Arctic Subs

[SomethingWitty]

Ideally, you want submarines for taking out enemy transports, just like in real life.

Unfortunately, the AI does a pretty good job of escorting their transports, so I've yet to come across a situation where subs were good for that.

 

[Innawerkz]

Too bad you can't select a unit out of the stack like in C3C. Even if it had a percentage chance of failing (50%?) - provided there WAS another unit to intercept it, of course - I think it would add to the overall usefulness of the submarine.

Maybe the more units ecorting the transport the higher the percentage of intercepting gets? 15% a unit to a maximum of 95%?

Just throwing it out there on the hopes that it could be patched to something similar in the future.

 

[Ozyman8]

An Ambush promotion would be fun:

Ambush I (+20% chance attacks weakest unit in stack)
Ambush II (+25% chance attacks weakest unit in stack)
Ambush III (+30% chance attacks weakest unit in stack)

It would give submarines a definite niche. Their strength could be reduced to compensate.

 

[Khift]

Err...yes, it did change.

"Firepower in combat now based on max strength"

Technically, damaged units are weaker, because they have less HP than normal. But they can still do just as much damage as a perfectly healthy unit of the same type.

It half changed. Lower HPs no longer affects the amount of damage a unit does when it wins a combat round, but lower HPs still reduces the chance of winning any given combat round. Lower HPs still makes a unit weaker two-fold: Fewer hits needed to kill it and less chance to win a combat round, although it used to reduce them three-fold. (Less damage dealt with each combat round won.)


And yes, this did make subs vs. battleships even worse.

 

[edu2003mdq]

didn't know subs passed through polar ice... hmmm.

 

[Wodan]

Mathematically, if you have three subs, two with flanking 1&2 and one with medic 1&2, you will have a ~98% chance of sinking a battleship with a ~32% chance of losing a sub. Now, while this is a good trade -- the battleship you sink cost your opponent 225 shields whereas the sub you might lose cost you 150 shields -- it has a huge start up cost of 450 shields to your opponent's 225. So, while in the long run subs are better as you'll suffer less attrition than your opponent, in the short run they just don't compare to battleships as you need to have an overwhelming advantage in numbers to function.

In other words, subs suck for everything but pillaging and other harassment strategies.

You just got done saying subs are good in numbers, and then you conclude that they aren't good that way.

Extend your numbers a bit. Opponent builds 2 battleships @ 450, you need to build 4 subs @ 600. Opponent builds 3 @ 675, you need 5 @ 750. Opponent builds 4 @ 900, you need 6 at 900. From this point on you have beaten the production matchup. Building 6 subs is far from unreasonable in just about any game.

Considering that you'll probably be at war with more than 1 AI during the modern era unless you've totally sucked up to them all game, you'll be facing a lot more than 3 battleships. In addition to more battleships, you'll be facing a number of destroyers, which you'll have for breakfast.

Wodan

 

[Entrinzikyl]

Extend your numbers a bit. Opponent builds 2 battleships @ 450, you need to build 4 subs @ 600. Opponent builds 3 @ 675, you need 5 @ 750. Opponent builds 4 @ 900, you need 6 at 900. From this point on you have beaten the production matchup. Building 6 subs is far from unreasonable in just about any game.

Do you still only need to have 2 more subs than the opponent has battleships? Or do you need to have twice as many subs? I can't see 8 subs taking out 6 battleships, which is what your progression would suggest.

 

[Gen.Rommel]

Probably need twice as many, and also, anyone who takes on a destroyer with a sub is pretty much commiting suicide, even though it doesnt say that destroyers have advantages, they seem too, i can rarely take out a destroyer, but battleships are more frequently destroyed.

All this discussion about cost of battleships vs cost of subs isnt really relevent when your just trying to enjoy the game, add a little style to the way you play. If i wanted to control the seas i would simply build battleships and have 3 of them escort each transport.

 

[Xerol]

They're great for spying on Lakes maps because half of the time the AI builds cities 1 tile from the ice so they can never build any naval units.

 

[jonoerator]

An Ambush promotion would be fun:

Ambush I (+20% chance attacks weakest unit in stack)
Ambush II (+25% chance attacks weakest unit in stack)
Ambush III (+30% chance attacks weakest unit in stack)

It would give submarines a definite niche. Their strength could be reduced to compensate.

I think this is a brilliant suggestion. Such promotions would be particularly suitable for submarines, like you suggest, and possibly also for other units, such as Gunships. Definitely something to bring up in the Modding section (although I am not sure that it is actually possible to mod in a new type of promotion?).

 

[Ozyman8]

@Entrinzikyl, the trick is to attack, then heal-up. Attack, then heal-up. Keep killing one battleship at a time.

A wolfpack of 3 submarines (flanking i/ii, flanking i/ii, medic i) kills a battleship 89.26% of the time, losing on average 0.36 submarines per engagement.

If they build X battleships, you can easily win with 3 + (1/2)X submarines.

1 battleships (225) vs 3 submarines (450)
2 battleships (450) vs 4 submarines (600)
3 battleships (675) vs 4 submarines (600)
4 battleships (900) vs 5 submarines (750)
5 battleships (1125) vs 5 submarines (750)

You win on costs if they build three or more battleships.

 

[Khift]

I don't see the math that Wodan and Ozyman8 are getting. You need three times as many subs as they do Battleships to be able to successfully destroy their force. The progression would look something like this:

1 at 225 vs 3 at 450
2 at 450 vs 6 at 900
3 at 675 vs 9 at 1350
4 at 900 vs 12 at 1800


Not a winning battle plan, I would say.


Edit: Wait, I think I see what would make you think that. In my numbers, I speak of a pitched battle -- a stack of X battleships vs a stack of X subs. In such a thing, subs that retreat and live still only have maybe .5 strength left, which is most definitely not enough to keep fighting with. However, if given time to heal your subs will eventually win the long game assuming your opponent throws battleships at you one at a time -- subs have far less attrition. But they won't do you any good in stack vs. stack combat.

 

[carn]

@Entrinzikyl, the trick is to attack, then heal-up. Attack, then heal-up. Keep killing one battleship at a time.

That's the point, submarines are in civ4 for sinking single units or small stacks by gathering more resources in subs than the single unit or the small stack contains. There is no more cost efficient way to beat a single BB than with flank 2 subs.

I think, that is rather realistic. AFAIK in WW2 subs did not attack fleets with a lot of firepower, they always tried to attack lone and prefearable damaged ships. And for that task they were suited, because the enemy had no idea(until british encrypted the enigma and used triangulation with intercepted radio signals) where they were.

In civ 4 i think the RCS cycle for the sea(before air) is:

BB beats large stacks
sub beats spreadup without Dest
spread without Dest beats spread with Dest
spread with Dest beats subs

With air i have not yet figured.

Carn

 

[Wodan]

Do you still only need to have 2 more subs than the opponent has battleships? Or do you need to have twice as many subs? I can't see 8 subs taking out 6 battleships, which is what your progression would suggest.

I assumed you would send 2-3 subs vs each Battleship, and that in the battle 1 sub died each time, and that in between your subs could heal (either in "cloak" or under the ice pack).

In reality, the subs would be able to retreat a lot of the time, so you could either get by with even fewer subs (rather than more, as you suggest), or else, you could speed up your conquest.

Wodan

 

[Wodan]

Wait, I think I see what would make you think that. In my numbers, I speak of a pitched battle -- a stack of X battleships vs a stack of X subs. In such a thing, subs that retreat and live still only have maybe .5 strength left, which is most definitely not enough to keep fighting with. However, if given time to heal your subs will eventually win the long game assuming your opponent throws battleships at you one at a time -- subs have far less attrition. But they won't do you any good in stack vs. stack combat.

Exactly. However, in CIV stacks don't happen in sea combat (at least, I've NEVER seen one by the AI). Maybe in MP against humans. The most I've seen an AI do is to escort his transports with one or two other ships.

The AI tends to use his battleships and destroyers on solo missions, perfect for a defending wolfpack.

Wodan

 

[Khift]

Exactly. However, in CIV stacks don't happen in sea combat (at least, I've NEVER seen one by the AI). Maybe in MP against humans. The most I've seen an AI do is to escort his transports with one or two other ships.

The AI tends to use his battleships and destroyers on solo missions, perfect for a defending wolfpack.

Wodan

Well, that's what I get for not being able to play any large oceanic games! (*Damn computer, grumble grumble*) Not knowing this tendency, that is.

In light of that, then yes, subs would seem to be very profitable in sea warfare.

 

[ZippyRiver]

I do NOT prefer it this way. It makes the stats available to the player all wrong. If I see that I have a 95% chance at victory attacking a severly damaged unit, and still lose (often), what is the point of telling the player they have a 95% chance? They wouldn't.

The game was originally designed with balance in mind, then they change this? Another example I am currently perplexing about, and this makes it worse. With gunships (both sides having tech parity) the SAM unit gives you about a coin toss and all the others your an underdog. Thats fine, I'll take my chances and if I lose that first unit, I know I can finish it off fairly easily. This makes sence (from gameplay and rl). If my SAM units have a coin toss no matter how much damage is done, then they should have tweaked a few other things with that change.

 

[shadow2k]

I do NOT prefer it this way. It makes the stats available to the player all wrong. If I see that I have a 95% chance at victory attacking a severly damaged unit, and still lose (often), what is the point of telling the player they have a 95% chance? They wouldn't.

The game was originally designed with balance in mind, then they change this? Another example I am currently perplexing about, and this makes it worse. With gunships (both sides having tech parity) the SAM unit gives you about a coin toss and all the others your an underdog. Thats fine, I'll take my chances and if I lose that first unit, I know I can finish it off fairly easily. This makes sence (from gameplay and rl). If my SAM units have a coin toss no matter how much damage is done, then they should have tweaked a few other things with that change.

Not sure what exactly you're talking about in the second part of this. They changed it because it was imbalanced. Any unit that was slightly injured was pretty much worthless, which made collateral damage units like catapults (and Battleships for that matter) overpowered. With the changes, damaged units aren't just sitting ducks, and can still hold their own.

As far as the %'s you see, I'm pretty sure they are still fairly accurate. I highly doubt they are 100%, but they don't really need to be. They are merely there to give you a general idea. You'll still win some 5% battles, and lose some 95% ones. But it has more to do with the fact that this game isn't played on paper, and not everything is supposed to be predictable.

 

[Zombie69]

As far as the %'s you see, I'm pretty sure they are still fairly accurate. I highly doubt they are 100%, but they don't really need to be. They are merely there to give you a general idea. You'll still win some 5% battles, and lose some 95% ones. But it has more to do with the fact that this game isn't played on paper, and not everything is supposed to be predictable.

Huh, no. It has to do with the fact that you're supposed to win a 5% battle 5% of the time!

 

[Artanis]

Huh, no. It has to do with the fact that you're supposed to win a 5% battle 5% of the time!

Agreed.

If somebody wins 19 battles at 95% odds, it's business as usual and he usually doesn't bother to remember it. When that somebody then loses the 1 battle that the statistics tell him he should lose, it sticks in his mind. Replay this pattern - battle results following the odds, but the lower-chance-but-still-possible results sticking in his mind - a couple hundred times, and it can start to seem like the results aren't following the odds when, in fact, they are.


Edit: misread the tone of the quoted post, and changed to reflect new interpretation.