Are F-15s all that bad?

[JohnnyReb]

Oops, I blew it. Decided to do a little digging just out of curiosity. The French have several aircraft carriers. Nice link for FYI purposes if anyone else is curious. Not as large as the US types, but some damned formidible ships from the looks of them.

http://www.warships1.com/French_carriers.htm

I just did a quick check of a few nations and India, Brazil (which the French are apparently selling the Foch to), Canada, Italy, UK, and Russia all have Carriers, and it looks like several nations are building or planning to build one. (NOTE: not talking super-carriers here, but still...mobile air-power is a hell of a force multiplier).

 

[Lab Monkey]

Wow, I didn't expect my debate to get this far!

Once again we've got into the UK vs US slanging match. I would like to say that UK and US marines ARE AS GOOD AS EACH OTHER, BUT FOR DIFFERENT CIRCUMSTANCES.

British commandos - Trained for prolonged missons in hostile territory

US Marines - Rapid reaction forces

OK, so this is a basic abstract of real life, but hell, so is Civ 3, so let's here no more about who has the biggest missile.

The American UU shouldn't be the stealth bomber - today they only have it because of their super power status and wealth. It'd be daft to see in Civ 3 a tiny 5 city America building this,when the 30 city Babylonians can't. The UU's are a cultural distinction rather than a measure of massive technological superiority. I always saw them as reflecting their countries fighting style.

The problem is that America has reached it's apex in the age of military uniformity. There are more UUs in Ancient and Medieval times simply because cultures were more divers then, but today, who could (truthfully) pick out REAL distinction between 2 modern age infantry batallions, besides any nods in ceremony to their countries past.

The Panzer is a UU because Germany instigated the blitzkrieg tactic, whereas the F-15 represents the US, not because their pilots or planes are significantly superior in real terms to any other modern western airforce, but because American culture has dictated that 'surgical' airstrikes are the optimal method of conducting warfare. The rapid reaction 'delta force' is a viable alternative, perhaps a marine with a movement bonus, not a combat bonus.

Pardon any ignorance of the US military machine, I am an ignorant xenophobe.

 

[Rain]

Quote from TheDS

The British Prime Minister, after hearing news of the Monitor vs Merrimack/Virginia battle, said something along the lines of "The entire British Navy consists of only two ships." Those two ships were more along the lines of regular frigates, but with limited iron plating. They were experimental designs. I'm pretty sure they were still sail-powered, they might've been steamers. They would not have stood a chance against Monitor; Monitor's guns were capable of firing a double charge which would have made short work of even the Merrimack/Virginia. The gunner(s) didn't know this at the time.

I did a bit more digging on this after my post and it is accurate that the Eurpoean designs were earlier. The English vessels were all iron hull screw frigates with sail assist (pretty common then).

The serious flaw in the ironclad monitor is that it had such a low clearance of the water that they were not really ocean capable. Several countries subsequently built them for coastal defence.

Re Johnny Reb : not sure where u are getting your info, but if Canada has an aircraft carrier it must be disguised as an iceberg or Nova Scotia as it's never been seen or mentioned before as far i as can recall.

:

 

[Englishman]

No one else has a Stealth anything. We rely on no one to produce our aircraft, but the opposite is hardly true. This is not to say the Super Entendarde and Tornado and a few Russian designs are not excellent aircraft, but few aircraft are as versitile, powerful, and long-lived as the F-15 design has proved to be. Though older, the F-15 is at the very least on par with top aircraft from other nations.

- Lots of nations operate full-scale ac/carriers. The Mig29 is on par with the f 15, and the Eurofigther supersedes it.

Once again we've got into the UK vs US slanging match. I would like to say that UK and US marines ARE AS GOOD AS EACH OTHER, BUT FOR DIFFERENT CIRCUMSTANCES.

- That wasn't what I was doing. I was pointing out inaccuracies!

Sr-71 is/was a recon craft, personally I want a UU with some teeth to it, not just fast with a camera

- You don't think a unit with worldwide range like an ICBM with a 3 or 4 vision radius would be useful in combat? It’d give the player of the US a huge advantage over other nations who’d have to spend thousands on stealing plans.

who could (truthfully) pick out REAL distinction between 2 modern age infantry batallions, besides any nods in ceremony to their countries past.

- The standards of training, both physical and tactical vary significantly in different countries. The result is some countries have 'better' or should I say more effective troops than others.


All this aside and having just looked at the stats for the f 15 for the first time in ages I don't see that it needs to be replaced? It represents the US well and has the same 'ratio increase' on the stats compared with other UU's and their ordinary counterparts.

 

[pompeynunn]

Originally posted by JohnnyReb


I think it is called the Foch, although I have no idea about its' size / complement / etc. I think the Brits have a couple/few carriers as well, though they're a slightly different design (ramp assisted takeoffs, etc).

Btw, I suppose you're right about the Con. Cavalry being too early to compare to that in the game.

The current British carriers cannot really be described as Super Carriers - they are a lot smaller than the older carriers used to be, mainly because they can now use the Sea Harrier Jump Jet (now that is a unique modern weapon - and the US could even claim it to represent them, because although the British invented it, the US navy were the first to realise its capabilities!). However, the fact that other countries have had super carriers in the past means that US Super Carriers are not unique - just the best examples.

The outstandingly unique US military unit has to be stealth aircraft - however, making a bombardment unit a UU under the current rules is stupid, because it can't give a GA. Also, it would arrive too late in the game.

Therefore, I would rather see an older, land based unit for the Americans - say an improved Calvary Unit, or units that represent the forces that defeated the British Redcoats (who at the time were regarded as probably the best army going). That would give a UU and a possibility of a Golden Age a bit earlier in the game than the F15, where the game is virtually decided by the time it arrives.

 

[JohnnyReb]

Once again we've got into the UK vs US slanging match.

For the record, I've tried mightily hard in my posts to express my admiration for our UK cousins .

As far as the Canadian carrier, I got it from the same site as the info on the french carriers, just backup on the URL a bit, and delve in...you'll find it. Course, I could have misread as it hellishly late (or early - point of view) when I wrote that .

 

[Lab Monkey]

Okay, so it wasn't a slanging match. Just stop taking this all so seriously!

 

[Phoenix]

This thing about the American Marines is getting stupid. If you must have the marines then the only differences should be something like cheaper to build and ignores city walls.

Personaly I like the idea of he minuetman best.

Moss321 we share the same signiture (part of it anyway)

 

[Moss]

LOL yes we do

Someone said that Americans only have Stealth technology because we're rich. Well to have a good military and have good anything you have to be the most economically developed nation of the time. Rome wasn't that poor when they had legionaries. BTW, how in the world did America explode to become econimic giant of the world in just under 200 years?

 

[Englishman]

This thing about the American Marines is getting stupid. If you must have the marines then the only differences should be something like cheaper to build and ignores city walls.

- If the peep at Firaxis did to throw out the ‘realism’ and authenticity of the UU’s by making a special marine unit for America I’d take it straight back out again

Someone said that Americans only have Stealth technology because we're rich. Well to have a good military and have good anything you have to be the most economically developed nation of the time.

- Money isn’t the issue! Look at the Russian Military industrial complex in its current state. It’s not exactly got loads on capital pouring in but it’s developing the most advanced military aircraft in world.

 

[punkbass2000]

Originally posted by Moss321
LOL yes we do

Someone said that Americans only have Stealth technology because we're rich. Well to have a good military and have good anything you have to be the most economically developed nation of the time. Rome wasn't that poor when they had legionaries. BTW, how in the world did America explode to become econimic giant of the world in just under 200 years?

World War II.

 

[roadwarrior]

Money isn’t the issue! Look at the Russian Military industrial complex in its current state. It’s not exactly got loads on capital pouring in but it’s developing the most advanced military aircraft in world.

Well, that military buildup only exists because of a fantastic amount of money that was poured into the military by the Soviets for the 50 years since WWII. Money most definitely is a critical component of military strength. The Soviets spent something like half of their GNP on outfitting their military, which created a formidable military machine but screwed over the economy in the long run.

For the American UU, it seems that it should come from the 20th century, just because the other UU's also originate from their respective civs' "Golden Age(s)." I think a Minuteman would be very cool, but not necessarily fitting with the rest of the choices for UU's. Why not a nuclear submarine that is faster or holds more missiles or something? I could think of other modern units to make, but game balance is still an issue.

 

[Phoenix]

Originally posted by Moss321
To my knowledge no other Country has a Stealth Fighter or Bomber. The new American F-22 Fighter has stealth technology also.

I have personaly (at first hand and all that) seen 2 F-22 fighters flying in Southern England. They were DEFINETLY

 

[Phoenix]

Originally posted by Moss321
To my knowledge no other Country has a Stealth Fighter or Bomber. The new American F-22 Fighter has stealth technology also.

I have personaly (at first hand and all that) seen 2 F-22 fighters flying in Southern England. They were DEFINETLY F-22s as I have seen many pictures of them.

 

[Traquenard-fx]

Originally posted by JohnnyReb
Oops, I blew it. Decided to do a little digging just out of curiosity. The French have several aircraft carriers. Nice link for FYI purposes if anyone else is curious. Not as large as the US types, but some damned formidible ships from the looks of them.

http://www.warships1.com/French_carriers.htm

I just did a quick check of a few nations and India, Brazil (which the French are apparently selling the Foch to), Canada, Italy, UK, and Russia all have Carriers, and it looks like several nations are building or planning to build one. (NOTE: not talking super-carriers here, but still...mobile air-power is a hell of a force multiplier).

Sorry but I am canadian and Canada have no carrier in is possession because we are a peacefull country.
Boring I must say

 

[Traquenard-fx]

Originally posted by punkbass2000


World War II.

Exactly.
US never been hit on is territory so they become number one since all europe was in ruin. In the same way, americans became the ultra place for the making money and the military production restart the economy and voila : a superpower country. Nothing to do with intelligence or the best race of the world. Simply economy ultra expansion and occident's way of tinking ( not because occident culture is superior but only because this way favorise progress in simple). :grad:

 

[JohnnyReb]

Sorry but I am canadian and Canada have no carrier in is possession because we are a peacefull country.
Boring I must say

Sorry, you're right, I was wrong . As I said it was very late at night when I was reading...I didn't go far enough. I only saw this page http://www.warships1.com/Canadian_carriers.htm with 4 carriers listed and assumed at least one was still active. Had I researched further I would have learned it was decomissioned in 1970.

Btw, I had another idea for an American UU. In addition to US Marines (still MY choice) or an SSN, how about possibly a paratrooper UU. Battle of the Bulge and the 101st Airborne anyone?

 

[Englishman]

aaarg! Theres nothing special or unique about them either!!

 

[JohnnyReb]

Okay, I really am starting to get tired of that argument.

There wasn't anything SPECIAL about British frigates either. American frigates frequently defeated British frigates in the war of 1812.

I seem to recall a couple Russian designs being able to go toe to toe with German Panzers.

I never heard ONCE of the Musketeers winning a battle.

The only reason the immortals were famous was because their numbers stayed the same..they weren't necessarily vastly superior warriors.

However, in the US, both the Marines and the Airborne are regarded as a cut above the rest of the military. No, they are not unique or special really, just damned good.

And listen, I'm not trying to knock the British Navy, okay? I am just trying to point out that per YOUR argument I don't see any civ deserving a UU.

 

[Geon]

I have personaly (at first hand and all that) seen 2 F-22 fighters flying in Southern England. They were DEFINETLY F-22s as I have seen many pictures of them.

If by meaning you visually saw them that they are not stealth you miss the whole point of stealth aircraft. If a B-2 or F-117 is flying close enough to the ground you will see them too. But point a radar of some sort at them and you will see what stealth means.

I believe that an air power unit is a great military unit to define America's war machine. However I don't believe a fighter jet is the best unit to represent that. I think a long range strategical bomber is one aspect of US airpower that is lacking in every other air force. True the USSR did make a few of their own, but didn't place the same emphasis that we did on it. From the B-17 and B-29 through the B-52 to the fast B-1 and stealth B-2. Any one of those would be my choice, with preference to the B-52 because it has been in active service 50 years(!) and is planned to be around for another 40(!!).