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

[korn469]

Exactly. I'm sick of the ai having all of these paltry little bullsh*t wooden boats floating about my border in the modern era. If I can't destroy modern ships with bombs, at least let me bomb-slaughter those annoying galleons to free up attack moves for the rest of my navy.

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

Bombs can destroy whole ships, they have no terrain to hide in.
Bombs can not destroy whole armies, the human touch is needed to wipe the remnants away

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

It covers an area of about 165 million square kilometers (about 64 million square miles). It is larger than the total land area of the world and slightly less than 18 times the size of the United States.

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

[GeneralTacticus]

If we want air power to sink ships, there should be (as others have suggested) a Naval Bomber unit. Same as the bomber except used mostly at sea, not that effective at attacking pop/improvements (units are another matter). Bombers sshould be the reverse- bad for attacking naval stuff, good for land stuff.

[Ethelred]

however on the operational level which we play civ3 at

Which level IS that. The difficulty with discussing that is the core of some of the complaints. Complaints that could have been leveled at Civ I and II despite the fact that many complainers think those were better games.

Civ is a mix of operational levels. A mix that doesn't always mesh well. Its a game not a sim. Bombardment should or should not sink ships for gameplay and entertainment reasons not for historical reasons as the game is NOT historical. Its inspired by history but that is like saying the Three Musketeers was historicly inspired. Accuracy was not allowed to get in the way of the story.

[Zylka]

Yeah Korn. Once bombers are over your head, it's quite easy to hide an entire ship in a flat plane of water. Much easier than troops would in forests, mountains, etc.

We're talking individual battles with units in the same location, not hide and go seek across the pacific

[korn469]

If we want air power to sink ships, there should be (as others have suggested) a Naval Bomber unit. Same as the bomber except used mostly at sea, not that effective at attacking pop/improvements (units are another matter).

where is the historical validity for this naval bomber? lets compare stats

P-47 Thunderbolt

SPECIFICATIONS
Span: 40 ft. 9 in.
Length: 36 ft. 1 in.
Height: 14 ft. 2 in.
Weight: 13,500 lbs. loaded
Armament: Eight .50-cal. machine guns & ten 5 in. rockets or 1,500 lbs. of bombs.
Engine: Pratt and Whitney R-2800 of 2,300 hp.

PERFORMANCE
Maximum speed: 433 mph
Cruising speed: 260 mph
Range: 1,100 miles (with auxiliary fuel tank)
Service Ceiling: 40,000 ft

http://www.wpafb.af.mil/museum/air_power/ap7.htm

SBD-3 Dauntless

SPECIFICATIONS:
Span: 41 ft. 6 in.
Length: 33 ft.
Height: 12 ft. 11 in.
Weight: Max. 10,200 (with 1,200 lbs of bombs)
Armament: Two .50 caliber machine guns in the nose and twin .30 caliber flexible machine guns in rear cockpit; 1,200 lbs of bombs
Engine: Wright R-1829-52 of 1,000 hp

PERFORMANCE:
Maximum speed: 250 mph/217 knots
Cruising speed: 173 mph (150 knots)
Service Ceiling: 26,000 ft.
Range: 950 miles with 1,200 lbs of bombs

http://www.wpafb.af.mil/museum/newold/a24.htm

so why not just give fighters a better bombard instead of adding a unit that really isn't needed?

[notyoueither]

I can't agree that Battle Ships and Carriers are some amorphous blobs of dots bobbing on the surface of the seas, indistinguishable from the waves.

OK. Maybe a Carrier in Civ3 has 2 or 3 (max) CVAs as a part of it. Maybe a BB is 2 to 4 Battle Wagons (max). These are easily put to the bottom by any competent Naval Air Arm.

As to whether capital ships are single or groups... Well, if 2 CVAs are in a Carrier, then the IJN had 3 or 4 carriers [edited] max during the entire 2nd World War. How can you tell me that Naval Air could not put them to the bottom? I'm not talking about escorts and light carriers. They are support ships, they are not represented in the game, IMO. Unless you want to say that some Japanese Sea plane carrier rates being put side by side with the Nimitz.

Battle ships? At 4 BBs per Battle ship, the Royal Navy had no more than 5. Again, tell me why these should be immune to death from above. Well, Japanese level bombers could easily dispel that myth. Ever heard of the Prince of Wales and Repulse?

Destroyers? Well, OK, maybe there are 10 or 20 per unit. How many bombers per group? When those 20 are reduced to 4 or 5 (they have 1 hp left), can you say that 1000 bombers could not finish them off? Hah!

What I find amazing is that people actually resist the acknowledgement of the supremacy of air units in naval combat in history since about 1930. What exactly do you think would happen if 200 Russian (or Chinese) air craft launched an attack on an American Carrier group in 2004? Yes a lot of Russian air craft would go down, but I assure you there would be no carrier left above the waves when it was done. How many CVAs in that group?

[notyoueither]

korn. We're not only talking about simple specs of an air craft.

We are talking about the humans behind the controls. Naval aviators were and are trained to engage ships moving at sea. Army and Airforce pilots are trained to bomb stationery land targets. You might not think there is a big difference, but just imagine your air force pilot faces the AA of a BB on his attack run on a pillbox. Doesn't equate, does it?

Now mention how P47s operated alone or in pairs vs land targets, vs 12 or 16 or 24 Naval Attack aircraft seeking prey as single units. Now mention that Naval Air units are equipped for the targets they seek. Yes, they carried AP bombs (ideal for going through BB decks) or torpedoes (ideal for going through anything that floats). Yes a lot of the ducks get splashed, but some get through and the enemy capital ship(s) is/are left as burning wrecks.

Put it simply. Army and Navy and Air Force operate(d) using different play books. Equating one to the other is as useful as comparing Knights to Pikemen.

[korn469]

Well, if 2 CVAs are in a Carrier, then the IJN had 2 or 3 carriers max during the entire 2nd World War.

well ww2 only lasted 4 turns in civ3 time anyways

Again, tell me why these should be immune to death from above.

besides navies in civ3 need all the help they can get; maybe because the US didn't lose a single battleship that actaully had AA and damage control crews working

Destroyers? Well, OK, maybe there are 10 or 20 per unit. How many bombers per group? When those 20 are reduced to 4 or 5 (they have 1 hp left), can you say that 1000 bombers could not finish them off? Hah!

when did that happen?

can't anyone post a list of naval battles where all of the surface ships were sunk by aircraft?

What exactly do you think would happen if 200 Russian (or Chinese) air craft launched an attack on an American Carrier group in 2004? Yes a lot of Russian air craft would go down, but I assure you there would be no carrier left above the waves when it was done. How many CVAs in that group?

HA! if it wasn't a complete surprise attack i bet with the escorts that the carrier group would come out on top, because for one thing that is only about a 3-1 numerical advantage if all 200 of the russian/chinese aircraft were fighter bombers

and they would be going up against the following

a carrier – The carrier provides a wide range of options to the U.S. government from simply showing the flag to attacks on airborne, afloat and ashore targets. Because carriers operate in international waters, its aircraft do not need to secure landing rights on foreign soil. These ships also engage in sustained operations in support of other forces.

two guided missile cruisers – multi-mission surface combatants. Equipped with Tomahawks for long-range strike capability.

a guided missile destroyer – multi-mission suface combatant, used primarily for anti-air warfare (AAW)

a destroyer – primarily for anti-submarine warfare (ASW)

a frigate – primarily for anti-submarine warfare (ASW)

two attack submarines – in a direct support role seeking out and destroying hostile surface ships and submarines

a combined ammunition, oiler, and supply ship – provides logistic support enabling the Navy's forward presence: on station, ready to respond

http://www.chinfo.navy.mil/navpalib/allhands/ah0197/cvbg.html

[korn469]

We are talking about the humans behind the controls. Naval aviators were and are trained to engage ships moving at sea. Army and Airforce pilots are trained to bomb stationery land targets.

uh, what about tanks and other mechanized units? or did they ignore these because they are moving

Now mention that Naval Air units are equipped for the targets they seek.

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

You might not think there is a big difference, but just imagine your air force pilot faces the AA of a BB on his attack run on a pillbox. Doesn't equate, does it?

i thought the arguement was that AA was completely ineffective anyway

Put it simply. Army and Navy and Air Force operate(d) using different play books. Equating one to the other is as useful as comparing Knights to Pikemen

so does that mean land based aircraft are completely ineffective against naval units in civ3 terms?

[notyoueither]

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.

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

Yes, no American BBs lost to air craft. Have you ever convincing won a war? The British didn't do so well. 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). Yes, they did not lose another CVA after that. I guess they won. 4 Carriers, 1 turn; do you think they lost a unit?

[notyoueither]

And yes, there should be specailized Naval Air units. You bet that plane for plane B17s are not as effective at attacking shipping as Swordfish (a bi-plane carrying torpedoes).

[notyoueither]

Originally posted by korn469
uh, what about tanks and other mechanized units? or did they ignore these because they are moving

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.

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.

i thought the arguement was that AA was completely ineffective anyway

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

so does that mean land based aircraft are completely ineffective against naval units in civ3 terms?

No. Just not as effective as Naval Air which are trained and equipped to sink ships. Big ships. Nasty ships. Ships with big gnarly fangs to bite back with.

[Kenjura]

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

Originally posted by Zylka, then Kenjura, then Zylka again


I have a pretty fancy computer, and wonder what specific system it actually does work on (without problems)

On both of my systems (athlon 1.3/geforce3/xp and p3 1.0/ati mobility 138/win2k), I can alt-tab without causing any problems. I can easily keep such things as civ editor and save game editor open with civ3 behind them. This would be ideal for scenario creators, of course.

I'm at a loss.. swap 2d and 3d in most of that paragraph?

No, I meant what I said. I just said it oddly.
Imagine if they used the current 2d graphics (with some artistic changes just for you) as models for a 3d system which looks mostly the same. Most modern gamers have better 3d performance than 2d performance anyway. Of course, using a 3d engine, they could have everything from rotation and zoom to changing terrain (god knows why) and weather effects. At this scale (miles and miles up in the air) it's not too hard to make it look decent.

Mmmm I'm not to sure of lumber as a specific resource, it seem a given when you control vast tracts of forest. Yet what the hell were they thinking of adding horses? For multiplayer, strategic resources must be an option.

Lumbering (for 10 shields) would really put a damper on your lumber (strategic resource) use. It was just a suggestion, really.

Some nations might have better horse stock than others. Some good horses might make an excellent gift for another nation, so that they might have good horses. But this level of resource detail is so minute that it has no place in civ3 currently. I'd love to see it, however.

What amount of movement would you suggest... I'd think 5 times the current (plus one or two attacking moves) would be a good start, no?

I'm having trouble thinking about it. I either start thinking about the whole movement system in general, ending up eventually in my daydreams of a perfect civ-style game, or I envision enemy transports flying out of nowhere in a single round, then planted hundreds of troops at my doorstep. Yes, it would be nice if your transport could make it anywhere in the world in a year (one turn), but it also doesn't take much longer than a year to build a few simple transports, let alone if your nation is mobilized for war. So more needs to be done.

A practical solution? A few wonders, or perhaps small wonders, to further increase your ship's movement? Nuclear engines around the same time as nuclear plants, perhaps.

But the Academy comes WAY to late, and having leaders building wonders is still to much of a stupid luck factor which hands them out

I'm an aggressive warmonger in civ3. Even with hordes of elite troops, in a militaristic civ, it often takes well into the middle ages to get a leader. If you waste him for an army, then win, then you can eventually make an academy, I believe. But even in games where I have the heroic epic, the academy, and the pentagon, I still never use bloody armies. My "armies" are eight strong, because that's how many my transports carry in the later game.

Well... the naval strategists can continue with this one...

I've since cancelled that line of argument. My hypothesis was not the point, but rather: if the developers cared THAT MUCH about historical accuracy, a whole lot more than bombardment vs. ships would have to be changed. Consider it a counter to all ships' lack of AA defenses.



But I'll get to that in another reply, since I suspect we're two of a small crowd that even cares about the subject of this debate.

[Kenjura]

Naval debate

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.

[AJ Corp. The FAIR]

Originally posted by Zylka


You probably have a problem with my avatar as well? Perhaps the young and voluptuous princess should be taken off, civman willing.

Eagerly awaiting your response,
Zylka

Although no being adressed myself, I'd like to share with you that I really, really, really like your avatar

Spices things up if you know what I mean.

Especially like her (lack of) T shirt

I vote for: Bring us more young and voluptuous princesses!

AJ