Airships: Why are they even in the game?

Airship.

That
unit
SUCKS!!!

Walkabout is right. 100%. The concept that somehow a dirigible could bomb a naval unit, much less one that is MOVING, is absolute and utter INSANITY. Airships should have ZERO effect against naval craft. Airships are only safe at height, get one down on the deck against any ship with a gun .30 cal or higher and it's OVER.

And as he noted, they were mainly used, as a damaging weapon, as a bomb platform for something so big you couldn't POSSIBLY miss it. Namely, a city.

The idea of blimps as the ultimate ASW weapon is romantic at best - the bantied about claim of "no ship protected by a blimp was sunk" ignores the reality of the Atlantic battle - it was mostly in the airgap that the bulk of the action took place, beyond the range of aircraft, including blimps. The drop off of losses in the Atlantic was not the spectacular performance of a dirigible, but the culmination of fierce fighting and the projection of air power, as well as the refinement of the convoy process and protection weaponry - everything from hedgehogs to radar to drop tanks and long range B-24 flights... sorry, blimps had some uses near shore, and are quite good as pre-cursors of helicopters of squatting on an area and looking for the long white trail of a periscope in the waves, but 30% bombing of a destroyer? Come ON.

Airships should move to combustion and be re-named "Bi-planes".

Venger
 
The thing that bothers me most in terms of gameplay why do blimps have a range of 8 when the fighter upgrade only gets 6?
 
lulu135 said:
The thing that bothers me most in terms of gameplay why do blimps have a range of 8 when the fighter upgrade only gets 6?
Click to expand...
It could be because Zeppelins had longer mission range than most fighters (mean, historically).
 
There is one redeeming aspect to having airships in the game: if you open up the sound effects directory and listen to "AirshipDieVox-000," you'll see it's a recording of Herb Morrison's famous "Oh, the humanity!" remark during the Hindenburg disaster.

Every time I hear it, for some reason I think of WKRP in Cincinnati's "Turkey Drop." :D
 
Machine Guns should be able to shoot them down. There doesn't seem to be any use for machine guns currently, this would have them do something.
 
Well they really would make a much better scout unit, make them require at least Steam Power (possibly Railroad) and give them the ability to Hover ie move around over sea+land without interacting with the enemy except detection (maybe give them a move of 4) [unless they get intercepted]... in that case give them a strength of 2. Maybe let them carry Spies+Explorers.
 
How does an airship damage a fighter? Simple, there's a guy in the carriage underneath with a rifle. Some fighter pilots are stupid enough to be shot down by them

Although I really think there should be a pre-rocketry AA gun. Something like I dunno, a halftrack or a guy with a flak gun, or even the AA gun the Prussians built to shoot down hot air balloons while they were sieging Paris
 
Stylesrj said:
Although I really think there should be a pre-rocketry AA gun. Something like I dunno, a halftrack or a guy with a flak gun, or even the AA gun the Prussians built to shoot down hot air balloons while they were sieging Paris
Click to expand...

Yep some kind of flack gun should be available to shoot down airships.
 
bob_x said:
Machine Guns should be able to shoot them down. There doesn't seem to be any use for machine guns currently, this would have them do something.
Click to expand...

Machineguns, can reach them. Bomming Airships opererated at high altitude. Machinegun simple aren't powerfull enough to reach the altitude airships opererate on.
 
Yes, the "C" in cid gives away the FF3 reference. Go Cid!
 
Fanatic Demon said:
Machineguns, can reach them. Bomming Airships opererated at high altitude. Machinegun simple aren't powerfull enough to reach the altitude airships opererate on.
Click to expand...

This is right, airships flew very high and in an alternative history they could have been very effective. The technology for them was around well before they were put to military use in our history, but if things had worked out differnetly airships could have been an amazing military advantage. They also wouldnt have had any counter.
 
hoopsnerd said:
Terrific post, the entire thing. I stand corrected on my assumption that the zepps would have been easy for rifles to shoot down. I also don't think anyone can argue that a regimen of ~10,000 soldiers (1 unit) would definatley be "weakened" by 20% due to disorder if say... the Goodyear blimp flew overhead dropping firebombs on them and they were forced to take cover, having no alternative means of destroying the blimp.
Click to expand...

I think hoopsnerd is right on here. The 20% damage to troops doesn't represent mass destruction by bombs, it represents the chaos caused by having to break formation and take cover.
 
Cvntpumeler said:
I think hoopsnerd is right on here. The 20% damage to troops doesn't represent mass destruction by bombs, it represents the chaos caused by having to break formation and take cover.
Click to expand...
Or...those troops say

"F$%# THIS! WE HAVE NO COUNTERS! I'm deserting!" :D
 
Meh, when I bomb something with an airship, all it causes is 12% damage. No collateral there.
Why can't airships cause collateral damage?
A flak gun would be nice though and it should not go obsolete (make it have an advantage against tanks because an 88mm flak gun can be an anti tank gun) because we still use flak guns today
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

B
How do anti-aircraft works in Civ VII?
Replies
13
Views
2K
tman2000
T
F
The perfect army
Replies
5
Views
2K
Fins
F
F
The Eternal Peace
2 3
Replies
52
Views
5K
Fins
F
F
What are the different "types" of games for you, that feel very different and scratch a different itch?
Replies
8
Views
2K
Gumbolt
Gumbolt
F
How i provoked AIs to declare wars (via some very weird but working method)
Replies
13
Views
2K
drewisfat
drewisfat
Back
Top Bottom