Naval history and civ3 thread for NYE and korn and whoever

[korn469]

Ancient Naval Units
*Galley 0.1.2 10|1 (sink in sea, sink in ocean) {Caravel} NONE

*War Galley 2.2.3 30 (sink in sea, sink in ocean) {Sloop} Map Making

Middle Age Naval Units
*Caravel 0.1.4 40|2 {Galleon} Astronomy

*Sloop 3.3.5 4[4]1 40 {Frigate} Astronomy

*Frigate 6.5.6 8[4]1 60 {Ironclad} Magnetism

*Man-O-War 8.6.6 8[4]1 60 {Frigate} Magnetism

*Galleon 0.2.5 50|4 {Transport} Magnetism

*Privateer 4.2.7 50 (hidden nationality, zoc) {Commerce Raider} Navigation

Industrial Era Naval Units
*Ironclad 10.9.8 10[5]1 90 {Destroyer} Steel

*Transport 0.6.8 100|8 Mass Production

*Destroyer 12.15.12 12[5]1 110 (can see submarines, zoc) {Aegis Cruiser} Mass Production

*Battleship 25.20.10 16[6]2 200 Mass Production

*Carrier 0.12.10 200|5 (radar, doesn't carry bombers) Advanced Flight

*Submarine 16.6.10 110 (can see submarines, zoc) Mass Production

*Commerce Raider 15.10.11 130 (hidden nationality, zoc) Mass Production

Modern Naval Units
*Aegis Cruiser 16.24.12 12[5]1 160|3 (can see submarines, radar, can carry cruise missiles)

*Nuclear Submarine 10.14.9 150|3 (can see submarines, can carry cruise missiles and tactical nukes)

venger et al

how do those changes look? any comments? please?

also i've thought about the tarawa carrier but that won't work unfortunantly
afaik carriers cannot load land units, and i know for a fact that if a unit has foot soldier or tactical missile marked that it cannot be on a carrier, marking bombers and stealth units as foot soldiers is what prevents them from landing on carriers in the blitz mod

if firaxis does allow modders to change movement along railroads and fixes the treat all terrain as roads issue then i think that naval units might become much more useful

[notyoueither]

What else does *marking bombers and stealth units as foot soldiers* do? Does it allow them to skate along rails to another city prior to embarking on a mission?

I notice nuc subs are slower than diesel. Also much weaker in attack. Just wondering what the reasoning is behind that.

I like the DDs and Raiders (incl subs) having zoc. Lets them get their nips in.

What? No Cruisers? :Runs screaming from the thread:

[korn469]

nye

What else does *marking bombers and stealth units as foot soldiers* do? Does it allow them to skate along rails to another city prior to embarking on a mission?

nothing as far as i can tell

I notice nuc subs are slower than diesel. Also much weaker in attack. Just wondering what the reasoning is behind that

subs to me represent attack subs and nuclear subs represent ssbn and ssgn subs

i was thinking of adding a nuclear attack sub to seperate ww1/ww2 subs from modern attack submarines, but with the level of abstraction i'm not sure if this is required and there are some modern classes of diesel subs such as the kilo so that conventional subs aren't completely obsolete i'm not sure though

[notyoueither]

The Oft Neglected Regia Marina

Source: http://www.geocities.com/CapitolHill/9226/ww2.html
I can't find the web master's name, but he (I presume) has a great site. Some information had to be verified or completed elsewhere, but the story on this site is very complete and is a good read. Check it out if these things interest you.

Italian Capital Ships: Losses by Category

BB and BC
Lost: 2
Sub;
Air; Conte di Cavour**, Roma***
Surf;

CRs
Lost: 11
Sub; Diaz, Bande Nere, Trento
Air; Pola, Attendolo, Trieste
Surf; Colleoni, Zara, Fiume, Di Giussano, Da Barbiano

Italy did not employ any Carriers of any size during the war.

** November 11, 1940.

http://www.comandosupremo.com/1940.html

*The H.M.S. Illustrious conducts a bombing of the Italian base in Taranto which damaged 3 battleships and crippled Italy's chance of securing the Mediterranean. Italian battleship Conte Di Cavour is sunk in shallow water and put out of action for the remainder of the war.* It has been suggested by some (authors, not posters) that Taranto served as a model and perhaps inspiration for Pearl Harbour.

*** Sunk by German bombers while attempting to reach Malta to join the Allies as part of a large force led by Admiral Bergamini. Bergamini and most (or all) of the crew of Roma were killed by a single radio guided bomb launched from a Do217 which found it's way into one of her magazines.

In reading for the Italians the value of a Fleet Air Arm was driven home for me more strongly than ever. Time and again the Italian fleet was left with it's pants down (almost literally) by a lack of coordinated air assets. This weakness was exacerbated by their lack of radar. The Zara and Fiume were lost while attempting to assist Pola when they sailed blindly into the guns of HMS Warspite, Barham, and Valiant (who watched them coming on their own radar). Have you ever shared the feelings of those British commanders while you watched the AI in any computer games?

What else? Hmmm. Well, the more I read the more I dismiss the notions of complete Italian ineptness and lack of spirit in WWII. From past reading I am aware that the Artillery generally acquitted themselves quite well. Now I know how much skill and courage the sailors of Regia Marina displayed. Especially considering they had no air craft, they had no radar, and the British were reading all (or most) of their communications! Too bad they were on the wrong side until September 1943.

As for the numbers, assumptions about winners and losers are confirmed since Italy lost over 50% of her Cruisers in 39 months. The Battleships proved very survivable. Cavour and Roma were lost to air attack (Roma to a fluke) along with 3 Cruisers yielding 38.5% of Italian losses for air craft.

Only 23% of Italy's capital ship losses were to Submarines. This is perhaps a bit surprising, considering the higher proportion of British losses to subs and the fact that many of them were in the med.

It might not be surprising, given the confines of the Med, that surface action accounted for as many losses as air craft. Consider the lack of radar and recconaissance. 5 more Cruisers round out the numbers, accounting for the remaining 38.5% of capital ship losses.

[Chronus]

subs to me represent attack subs and nuclear subs represent ssbn and ssgn subs

Okay, that explains some things. Perhaps the name "sub" could be renamed to "Nuclear Attack Sub"? I picture "Sub" as the WWII variety as the game does.

i was thinking of adding a nuclear attack sub to seperate ww1/ww2 subs from modern attack submarines

If you do, I humbly suggest you make the WWII sub attack rating lower than the defensive rating of the ssbn and ssgn subs. Todays submarines can sink other ships from miles away due to increased sonar technology. A WWII sub would probably be sunk by an ssbn or ssgn long before it detected it or was even within range to fire.

[Venger]

Originally posted by korn469
Ancient Naval Units

how do those changes look? any comments? please?

I like the balance alot better, though I think there is a problem with the commerce raider re: destroyer strength. I also think that nearly all naval vessels should attack as well as they defend - except for submarines, which clearly have a more potent attack than defense. Ships of the line, however, are pretty much the same whether they are attacking or defending. Overall though, the values look better.

also i've thought about the tarawa carrier but that won't work unfortunantly
afaik carriers cannot load land units, and i know for a fact that if a unit has foot soldier or tactical missile marked that it cannot be on a carrier, marking bombers and stealth units as foot soldiers is what prevents them from landing on carriers in the blitz mod

if firaxis does allow modders to change movement along railroads and fixes the treat all terrain as roads issue then i think that naval units might become much more useful

Do naval units have the ability to ZOC - so if I move a battleship next to another, can it take a pot shot at me (it should be able to)? Also, you should be able to double movement and give 2 attacks, correct? That's be okay for naval units, as long as ZOC shots work on these.

Venger

[Venger]

Originally posted by korn469
subs to me represent attack subs and nuclear subs represent ssbn and ssgn subs

i was thinking of adding a nuclear attack sub to seperate ww1/ww2 subs from modern attack submarines,

In Civ2 I reduced the strength of the sub and added a Fast Attack Sub, much higher movement and power.

but with the level of abstraction i'm not sure if this is required and there are some modern classes of diesel subs such as the kilo so that conventional subs aren't completely obsolete i'm not sure though

Trust me, conventional subs ARE obsolete - they just haven't been sunk yet... it'll be interesting if countries now getting submarines, like Iran, ever fight other third rate navies, and use their subs. If they tried to confront a modern navy (US, Britain, Russia, maybe even the Frogs), they'd be relegated quite easily to new coral reef starter kits.

Venger

[korn469]

Ships of the line, however, are pretty much the same whether they are attacking or defending. Overall though, the values look better.

i'll look at changing the commerce raider some more, it is a new unit, but the reason i gave some units a higher value in one area (besides gameplay reasons) is because i consider tactic also figure into a.d.m and some units have more aggressive or more defensive tactics than others

Do naval units have the ability to ZOC - so if I move a battleship next to another, can it take a pot shot at me (it should be able to)? Also, you should be able to double movement and give 2 attacks, correct? That's be okay for naval units, as long as ZOC shots work on these.

yes naval units have zoc but a zoc shot is fixed at what seemed to be an automatic 1hp damage so a 1.1.1 naval unit with zoc would automatically do 1hp damage to a 25.25.10 naval unit and it doesn't increase if you increase hitpoints

if you give a unit blitz it has as many attacks as it has movement points, so a 10 movement battleship with blitz would have 10 attacks, and to me i feel that this is unbalancing and that is why i was trying to give naval units treat all terrain as roads so a battleship would be able to move 12 but would only have four attacks (and each attack would cost 3 movement)

Trust me, conventional subs ARE obsolete - they just haven't been sunk yet... it'll be interesting if countries now getting submarines, like Iran, ever fight other third rate navies, and use their subs. If they tried to confront a modern navy (US, Britain, Russia, maybe even the Frogs), they'd be relegated quite easily to new coral reef starter kits.

from what i've read about the kilo it is a threat but only in coastal waters, because it doesn't have the speed or the range to cruise around the ocean, but it is quiter than a nuclear sub so that is why it is a threat, but it is probably overrated, i know if it was me i would rather be stationed on a 688 attack sub than a kilo

the only problem with calling a sub a nuclear attack sub means it would need uranium and that would push it back to fission at least, but i want a sub that is important during in the industrial but if it is strong enough to compete then, the modern version of it would probably be too overpowering those are the dilemmas i'm faced with

__________________________________________
ok lets say that civ3 is completely alternative history and albert einstien, enrico fermi, and a few other scientists were never born and a nuclear reactor didn't happen until like 1980, hypothetically would other forms of engines that didn't require oxygen replaced diesel engines in submarines? like fuel cells or hydrogen peroxide engines or something else?

[SpencerH]

Originally posted by korn469

ok lets say that civ3 is completely alternative history and albert einstien, enrico fermi, and a few other scientists were never born and a nuclear reactor didn't happen until like 1980, hypothetically would other forms of engines that didn't require oxygen replaced diesel engines in submarines? like fuel cells or hydrogen peroxide engines or something else?

I would say no. The limiting factor for conventional submarine underwater activities has been (and is) the efficiency of the batteries not the power source.

[notyoueither]

Originally posted by korn469

__________________________________________
ok lets say that civ3 is completely alternative history and albert einstien, enrico fermi, and a few other scientists were never born and a nuclear reactor didn't happen until like 1980, hypothetically would other forms of engines that didn't require oxygen replaced diesel engines in submarines? like fuel cells or hydrogen peroxide engines or something else?

OK. It's civ right? We're discussing it on Poly right? Isn't the answer obvious?

Bannnnannnna PoooWWWeR!!!

Have a good day.

[Venger]

Originally posted by korn469

the only problem with calling a sub a nuclear attack sub means it would need uranium and that would push it back to fission at least, but i want a sub that is important during in the industrial but if it is strong enough to compete then, the modern version of it would probably be too overpowering those are the dilemmas i'm faced with

Well, THE advance for submarines was nuclear power - unlimited range, impressive submerged speed, ability to keep speed and endurance submerged without the need for diesel engines. To me, I think you have it covered with a Submarine unit, and a Fast Attack Sub. Yes, fission MUST be aquired for the Fast Attack Sub.

Venger

[TCO]

A nuclear submarine is a true submarine. Nautilus was an incredible advance and was more potent than any previous submarine. This was proved by several of the (announced and secret) missions which Nautilus did immediatly after commisioning.

[IGD]

Complexity of Naval Power

Naval Power is a very complex issue, especially as it has adapted to technological change over the years, this is impossible to model accurately within CIV. The game does a pretty good job, however there are some obvious imbalances which might help.

Submarines : The arguments that have been given in this forum previously regarding the WWII level submarine are pretty valid I believe. This weapon,certainly the U Boat, was primarily a commerce raider, and a pretty effective one, it's key advantage was of being able to avoid and evade warships to enable it's pretty small weapon load to be expended upon the primary target - commercial shipping. This tactic nearly crippled the UK in the early part of WWII. That is not to say that there weren't some spectacular successes in sinking warships, indeed allied submarines were more geared toward this type of mission. The effectiveness of the WWII submarine was severely reduced once ASDIC and RADAR became widespread, indeed their losses mounted. Most of these losses were from RADAR fitted aircraft.

To model all this in CIV would be very complex I don't believe any change is really necessary in pre nuclear sub units abilities.

Post WWII the submarine became a much more potent weapon, although it's abilities have been rarely tested in combat. The arrival of the Nuclear submarine heralded the ability to remain submerged for very long periods without the need to surface and "Snort" (Recharge batteries) and the advent of sophisticated passive SONAR techniques enabled the submarine to "see" without being seen. This enabled the ICBM to be put to sea in a submarine and a whole array of submarine technology to be developed to counter it. Hence the cold war saw the "Bomber" (Ballistic Missile Submarine) being developed by the Nuclear Nations and the development of the Hunter Killer Nuclear submarine primarily designed for hunting other submarines. These submarines however represent power projection on a grand scale. The modern Battleship equivalent, virtually undectable, except by another submarine, their utility in Anti Surface Warfare against surface combattants, although largely untested is enourmous and seriously underplayed in CIV3. (The sinking of the BELGRANO by CONQUEROR in 1982 kept a whole Navy in port in fear of the submarine) The humble torpedo, still potent, is not the only weapon in the arsenal. The Russians were the first to get serious about submarines as platforms for anti ship missiles, but the West was not far behind. Modern submarines carry sophisticated precision anti ship missiles and cruise missiles. It would be nice to see this modelled better in CIV Nuclear submarines should cost much more to buid (They are damned expensive in reality) but should carry a much bigger punch and be virtually undectable to anything but other submarines or specialist ASW units (These don't exist in CIV unless you assume they are with a carrier (is it a single unit or a group - more later)

Carriers : There should definately be two types of carrier in CIV3. The present one is fine as a WWII type model (Although it should carry 6 instead of 4 aircraft in my opinion and have some limited Air Defence capability). The modern Nuclear Carrier is not modelled. This is a massive ommission since we see the modern Carrier being a tool of massive political influence in the modern world. These units should be expensive to build, carry a large amount of offensive air power and be assumed to have within it a group of specialist units making it capable in ASW, AsUW and Air defence (Air superiority missions around it should be automatic with a high percentage kill rate). That is not to say they should not be sinkable, just that it should take a lot of effort to do so.

One more thought - the AEGIS cruiser is probably the most formidable Anti Aircraft unit that exists, (Until the arrival of the UK's Type 45 destroyer, I hope !) this is also underplayed in CIV3, the AEGIS should be more powerful, similarly it's land attack capabilities should allow far reaching precision strikes to reflect it's NFS and Cruise missile capabilities.

Just some thoughts

IGD

[SpencerH]

There have been a few posts dismissing the abilities of the conventional sub in an era of nuclear powered vehicles. I just wanted to point out that conventional subs are generally more quiet than their nuclear brethren. As a result, there have been occasions where these vessels have "sunk" carriers in war games. A feat that is no small achievement.

[Venger]

Good post IGD. In Civ2, I gave the Aegis cruiser the ability to attack air units - so not only did it have good defensive capability, it could actually shoot down bombers that were nearby. I'd like to have seen units with different strengths vs. air, land, sea - but I doubt we'll ever see that in Civ3 just due to the nature of the changes.

However, there MUST be a risk for aircraft attacking ships. Aircraft own ships, but they also take heavy tolls at times to do it. Having aircraft able to attack shipping with impunity, as they can now, is nonsensical and pure gameplay anthrax.

Venger
P.S. The thing about the Belgrano was that really was the ONLY ship the Argentines had that was worth a damn and could pose a threat to the British surface fleet. I always thought it was ironic that the Belgrano was refitted with many British missile systems for use...tragic loss of life though. Still, it was one of those moments when you think Argentina realized "uh, do we know what we got ourselves into here?"