Technological peculiarities

Can't you read?

Looks like another internet tough guy. You'll have to discuss this one further with your hand.

Functioning submarines were developed by the American Civil War (and less effective attempts before that),

Silly WP says the first submarine not relying on muscle power for propulsion was the Plongeur in 1863 and that subs didn't become "potentially viable" weapons until the 1880s. I'm glad you cleared that up for me! :)

a couple of decades before the development of the internal combustion engine. The submarine depicted in the graphics is of course fully modern, however.

And it is ocean going. And as fast as most surface ships.
 
Silly WP says the first submarine not relying on muscle power for propulsion was the Plongeur in 1863 and that subs didn't become "potentially viable" weapons until the 1880s. I'm glad you cleared that up for me! :)

But then I didn't refer to submarines "not relying on muscle power", just subs.

And it is ocean going. And as fast as most surface ships.

Yes, this of course is where it gets awkward, but reasonably one has to make allowances for gameplay purposes - it hits at a game stage where a sluggish patrol boat isn't a lot of use (even the Ironclad was given a speed boost in G&K and allowed to cross oceans, to make it useful rather than because it made historical sense. You wouldn't argue that Steam Power is in the wrong place, or the Ironclad is misplaced at that tech, but the USS Monitor wasn't even seaworthy - it fought its battles in rivers). Even if Refrigeration had Combustion as a prerequisite, and so the anomaly being complained about was fixed, the sub graphic and rules wouldn't make a lot of sense for a WWI U-Boat.
 
But then I didn't refer to submarines "not relying on muscle power", just subs.

True. I don't think a hand cranked or treadmill powered sub would be a good basis for the Civ sub though.

Yes, this of course is where it gets awkward, but reasonably one has to make allowances for gameplay purposes - it hits at a game stage where a sluggish patrol boat isn't a lot of use

Isn't the sub kind of OP as it is though? I haven't built one in BNW yet but in single player G&K having a sub turned naval warfare into a turkey shoot. Maybe a realistically slower sub would be better balance? Subs of the pre-atomic era had several limitations that aren't reflected in the game.

(even the Ironclad was given a speed boost in G&K and allowed to cross oceans, to make it useful rather than because it made historical sense. You wouldn't argue that Steam Power is in the wrong place, or the Ironclad is misplaced at that tech, but the USS Monitor wasn't even seaworthy - it fought its battles in rivers). Even if Refrigeration had Combustion as a prerequisite, and so the anomaly being complained about was fixed, the sub graphic and rules wouldn't make a lot of sense for a WWI U-Boat.

I think what they did with the ironclad was fine. "Ironclad" covers quite a range of warships from the likes of the Merrimack to the early cruisers and battleships of the late 19th century. The term is vague enough to cover what they did. There was even a brief period when ramming was considered the ironclads main weapon!
 
Isn't the sub kind of OP as it is though? I haven't built one in BNW yet but in single player G&K having a sub turned naval warfare into a turkey shoot. Maybe a realistically slower sub would be better balance? Subs of the pre-atomic era had several limitations that aren't reflected in the game.

Yes, it's possibly too fast, but I don't think a unit that hits naval units, and only naval units (plus embarked, of course) can be considered OP - it's very easy to have subs as wasted production if there's no enemy navy on the way. You run into the same thing you do with, e.g., cavalry: a unit can be very strong against other units, but if it can't take or bombard a city, it's fundamentally of limited use.
 
Don't care about "realism" as long as gameplay is good.

Gameplay in CiV is good and enjoyable. If we go for full realism, then why Atomic AI still points fingers at you when you had war in Ancient era?

or how can you research Tanks without having knowledge that Oil even exists? or how does cavalry upgrades into Tanks in the first place?

if we're really going to complain about techs, then I would rather complain of some choices.
It takes several tech from Longswords into Rifles, but transition from Great War Infantry to Infantry is like 10 turns, which is terrible.

AI pops up at your door and starts showing off with his new GWI... that's cute, while he was on his way, I already got access to Infantry!

or GWB to Bombers... What, like 2-3 techs?
 
Calvary upgrading into landships was a liberty taken from the fact that Calvary itself is pretty dang useless if you wait for the historical path to play through, where it wasn't considered obsolete on the battlefield until after World War II, where you'd have to hang onto calv. into the late atomic age until getting access to Helicopter Gunships like it upgraded into in previous Civs.

Instead, lancers get the distinction of lasting far longer into the game then you'd really think they should; Long enough that you might just be tempted to lead them into a cavalry charge against a tank and be done with it, rather then wait for those silly AT guns to finally come online.

As for tanks without oil being a thing:



Yes, yes they were indeed, and oil just made it possible to actually field them in any practical way. Evidently, early steam tanks of the type showing up in Smokey Skies were based off a real vehicle, a bit one that was introduced after the combustion engine existed, but didn't use said engine itself;


(Though they did use kerosene, which itself was a type of oil; perhaps why land ironclads don't need coal during the scenario.)

GWInf becoming WWInf in a single tech makes more sense in epic scaled matches, where it usually takes 20 turns; roughly the amount of years between the first and second World War. My main beef with infantry is the fact that they're stronger then landships; as tough as tanks, in fact!
 
My biggest problem is the idea of scientists actually researching this stuff. Even if it did make sense for writing to lead to drama and poetry, I find it amusing to picture a lifelong scientist sitting down at his desk every day, getting all his beakers and vials together, and mixing them until drama pops out.
 
Looks like another internet tough guy. You'll have to discuss this one further with your hand.

Can you explain me please? I'm curious.
 
Top Bottom