Something Odd

[jarhead_leif]

Sometimes, I wonder why Fireaxis made it the way it currently is.

1) Aren't Persian immortals replacement for chariots (way far from horseback riding)?
Well, I see them horseback riden.

2) And how about gunships afraid getting to fly over oceans. Do they also get penalty from crossing rivers? I see battleships with hangars but not the world war II transports loaded with choppers. Am I wrong? They do also get bonuses from using RR's. Im just thinking they're onto cargo trains.

3) Why can't bombers and gunships be able to be loaded on aircraft carriers?

4) Anymore?

I know they tried to make the game balance. It's just funny the game is acting this way.

 

[lymond]

The Sassanid Immortal was more akin to a Cataphract or Knight. It's my thinking that the Civ Immortal might be based on this historically. Although it seems better served by a Horse Archer or Knight unit. However, I think it's more about taking elements of the Persian Emmpire and combining into 1 unit - the latter Persian horse-based Immortal with the fact that Persian Empire dates to ancient times.

I'm no expert but I'm pretty sure gunships and helicopters are not designed for particular long ocean based travel. Sure, they can fly over water, but I don't think they are meant to travel long distances. Gunships were specifically designed for attacking on land, although while in the air, ofc.

Not sure on bombers. Did not realize you could not load them into aircraft carriers, but then I don't really play with late game era units often. However, in game terms, Gunships are simply not in the same classification as air units like fighters and jets.

 

[TheMulattoMaker]

IRL, bombers typically can't operate off an aircraft carrier. Heavy strategic bombers (like those represented by Bomber/Stealth Bomber in the game) need a far longer runway than carriers can provide.* A modern Carrier Air Group would generally have a bunch of air-superiority fighters, a bunch of ground-attack fighter-bombers, and a handful of slower anti-submarine, search-and-rescue, and radar aircraft. These are represented by Fighters/Jet Fighters in the game. It seems like Gunships should be able to operate off a Carrier- but like lymond, I don't war very often late in the game. However, I've always found the rules regarding Gunships in BtS to be... strange.

*There has been at least one instance where real, actual bombers took off from a carrier- Doolittle's Raid in WWII. (Maybe more but this is the only one I'm aware of.) But Doolittle's Raid was more of a psychological strike than actual strategic bombing. The planes could just barely take off and couldn't land back on the carrier- and these were medium bombers, not heavies.

 

[joanne]

One thing that has bugged me throughout the Civ series was how my citizens could be possibly harvesting bread from seawater - now I can die in peace

 

[Merovech]

Persian horse archers were some of the first chronologically, as I know, appearing at least as early as Alexander's time. An early horse archer wouldn't make sense from a game design perspective, so the replace chariots. It is helpful to remember that most civ units actually represent many different types of sometimes not completely related real-life units.

For more examples of oddities with unique units, the Keshik really should be knight replacement, timewise; the real-life Praetorian were ceremonial and wouldn't normally see combat, camel archers were less common the horse-mounted troops even in Arabia, although Saladin was found of them; jaguar warriors could have been very easily called eagle warriors (they were the two elite orders in the Aztec military); and that's just what I can think of off the top of my head.

 

[jarhead_leif]

I'm no expert but I'm pretty sure gunships and helicopters are not designed for particular long ocean based travel. Sure, they can fly over water, but I don't think they are meant to travel long distances. Gunships were specifically designed for attacking on land, although while in the air, ofc.

Fireaxis could have done better. Well, you are right about the long distance travel with gunships, especially across the oceans. But what if they gave'm the ability across the sea and forbid ocean terrain, like triremes do. Then, they would be pretty cool with archipelago maps. And give them penalty when attacking modern navies, too. Will that make the game unbalance?

Not sure on bombers. Did not realize you could not load them into aircraft carriers, but then I don't really play with late game era units often. However, in game terms, Gunships are simply not in the same classification as air units like fighters and jets.

It's pretty funny how you stated it. ^^v peace

I agree with the "not same class" with gunships and fighters(bombers) thing. But aren't there suppose to be hangars on carriers. Where are the those aircraft mechanics when you need them.


I know.

No matter what I say, cIV is gone from Fireaxis. And This patch is already their final release.

 

[snakeseare]

Flying bombers off of carriers is barely possible, but not routine. Those of us who played earlier versions of Civ rem carrier-based bombers. They were rightly nerfed for IV. Likewise, as much as I love gunships, they would be far too powerful if they could rule the waves, even just the coastal waves. And historically, there is no precedent for using gunships at sea.

 

[Culture Bomb]

AFAIK the British army had stopped wearing red uniforms by the time rifles were widely used. (Though they may still have worn them for parades/ceremonies etc.)

 

[gps]

Likewise, as much as I love gunships, they would be far too powerful if they could rule the waves, even just the coastal waves. And historically, there is no precedent for using gunships at sea.

I think there are severe real world reasons for this. Helicotper gunships usually are close air support for ground troops or anti tank. In both roles they fly low and use the terrain to avoid detection. That's what they are good at. I don't really see this kind of missions happening at sea. If I think back to the good old "Gunship" days: as soon as you're detected, you are vulnerable. And on the open seas there's nowhere to hide...

 

[TheMulattoMaker]

I think there are severe real world reasons for this. Helicotper gunships usually are close air support for ground troops or anti tank. In both roles they fly low and use the terrain to avoid detection. That's what they are good at. I don't really see this kind of missions happening at sea. If I think back to the good old "Gunship" days: as soon as you're detected, you are vulnerable. And on the open seas there's nowhere to hide...

Good point. AFAIK, the Navy only uses helicopters for search-and-rescue and sub-hunting. Maybe they could have been given the ability to see and attack subs, but usually when people think of helicopters in combat they see American Cobras and Apaches or Russian Hinds. (Tank killers.)

 

[kochman]

Sometimes, I wonder why Fireaxis made it the way it currently is.

1) Aren't Persian immortals replacement for chariots (way far from horseback riding)?
Well, I see them horseback riden.

2) And how about gunships afraid getting to fly over oceans. Do they also get penalty from crossing rivers? I see battleships with hangars but not the world war II transports loaded with choppers. Am I wrong? They do also get bonuses from using RR's. Im just thinking they're onto cargo trains.

3) Why can't bombers and gunships be able to be loaded on aircraft carriers?

1) Already answered...
2) They have to keep them somewhat realistic... I could see allowing helos to attack coastal tiles at best... in general their movement advantage is already too much IMO.
3) They had to nerf this... Bombers on ACC are possible, of course, but man I could completely crush the enemy when you could have 4 bombers per ACC and do a Pearl Harbor type of attack.

 

[nfw]

No gunships don't start with amphibious, they can't even get that promotion, which is pretty silly. Much like how a huge battleship can't carry a scout, or that you can't capture great people, airships can spot subs but not fighters, horse archers ignore first strikes, but not your tanks etc.

 

[Culture Bomb]

Good point. AFAIK, the Navy only uses helicopters for search-and-rescue and sub-hunting. Maybe they could have been given the ability to see and attack subs, but usually when people think of helicopters in combat they see American Cobras and Apaches or Russian Hinds. (Tank killers.)

Actually, when I think of helicopters in combat, I think of the scene from Apocalypse Now, when they do in fact attack across water. Charlie don't surf!


Maybe the most glaringly obvious oddity hasn't been mentioned here yet - airships need fuel.

 

[TheMulattoMaker]

Actually, when I think of helicopters in combat, I think of the scene from Apocalypse Now, when they do in fact attack across water. Charlie don't surf!

Yeah, I guess Army-type helicopters should be able to fly across at least one Coast tile. And thanks, I'm gonna have Ride of the Valkyries in my head the rest of the day.

 

[kochman]

Yeah, I guess Army-type helicopters should be able to fly across at least one Coast tile. And thanks, I'm gonna have Ride of the Valkyries in my head the rest of the day.

YES!!! It SOUNDS like victory!

 

[SquirrelCensus]

Just what exactly are those big statues on the beach doing that makes my ocean tiles more productive?

How come nobody ever thought of putting crops or livestock on a boat and bringing them to a new continent?

Hit singles I understand, but how does a broadcast tower make happiness using hit movies and hit musicals? Wouldn't viewers be happier seeing these things at the theater instead of at home on the radio or TV?

You need refrigeration to found Cereal Mills, but not for Sid's Sushi Co. Does this strike any one else as odd? Who refrigerates their cereal? And who can build a commercial empire based on raw fish without finding a way to keep it cold?

 

[kochman]

How come nobody ever thought of putting crops or livestock on a boat and bringing them to a new continent?

It generally represents where things can be fertile/thrive.
If you look at livestock throughout the world, the types that thrived in Europe have thrived everywhere Europeans ended up thriving pretty much.

You couldn't really have Elephants in Kansas... nor could you really have Wheat in the jungle...

 

[nfw]

How come nobody ever thought of putting crops or livestock on a boat and bringing them to a new continent?

Or in fact, the next square over.

 

[jarhead_leif]

One thing that has bugged me throughout the Civ series was how my citizens could be possibly harvesting bread from seawater - now I can die in peace

That's funny. And also "meat" icons from pastures.

 

[damerell]

AFAIK the British army had stopped wearing red uniforms by the time rifles were widely used. (Though they may still have worn them for parades/ceremonies etc.)

Not quite. The British army (and armies in general) stopped wearing brightly coloured uniforms because of the widespread adoption of rifles. But, close enough - it's a big leap from the Musketmen of Civ to the Riflemen, with Wellington's men lost somewhere in between.