Naval history and civ3 thread for NYE and korn and whoever

[Tarquelne]

And another thing....

*with relative parity in technology and trainings, entire fleets don't get sunk by airpower

What about numbers? Civ3 can give us situations where there's LOTS of bomber units attacking a single 1 hp ship unit. A-historical numbers of planes, I'm sure.

Go ahead, ssume the training and tech are on par - but what about the numbers?

Try this: Translate 1 Civ3 BB and CV unit into "real life". Now translate, oh, say, 30 bomber units into "real life". Do you really want to say that those 30 bomber units can't sink the 1 BB+1 CV units? How about 50 bombers? 100? 503?

I assume at some point you'll say "Yes, _that_ many "real life" bombers could utterly wipe out (for game purposes.... some minor vessels could escape) that many "real life" ships.

So: In real life terms, how many "bombers" (do assume appropriate support craft) does it take to sink a whole "fleet."

Now, more to the point: How many Civ3 bombers do you think it should require to sink a Civ3 ship-unit?

It'd be interesting if you did the same thing, nye.

(I still think the best thing to do is throw away the realism arguments and just look at game-play issues.)

[SpencerH]

Re: And another thing....

Originally posted by Tarquelne

(I still think the best thing to do is throw away the realism arguments and just look at game-play issues.)

I think Tarquelne may have hit the nail on the head on this issue. In reality, ships are vulnerable to aircraft. The question for CIV3 is how will allowing aircraft to kill units effect the game? I'm not sure of that (we'll know when the new patch comes out), but I am sure that I dont want aircraft to be as dominant as they were in previous versions. One mod I used for CIV2 was the creation of mobile AA units to protect my ground forces. I guess I'll do the same here (if I can).

[bigvic]

Re: Re: And another thing....

Originally posted by SpencerH

The question for CIV3 is how will allowing aircraft to kill units effect the game?.

As far as the question of game balance goes, my question, in regard to naval units, is...Did they really mean for it to be this way? Maybe I'm giving these guys too much credit, but How can airplanes NOT sink ships, and what possible role could "game balance" play? I think it was a screw up in the rush to get the game out by xmas.

[korn469]

HOW MANY SHIPS IN A CIV3 NAVAL UNIT?

to me in on a standard sized map in the industrial era between 2-5 capital ships with escorts and auxillary ships for battleships, aircraft carriers and Aegis Cruisers, then for subs and destroyers they are wolf pack type units with maybe 10-30 ships with auxillary ships

How often did subs sink warships? IIRC, it was pretty rare compared to merchant/cargo ships. While subs were VERY effective at sinking merchant craft, they were too slow and vulnerable to be of any real use against warships, esp. "on the high seas".

lets see...

Battleships
BARHAM (31,100t, 1915) Sank by U-boat, torpedoes, off Sollum, Egypt, 41/11/25
ROYAL OAK (29,150t, 1916) Sunk by U-boat torpedo, Scapa Flow, Orkneys, 39/10/14

2 of 3

Battlecruisers
0 of 2

Fleet Carriers
ARK ROYAL (22,000t, 1938) Torpedoed (13th) by U-boat and sunk, W Mediterranean, 41/11/14
COURAGEOUS (22,500t, 1917, ex-cruiser, carrier from 1928) Sunk by U-boat torpedo W of Ireland, 39/09/17
EAGLE (22,600t, 1924) Sunk by U-boat, torpedo, W Mediterranean, 42/08/11

3 of 5

Escort Carriers
AUDACITY (ex-Hannover, German prize, 11,000t deep, 1939; as 9/41) Sunk by U-boat torpedo, N Atlantic, 41/12/21
AVENGER (13,785t deep, 2/3/42) Sunk by U-boat, torpedo, W of Gibraltar Straits, 42/11/15

2 of 3

Cruisers
BONAVENTURE (5,450t, 24/5/40) Sunk by U-boat, torpedoes, S of Crete, 41/03/31
CAIRO (AA ship, 4,200t, 1919) Sunk by U-boat, torpedo, off Bizerta, Tunis, 42/08/12
DUNEDIN (4,850t, 1919) Sunk by U-boat, torpedo, between W Africa and Brazil, 41/11/24
GALATEA (5,220t, 1935) Sunk by U-boat, torpedo, off Alexandria, 41/12/14
HERMIONE (5,450t, 25/3/41) Sunk by U-boat, torpedo, E Mediterranean, 42/06/16
NAIAD (5,450t, 24/7/40) Sunk by U-boat, torpedo, E Mediterranean, 42/03/11
PENELOPE (5,270t, 1936) Sunk by U-boat, torpedeo, Anzio area, W Italy, 44/02/18

7 of 28

14 of 41, or a third of all british capital ships

source: http://www.naval-history.net/WW2BritishLosses1Major.htm

Try this: Translate 1 Civ3 BB and CV unit into "real life". Now translate, oh, say, 30 bomber units into "real life". Do you really want to say that those 30 bomber units can't sink the 1 BB+1 CV units? How about 50 bombers? 100? 503?

I assume at some point you'll say "Yes, _that_ many "real life" bombers could utterly wipe out (for game purposes.... some minor vessels could escape) that many "real life" ships.

it depends on how you classify a bomber, does it only include strategic bombers like b-17's, b-29's etc or do you include dive bombers like the dauntless with bombers or with fighters?

that will make a big difference

i feel that bombers are only strategic bombers, each air unit to me is in the 40-100 units range

so 3,000 B-17's attacking 2 battleships and 2 aircraft carriers plus escorts...unless they were in port this is highly unlikely that so many air units would try to simultaneously sink the ships, since ships are mobile and would be a challenge for the bombers, but forgetting that

The U.S. Strategic Bombing Survey reported after the war that 50% of all bombs dropped from 25,000 feet from B-17s in the European theater landed within a one-kilometer(0.62 land miles) diameter circle around the aiming point.

source: http://www.combinedfleet.com/ijnaf.htm

normal bomb load for a B-17G

16 × 500 lb bombs carried internal, and
2 × 4,000 lb bombs, one on each hardpoint

source: http://www.ophetweb.nl/ww2w/ww2htmls/boeib17.html

so that means 48,000 500lb bombs and 6,000 4,000lb bombs, more than enough power to sink those ships, but could they hit them with enough bombs to sink them all?

but against 3,000 dauntless dive bombers they would almost certainly be sunk (but to me the dauntless would fall under the classification of a fighter in civ3 and not a bomber)

I still think the best thing to do is throw away the realism arguments and just look at game-play issues.)

i agree and i feel that my gameplay changes are balanced, more balanced than the stats in normal civ3

[Chronus]

I've got to agree with Korn regarding subs. I don't have the book with me but I recall looking at a list and counting the number of military ships lost by the Japanese throughout the war and how they were sunk. Aircraft, of course, sank the most. I don't think anyone is disputing that. Subs came in second. No, I'm not talking merchant ships and such (the list actually had the names of the ships sunk and didn't bother listing any merchant vessels), these were actual capital ships (i.e. carriers, battleships, etc.) that were sunk by American subs. It was quite impressive.

However, Korn, where on earth do you come across giving a submarine a higher attack value and faster speed than a nuclear sub??? I'm sorry if you already explained this above . . . I didn't have the time or will to read everything.

[notyoueither]

Facts at 10 paces

Facts are very interesting things. When they are presented there is a presenter. The views of the presenter very definitely have a selective effect on the facts that are presented. Hence, *there are lies, d*mn lies, and then there are statistics.*

No offence to korn is meant. Since debate is a form of contest, he will of course present the facts that support his views. Just as I will. What is very interesting, is what a look at some of the same subjects that he draws his submarine loss statistics from will also reveal. I almost have to think he handed me a slam dunk. Very decent of you korn.

BTW, slight differences in our totals (korn's and mine) may be attributed to methods of counting. I for instance have not included any ships flagged under Commonwealth countries, even if they are listed by my source. Information on the RCN, RAN and RNZN is incomplete; my source only lists their ships if constructed in British ship yards. I have counted ships of the RN that were crewed by other nationalities (it happened). Losses that I feel could be challenged or argued I have listed with * to indicate that I made a judgement in placing them in one category over another.

source: http://www.naval-history.net/NAVAL1939-45RN.htm

British Capital Ships: Numbers and Losses by Category

BBs and BCs
Total: 20
Lost: 5
Sub; Barham, RoyalOak
Air; PrinceOfWales, Repulse
Surf; Hood

CVAs
Total: 17
Lost: 3
Sub; Courageous, ArkRoyal
Air;
Surf; Glorious

CVE and CVL
Total: 47
Lost: 5
Sub; Eagle, Audacity, Avenger
Air; Hermes
Surf;
Mishap; Dasher

CRs
Total: 86
Lost: 26
Sub; Cairo, Calypso, Bonaventure (to Italian Subs), Dunedin, Galatea, Penelope, Hermione, Naiad
Air; Cornwall, Dorsetshire, Calcutta, Coventry, Curlew, Gloucester, Southampton, Fiji (to an Me109), Trinidad*, Spartan
Surf; Exeter, York*, Manchester, Edinburgh*, Charybdis,
Mine; Neptune
Mishap; Curacoa, Effingham

Thus I count 39 capital ships lost. 3 were lost to mishap and 1 to mines. Mishaps and mines are not represented in Civ3 so they can be put aside. That leaves 35 capital ships lost in combat.

Of the 35, a high proportion were lost to submarines. Not all UBoats though. Gotta give the Italians some credit. [Edit] Clarification. Italian subs got 3; Cairo, Calypso and Bonaventure. The way I structured it it only looks like the Bonaventure.[/Edit] So I count 43% of losses due to subs. Very significant.

What is most significant for the dreams of booming guns for many of the people on these forums is that only 7 ships, 20% were lost to surface action. By 1939, the days of the gun line were done. The fate of empires on the high seas were no longer determined by the crash of thunder and the whirr of grape shot. In fact, it is significant that the Battleship was largely abandoned after 1945.

What's left? Oh! Look at that will ya! 13 out of 35 capital ships lost were to Aircraft. Let's see, that leaves 100 minus 43 less 20... ummm, errr... 37% of RN losses were to death from above. Suck on that you *realists.*

Ahem. Sorry. I let myself get a little carried away there for a minute. Now, where was I. Oh yeah...

BTW. I have not tried to argue that sinking of ships by aircraft should be implemented in Civ3 due to realism above all else. What I have said, a few times, is that I believe that it would enhance the enjoyment of the game for many of the players. That's why it should be in.

Will it lead to better balance? I don't know. I haven't had a chance to try it. If there is no effective AA for ships, then definitely not! Will it lend more flavour to the naval game? Yes, I believe it could. Only time, and the next patch will tell.

[TCO]

submarines had an incredible effect at sea. Saying that the anti-sub measures were stupid is kinda coulda/woulda thinking. You could also imagine how much more effective the subs could have been with more emphasis (German) and better torpedos (American). When you look at the amount of men involved in sub ops vs surface or air ops, it is clear that subs had a huge per capita impact.

BTW, subs are naturally stealthy. Anti-sub ops are naturally difficult. The best defense a surface ship has is to run fast and zig a lot. This will make it dificult for the sub to get into firing position. Even if the sub is nuclear and capable of high speeds, it can not do so at periscope depth.

[TCO]

btw, great post, notyoueither.

[SpencerH]

Its interesting to note that 10 of the 14 vessels sunk by torpedo that Korn cites were in the Med or the approach to the Med not in the open seas.

[Tarquelne]

# of ships sunk by subs.

Right, right. Sorry, sorry, I typed my previous post while trying to do three things at once, and completely missed my own point.

Thus:

Originally posted by SpencerH
Its interesting to note that 10 of the 14 vessels sunk by torpedo that Korn cites were in the Med or the approach to the Med not in the open seas.

What I wanted to concentrate on was the "slow and vulnerable" bit. Subs don't zip up to cruisers, fire some torps, and zoom off again. They didn't integrate well into fleet battle/maneuver plans. Quite the opposite - to be effective they need to lie in wait, hidden. Realistically, I think the subs in Civ3 should be significantly slower than the other ships of thier period. And (much more importantly) I don't think that realism would make them less fun, or hurt gameplay. I think "realisitic" subs (as I see them) would make naval warfare more interesting.

Here's what I did:

I forget the exact figures, but:
Replace Destroyer with Cruiser, adjust cost and combat stats appropriately. Lose "can see subs." (More realistic at the Civ3 scale.) I assume the Cruiser, BB, and CV units all have some destroyers tagging along. If you want to hunt a sub you have to feel around for it - but the sub _is_ slow. (And usually won't survive attacking you anyway.)
Carriers can see subs. (Patrols.)

Make the sub slower, cheaper, increase the attack rating. So, if there were any merchant shipping, it'd still be effective against them. Against warships the subs need to hide near where the enemy ships will be scooting by. They're not longer stealthy destroyer-varients. (Which is what korn's reminded me of. (Though I do agree that korn's changes are, overall, a big improvement. The fast-ish subs just bugged me.))

I'd also like them to retreat....


Aircraft vrs. planes: Sure, planes sank lots of ships. How often did they destroy a whole "task group"? Heck - how often are large-sized land-troop formations completely destroyed? Unusual, isn't it? Maybe _no unit_ should EVER be completely destroyed in combat. Or maaaaybe we could concentrate more on the gameplay, less on the questions-of-fact.

Except for subs.

Which reminds me: "ASW stupidity." I think there's a world of difference between not using your forces at optimal efficiency on the one hand, and (this is the other hand now) forgetting (it would seem) every ASW lesson of WWI or denying the ASW efforts proper support because they aren't "cool".

[notyoueither]

The suggestion that since aircraft seldom destroyed an entire force they should not be able to sink ships can equally be applied to subs (never sank an entire force of war ships) and surface units (navies almost never duke it out to the bitter end, someone always runs).

And the fact remains that the entire Japanese Carrier force at Midway was put to the bottom by the naval aviators of the USN.

Then there's ForceZ. A BB unit (PrOfWales and Repulse) was completely destroyed by Japanese aircraft.

I don't buy the suggestion that the BB and CV include escorts as part of the unit. DDs are in the game. If you wish to escort your capital ships with lighter, expendable units do it. If you don't, then don't. I just don't agree with saying that DDs are here, DDs are there. Man they're everywhere.

Any good mod would add cruisers and reduce the strength of DDs a tad relative to BBs.

[SpencerH]

The speed of a non-nuclear sub depend on whether it's on the surface (and can use its diesal engines) or underwater (in which case it must use its batteries for power). I believe that on the surface they were not slow by any standards, but were slow once submerged. From what I remember, the tactics used by the German U-boats against merchantmen in WWII were to move into position in an extended line and wait for contact. Once a convoy was located the other subs within range would race (on the surface) to intercept. Personally I've increased the movement in my game to 4 (in line with the other ship movement increases I've done).

Nuclear subs are a whole other matter. Their CIV3 stats are totally out of line with the speed and capabilities of these ships.

[Tarquelne]

Originally posted by SpencerH
I believe that on the surface they were not slow by any standards but were slow once submerged.

Really? Must have simply misremembred then, or was thinking of WWI subs or something - I thought most WWII subs couldn't cruise quite as fast as most merchant ships even on the surface.

Err... hmm... does it make a difference? Are the "Submarines" in Civ3 WWII subs or WWI subs? I've been speaking of them as WWII subs, but someting inbetween WWI and II might be more appropriate.

[SpencerH]

Originally posted by Tarquelne

Really? Must have simply misremembred then, or was thinking of WWI subs or something - I thought most WWII subs couldn't cruise quite as fast as most merchant ships even on the surface.

Err... hmm... does it make a difference? Are the "Submarines" in Civ3 WWII subs or WWI subs? I've been speaking of them as WWII subs, but someting inbetween WWI and II might be more appropriate.

I think my choice of language "not slow by any standards" was poor. A quick check of a WWII vintage U-boat gives a cruising speed of 12 knots and max of 18 on the surface and 4 and 7 underwater. Not slow on the surface, but I think you're right about the comparison to merchantmen. Once the Convoys were past the U-boat line they had trouble (or couldnt) catch up. It's been a while since I read U-boat history though.

[SpencerH]

My few remaining grey cells kicked in and I recalled that the reason the u-boats couldnt keep up with the convoys was because of the escorts. They had to stay submerged. If they were on the surface they were faster but a target, especially once air cover was available.