating Drydock Number 2. Aircraft losses were 188 destroyed and 159 damaged, the majority hit before the had a chance to take off. American dead numbered 2,403. That figure included 68 civilians, most of them killed by improperly fused anti-aircraft shells landing in Honolulu. There were 1,178 military and civilian wounded.

Japanese losses were comparatively light. Twenty-nine planes, less than 10 percent of the attacking force, failed to return to their carriers.

The Japanese success was overwhelming, but it was not complete. They failed to damage any American aircraft carriers, which by a stroke of luck, had been absent from the harbor. They neglected to damage the shoreside facilities at the Pearl Harbor Naval Base, which played an important role in the Allied victory in World War II. American technological skill raised and repaired all but three of the ships sunk or damaged at Pearl Harbor (the USS Arizona (BB-39) considered too badly damaged to be salvaged, the USS Oklahoma (BB-37) raised and considered too old to be worth repairing, and the obsolete USS Utah (AG-16) considered not worth the effort).

so in an all out surprise attack on undefended ships, the Japanese were only able to sink or damage about 23% of the ships there, and out of the 8 battleships the Japanese sank or damaged, 5 of them returned to service and two of them weren't repaired simply because they were out of date...so only one battleship was permanently lost due to damage considerations at pearl harbor, even after a complete surprise attack when the ships were in port...it looks more like in civs terms a stack of 3 or four battle ships was taken down to 1hp

then you have dunkirk, the luftwaffe couldn't stop mostly unarmed ships from evacuating thousands and thousands of troops from france...they tried but couldn't

also after pearl harbor how many capital ships (cruisers, carriers, and battleships) did the US permanently lose to Japanese airpower? 5? 10? 25? more than that? i'm sure the percentage is going to be tiny

a carrier at the coral sea right? a carrier at midway right? how many more?

while i have heard some really good systems for overhauling the way civ3 handles airpower vs. seapower in these threads which would be nice if firaxis implemented (though doubtful, very doubtful) simply allowing airpower to sink ships isn't going to make civ3 any better, or any more realistic...jet fighters which represent F/A-18s would have problems sinking ironclads, while bombers representing B-17s would be bagging Aegis cruisers...how realistic is that??

[notyoueither]

How many Japanese ships were sunk by carrier and land based air?

50? 100? 200?

In fact, almost all of their shipping and naval losses were to aircraft. A negligable amount were lost to surface action. And some (many?) were lost to subs (especially merchants).

Now, how many U-Boats to air? 50? 100?

In fact, the level bomber did as much to win the battle of the Atlantic as the Destroyer and Corvette.

You have to examine the losers, not the winners.

That's like asking, how many men did Napoleon lose to Prussian or Russian Guards? That's not the point. The point is how many battles did the Prussians and Russians (and Austrians) lose because of the Imperial Guard? Many.

Salve

[Libertarian]

Note that before the ships were raised, they first sank.

[Zoid]

How about if they changed Japanes UU´s to kamikaze Mitsubishi Zeros?

[Ironikinit]

I'm glad you reposted that, korn, I didn't see it the first time you did. If a dive bomber unit is introduced, IMO it needs to be quite weak, similar to the cruise missle but reusable. It should also be quite vulnerable to interception by fighters on air superiority missions, IMO.

In order to run an attack on an aircraft carrier with fighters aboard and hope to sink it solely with air power, a guy should have to first run a bombing mission with fighters to engage the defending fighters, then use regular bombers, then apply the coup de grace with the dive bombers, running the risk of losing one or two in the process. It shouldn't be a little thing to take out a carrier.

Here we run into another problem with the system. There's no set up with "rock paper scissors" types of vulnerability. Well, there is in the instance of fighters set to air superiority vs. bombers, but generally in the game, units that are weak against one are weak against all. As it is, it's impossible to make a carrier vulnerable to, say, submarines without weakening its defence against all. One could counter that by tinkering with the attack values of other units, but their attack value applies to all targets.

What would be nice is something someone suggested early on in the thread, and y'all will excuse me if I'm too lazy to look back and see so as to give proper credit, but what it amounted to was different types of defense and attack values for different attackers and targets. Beyond the current scope of the game, but I think it's simple enough that general audiences could grasp it. Panzer General used an RPS system and was really popular.

I have no idea how many capital ships were lost to air power in WWII. I don't suppose it would be too tough to find out.

[korn469]

notyoueither

the submarine not the airplane is what should be getting the respect

http://www.nwdc.navy.mil/Library/Documents/NDPs/ndp1/ndp10004.htm

Analyzing the effectiveness of submarine warfare, the former Soviet Union Admiral of the Fleet, Sergei Gorshkov, noted in his study of this period that German submarines nearly ended the war through the rapid destruction of the allied merchant fleet. German forces, especially U-boats, were credited with sinking more than 2,800 merchant ships - 68% of all tonnage sunk by Nazi Germany in the war. So devastating was this weapon that, at the height of the allied counteroffensive, for each German U-boat, there were 25 U.S. and British warships and 100 aircraft in pursuit. For every German submariner at sea, there were 100 American and British antisubmariners.

submarines accounted for 60% of all japanese tonnage sunk by the americans, while submarines only made up 2% of US forces

http://www.mediacen.navy.mil/pubs/allhands/apr99/pg48.htm

found at the bottom of the page

That's like asking, how many men did Napoleon lose to Prussian or Russian Guards?

well if you count his invasion of russia, i'd say quite a few

Libertarian

also note that each turn in civ3 is at least one year long, and that ww2 would have only taken four turns to fight, so the battleships would have been back ready to fight after resting a single turn

[Libertarian]

As you wish. In that case, however, rather than referencing "American technological skill", the Navy ought to have referenced "Ubiquitous and gratuitous technological skill".

[korn469]

it's an official US Navy website, what do you expect?

all i'm trying to point out is that in ww2, you were much more likely to die as a sailor from a submarine than an airplane, yet many people think that like 99.9% of all ships sank in ww2 were sank by aircraft

also simply allowing airpower to sink ships won't suddenly balance the game

in my opinion airpower is weak in default civ3, and that the best way to make it stronger is to give air units more than one move and the blitz ability instead of the sink ships ability

[Grumbold]

Originally posted by Libertarian
Note that before the ships were raised, they first sank.

True, but on Civ timescales the ships would be back and ready to sail at full strength after a single turn. One battleship unit would have been killed provided you believe that civ uses 1:1 scale to represent 90 ships in a single port.

Note that Korn didn't say planes can't sink ships, just that Pearl Harbour is a really bad example to use. It was interesting too that having aimed to target the battleships and carriers they still managed to destroy 10x more American planes than ships and lost more of their own planes. That was with total surprise and massive numbers.

When we start talking about modern warfare the aircraft may have a natural advantage over ships but the missile has advantages over both. The side that wins is the side that can detect its opponent and launch first. Its all about electronic detection and countermeasures.

I'd love to play a Civ game with panzer general style stats but it would have to be done from the ground up, including a balanced mix of forces from every era. Far more than Civ's attacker, defender and bombard.