Air Naval Combat for Firaxis and Modders and You

[notyoueither]

Dan said that?





I Sorry.

I guess I can *get over it* now.

There remain some other issues that could greatly enhance the flavour of navies and air power in the game.

The limits on air range make it very difficult to adjust ship movement rates. Some ships (and some other units) will need AA values. What else?

Salve

[korn469]

will AA fire be included in this or what?

plus like nye said, is there anything in the works for increasing the operational range of air units?

how about a fix for the size 1 city bombard bug?

[notyoueither]

korn.

A bit OT, but why not. When you say size 1 city bombard bug I assume you are referring to the wasted shots that would have hit civilians, right?

If so, I'm not sure it is a bug.

Bombardment is subject to the laws of diminishing returns. Well packed areas would yield better shell to damage ratios than more sparsely occupied/built up areas. Some target areas would yield very poor results after significant bombardment. Some other areas may not yield good results even before the first shell flies.

When bombardment begins to yield fewer results when a city starts at or is reduced to 1 pop, I do not have a problem with it.

Of course, maybe the designers did not intend those shots to be wasted. If so, then it is a bug. But then again, maybe they intended to give this advantage to the few buildings a 1 pop city would have and to the troops who would garrison that burg.

Salve

[korn469]

nye

well it is a VERY poor implementation, and again these freaky things only happen at size one, same with pop rushing

no matter what the bombard strength of a unit is, and no matter that the defense strength of a unit is, when units are in a size 1 city with no buildings then bombard fails 2 of out three times

in a size 2 city with a single building with outrageous bombard strength compared to defense bombards fails 1 out of 1001 tries (assuming 1000 bombard and one defense like i tested it at)

that is not a small increase, that is a huge jump from about a .09% failure rate to about a 67% percent failure rate...i mean why should bombardment fail about 670 times as much in a size 1 city without buildings as what it does in a size 2 city with a temple?

to me if that is not a bug then it is a very poor design choice that needs to be fixed, if you have a fortifed unit in a fortress on a mountain across a river all of those defense bonuses adds up to 25%+50%+100%+25% or only about three times as much as an unfortified unit on a grasslands tile, and to get all of those bonuses you have to work for it...why should a player get those huge rewards for the other player doing a good job?

bug or not it needs to be fixed

But then again, maybe they intended to give this advantage to the few buildings a 1 pop city would have and to the troops who would garrison that burg

ok now this is what i don't understand at all...here i am saying that air units need massive help because they don't deliver proper bang for the buck, this has always been my argument, but for some reason most people think if they can kill ships suddenly they aren't going to suck...and you were one of the people saying they really needed the help from sinking ships, yet in a situation where air units become virtually unusable you think it is ok?

i don't understand at all

i mean i came across this bug after i had pumped up air units, with normal air units it would be virtually impossible to bomb out a large group of units in a city, and i think this applies to artillary bombards as well...i mean if you brought a settler along with you and built a size one city close to the enemy and purposely made it not grow then you would be immune to their bombard units...i thought you wanted half way decent airpower too?

[candidgamera]

Originally posted by korn469
will AA fire be included in this or what?

plus like nye said, is there anything in the works for increasing the operational range of air units?

Absolutely on the operational range of aircraft. Have concluded in general the best solution for ship movement is adjust it according to world size so crossing oceans is not so much like travelling to alpha centauri.

On 256x256 I'm trying Galley-4, Caravel-6, Frigate, Galleon-8, Destroyer - 16, Carrier - 14, Battleship -12, transport - 10, ironclad 6 or something like that (have them sinking in sea and ocean too).

Reasoning on ironclad: an abstract way to represent that sail was still important for some time after steam came along. From WARSHIP tape get the impression steamships needed a good net of coaling stations, the propeller, and later the turbine to come into their own. Clipper ships heyday a good example of this.

nye:
The response was to a general question about bombardment, which ought to make you happy.

korn:
Don't know if they'll give the air strength improvements have now to units - that would be a straight forward solution.

Link:

http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?s=&threadid=18335

[korn469]

and if the size 1 rule is what they intended, then please firaxis give me a switch to turn this off!

[Kuciwalker]

The AA thing is, in my opinion, almost necessary for normal play and mods alike. It would really just need to be like the Air Superiority command, except the unit wouldn't move during it, just fire at the air unit. This would allow for SAM emplacements, REALISTIC AEGIS, flak batteries, etc. It would also be very good for space scenarios, allowing starships to shoot back at fighters. Also, an option for whether or not a unit can be destroyed by bombardment or bombing. Firaxis doesn't need to implement these abilities, just give us the ability to use them. Otherwise a LOT of scenario ideas are down the toilet.

[Tarquelne]

We just can't wait for Harpoon 4, huh?

Land vrs. Sea combat values: A few posts early on (I'm hoping no one else has already writting what I'm about it, and I missed it over the last 2 pages) mentioned needing to change ship combat values because they seemed to low compared to land combat values... but are they ever compared? I thought that land units and ships could use thier bombard values against each other - and that's it. So, basically, the attack and defense values of the two types of units are completely independent of each other, and comparing a BB attack to a MA attack is just nonesensical.

Ummm.... anything to contribute?

Hmm... I have made a few changes that vastly increased my enjoyment of the (tiny) naval portion of Civ3.

Several tweaks to values (combat and cost) of naval units - esp. modern ones. The most important single change being increasing the range of BBs from 2 to 3. Really made 'em feel like battleships.

My "Glorifying the Age of Sail" modification. Rearrainged the tech tree a little to make Frigates, Galleons, MoW etc. come several steps earlier, and moved Ironclads 1 tech later. Probably less true to history, but I like having pirates and frigates and such around.

A suggestion:
Submarines: Has the potential ability of subs. (or blockades in general) to sever "supply" lines for Strategic or Luxury resources, not just generic gold or shields, been mentioned? I think that'd be super. And I do think an abstract system would work fine.
The less coding the better.... I think the simplest way to handle it might be this:

Game compares Naval Strength values between civs. I think something pretty simple would work - sums of attack+defense values for all warships, or something. (Hmm.... sum of defense values for all ships with an attack value?) Certain units (like DDs) can count twice... or not, not a big deal.

Here's where it gets more complicated: Submarines are built like "Wealth." Each turn you build any "Submarines" you're generating a "Subwarfare total." The higher your SW total, the better the odds that you'll increase corruption in a city that has a sea-connection to the capital, or cut the flow of Resources over a sea-connection for a set number of turns. Your SW total (or the probability of getting a good result from the total) is modified by comparing your Naval Strength to all your opponent's Naval Strengths.

Another way to do it would be to have each Sub. be built like a building or unit - takes a certain # of turns, then it's complete. Each time you complete a Sub you get a "roll" on the SW table. (And, I guess, you can keep the sub and try to sink something with it too.)

I think this method is relatively easy because the programers just need to
Step 0 (optional): Create a new "Submarine Warfare" improvement that's like Wealth. Not so simple.
Step 1: Generate some totals, and compare them. Easy, right?
Step 2: Derive the SW results from the totals. All that's needed is a virtaul dice roll and comparison to a table. Still easy, I think.
Step 3: Apply the results. Well, here's the hard part. I hope, though, that the code could re-use whatever code is already in place for blockades. The SW results would place "virtual blockades" invisibley on the map. (I'm hopeing these virtual blockades would effect fairly large sections of the supply "grid." An island, as opposed to a single city.

On yeah - the player will need to be notified as to what's going on. "Persian Submarines have blockaded the port of Aswan and associated cities."

By the way, when I write of the changes needing to be "simple" or "easy" I do so not because I think the Firaxis programmers are unskilled, but because I think that if a change is easy/simple it's far, far more likely to be implimented - I know the programmers have other things to do. Meetings, coffee, playing games, etc, etc.

[notyoueither]

korn.

I've been put in my place. I forgot that you had experimented with mega bombers. Yup, sounds more like a bug.

But still, Bombers can do the job, you just need more of them.

I get your point of the 1 pop burg as a semi-mobile Fortress. Follow your troops around with a few Settlers. Plop one down to build the Bombardment Bastion. Rush build Walls then start building a Settler. When the danger is past, and after the city grows to 2, rush buy the Settler to disband the Bombardment Bastion. Self-regenerating semi-mobile Fortresses. I don't think that's what the Russians did at Borodino, but I'll bet you see it in MP.

Now that we're talking exploit, you can just about assure yourself that it will be changed.

[Edit] BTW. I'm not simply for pumping up Air Units. I'm after a more flavourful Air-Sea combat system. I wish to see the Oceans alive with more varied units and strategies. That's what I am after. The sink ships bit is only the tip of the iceburg, so to speak.

Oh. And scratch the Walls. They'd be pointless. Build the SRSMF in Hills if available. [/Edit]

Salve

[Kuciwalker]

Also, make Air Superiority and AA cover missions that were flown through the area they cover, not just in. That way long-range bombers and such wouldn't be able to hit interior targets without being engaged by the border aircraft. I don't think this is in their already.

[planetfall]

SAM's should also work against bombers. I have only seen them work vs missiles.

Why not have both AA and SAM's?

Current: have a harbor, you have trade. Why not if freighter does not traverse between remote resource and palace connected port in 20 turns, that resource is unavailable to palace connected cites. Huh, sea freight targets. Currently we have naval power and naval unit transport, why not sea freight.

Then we would not have to worry about sea trade routes, just getting a freighter between port A and port B to keep resource availability.

Give us at least one bomber between a B17 and stealth. B52 would be a nice bridge unit.
More than 3 bombers is not necessary but at least 3 with the ability to have bombers fly further than ships. With good AA and SAM's the game play should not be all Air but require a balance between air and sea and land.

While talking about navy, why not add another switch in editor: see subs AND see SSN. SSN should not be as visible to as many surface ships as SS. A SSN primary defense is invisibility and that option is not available in present game.

[Mikel]

Thought I'd pick up on the role of Submarines. Way back someone suggested a Third Reich style tactical box that subs go to to disrupt trade. I think this is a good idea, but as korn has said we should stick to what they can work on right now (doesn't mean they shouldn't make fundamental changes to the game in future expansions) so why not give sub a blockade command that allows them to block enemy trade in a fat X (city radius) around them. This would now make disrupting a large enemies supply lines a slightly more feasible tactic, and also gives you navies a new importance other than transporting invasions.

Other types of ships could also have special functions. Caravels and Galleons could be given a Trade order if within the radius of a city with a harbour so that that city produces an extra 2 and 3 gold. Not sure about that idea but maybe it starts someone else thinking.

The aim of both these options is to create targets that are performing passive functions in the oceans that push the player and AI into forming a navy to go and deal with them, At the moment ships are just there to transport troops and support attacks which limits the games tactical options.