Combat Sucks

[Coracle]

Originally posted by Ghengis Brom


This is prolly gonna stir up even more debate but here goes anyway. Recently aireal(sp?) photos of Pearl Harbor taken during the attack have been analyzed using modern computers and software. After the analysis digitally enhanced versions of the photo show a large distinctive cigar-shaped shadow in the middle of the harbor with what appears to be thin trail going through the water from the shadowy object directly toward the Arizona. It's not conclusive but it does indicate that there may have possibly been a Japanese sub in the Pearl during the attack and why the Arizona was so badly damaged.

It has been suggested that was a Jap torpedo that STUCK in the bottom of the harbor and just kept its propeller running.

No one know for sure.

[Tarquelne]

In an attempt to head off a big naval-airpower discussion, I want to exapand on my first post.

Originally posted by Tarquelne
"i don't see why people embrace this"

It's because it's the most obvious unrealistic characteristic of the combat system.

This statement was certainly picked up on....

(Not necessarily truly the most unrealistic characteristic - just the most obvious one.)

I should have been more clear here. Or maybe just put the statement more strongly: The way Civ3 hadles air bombardment vrs. ships isn't necessarily unrealistic.

The fact that planes can sink is a very important factor in RL naval warfare.

I thought that was the most important sentence. VERY IMPORTANT FACTOR. The previous note on the # of battleships in use is a telling point. How about "The role of airpower can not be understated."? Well, I certainly could, but I think we're in the ballpark. In many ways the planes are now more important than the ships. (Not _all_ ways, possibly not the most important ways, but many....)

But that airpower principle is one that most people know - planes are the natural "predator" of ships. It's a classic "rock beats paper", sort of thing - a big, huge, hundreds-of-people-on-board ship _can_ be sunk by a single aircraft. The fact that it generally takes swarms of single aircraft is beside the point.

Ship or Ships: I think it's bloody obvious that a single, say, Pikemen in Civ3 isn't a single pikeman. OTOH, it isn't so obvious that a single Battleship in Civ3 isn't a single ship. Ships do fight battles alone - generally as a result of either bad planning or much work by the enemy, but it happens. A lone pikeman doesn't fight a battle by himself - he's simply killed. And then there's the costs - a single pikeman isn't going to cost as much as a building - so a Pikemen unit must be a group. A single BB, however, can be easily imagined to cost as much as a building.
Now, I'm NOT saying that the above proves that a ship-unit in Civ3 should be thought of as a single ship. I think the above does, however, demonstrate why it'd be easy to believe so. And that's all you need to foster the _percieved_ poor realism of the ship-bombard rule.

The Naval Airpower discussion: I don't believe that anyone here needs to be told the facts. I think we can all agree that the planes have been quite important since WWII, and remain important, right? And that planes can sink ships right? And that it often takes lots of planes, and they don't often get _all_ the ships in a fleet, harbor, or whatever, OK? Still all together? If so, then there's no need to discuss it anymore. (Though I wouldn't mind being told the # of ships sunk by planes since 1943 vrs. the number sunk by ships.) What still should be a matter of debate, though, is the bombardment vrs. ships rule in Civ3.

My thoughts (again): It's fine as is. (I don't think it unbalanced or significantly unrealistic that most other rules.) However, I think it'd be more fun if the occasional ship were sunk via bombardment, and the occasional unit were destroyed by bombardment. (So I'd support whatever kill-probability yeilds "occasional" kills.)

[Tuberski]

I agree with Tarquelne.

Whatever may be the case in the real world, we are stuck with the combat system that we have. Shouldn't we be thinking of better ways to use the system instead of complaining about.

I'd be happy if we could do both in the same thread. Offer a complsaint about something, and then a way to get around the complaint...if possible.

[korn469]

ok
here is what we know...the Manhattan Project costs 800 shields

according to this study

http://www.brook.edu/dybdocroot/FP/PROJECTS/NUCWCOST/MANHATTN.HTM

the real Manhattan Project was 20 billion dollars in constant 1996 dollars...and i kinda doubt that a single WW2 battleship cost 5 billion in constant 1996 dollars but it is possible

anyways

i just wanna say this

my point has always been that airpower is vitally important to military operations no matter if they are on the land or sea and that civ3 needs to reflect this, but that a combination of increasing airpower's bombardment along with increasing hitpoints, and then topping it off with allowing airpower to perform many missions in the game would allow airpower to become stronger without it sinking ships

my other point is that the airpower should sink ships argument usually comes in two flavors, the first is it will fix combat which i do not believe to be so, the second is that it is "unrealistic" and even looking beyond the entire Civ3 is quite possibly one of the most unrealistic games ever, depending on the scale of operations, which are huge considering that the smallest unit of time in civ3 is one year then airpower not sinking ships is more historically "realistic"

however when i argue that airpower can't sink ships, i am saying that on an operational level in virtually all cases, airpower cannot destroy an entire fleet of ships, instead it can severly wound them

but i have NEVER argued that on a tactical level an airplane can't sink a ship, of course it can!

[notyoueither]

Midway. All of the Japanese Fleet Carriers sunk. Gone. Blotto. No raising from the bottom. Never came back. Never reached home port to be able to heal. The Japanese began with some Carriers in a stack, they ended with none.

At any rate, the issue with the Air/Sea combat system is not necessarily realism per se. No game like Civ3 is ever going to be fully *realistic*. It can't be by the very definition of the genre.

The issue is flavour and atmosphere. Many of us would prefer a more meaningful system for the interaction between aircraft and ships. We are not wrong. These are our preferences. Preferences cannot be wrong. They can be well founded or misguided, moral or immoral, ethical or unethical, common or uncommon, etc, etc; they are never right or wrong.

BTW. It would require much more than a simple *sink ship* flag in the editor. Ships would also have to be able to shoot back. Other adjustments would be desirable too. Some of us were exploring the possibilities some time ago, but the thread seems to have died. It is becoming apparent to me that I can have that effect on threads.

Salve

[korn469]

Midway. All of the Japanese Fleet Carriers sunk. Gone. Blotto. No raising from the bottom. Never came back. Never reached home port to be able to heal. The Japanese began with some Carriers in a stack, they ended with none.

are you sure about that?

how about the following Japanese carriers at midway that WERE NOT sunk

Seaplane Carriers

Chitose - 20 observation seaplanes
Kamikawa Maru - 8 observation seaplanes
Carrying seaplane group to be set up at Kure Island
Chiyoda
Nisshin - carrying 2 motor torpedo boats and 6 midget submarines

light carrier
Hosho - 8 Nakajima Type 97 torpedo bombers (Kate)

also the Japanes scuttled the Hiryu and the Akagi

and a great deal of the Japanese fleet at midway was unhurt

plus the Americans were attacking with fighter which only have a bombardment of 2 and the Japanese had battleships stacked with the carriers so the fighters would have attacked the battleships first and the battleship would have so defeated them

sheesh why are you trying to bring up something as unrealistic as that?!

fighters damaging battleships in civ3? it's preposterous really

i'm just joking around with you, and just trying to point out that on second look things usually aren't as clear cut as they seem

[GePap]

Gameplay issue

The inability to sink ships with planes is a gameplay issue. it forces players into taking actions they might not want, and it also makes the game easier- In real life, and civ2, if I wanted to counter a naval invasion, a strong enought airforce was enough, as in real life. In real life, air superiority is key, which is why the US has twelve carriers and thus the most powerful fleet in the world. in civ3, why even build carriers? So, when aircraft can't sink ships, i am forced to build ships, and heaven help if my coatline can't support heavily industiral cities to build ships at anything other than glacial speed.

Second, In civ2, when planning an amphibious invasion, i always had to worry about their airpower- now, if the have no ships in the area, your set. Since the Computer is not the smartest, it becomes less capable of stopping invasions since its naval policy is not very good, most of the time.

Planes siking ships, which just from realism standpoint they should be able to, also would make the game more challenging and make more varied strategies possible, and i am always for game ideas that open up more avenues for play.

[korn469]

Planes siking ships, which just from realism standpoint they should be able to

if anyone can give me ten different examples of an entire fleet being sunk by airpower alone, and i will never ever say it is unrealistic again, i promise

Planes siking ships, also would make the game more challenging and make more varied strategies possible

well fighter and jet fighters can't sink ships because they are too weak, ironclads could survive their attacks so you're left with bombers and stealth units...then if you incorporate shooting back, then bombers would die about half the time when attacking battleships if they compare bombard strength, and it still doesn't make airpower as powerful as we want it, because it takes an entire turn to rebase an air unit this brings me to another point

when planning an amphibious invasion, i always had to worry about their airpower- now, if the have no ships in the area, your set.

since it takes a turn to rebase bombers, most amphibious invasion are going to be successful no matter if bombers can sink ships or not

[notyoueither]

Originally posted by korn469
are you sure about that?

how about the following Japanese carriers at midway that WERE NOT sunk

Seaplane Carriers

Chitose - 20 observation seaplanes
Kamikawa Maru - 8 observation seaplanes
Carrying seaplane group to be set up at Kure Island
Chiyoda
Nisshin - carrying 2 motor torpedo boats and 6 midget submarines

light carrier
Hosho - 8 Nakajima Type 97 torpedo bombers (Kate)

also the Japanes scuttled the Hiryu and the Akagi

korn, korn, korn... I will grant you persistence, a virtue/vice I am also guilty of. BUT...

Fact is the Japanese began with 5 (?) FLEET Carriers. Carriers capable of duking it out with anybody in the world. I don't think a sea plane carrier counts in the same league, does it? Is it even represented in the game? Or is it a support vessel, like so many other support vessels that are not represented in this game. I don't even think they were all represented in WitP (a game that took hours to simulate 1 week of the great Japanese-American conflict.)

Scuttling? Yes, that is exactly what navies do when a ship is damaged beyond their ability to recover due to the presence of enemy activity. The result is the same. They were irrevocably sunk, never to be seen again. They were lost due to aircraft alone. I do not envisage ever seeing a *should we scuttle this ship or risk it's capture?* optional dialogue box in any civ game I may ever play.

and a great deal of the Japanese fleet at midway was unhurt

plus the Americans were attacking with fighter which only have a bombardment of 2 and the Japanese had battleships stacked with the carriers so the fighters would have attacked the battleships first and the battleship would have so defeated them

sheesh why are you trying to bring up something as unrealistic as that?!

fighters damaging battleships in civ3? it's preposterous really

i'm just joking around with you, and just trying to point out that on second look things usually aren't as clear cut as they seem

Oh, joking around... OK. I kind of detected that with the Kamikaze unit you proposed in that other thread.

But it still comes down to preferences. Some of us are blood thirsty, sea going types who want more bang for our Air/Naval buck. Hope that's OK with you Blitzer types. And if it isn't, tough torpedoes

Salve

[Grumbold]

I'm amazed there's enough of this horse left to flog. I suppose someone somewhere is still arguing that having three attack dice and two defence dice in Risk is unrealistic with large armies. Its a game and games have rules, some of which you may not like.

Instead of nitpicking endlessly why not just keep asking Firaxis nicely for expanded editor options. If one of them happens to be the relative fatality chances of ships v planes then you can all play the game the way you want to while arguing (somewhere else hopefully) which one of you has the most accurate settings in this deeply inaccurate game

[notyoueither]

Grumbold.

It is these discussions that Firaxis sees. If we no discuss they no think they have to change something. Comprende?

BTW. They have said they are working on the editor. That is why it is far from pointless for people to mention what they would like to see in it.

Salve

[korn469]

notyoueither

here are some US production figures from WW2

88,430 tanks
274,941 aircraft
650,000 jeeps
64,500 landing craft
10 battleships during the war 8 of them 35,000 tons or more
17 large aircraft carriers able to carry 100 aircraft and displacing more than 27,000 tons
more than 80 smaller carriers able to carry from 21 to 45 aircraft
49 cruisers
368 destroyers
6,500 other naval vessels

as can be found by exploring this site

http://www.ndu.edu/inss/macnair/mcnair50/m50c9.html

also part of the reason for the dispariety between army and naval production is that

Between 1918 and 1933, the United States produced only 35 tanks

while the US pacific fleet had 8 battleships, 3 carriers, 21 cruisers, 67 destroyers, and 27 submarines, with another 3 cruisers, 13 destoyers and 29 submarines in the US Asiatic Fleet

http://www.naval-history.net/WW2CampaignsPacific.htm

anyways...instead of arguing about wheather Midway or Pearl Harbor were on the Operational level or on the tactical level, and arguing about if airpower can destroy fleets on the operational level i will instead say the following

_______________________________

in the default set of of civ3 rules, airpower and bombard units can't destroy units because of balance considerations, and i agree with this

however, units that were on the receiving end of the bombardments should not heal that turn, as per SMAC rules, so if an infantry unit in a city with a barrack gets bombarded on a turn by several units and is down to 1hp it should not heal at the begining of the next turn, this would make bombardment more worthwhile

also as per SMAC rules, highly damaged units should move slower than undamaged units, so units in the red should move at least one square slower, this would improve the game without major revisions of the rules and it would make bombardment units stronger

[simwiz2]

"out of all of the battleships sunk or damaged (eight i do believe) at pearl harbor, only three didn't return to service"

If those sunk ships were out at sea, would they have been raised? Also, sure some may have been returned to service, but was it for free? Im almost certain it would have cost some gold or shields to fix up those ships. The biggest problem now is you bombard the crap out of a ship and it rests in a harbor city, is back in action in 1 turn, and cost the enemy nothing.

Also the arizona wasnt raised, and was sunk. So that is a destroyed battleship unit.

[korn469]

simwiz2

i was trying to bow out of this debate, because like grumbold said we have flogged this horse to death but i'll bite

If those sunk ships were out at sea, would they have been raised?

well if they were out at sea then it is doubtful that the japanese would have taken them by surprise, and with damage control and antiaircraft stations manned then it would have been a much harder task, especially when the battleships were actually moving

japanese airpower didn't sink another battleship after Pearl Harbor, and i think they may have only destroyed four other large carriers, and until later in the war, long after the IJN had already lost the war i don't think that the japanese lost many battleships to airpower alone

so Pearl Harbor is an aboration

then in civ3, each turn is a year in length at the shortest, and WW2 turns are two years each...so battles in Civ3 are not the same as battles in real life, probably the coral sea and midway would have been a single encounter in civ3 and not two different battles

Also, sure some may have been returned to service, but was it for free? Im almost certain it would have cost some gold or shields to fix up those ships. The biggest problem now is you bombard the crap out of a ship and it rests in a harbor city, is back in action in 1 turn, and cost the enemy nothing.

this is incorrect,
you pay upkeep on units even, while some forms of governments get free units this is just an abstraction to show that those forms of governments devote a significant part of their GDP to the military

also for those of you who value naval realism above all else, why aren't you arguing against the slow speed of ships? they move at around a mile a day or something...isn't this wrong?

the Iowa class battleship had a top speed of like 33 knots per hour, and could easily go around the world in 2 years (1 WW2 turn) so why isn't this an issue?

[Captain]

Originally posted by simwiz2

If those sunk ships were out at sea, would they have been raised? Also, sure some may have been returned to service, but was it for free? Im almost certain it would have cost some gold or shields to fix up those ships. The biggest problem now is you bombard the crap out of a ship and it rests in a harbor city, is back in action in 1 turn, and cost the enemy nothing.

Yes. But in Civ 3, your airplanes bombing that ship are invulnerable to anti-aircraft fire, so it sortof balances that out.

Most modern ships have an abundance of anti-air missiles, alongside their anti-ship missiles. Navies recognize the danger of air and have equipped ships with significant countermeasures.

This isn't to say that the combat is good. I agree it needs some revamping.
Here are suggestions for improvement:

-> The injured unit reduced movement is a good idea. Please reintroduce that.

-> HP's based on experience is kind of silly. Stats should be improved instead. HP's should depend on armouring and number of troops (like the army idea). Units costing pop points should have higher HPs as they represent how the scale of warfare since nationalism has increased. Also, how when chemical energy (gunpowder) replaces muscular energy, battles lasted much longer and consumed more people.

->has anyone tried to make a "fleet"? basically create an army for water units that can simulate a fleet?

->bombard needs revision so we can try to target specific things. Even in the days of catapults, they generally had some kind of aim - even if it was bad. You should be able to say, I want to hit bldgs, or citizens, or the friggin' units instead of it being so random.

->fix precision bombing in the same way, so we get to choose. right now it's really dumb. If I want precision, I'm looking to hit either units or military buildings, not civilians. That's terror/carpet bombing instead, which should be an option too.

-> scale of ADMs should be improved. Mods take care of this, but an "official" stance would be nicer.

-> fix the unlimited RR movement already! (personal beef with this). I play mostly ancient/medieval for the sole sake of avoiding RRs. they are ugly and ruin gameplay. They make land units way too quick.

-> I like UUs, but not based on CIV! That's not only ridiculous, it's genetically/racially abhorrent. Base it on Government Form, or tie it to certain buildings instead. Then you can choose which UUs to invest in, instead of being hardcoded in.

(*I have real problems with the decision Firaxis made. If I don't want hardcoded civs for obvious reasons, then I have to disable them - which means less units and less variety.
But I understand it, since many ppl like it, and maybe it was the only way the AI could handle it).

->Some other means of generating a great leader. They weren't all military geniuses. Or different KINDS of leaders. That can't be that hard to do. Great Military leaders can build armies and hurry Militaristic Wonders. Civilian leaders can pacify people in the city they reside so there is never any disorder, or hurry non-military wonders. you casn think of more, but I've left it at two types.

Military leaders you get the same way you do now.
Civilian leaders you may get when completing wonders, or when arranging a peace treaty, or when achieving something (maybe providing some use for demographics screen).
Higher chance of leaders during Golden Age and WLTKDs.

-> Fix razing. Warriors, or any other units, that can only move one tile per turn, attack once per turn, and kill a maximum of one other unit per turn, should not be able raze a size 15 metropolis in one turn. You can't kill 15 units in a turn with one unit, so that unit shouldn't be able to raze a whole city in one turn. (Note: IRL, if 1 turn=1 year, razing is possible. But since turns don't actually mean that, think of it the way I said above.)

Razing should be like force conscripting workers (or refugee units that are useful as pop only.) and should depend on # of units. Five units in said city would raze it in 3 turns. Three units would take 5 turns.

-> Give me MAD! the right way. Nuke invulnerability now is better than civ 2, but still a far cry from true MAD.

-> Fix culture flipping. 'nuff said.

-> the air versus ship thing mentioned above. Ships should be able to fire on air, and air should be able to sink ships. AA or SAM equipped land troops should be able to fire on air. Air should not be able to kill ground completely, as it is.

->repair costs to fix units? I don't know about this one.


On the plus side:
++ I like no healing in enemy territory. Makes sense. Makes it tougher too. Gives incentive to having high culture (since it slows approaching enemies), this is possibly the best use of culture yet.

++ I like the abstracted air units. Civ 2 was silly with planes floating in midair between turns.

++ I like the strategic resources requirements. This is great! Cutting off someone's iron supply or horses supply in the ancient era is really crippling. I once sacrificed a city to keep a resource instead. And colonies are useful. If you can't wait the thirty turns for borders to expand or to build that settler, and you need iron now, it's very useful.

++ The luxury resources also add to combat because of strategy involved. I get to move more troops to the front lines because I don't need them for martial law.

++ Stacked units no longer die when the first does. This is great! Now those piles of enemy troops are something to be feared, not easy pickings.

++ Capturing non-combatants. workers and settlers, artillery. Good idea. I have to be careful defending them.

++ Generally a tougher AI has been good. It's still beatable but less the pushover that it was in Civ 2.


Comments?