Airships: Why are they even in the game?

[Cvntpumeler]

No, I don't think they're unfair, I think they're stupid, ahistorical, and most importantly not fun at all.

ahistorical? ok, on that one you have a point -- airships used in our history weren't used for many successful bombing missions, but that also doesn't mean that they couldn't possibly have been. I'd argue that doesn't matter at all in civ anyways.. There are already plenty of things that don't make logical or historical sense, like a Horse Archer getting countered by a Spearman. In REAL history, Mongol horse archers would just ride circles around regimens of men armed with only spears and just barrage them to death with arrows. How would a Cutraisser or Cavalry lose to a Pikeman? Same thing... Pikes would just get wasted by the muskets/rifles from a distance and have no way of fighting back, yet somehow in civ4 a Pikeman unit has a decent shot at beating a Cavalry unit.

stupid? what do you mean by that? comes across like you are just calling them names...

not fun? well, that's your opinion. personally I think it's fun to have another element to the strategy of that era.

Always the defender.
False. The defender can bring a greater number of them to bear since the fight will be in his territory.

No, you are wrong. I always use airships in an attack. I don't attack cities that are out of the range of my airships, and when i conquer a new city I move the airships there to be in range for the next city that I target. If the enemy already has a lot of airships in defense, then it's probably just a bad time for me to attack - I should have beaten him to physics or I should attack somebody with less defenses. I wouldnt attack a protective civ with a lot of CG III riflemen either, its about being a smart player and realizing how strong your stack really is when faced with what your enemy can defend with.

Fixed.
Also fixed.

Wow... changing what I wrote to reflect your own opinion... what a clever arguement. Clearly you have justified your request for airships to be removed.

 

[Peng Qi]

So do any of the pro-Airship people have an argument other than "lulz tech faster?"

 

[Cvntpumeler]

So do any of the pro-Airship people have an argument other than "lulz tech faster?"

"lulz tech faster?" what?

I don't even know what we're refering to, but at least we have a better arguement than "they're stupid."

 

[scorth]

So do any of the pro-Airship people have an argument other than "lulz tech faster?"

I'm not really PRO-airship, but I'm not ANTI-airship (or is that what unit we're proposing here?)

IMO it's a unit that was added to increase the air presence in the game (which is still lacking). It is relatively weak and must be employed in fairly large numbers. To be honest, it has had a positive effect on my planning (as I now tend to bring more units to war against them than I used to).

Personally, I don't really see the big deal with the historical aspects of the unit. I mean, did the ancient asian/african/european units ever face off against the ancient south/north american units? Weird that they would give combat bonuses against unknown units, yes? "Hey, we've never seen this thing before, but I'm pretty sure that we can take it out, heck, I think that we've got a 25% better chance than we would against those other guys."

A lot of the game is about supposition. In this case, if Airships had been developed further, what was their potential? Apparently, they could have become an anti-ship unit that was pretty weak, and that had no early counter.

I just accept it and play on. (Lets argue about why my infantry upgrades to Mobile SAM?!)

 

[seasnake]

My only arguments for the airship are:

1) I can use it too, so it doesn't just benefit my opponent.
2) I don't care about historical accuracy, I just like blimps.
3) It is an interesting option for a civ to build a fleet of mobile airships then the traditional grind it out on the ground approach. It creates an option, and I want as many ways possible to play the game for replay value.
4) I can edit its values/mod it out if I don't want it, but it's there if I do.
5) It makes a good recon unit to patrol areas of your coast so you can see if a navy is sneaking up on under-defended cities (happens fairly often in BTS, and it killed me the first time because I wasn't expecting it at all).
6) It's very pretty.
7) There are enough historic arguments about its function/effect on troops that you can make a good argument for its inclusion (or you may not care at all, I don't).
8) If I have the tech lead I get a counter soon, if I don't then I'm probably hurting in general and want as many uncounterable units as possible to try to stave off annihilation.
9) I'd rather the programmers err on the side of inclusion than exclusion, i.e. I'd rather they give me a buggy espionage system that can be fixed/taken out then never have a chance to do any espionage.
10) There's few things as satisfying as watching your blimps swoop down and pummel enemy invaders from on high. "Feel my wrath."

 

[Gaius Octavius]

Just playing devil's advocate here, mind you. Posts should be taken only half-seriously.

1) I can use it too, so it doesn't just benefit my opponent.

Then why have it in at all?

2) I don't care about historical accuracy, I just like blimps.

Well, I like historical accuracy and jet bombers.

3) It is an interesting option for a civ to build a fleet of mobile airships then the traditional grind it out on the ground approach. It creates an option, and I want as many ways possible to play the game for replay value.

Then we should also put in hovercrafts and flying submarines, because that would be very interesting...

4) I can edit its values/mod it out if I don't want it, but it's there if I do.

Then you are no longer actually playing Civ IV: Beyond the Sword. You are playing Civ IV: Seasnake Style!

5) It makes a good recon unit to patrol areas of your coast so you can see if a navy is sneaking up on under-defended cities (happens fairly often in BTS, and it killed me the first time because I wasn't expecting it at all).

Very true, which is why they should not be able to bomb as they do.

6) It's very pretty.

So are B-52 jet bombers! But they weren't included.

7) There are enough historic arguments about its function/effect on troops that you can make a good argument for its inclusion (or you may not care at all, I don't).

There are enough historic arguments about the jet bomber's role that you could make a good argument for their inclusion long before airships.

8) If I have the tech lead I get a counter soon, if I don't then I'm probably hurting in general and want as many uncounterable units as possible to try to stave off annihilation.

So it's either tech lead or bust, eh? Too bad that this has always been true in every Civ incarnation....

9) I'd rather the programmers err on the side of inclusion than exclusion, i.e. I'd rather they give me a buggy espionage system that can be fixed/taken out then never have a chance to do any espionage.

But this is not buggy; this is just plain silly.

10) There's few things as satisfying as watching your blimps swoop down and pummel enemy invaders from on high. "Feel my wrath."

Not nearly as much fun as watching B-52's bomb your enemy into the Stone Age!




Okay, my main point here: I'd rather have an intermediate jet bomber between the stealth bomber and the regular WWII prop-bomber. Makes sense historically, and they've been used far more than the B-2 and other stealths, not to mention blimps. Yet they've never been included in any Civ series so far... I guess it's a case of "unit overload syndrome"--too many units in the modern age.

 

[Quagga]

Yes, we should have flying subs. Then we need Admiral Nelson and Captain Crane in their leather flight jackets. Wait, don't leave Chief Sharkey behind!

And don't forget to close the Crash Doors!

And why aren't there giant menacing squids in Civ? (I know how to get rid of them: Short power to the hull!)

 

[seasnake]

Also in the spirit of fun, GO:

Then why have it in at all?

True. But can doesn't mean will, I can elect to bother or not. We all have access to cavalry, does that mean no cavalry? A game of UUs would be a lot of fun, but ...

Spoiler :

Well, I like historical accuracy and jet bombers.

How bad does it grind you when America builds the Pyramids, Egypt founds Taoism and Ghandhi declares war? (I also like jet bombers, but still like blimps).

Then we should also put in hovercrafts and flying submarines, because that would be very interesting...

You big silly, flying submarines don't exist!

Then you are no longer actually playing Civ IV: Beyond the Sword. You are playing Civ IV: Seasnake Style!

Seasnake Style ... that's just too easy. However, if the publishers make the game easy to mod, then it could be said it's part of playing Civ IV to mod! (Ok, it's a stretch, but still).

Very true, which is why they should not be able to bomb as they do.

My response was to someone saying what were the arguments for Airships. If I had to make arguments why Airships bomb, well, I won't, so neiner neiner.

So it's either tech lead or bust, eh? Too bad that this has always been true in every Civ incarnation....

You mean it's either winning or losing? Yeah, I guess it is.
Serious now, you don't need to be some financial wiz to get the tech lead. As Genghis I have a happy habit of going to war and demanding techs from weaker neighbors. They pay, oh yes ... You can stay competitive in the tech race with anyone.

 

[hoopsnerd]

Also in the spirit of fun, GO:


True. But can doesn't mean will, I can elect to bother or not. We all have access to cavalry, does that mean no cavalry? A game of UUs would be a lot of fun, but ...

Spoiler :

Well, I like historical accuracy and jet bombers.

How bad does it grind you when America builds the Pyramids, Egypt founds Taoism and Ghandhi declares war? (I also like jet bombers, but still like blimps).


You big silly, flying submarines don't exist!


Seasnake Style ... that's just too easy. However, if the publishers make the game easy to mod, then it could be said it's part of playing Civ IV to mod! (Ok, it's a stretch, but still).


My response was to someone saying what were the arguments for Airships. If I had to make arguments why Airships bomb, well, I won't, so neiner neiner.


You mean it's either winning or losing? Yeah, I guess it is.
Serious now, you don't need to be some financial wiz to get the tech lead. As Genghis I have a happy habit of going to war and demanding techs from weaker neighbors. They pay, oh yes ... You can stay competitive in the tech race with anyone.

I think you guys killed the thread...

Seasnake: I like the things you've added, edited and removed from your games

 

[onedreamer]

Wiki Article

Read that and tell me why airships are in the game. Wouldn't it have been more interesting if they had added biplanes with the same effects as airships have now, plus interception capabilities? Airships in the game are kind of silly; they're un-counterable super short-range airstrikers that can do substantial damage to units, which is just about the opposite of what they really were. It really seems like, if they wanted to do airships, the sensible thing would be to make them just scouts; no airstrike ability at all. This way you can avoid the silliness of stacks being constantly harassed by devastatingly effective airship strikes with no way to counter it.

I fully agree, they are a real pain in the butt, the only thing I can't agree on is super short-range. They have range 8 when railroads aren't even out, you call that a super short-range ? Geez !

 

[peter450]

well i'm pro airship, i'm just not pro that it comes so soon, and has no counter for ages, for an airship to drop bombs it needs to be powered by a combustion engine, a ballon an basket wont cut it, although the icon looks a nice modern design, in game terms it's arrival is way to early, around the riflemen era, not a combustion engine in site!

A simple solution would simply be to push it back to combustion, have combustion require physic's, and flight require assembly line an combustion, since the WW2 fighters you get when you get flight, at least in the game, and seeing as these would require proper factories to actually be built in, it's one way of doing it, keeping it at least plausable and having the airship arrive at a more accurate time, while reducing the window it has when it can effectively operate without counter.

Either that or get a WW1 style fighter to counter it, or replace it entirely

 

[seasnake]

think you guys killed the thread...

Seasnake: I like the things you've added, edited and removed from your games

Um yes, sorry, won't happen again.

The thing that makes civ stick out so is the ability to tweak what needs tweaking. This is the only computer game I have I can say "you know, this game would be perfect if ... " and actually do something about it.

What I experimented with the other night was trying to add a fighter from Dale's Road to War. I want to make it available with physics, but require oil (so you need combustion). It worked ok, I need to balance it better. Ideally, it would have the functions of the airship today plus intercept EXCEPT the airship would retain 1) longer range, 2) see subs, 3) bomb naval units. If I could just get it so the Airship can bomb naval units and scout, and the fighter can attack enemies and intercept, I'd be happy.

 

[Ghandi33]

well i'm pro airship, i'm just not pro that it comes so soon, and has no counter for ages, for an airship to drop bombs it needs to be powered by a combustion engine, a ballon an basket wont cut it, although the icon looks a nice modern design, in game terms it's arrival is way to early, around the riflemen era, not a combustion engine in site!

A simple solution would simply be to push it back to combustion, have combustion require physic's, and flight require assembly line an combustion, since the WW2 fighters you get when you get flight, at least in the game, and seeing as these would require proper factories to actually be built in, it's one way of doing it, keeping it at least plausable and having the airship arrive at a more accurate time, while reducing the window it has when it can effectively operate without counter.

Either that or get a WW1 style fighter to counter it, or replace it entirely

This is pretty much spot on. Airships as they operate in the game wouldn't be possible without a combustion engine, or magic. I have no problem with airships, I just have a problem with the AI magically propelling around a bunch of blimps when they have no means of propulsion.

 

[Cvntpumeler]

This is pretty much spot on. Airships as they operate in the game wouldn't be possible without a combustion engine, or magic. I have no problem with airships, I just have a problem with the AI magically propelling around a bunch of blimps when they have no means of propulsion.

I agree also, good point Peter and others who have said this before.

 

[Rusty Edge]

This is pretty much spot on. Airships as they operate in the game wouldn't be possible without a combustion engine, or magic. I have no problem with airships, I just have a problem with the AI magically propelling around a bunch of blimps when they have no means of propulsion.

I figure they must me tethered to steam trains inland. In coastal cities they are only tethered to winches, but they have to make use of the sea and land breezes to get over the ocean and come back.

 

[_alphaBeta_]

As I've said on other similar threads, either push airships back, or remove the attack ability. They have no counter for a long time, and the countless messages about being bombed from them are plain annoying.

I think this unit would be useful enough just for recon.

 

[KrikkitTwo]

Probably Steam Power or Railroad might work

Combustion would be too late, because as soon you can build Airships you could research Flight.

Railroad would mean two techs are required to obsolete them (Comb->Flight)

Steam Power would mean you need (Steel->RR->Comb->Flight) 4 techs to obsolete them which might be reasonable.

and to counter you would need (Steel+Rifling->Artillery->Rocketry) so 3 or 4 techs

 

[Walkabout]

Combustion would be too late, because as soon you can build Airships you could research Flight.

Well, that's pretty much the way it happened historically. First Zeppelin flight was 1899. The Wright brothers first flew in 1903.

 

[hoopsnerd]

Well, that's pretty much the way it happened historically. First Zeppelin flight was 1899. The Wright brothers first flew in 1903.

Yes but it has to work within game mechanics. There's no point in having a unit that obsoletes so quickly... I guess that's probably the point the "anti-airship" side is making.

 

[KrikkitTwo]

^ yeah but airships in the game are obsoleted by Flight, so you want them to have at least some window of time that you can use them (even if not usefully) Also, the Wright brothers wasn't the WWII fighter in the game. That's why I think Railroad might be good.. give them a limited span, but one where they are actually there.

If you changed them to be hovering (can actually move away from city, and occupy the same space as an enemy unit, but can be Intercepted just by moving in an Interceptors range) and deleted the bombing ability. (move 4 say.. in ALL terrain)

Then I'd say you have a unit that you could maintain at Physics and Combustion. (make it not obsolete until Advanced Flight)