Add VTOL darn it.

[stormbind]

Vertical Take Off and Landing fighter jets are an influencial warfare technology. Helicopters are also VTOL.

The Royal Navy used it in the Falklands War (Harrier Jump Jet) and though the RN aircraft have changed a lot in the last 35 years, the VTOL jet technology has not.

The British may have had VTOL jets 35 years before anyone else, but the USA now has it too, and soon an international collaboration project to build JSF (VTOL + Stealth) will make it international.

VTOL has several real-world benefits over legacy aircraft designs.

1. Carriers are cheaper to build because the planes don't need much runway. However, the RN has a tendency to use mini-runway ramps because it reduces fuel spent (thus deploying VTOL as STO+VL).

2. VTOL aircraft can hover and have a tight turning circle (up/down/left/right), so they can point their weapons at the target before it is facing them. This is a great advantage in shooting first.

3. But perhaps the most playable benefit is that VTOL aircraft can land almost anywhere. They cannot take-off from anywhere due to dependency on maintenance/fuel, but they can land on small (non-carrier) ships with a hellipad. This means the loss of your carrier, does not necessarilly translate into meaning the loss of your fighters.

4. VTOL aircraft are rather specialist. They are used for fleet-defense (see 2.) and have been adapted for localised ground-attack. They are not air-superiority fighters.

 

[stormbind]

How come nobody showed interest?

I am dead serious about genuine playable benefits in strategic maritime warfare:

The RN Reserves have supply ships who's secondary role is specifically to act as a landing platform for upto 20 stricken VTOL fighters.

Playable scenario: When a Carrier is sunk, any VTOL fighters it was hosting could appear on nearby Destroyers, Landing ships, or other modern-era vessels. Return to port, stick the planes on another carrier and rejoin the campaign without waiting for your cities to rebuild a compliment of fighters.

 

[mastertyguy]

Don't worry, there are already 43 views, just nobody answered.

 

[stormbind]

That is what I mean. No reply makes me think nobody agrees

I just checked, in the interest of completion and analysing the suitability of this a technology in Civ-type games:

VTOL entered service in 1969 (UK)
VTOL expanded overseas in 1985 (UK, USA)
VTOL is currently in front-line service (UK, USA, Spain, and Italy)
VTOL will be firmly international* in 2008

This technology is not a "flash in the pan", it is recorded firmly in the history books as an influencial evolution in maritime warfare and is now secured as a key technology in future aircraft.

* This is when VTOL/Stealth (UK/US collaboration project) will be delivered to the UK and US forces. It may also result in current VTOL jets appearing on the 2nd hand market.

 

[stormbind]

Ok, this is my final pitch. If this does not sell VTOL, you are all nuts!

What history has not shown

There is nothing in history to suggest that VTOL actually reduces the size of purpose-built carriers. RN CVA-01 (1966) and CVF (2012) design specifications demonstrate an intent to acquire full-sized carriers specifically for VTOL use. Examples:

CVA-01 carrier 50,000 tons

CVF carrier 60,000 tons

What history does show

Invincible class were originally designed as anti-submarine patrol ships for use in the north atlantic. These were equipped to support only a handful of anti-submarine aircraft (6 helicopters) but ended up re-designated as carriers and supporting squadrons of VTOL fighters. HMS Invincible entered service in 1977.

Invincible class patrol-ship 20,000 tons

What history does show is that VTOL converts smaller specialist warships into aircraft carriers; ships which were perhaps not originally designed for that role! This extends far beyond the Invicible class: The scenario is explicitly demonstrated by RNR supply ships, and implied through the deployment of other classes of helicopter-compatible warships.

Conclusion

VTOL fighters do not reduce the size of purpose-built aircraft carriers, instead, VTOL fighters upgrade other ships to the role of aircraft carriers!

P.S. There is actually a very large range of ships that could be re-designated as VTOL carriers at the drop of a hat!

 

[Xen]

I think they shoudl ditch this idea, and add Voltron. 80's crap roxx.

 

[NP300]

Well, you can always mod the game and add a VTOL plane. There is already a Harrier unit available for Civ3 in the unit library.

 

[stormbind]

No you cannot.

There is no way to write a mod that upgrades all your big ships to small carriers when you discover VTOL.

 

[Vael]

IMO, VTOL is more of a tactical issue currently than a strategic one. As Civilization is about strategic choices I'm not sure if it quite fits in. It would be like picking what engine you want in your Tanks.

 

[stormbind]

Not at all.

VTOL jets come in different shapes and sizes, with different load capacity, range, speed, function, &c. (bombing, spying, support, strike, attack &c.)

I am not emphasising any tactical use of VTOL! I have only highlighted the broad-reaching effects of discovering VTOL: That being, your medium-sized landing/supply ships are instantly upgraded to small-carriers. This is a strategic move.

 

[searcheagle]

I'm not one to doubt VTOL's benefits in real world combat. Unlike what Vael said, VTOL is as much a strategic issue as much as other combat aircraft.

I really don't like your proposal for VTOL aircraft, as I feel it would be overpowering.

I would like to see these ideas implemented, which are tangent to your ideas.

1. Close Air support (CAS)- VTOL's main role is CAS. This plane would control the surrounding ground from the air. Perhaps to allow this to take place, VTOL aircraft would be permitted to land in squares where a friendly ground unit already exist.

2. An Amphibious Assault Carrier-A carrier which carriers aircraft (Helos and VTOL, if implemented) in addition to ground units, which would allow Marines to run a successful campaign.

3. I would not allow landing on other ships. It would allow to open of gameplay in my opinion.

 

[stormbind]

Ah, genuine discussion! Thank you

1. CAS is the primary role of USCM Harrier varients. However, it is not the primary role of all VTOL fighters: GR7, GR8, GR9, JSF, &c.

2. The AAC is a good idea, but unclear. Would you describe the Ocean class (800 marines), Invincible class (500 marines), or Albion class (305 marines), Fearless class or Centaur class (light aircraft carrier later refit as a commando carrier) as amphibious assault carrier? Those values are the standard marine compliment: war-time compliments are more than double that. I list the obsolete Fearless & Centaur because they were around during the Falklands which helps identify historic influences (as opposed to unproven theory).

3. I would like to iterate that several non-carrier ships (including those listed and others) are currently deployed as backup-carriers for VTOL aircraft. Why should reality not play a part in strategic games? Maybe it does open things up, but I think that is what VTOL does.

 

[searcheagle]

Ah, genuine discussion! Thank you

1. CAS is the primary role of USCM Harrier varients. However, it is not the primary role of all VTOL fighters: GR7, GR8, GR9, JSF, &c.

2. The AAC is a good idea, but unclear. Would you describe the Ocean class (800 marines), Invincible class (500 marines), or Albion class (305 marines), or Fearless class as amphibious assault carrier? Those values are the standard marine compliment: war-time compliments are more than double that. I list the obsolete Fearless because it was around during the Falklands which helps identify historic influences (as opposed to unproven theory).

3. I would like to iterate that several non-carrier ships (including those listed and others) are currently deployed as backup-carriers for VTOL aircraft. Why should reality not play a part in strategic games? Maybe it does open things up, but I think that is what VTOL does.

As I read over your post, something becomes very clear to me: You want a very realistic game. One thing to keep in mind is that not everyone else does. (That may be why this post has not been getting many responses.) There was a thread somewhere which was titled Realism Vs. Gameplay. It is still in the recent section, I believe.

I am for a good mix of the two. I will not insist on realistic features if I feel overall it will hurt overall gameplay.

In response:

1. Until the advent of the F-35/JSF, all VTOL aircraft have been ground attack first, with limited ability to air units. This is due mainly to the Harrier's slower speeds at which they operate, maxing at about 500 mph. When other bombers can outrun them, its not a good fighter.

2.The AAC I think would be a good idea because it would allow for a smaller force to run amphibous landing. My real life example ship is the USS Wasp.

3. I reject this idea due to concerns over gameplay. What happens in real life is thus irrelevant.

 

[stormbind]

Instantly upgrading medium/large warships into mini-carriers strikes me as being very much simplified. It does not strike me as being terribly realistic. It is just the generalised effect of VTOL.

They are very good fighters because they have a tiny turning circle - they can turn on the spot (facing up/down/left/right) which means they have superior target acquisition. In a nutshell, they can point their weapons at the enemy before it is facing them = harrier shoots first.

You clearly have some knowledge of the USMC Harrier, but there are many other types which you have ignored: Including air-defense and strike varients.

I don't know much about the USMC Harrier except that it is slow. I think it is the GR8 or varient thereof. If I understand right, the USMC changed it and made it 50 mph slower than originally delivered. My impression is that USMC actually dreamt of an A-10 with VTOL.

Some other Harriers include the GR5, GR7, GR7A, GR9 and GR9A. They do not share the same specifications, performance, or tactical role. The 1987 model has a speed of 661 mph, but I think at least one is in excess of 750 mph. This may not be fast, but they don't need speed to hover on the spot and launch missiles as soon as something enters weapons range. JSF is also VTOL, and this is a thread about VTOL as a technology, not just one deployment of it. JSF demonstrates that VTOL is 100% compatible with all other airspace-related technologies.

There is no air-superiority varient, but that doesn't mean there could not be one, and AS is a highly specialised function but we are not talking about tactical uses - remember?

I think you are rejecting it because VTOL is not American.

 

[Xen]

Ah, genuine discussion! Thank you

I'll remember that shoudl we meet in MP, and you cower in fear at the might of army of Voltrons, Stormy, mark my words

 

[stormbind]

MP = Model Parliament?

 

[rhialto]

Problem is, this doesnt fix the basic problems with sea power, namely that there is nothing to fight over at sea, so no reason to have that navy in the first place. And unless the air superiority rules are radically overhauled, you arent going to be using those new minicarriers as fighter transports anyway.

 

[stormbind]

Dunno about you, but I like to bomb a target before having my marines storm it... there is no other way marines are going to capture a metropolis in one turn. Given that you don't build a navy, I suppose you don't use marines?

Naval supremacy is extremely valuable in Civ3. When you have no marines, you can use it to bombard land which weakens cities.

The issue of marines being modern-era really stinks though. Marines are a troop type that have existed for centuries.

Historically, maritime operations just happens to be VTOL's biggest influence because that is where runways are most limited, but VTOL is not explicitly limited to naval warfare.

 

[rhialto]

No, I dont build marines either - they are a useless troop type in vanilla c3c and civ3.

About the only situation in which marines are worth uilding is when an accident of geography makes marines teh only way an island city can physically be attacked. And even then is is usually more efficient to ask for it as part of peace negotiations. For more coastal assaults, it always makes ore sense to unload a tank on a neighbouring tile and assault with that on the next turn, rather than assault on the first turn with marines. The difference in attack factors makes the tank assault so much more efficient, even if there is a guaranteed 1 turn delay.

 

[stormbind]

I don't have C3C, only C3 Vanilla.

I find Marines to be highly valuable. I always build loads of them, stick them on transports with carriers and battleships in support... I go up to a coastal metropolis in a foreign continent... bombard it until the defenders are really weak. If it does not happen, I wait another turn. When the situation is favourable, I storm the metropolis with marines!

The same turn the city is captured, the metropolis can be populated with less-specialised troop types.

This makes a very strong invasion because the AI wastes loads of troops by throwing them at healthy defenders in the now captured metropolis, and I can use it as a launch platform to attack more inland cities.

I cannot understand why you would not build a navy + marines?! They are the most powerful combo in the modern-era. What is less fun is that Civ3 provides only a very limited selection of naval weapons, which makes that portion of the game excessively repetitive

Wouldn't it be better if, when you discover the secret of VTOL, you could upgrade your Battleships to Through-Deck Cruiser (jets instead of bombard, load capacity for marines, and exposing subs) ...

With this aproach, VTOL would not unlock new air units, but would instead unlock new ships. Note also that the Battleship was made obsolete through WW2, but Civ3 does not (currently) respect that part of history.