Artillery can attack subs?

[syndicatedragon]

This seems like an oversight... do you think artillery should be able to attack subs? I don't think cities should be able to bombard them either. It kind of makes subs useless IMO.

 

[RebelCapitalist]

This seems like an oversight... do you think artillery should be able to attack subs? I don't think cities should be able to bombard them either. It kind of makes subs useless IMO.

Wait til you see an aircraft carrier die to arrows.

Really need a fix so certain units just can't do damage to others for realism's sake.

 

[Peng Qi]

I didn't know this game was a realism simulation.

 

[Veneke]

Land units probably shouldn't be able to target Submarines for obvious reasons. Whether that actually gets changed or not is another matter entirely.

 

[qemist]

Wait til you see an aircraft carrier die to arrows.

Really need a fix so certain units just can't do damage to others for realism's sake.

I agree. There are so many missing nuances to the combat system that it's sad. Many strong players recommend just not building all but a few modern era unit types, which tells you how well thought out they were.

 

[binhthuy71]

If a sub is spotted then it should be shelled by any bombardment unit within range. The only "realistic" solution to this would take a lot of coding. That is, if a sub is running submerged then its LOS would be extremely limited but it would be invisible to any unit but a Destroyer. If it's running surfaced then it would have full LOS and full visibility. If subs were universally invisible to anything but Destroyers then the CivIV gambit of attacking with nuclear missile armed subs would be back. That was unbalancing in that the AI never (To my knowledge) used it.

 

[Bamboocha]

I didn't know this game was a realism simulation.

Of course it's not, but it needs to comply to certain rules of logic to maintain our suspense of disbelief. An artillery piece shouldn't logically be able to pinpoint the location of a submerged submarine (unless there's a unit that can spot submarines nearby, like a destroyer, which could act like a spotter), and a tank shouldn't be destroyed by a group of slingers.

 

[ggmoyang]

That poor sub was bombarded while emerged.

 

[Harvin87]

Wait til you see an aircraft carrier die to arrows.

Really need a fix so certain units just can't do damage to others for realism's sake.

Exactly... that is annoying and stupid. I hate when my Jet-planes get hit by a Knight or by a rifleman. Its very annoying.

 

[smallfish]

Yes, if you can spot the sub, that means it can be zeroed in for destruction by any means necessary.

 

[The_Quasar]

As the sub can see the coastline, then it is unlikely it's submerged, so, imho, game for anything.

If a sub is submerged, then it shouldn't be able to see anything. If it's at periscope depth, especially near the coast, it can be seen, although with more difficulty, but again relatively easily by a trained observer, and is fair game.

Only if it's deep should only a destroyer be able to spot it and sink it.

Therefore I believe the current rules cover it nicely.

 

[builer680]

Absolutely. When I'm commanding my submarine in time of war, while near enemy coastlines, I make damn sure I don't ever submerge. Especially when in sight of land.

I mean, I gotta see the coastline, right?

Idiots.

 

[Peng Qi]

Of course it's not, but it needs to comply to certain rules of logic to maintain our suspense of disbelief. An artillery piece shouldn't logically be able to pinpoint the location of a submerged submarine (unless there's a unit that can spot submarines nearby, like a destroyer, which could act like a spotter), and a tank shouldn't be destroyed by a group of slingers.

The exception the OP is making is that artillery is at all capable of ever firing on submarines. It is not possible in-game to target a sub that has not been spotted by a destroyer.

And don't you think that if you forced a tank to operate in the field long enough without giving it time to repair and rearm, it would eventually be rendered into a state in which a group of slingers could theoretically overcome it? It's not that they'd pelt it with rocks until it was destroyed, it's that the tank would eventually run out of gas and shells and become nothing better than a metal room in which its occupants could either eventually starve to death or leave and get overrun by the presumably hundreds of slingers waiting for them outside. Unfortunately taking the time to code such a complex and drawn out animation just doesn't seem to be a particularly good use of development time.

 

[smallfish]

Of course it's not, but it needs to comply to certain rules of logic to maintain our suspense of disbelief. An artillery piece shouldn't logically be able to pinpoint the location of a submerged submarine (unless there's a unit that can spot submarines nearby, like a destroyer, which could act like a spotter), and a tank shouldn't be destroyed by a group of slingers.

In my experience, unless there's a destroyer or your own submarine nearby, you can't spot a submarine and ergo, zero it for destruction.

If you are getting your modern units chopped up by an opponent two or three ages behind you, maybe the problem is how you deploy them... ? As bad as this might get (and I find it hilarious btw - always good for that abstract spearmen had chobham-piercing rocket propelled spears imagining), I have yet to experience (or see someone else experience) the same level of incredulity IV had.

 

[Bamboocha]

The exception the OP is making is that artillery is at all capable of ever firing on submarines. It is not possible in-game to target a sub that has not been spotted by a destroyer.

And don't you think that if you forced a tank to operate in the field long enough without giving it time to repair and rearm, it would eventually be rendered into a state in which a group of slingers could theoretically overcome it? It's not that they'd pelt it with rocks until it was destroyed, it's that the tank would eventually run out of gas and shells and become nothing better than a metal room in which its occupants could either eventually starve to death or leave and get overrun by the presumably hundreds of slingers waiting for them outside. Unfortunately taking the time to code such a complex and drawn out animation just doesn't seem to be a particularly good use of development time.

In that case, you're actually making a very valid point. I presume next time I see one of my three tanks getting taken out by a group of slingers/spearmen, I won't be as flabbergastered.

Still, an airplane being taken down by renaissance units is quite weird to say the least.

 

[Peng Qi]

In that case, you're actually making a very valid point. I presume next time I see one of my three tanks getting taken out by a group of slingers/spearmen, I won't be as flabbergastered.

Still, an airplane being taken down by renaissance units is quite weird to say the least.

Planes being taken down by ancient units is a lot more difficult to conceptualize, although you could view it as pilot error. I mean, we DID lose more planes to pilot error even as recently as the Vietnam war than we did to enemy fire. The fact that knights huck firebombs up at the planes though makes that hard to suspend belief on though.

 

[smallfish]

Still, an airplane being taken down by renaissance units is quite weird to say the least.

What?

Planes being taken down by ancient units is a lot more difficult to conceptualize, although you could view it as pilot error. I mean, we DID lose more planes to pilot error even as recently as the Vietnam war than we did to enemy fire. The fact that knights huck firebombs up at the planes though makes that hard to suspend belief on though.

Self-guided daggers with the explosive yield of a C4.

 

[CrispyCritter]

In that case, you're actually making a very valid point. I presume next time I see one of my three tanks getting taken out by a group of slingers/spearmen, I won't be as flabbergastered.

Still, an airplane being taken down by renaissance units is quite weird to say the least.

I view it as purely a naming problem. An archer in modern times is actually a SWAT team - something with not much fire power, compared to an infantry unit, but still modern weapons and capable of doing damage. You really wouldn't want the game to have multiple names for the same unit functionality and change them each era (at least, I would absolutely hate it.)

A renaissance unit might be a police force - the big police forces, like New York City, indeed have weapons that might be able to do damage to an airplane.

 

[smallfish]

A likely explanation:

Actually, musket volleys became ineffective beyond 5 meters and would typically fail to penetrate cloth. This is why armor fell out of favor. Additionally, muskets took thirty to forty minutes to reload.

It's well known that over 99% of wounds in napoleonic battles were produced via bayonets and fisticuffs.

 

[Adjuvant]

I view it as purely a naming problem. An archer in modern times is actually a SWAT team - something with not much fire power, compared to an infantry unit, but still modern weapons and capable of doing damage. You really wouldn't want the game to have multiple names for the same unit functionality and change them each era (at least, I would absolutely hate it.)

A renaissance unit might be a police force - the big police forces, like New York City, indeed have weapons that might be able to do damage to an airplane.

I agree with this.

Also, I see no reason there could be no depth charge munition for artillery batteries, altho granted, the munition itself would be smaller than a conventional depth charge.

Moreover, subs are not always submerged, and certainly one at periscope depth would be subject to artillery munitions.

Edit: To wit, proximity fuzes were a very necessary innovation during WW2 with the more predominant paradigm of air power. Certainly if a munition can explode at a given altitude, it could at a particular depth.