Zylka’s 95 theses on why Civilization 3 is an utter disappointment.

[Hurricane]

Re: Zylka’s 95 theses on why Civilization 3 is an utter disappointment.

Originally posted by Zylka
19 - Why do all naval units have such a melodramatic firing animation? Battleships don’t violently rock back and forth with active turrets, they do weigh a good 50, 000 tons, after all.

Yes they do.

56 - Units can not use enemy roads. It’s fine enough that you can’t use enemy railroads, but roads??? Again, you’d like to render warfare in it’s entirety obsolete, I see. What’s the story here - are you a bunch of hippies, or what?

I agree that this is unrealistic, but that´s the price for removing Civ2-like Zone of Controls. No ZOCs and full move inside enemy territory would make defense impossible, and end in even more unrealistic warfare. I think this solution works good enough in the Civ3 combat system.

60 - Bombers can not target specific improvements.

Nor could they in WW2 (when talking Civ3 scale).

62 - “Random number generator” has been proven time and again to be completely out of whack.

No it hasn´t.

63 - AI trades very poorly

Unfair is not the same as poorly. They trade very well among each other.

I disagree with many of the other statements, too, but most of them were already mentioned, and some were just so silly I didn´t bother. I of course agree with some of them, too.

[civman2000]

one other bug i've noticed w/naval warfare that is very annoying is that air superiority does not work from a carrier...

[awesomedude]

Originally posted by civman2000
one other bug i've noticed w/naval warfare that is very annoying is that air superiority does not work from a carrier...

Ok, I haven't been playing Civ3 in a while, but I do clearly remember that air superiority does work from carriers (unless something changed with 1.17). I remember putting some 3 or 4 carriers outside the coast of France (far off my own coast), along with a deployment of 10 or so tanks. The French had very little airpower, but they sent their two bombers after my tanks, both of which were blown to bits by my fighters that I had put on 'air superiority' on the previous turn (on the carriers).

[AJ Corp. The FAIR]

Zylka, I've just posted a compliment on your sexy avatar, but now you've changed it.

What happened?

Did she finally get her transsexual operation?

Bring her back!

Please

AJ

[Thrawn05]

Re: Naval debate

Originally posted by Kenjura
To all of the history buffs arguing about the naval thing:

Give it a rest. I'm sure we can all agree that either new planes should be available to sink ships (i.e. the naval bomber) or that existing bombers should be able to sink them fine. Also, it should be readily apparent that bombing land units should NOT be lethal.

Thus, let's salvage this huge debate into one request to firaxis:

let aerial bombardment (in some form) do full damage to ships, and ships alone.

There. Nothing further can come of this particular debate. Nothing more about air power sinking ships.

Or two options in the editor, one for lethal naval damage and one for lethal land damage. Either can be checked on/off independent of each other. Each units has these options (they're disabled if they don't have bombardment values).

[bigvic]

Yeah, but...

Originally posted by korn469


this isn't a bomber problem, this is a naval unit upgrade problem



no where to hide? here is a couple facts about the pacific ocean from this site

http://www.ocean.udel.edu/extreme2001/mission/location/pacific.html

also i feel that a ship in civ3 isn't a single ship, instead it is a group of ships, and that it operates above the tactical level

a single battle in civ3 does not have to involve the same group of units, because the shortest period of time in civ3 is a year, so two units that battle each other in civ3 could be various engagements over the course of a year

i completely agree that in real life an airplane can sink a ship, i also agree that if civ3 was played on the tactical level an airplane could sink a ship; however on the operational level which we play civ3 at i do not think that airplanes can completely sink a group of ships, and it would take some serious historical facts to change my mind on this, but i do see that most people want planes to sink ships

Laudable attempt at using a little bit of cognitive dissonence to increase your suspension of disbelief in the face of bad rules. I've used that myself, so if it makes you happier by increasing acceptance of unrealistic silliness, go with it. We don't have much choice, do we? Nonetheless, even if you think of one ship as a bunch of ships (perhaps a task force), as do I, planes still are capable of utterly wiping them out, a la Midway, when the Japs lost, what, 4 carriers & boocoos of other supporting ships.

Hint: If you want a game that makes sense, use the editor. It can't fix everything, like the planes/ships thing, but it can help and, as its a GUI, is not hard. I've done extensive mods to get a game I actually enjoy playing, giving corruption reducing abilities to most basic improvements,making roads easier to build and move on, increasing movement rates of especially naval units, and monkeying w/ all unit's combat values til I found something that in my opinion yields sensible results. My friends seem to really enjoy my changes and, honestly I could not enjoy the game so much w/o them. In fact many of the 95 theses can be fixed by modding. Another reason why I' sick of these freakin' patches that force me to redo my precious mods, then either cause a crash or manifest new absurdities like the AI tech trade insanity in the latest.

[Zachriel]

Re: Yeah, but...

Originally posted by bigvic
Laudable attempt at using a little bit of cognitive dissonence to increase your suspension of disbelief in the face of bad rules.

Shakespeare had the same problem, trying to simulate war within his "wooden O."

But pardon, and gentles all,
The flat unraised spirits that have dared
On this unworthy scaffold to bring forth
So great an object: can this cockpit hold
The vasty fields of France? or may we cram
Within this wooden O the very casques
That did affright the air at Agincourt?
O, pardon! since a crooked figure may
Attest in little place a million;
And let us, ciphers to this great accompt,
On your imaginary forces work.

[loinburger]

Will Firaxis get MP right?

With any luck, the developers will get MP right and release it as a free update to Civ III. That might induce me to finally shell out a couple bucks for Civ III; I've been waiting because I want to avoid the disappointment it would otherwise cause.

[notyoueither]

loinburger. How do you know you're not missing out on the fun?

Many people like the game. Unless MP is all you want to do you might like it too.

There are reasonable criticisms of the game, but even many of them are due to impatience or lack of understanding. Not all, but many.

Up until recently the Explorer unit and the Monarchy government type were ragged on. What do you know, some people discovered their hidden strengths and now they are both seen to be quite useful.

[FNBrown]

I started reading this late... I'm just wondering what happened to the infamous porno avatar..

[KrazyHorse]

Jackass prudes ruined it.

Zylka is a source of hours of wonderful entertainment in the OT, and I don't take kindly to a bunch of Johnny-come-latelies messing with a good thing. Zylka is less an individual than he is a phenomenon, an experience. He is not to be argued with or chastised; he is to be enjoyed. Feast in the bounty of his depravity, in the essence of his insanity. Shift your pro-centres till you can almost understand him, then step back from the edge of madness. You will find yourselves refreshed.

[korn469]

Well korn. I'm glad you have such a happy on for the USN in 2004. However, I think Boris had other ideas. If you think that American Carriers are immune I'll leave you in your bliss.

nye

first off you pulled a bunch of numbers out of thin air, you stated 200 russian or chinese planes are going to attack a US carrier

first things first, here is a little about the Chinese Airforce

Today's PLAAF reflects this traditional focus. With nearly 5,000 aircraft, manned with 470,000 people, the PLAAF has the quantity advantage in the region, but not the quality advantage. Of the 970 bombers, most are "outmoded Ilyushin 28s and Tupolev 16s." The best that can be said of the PLAAF fighter fleet is that its finest fighter, the J-8, first tested in 1964, once upgraded "...will be no more than an advanced obsolete aircraft." The fighter bomber fleet has an effective radius of only 280 nautical miles, far short of the Spratlys, which are about 1,000 miles from the mainland. The PLAAF's bomber force is made up of 350 H-5 light bombers and 120 Xien H-6 medium bombers which are Soviet Tupolev TU-16 twin jet Badgers, an early 1950s design. One could equate the Xi'an H-6 to a B-47 in terms of capability with air-to-surface missiles, electronic countermeasures, and a combat radius of more than 1100 miles

______________________________
To meet this modernization challenge, the Chinese went to the Russians, the source of their first large-scale effort to modernize the PLAAF during the Korean War. The Chinese have a 1992 agreement with the Russian Federation to buy 24 MiG-31 Foxhound long-range interceptors, plus 48 Su-27 Flankers, all weather night fighters. (Some sources go as high as 72
Su-27s.) The last aircraft will be delivered by the year 2000. The MiG-31s have a combat radius of 647 nm given speed of Mach .85 and four missiles. At supersonic speeds, Mach 2.3, the range if 388 nm. The Flankers will also "...significantly increase Chinese air capabilities....[They] bring to the air force the experience of training pilots for all-weather and night operation, changing the operating tempo of units, and of maintaining advanced
weapons and avionics." The Su-27s have a combat radius of 810 nm. The procurement agreement with Russia included a stipulation that these fighters would "...be based
away from the Sino-Russian border....Hainan Island was chosen as the appropriate base." Currently, China's does not has the ability to effectively command and control an Su-27 squadron. However, there is speculation that China is working on procuring sophisticated command and control platforms. This would go a long way to help the Chinese, "...achieve the important multiplier effects that accompany sophisticated supporting C3I
(command, control, communications, and intelligence)."

source: http://www.fas.org/nuke/guide/china/agency/fornespm.pdf

first give me a plausiable situation because 200 Chinese J-8's without AWACs certainly wouldn't achieve the resultsyou think they would
so in 2004 China might be able to field 200 fairly advanced Russian built fighters, but would they really be able to gain air superiority over a US Carrier Task force during a conventional wartime situation, and would they really be able to sink it? I'm saying that the US carrier task force would have a good chance of achieving air superiority and that the escorts could shoot down anything that managed to get through the fighters, i am saying this because i feel the US fighters, command and control, plus pilots are better, and will remain that way in 2004

Other than that, the IJN. Yes the most significant naval war ever fought in history. Gee Wally, but I thought a game of civs might reflect the realities of such a significant struggle

well if we are going to get real, shouldn't a carrier be able to cover more than 800 miles in two years?

The reality is that the airplane, whether launched from deck or land, was the most significant weapon of that nautical joust.

in the pacific yes that is true, but submarines rank right up there, and submarines sank more tons of japanese shipping than anything else in ww2

The Submarine Service accounted for about 55% of all Japanese tonnage sunk in the war. This was done by a branch of the Navy that accounted for about 1.6% of the Navy's wartime complement.
The Japanese lost 1,178 Merchant Ships sunk for a tonnage total of 5,053,491 tons. The Naval losses were 214 ships and submarines totaling 577,626 tons. A staggering five million, six hundred thirty one thousand, one hundred seventeen tons, (5,631,117 tons), 1,392 ships.

source: http://www.rddesigns.com/ww2/ww2sinkings.html

Now lets talk about American Carriers, at least while the IJN still had an experienced Naval Arm arm. Hmmm, Lexington, Wasp, Hornet, Yorktown (all 1942).

a saw a documentry on the history channel and they said the high number of carrier losses in WW2 on the US and Japanese sides were from building carriers with unarmored decks, unlike the british who had armored decks, i'll try to find more out about this

You bet that plane for plane B17s are not as effective at attacking shipping as Swordfish (a bi-plane carrying torpedoes).

civ3 doesn't need a level of abstraction that defines both primarily land based fighter bombers and primarily sea based fighter bombers

Are you serious? How many M1 Abrams throw 1000s of rounds at an attacking air craft in it's attack run. Give me a break.

haven't you heard of mobile SAMs? but if you want an armored unit that can throw up lots of rounds of AAA sure i can do that

The ZSU-23-4 is a fully integrated, self-propelled antiaircraft system with four liquid-cooled 23-mm automatic cannons mounted on the front of a large, flat, armored turret.

A platoon of four ZSU-23-4s is assigned, along with four SA-9/GASKIN SAM systems, to the antiaircraft battery of motorized rifle and tank regiments to cover the deadspace of the SA-6/GAINFUL in the division air defense umbrella. Two ZSU-23-4s usually will be in support of each of the two first-echelon battalions, each weapon normally separated by 200 meters, typically traveling 400 meters behind the battalion's leading elements.

The four guns are water cooled and have a cyclic rate of fire of 800 to 1,000 rounds per minute each. However, the guns are normally fired in bursts (2-3 rounds per barrel) to reduce ammunition expenditure and prolong barrel life.

source: http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/l...w/zsu-23-4.htm

also some perspective on the zsu-23-4

...the 1973 Mid-East War; the weapon was the ZSU-23-4. During that conflict, nearly one-half of all the aircraft that the Israeli forces lost were to the ZSU-23-4

source: http://www.globalsecurity.org/milita...t/1984/CSJ.htm

and Thunderbolts weren't equipped for the targets they were hunting nor could they be armed with the proper ordinance to take out ship?

No, not normally. Unless they were attacking shipping, mostly merchantmen. Big struggle put up by those merchantmen. And no, they never carried a torpedo, and I doubt whether the Air Force had AP bombs at thier disposal during WW2

let me introduce you to the p-47N

The P-47N, developed specifically for operation in the Pacific, had an 18 inch greater wing span with two 93 gallon internal wing fuel tanks in addition to the two drop tanks and a 100 gallon belly drop tank. With a total fuel capacity of 1266 gallons, it had a range of 2,350 miles and very effectively flew escort missions with the B-29 Superfortresses attacking the Japanese mainland in the closing stages of the war.

source: http://www.nasm.si.edu/nasm/aero/aircraft/repubP47.htm

The 507th Fighter Group (FG) was first activated at Peterson Field, Co., on Oct. 12, 1944. Its operational flying squadrons—activated on the same date—included the 463d, 464th, and 465th Fighter Squadrons. The group moved to Dalhart Army Air Field, Tx, Dec. 15, 1944. There, the 507 FG was trained for bomber escort duty in the Pacific Theater. For this duty, the group was equipped with the Republic P-47N “Thunderbolt” very long range escort fighter.

Employing their P-47N aircraft as fighter-bombers, 507th pilots relentlessly attacked Japanese shipping, railroad bridges, airfields, factories, and troop concentrations.

source: http://www.afrc.af.mil/507arw/history.html

No. The argument goes that with lethal bombardment, modern war ships will need AA

well unless firaxis completely changes air bombardment, adding effective AA to naval units would mean that air units wouldn't have a chance without serious stat changes

Nonetheless, even if you think of one ship as a bunch of ships (perhaps a task force), as do I, planes still are capable of utterly wiping them out, a la Midway, when the Japs lost, what, 4 carriers & boocoos of other supporting ships.

bigvic

cite a source because i would love to find out how many boocoos is specifically

plus pearl harbor and midway highlights an important aspect of war, especially world war 2, good intelligence gives you stunning victories and poor intelligence gives you days of infamy

If you want a game that makes sense, use the editor

if that was intended for me then i take it you don't visit the mod section very much

________________________

and i like to make it clear every so often that i am just engaging in friendly arguments with people, but that i do think that both air and naval units in civ3 need improvements imo

[Zylka]

AJ corp, one of the mods removed it to build up a tough Zylka hating facade after someone insinuated otherwise. It (or an even better one) will be back later tonight

[notyoueither]

Hi korn. Aren't we a tad close to spamming in this thread? I think so. If you're interested I'll see you over here: Our sand box

[Zylka]

!