In Defense of Galleons sinking Submarines

[Akka]

Originally posted by Jerry Sindle
Why would anyone put a helicopter pad and a passive tail sonar on a Galleon in the real world? I couldn't possibly give you a plausable answer to that question.

Then why do players keep Galleons in their navies well into modern times? Because they're cost-concious and have higher priorities for their hard-earned gold shields. Consequently, in the game - Galleons do occasionally confront and, once and a while, defeat submarines. This drives players, those who tend to think in terms of absolutes, absolutely crazy. It shouldn't. A little "outside the box thinking" would increase their enjoyment of the game immensely.

That was the whole point of my beginning this discussion thread.

Very respectfully,

Jerry Sindle

I think you're perhaps reasoning in the wrong direction.
You say that if player keeps galleon in their navies, it's because they are cost-conscious and have higher priorities.
The fact that it's cost-efficient to keep completely obsolete ships in a world using battleships and submarines IS the problem. As long as you allow galleons to sometimes sink submarines, sure, it won't be cost-efficient to upgrade galleons to something more actual.
You can try to find a way where a galleon could sink a submarine - if equiped with top-notch weaponry and so - but in reality, it would be nearly as costly to equip a galleon with this stuff than to build another modern ship. So to make your galleon able to fight subs, you should have to pay a substantial upgrade => upgrading unit.

[Jerry Sindle]

Originally posted by Akka le Vil


I think you're perhaps reasoning in the wrong direction.
You say that if player keeps galleon in their navies, it's because they are cost-conscious and have higher priorities.
The fact that it's cost-efficient to keep completely obsolete ships in a world using battleships and submarines IS the problem. As long as you allow galleons to sometimes sink submarines, sure, it won't be cost-efficient to upgrade galleons to something more actual.
You can try to find a way where a galleon could sink a submarine - if equiped with top-notch weaponry and so - but in reality, it would be nearly as costly to equip a galleon with this stuff than to build another modern ship. So to make your galleon able to fight subs, you should have to pay a substantial upgrade => upgrading unit.

I am forced to agree with your conclusion.

V/r

Jerry

[michaelmagnus]

Originally posted by Jerry Sindle
Archers could be issued shoulder-fired surface to air missiles carried in addition to their bows and arrows and still be called archers...

But then they aren't archers, they're modern infantry armed with SAM's. The game should have a such a cheap unit available to represent irregulars, guerillas, etc., but ancient units are ancient units. There is no way a division of guys with spears can defeat a division of guys with machine guns.

Obsolete units should dissaper from all OOB's after, say, 10 years elapse from the point that 75% of civilizations posess the technology that makes them obsolete. (Like galleys would disappear after 75% of civs can build frigates, or somesuch.)

I think your ASG (anti-submarine-galleon) would also have some trouble keeping station with the fleet, doing what, 4 knots?

Your servant.

[Zachriel]

There's no way a little harbor boat could possibly damage a modern warship of any class, much less a sophisticated destroyer like the U.S.S. Cole.

Couldn't happen.

[Akka]

Originally posted by Zachriel
There's no way a little harbor boat could possibly damage a modern warship of any class, much less a sophisticated destroyer like the U.S.S. Cole.

Couldn't happen.

Could it survive the battle ?

[Zachriel]

Originally posted by Akka le Vil
Could it survive the battle ?

Of course, it depends on the element of surprise, the type of weapons used, and the number of mistakes made the superior force. In the case of the Cole, the training and dedication of the crew is credited with saving the ship.

[Zachriel]

Ooops! Sorry, Akka le Vil. You were referring to the little boat.

In Civ3, a galley costs 30 shields, a destroyer 120 shields.

In Life, the Cole cost about a billion dollars. The cost of repairing the Cole about a quarter of that. The cost of the boat is negligible. They could buy a fleet and have extras. They could even rent it from U-Haul. Or steal it. Or plant a mine.

[Akka]

Originally posted by Zachriel
Ooops! Sorry, Akka le Vil. You were referring to the little boat.

In Civ3, a galley costs 30 shields, a destroyer 120 shields.

In Life, the Cole cost about a billion dollars. The cost of repairing the Cole about a quarter of that. The cost of the boat is negligible. They could buy a fleet and have extras. They could even rent it from U-Haul. Or steal it. Or plant a mine.

What I meant is that the boat had to make a suicide attack that was planned against this ship for long. It was not a fight in the middle of the sea where it has to use its weapons to bring down its ennemy. So it was more of a sabotage than a fight.
If we have to simulate this in the game, then we should have a "suicide attack" order to give to the obsolete unit, which will destroy itself in an attempt to inflict 1 or 2 damage points to the more modern unit.

In no case the boat that attacked the Cole was supposed to make it back in one piece.

[Zachriel]

Originally posted by Akka le Vil

In no case the boat that attacked the Cole was supposed to make it back in one piece.

Think of the boat as a manned-torpedo. It was a legitimate military target, at least, unlike some other recent attacks.

For the record, I do think that the naval combat could be improved with a few deft modifications. A simple analogy with land units would probably work:

Subs for bombard;
Cruisers for cavalry;
Battleships for infantry;

Something like that.

[Theodrik]

wooden ASW platfoms

It's been done, way back in WWII, for pete's akes!. The Brits called them covettes. They were wooden sloops, rigged with radios, sonar, and a limited amount of depth charges. They could attack, but mostly acted as listening posts, directing the heavier armed boys to the targets. The Brits didn't have very many, and many used them within a few hundred miles of base. They were difficult to attack, not being magnetic enough to trip the German magnetic warheads and too quiet for the acoustic ones. The Lufwaffe had fun with them when they found then though, there was no room for AA.

[Slyspy]

Erm....

My Grandfather served on RN corvettes during the war. I hate to break it to you, but they were little tin cans bobbing about on convoy runs to the US and USSR, not wooden ships. The vessels which you refer to were merely coastal listening posts, not corvettes.

As for the subject of this thread, do you really think an antique wooden ship could take the stresses of carrying and firing modern weapons? They could barely cope with their regular armament. Even adding a few cannon would destabilise the ship (the Mary Rose is a prime example). Plus many older ships couldn't fire their entire arsenal for fear of breaking apart.

Besides which, how much return fire do you think they could take? One explosive shell probably. A galancing hit from a torpedo. Even a burst from a 50cal wuld probably go right through and into the crew, let alone the damage which tracer rounds could do.

This whole discussion is laughable!

[Saint Marcus]

Also you can never upgrade a wooden ship to a steel ship without redoing the whole ship.

Hmmm...wasn't this done in the past? I recall some early ironclads to have simply been wooden ships with a reinforced iron hull...It was expensive, but cheaper than building a completely new ship.

Also, there have been many transport ships that have been converted to carriers.

And privateers could have been any kind of ship.

[dawidge]

Re: Erm....

Originally posted by Slyspy
As for the subject of this thread, do you really think an antique wooden ship could take the stresses of carrying and firing modern weapons?

I think the stresses of firing a couple of dual 40mm AA mounts are much lower than the stresses of firing a broadside of heavy cannon, particularly if you install reinforcing struts under the deck. I don't think a modern small patrol boat could handle the stresses of firing a single cannon, much less an entire broadside. The recoild from a 12'pounder would have puched clear through a WW2 era PT boat, yet they carried enough armament to sink capital ships. Depth charges might pose a problem if you don't have enough speed to get clear of the blast, but a stronger throwing arm can address that. We're not talking about putting a 5"DP mount on a galleon. Smaller weapons can be just as effective (although with decreased range). For that matter, the US has put harpoon box launchers on itty bitty patrol boats. There are no transferred stresses whatsoever from firing rockets (just remember to install blast deflectors)

Besides which, how much return fire do you think they could take? One explosive shell probably. A galancing hit from a torpedo. Even a burst from a 50cal wuld probably go right through and into the crew, let alone the damage which tracer rounds could do.

Not much, admittedly. Although a .50 HMG would have a pretty difficult time chewing through wood thick enough to repel cannonballs. It would take a *lot* of ammo. A vulcan minigun (lots of very fast 7.62 mm) would have more luck than a .50 cal at penetrating the strong, wooden hull.

I'm not suggesting this is the wises course of action in keeping your navy up to date, but it is possible. If your navy is still populated by wooden-hulled sailing vessels, and you go to war, you may be highly motivated to work with what you've got.

[redstar1]

Re: Erm....

Originally posted by Slyspy
As for the subject of this thread, do you really think an antique wooden ship could take the stresses of carrying and firing modern weapons? They could barely cope with their regular armament. Even adding a few cannon would destabilise the ship (the Mary Rose is a prime example). Plus many older ships couldn't fire their entire arsenal for fear of breaking apart.

Besides which, how much return fire do you think they could take? One explosive shell probably. A galancing hit from a torpedo. Even a burst from a 50cal wuld probably go right through and into the crew, let alone the damage which tracer rounds could do.

This whole discussion is laughable!

If we are assuming an ancient Galleon is being upgraded to carry ASW weaponry and equipment, can we not also assume that technology would give us stronger joints and better wood protection? Cannons are heavy things, very heavy. Replace them with a phalanx and there ain't much difference. Replace them with depth charge racks and a torpedo tube or 2 and you have certainly a first strike chance. Add a towed sonar array and you have yourself a very quiet sub hunter. If it is as effective as a modern frigate/destroyer is one question, but if its all you have It would work.

[Akka]

Re: Re: Erm....

Originally posted by redstar1


If we are assuming an ancient Galleon is being upgraded to carry ASW weaponry and equipment, can we not also assume that technology would give us stronger joints and better wood protection? Cannons are heavy things, very heavy. Replace them with a phalanx and there ain't much difference. Replace them with depth charge racks and a torpedo tube or 2 and you have certainly a first strike chance. Add a towed sonar array and you have yourself a very quiet sub hunter. If it is as effective as a modern frigate/destroyer is one question, but if its all you have It would work.

As I said just few message up : if we are assuming that you're about to rebuild half of your ship to keep it up to date, if we are assuming you're upgrading its hull, its weapons, training its crew to use new systems, etc.
It's called "upgrading unit" and it's already in the game.