Does anyone remember the Battle of Midway?

[Lordclane]

Is anyone else bothered by the fact that aircraft can't seem to sink ships? Between World War I and World War II, the big advance was that aircraft dominated naval encounters. Carriers that carry three fighters which can only weaken other ships don't really reflect that very well. Land-based aircraft were never very good at attacking ships, but carrier aircraft were VERY good. Not only could they sink ships, they could target the ships they wanted to-- other carriers, troop transports, etc., often ignoring support ships like destroyers. Perhaps carrier bombers CAPABLE OF SINKING SHIPS should be introduced... and larger carriers!

Now we get to the modern naval warfare era, in which aircraft share the stage with cruise missiles. We lost those in Civ4, and thereby lost a real part of modern naval strategy as well. Cruise missiles are devastatingly effective against most ships. A modern carrier might endure one cruise missile hit; almost certainly not two. Smaller ships would be sunk with a single hit. Perhaps a battleship, with its extensive armor and compartmentalization, migth survive multiple hits, but after one or two it's military effectiveness would be minimal and would have to spend a lot of time in drydock to be effective... I'd like to see cruise missiles again.

Speaking of guided missiles.... guided missile cruisers are better than battleships because they can engage at long range, NOT because they are anywhere close to equivalent in a short-range slugfest. By making a guided missile cruiser as powerful in naval melee as a battleship, carrying only a few missiles, what you have really done is introduce the battleships armed with Harpoon missiles. Those have existed, but guided missile cruisers have different strengths. They engage at long range with missiles, and will avoid close-range slugfests with large conventional warships because they'd be at a considerable disadvantage. To reflect that properly, they need to carry more missiles (and/or re-arm more easily; how about letting guided missiles fly to them the same way they fly to cities), the missiles need to be more effective (i.e., capable of sinking things), but the ships themselves need to be less capable in combat, though also much harder for conventional ships to close with.

 

[niels251]

mmm first of all you must take in account this is an game. I agree with you that airplanes chould also destroy units but it must with some luck factor or something. If your air units could destroy enemie units than it would beimpossible to invade someone who has an good airforce. FOr example if i want to invade and is send my navie out with its carriers and all sort of ships it would be to easy for the defender to just destroy my fleet.

The guided missiles can destroy units but their power should we increased a lot more maybe.... Its logic that a single missle wil not destroy an infantry because in real life they would have to all stand together and than they can be destroyed by an missile. And one unit on screen represents more units actually.

All in all i think in this game they cannot do anything more right now. Just accept it and wait for the next civ.

 

[Polycrates]

While it's true that surface navies (and carriers in particular) are effectively obsolete in real life, and would be lucky to last all of five minutes in a real war, that doesn't make for particularly fun gameplay - particularly since so many of them look so damn cool.
Aircraft are already devastatingly effective against ships, since naval combat is so even. While land combat is effected by a whole horde of terrain and city modifiers (as well as various rock-paper-scissors mechanics), sea combat really only gets the 10% coastal bonus, and so it's really just tit-for-tat with often equal-strength boats bashing into each other with fairly even odds. By inflicting damage on enemy navies before you strike, planes shift that balance, and greatly reduce the risk of your ultra-expensive boats being sunk in an unlucky string of 50/50 battles. You can inflict massive damage with air superiority, and then it's really just up to your own navy to clean up the dregs.

Road To War had lethal damage for planes, and I really think it tipped the balance too far, since massed fighters were really all you needed for victory.

 

[Cytral]

a modern carrier would survive a couple of hits of a missile.
you need a nuke to sink it.

would like to see carrier based bombers (a6 Intruder?, sopwith camel?)
but same goes for more aircraft

Fokker tri-plane, modern bombers (between normal and stealth)

a stealth fighter

and a recon plane (blackbird )

 

[jessiecat]

While it's true that surface navies (and carriers in particular) are effectively obsolete in real life, and would be lucky to last all of five minutes in a real war, that doesn't make for particularly fun gameplay - particularly since so many of them look so damn cool.
Aircraft are already devastatingly effective against ships, since naval combat is so even. While land combat is effected by a whole horde of terrain and city modifiers (as well as various rock-paper-scissors mechanics), sea combat really only gets the 10% coastal bonus, and so it's really just tit-for-tat with often equal-strength boats bashing into each other with fairly even odds. By inflicting damage on enemy navies before you strike, planes shift that balance, and greatly reduce the risk of your ultra-expensive boats being sunk in an unlucky string of 50/50 battles. You can inflict massive damage with air superiority, and then it's really just up to your own navy to clean up the dregs.

Road To War had lethal damage for planes, and I really think it tipped the balance too far, since massed fighters were really all you needed for victory.

The game should be closer to real conditions. What about Pearl Harbor?
Wasn't that a stack attack with torpedo bombers? Pretty effective, ya?

 

[King of Town]

sopwith camel? Only if snoopy is flying it.

 

[LemonJello]

A carrier all by itself is vulnerable, but when you add in the subs, destroyers, cruisers and aircraft to create a layered defense, THAT is what makes it difficult to send a floating airbase to the bottom or into the body shop for repair.

I don't mind that planes can't kill ships, it's part of the game. I do wish that subs could select a target amongst a stack to attack. That's what they're best at; sneaking in and selectively attacking the most vital target. Kill the transports and all the battleships can do is bombard your city, not take it from you. Kill the carrier and the destroyers aren't defending anything.

 

[Soneji]

Cytral. It is very possible to sink a carrier with missiles.

You do not need to tactically nuke it. :?

 

[ferenginar]

While it's true that surface navies (and carriers in particular) are effectively obsolete in real life, and would be lucky to last all of five minutes in a real war, that doesn't make for particularly fun gameplay - particularly since so many of them look so damn cool.
Aircraft are already devastatingly effective against ships, since naval combat is so even. While land combat is effected by a whole horde of terrain and city modifiers (as well as various rock-paper-scissors mechanics), sea combat really only gets the 10% coastal bonus, and so it's really just tit-for-tat with often equal-strength boats bashing into each other with fairly even odds. By inflicting damage on enemy navies before you strike, planes shift that balance, and greatly reduce the risk of your ultra-expensive boats being sunk in an unlucky string of 50/50 battles. You can inflict massive damage with air superiority, and then it's really just up to your own navy to clean up the dregs.

Road To War had lethal damage for planes, and I really think it tipped the balance too far, since massed fighters were really all you needed for victory.

I must say that I find the opening of this quote quite unbelievable, I remember a recent interview (though not in detail) with a former American joint chief whose view was that the UK had lost their standing as a world power when then got rid off the old large aircraft carriers and relied wholely on a couple of small ones carrying a few helicopters and harriers.

We (UK) must have listened, we are now building 2 Invincible class carriers, 65000 tonnes, 48 Aircraft. Not a match for the American Nimitz class carriers but a step in the right direction. As I understand it the American Navy has plans for 8 new Gerald Ford class (to replace nimitz)carriers 100,000 tonnes, probably 90-100 aircraft, and a total cost of 110-130 billion dollars. Doesn't sound obsolete to me

Modern Navies, and in particular the aircraft carriers, and their support fleets are absolutely key to world power, The American fleet is what supports its status as a world power, the ability to deliver that enormous amount of fire power / Air support into any theatre world wide is not matched by any other nation. Whilst ships are sinkable, well protected fleets make it very difficult to sink any individual ship. I think Civ is providing a more accurate representation than is being suggested.

 

[Cytral]

Cytral. It is very possible to sink a carrier with missiles.

You do not need to tactically nuke it. :?

then you have to spray it with missiles.

don't think 1-4 will do the trick.
if you want it gone after 1 attack, nuking is the only option.

 

[Soneji]

No you don't. One Exocet or any other AShM missile would bury a carrier.

 

[Cytral]

guess again.


carries are to huge for 1 missile (perhaps a very lucky shot)

 

[jkp1187]

I do wish that there were a promotion available (to fighter/jet fighter only, for instance,) that made lethal bombardment of ships possible. Make Combat II a prerequisite. It would still take several fighters with the promotion to sink a ship, but at least it makes it possible.

 

[JackBauer85]

A lethal sea bombardment promotion would be great as it would allow you to simulate carrier-based strike planes without having to create another unit just to fill that niche.

As for missile strikes against carriers, the key to taking out a carrier is to overwhelm the defending destroyers and cruisers with more inbound missiles than they can shoot down. Aegis-equipped ships are very effective at detecting and intercepting missiles. Strangely the bigger threat is having a diesel submarine slip into the middle of the battlegroup and put several torpedoes in the carrier's belly - a diesel running on batteries is harder to detect than a nuclear sub. I guess that's another argument to bring back stealth attack for submarines.

 

[Lord_Zath]

Road To War had lethal damage for planes, and I really think it tipped the balance too far, since massed fighters were really all you needed for victory.

That was actually a huge lesson in WWII - the key to victory was airpower. It didn't negate infantry and other ground units, but it did shorten the war by years.

 

[Woodreaux]

The sinking of the Tirpitz class Bismark during WWII was facilitated by air, but actually finished by other battleships and cruisers, much like in the game. However, Japan's mammoth Yamato was completely destroyed by aircraft -- wait that was at Midway wasn't it?

 

[MarkM]

I think this comes down to being a game and the point is play balance, not historical accuracy. People get hung up over & over in threads here about simulation accuracy, and don't seem to give much thought to play balance.

Having said that, since you invoke Midway I can't help but point out that perhaps THE critical key to victory for the US at midway was getting the CV-5 Yorktown there, in good enough (barely) shape to get planes off her deck. Yorktown was literally the cat with 9 lives, the Japanese went through repeated battles (most notably Coral Sea and Midway) being absolutely SURE they sunk the Yorktown with torpedo and dive bombers, but ... each time it limped home a near wreck, and they patched it up with chicken wire & chewing gum & push it back out to sea again to limp to the site of the next battle. Even the American crew abandoned it at Midway being sure it would sink, but it was still there the next day so they went back on board & began salvaging it.

The closing irony is, with Yorktown once again surviving significant air damage, it was limping back yet again to Pearl. But then by chance a Japanese sub stumbled on her, and ... ffftttt ... two torpedoes sent her down.

So the experience of Midway ironically actaully suggests that Civ4 may not be THAT unrealistic

 

[MarkM]

The sinking of the Tirpitz class Bismark during WWII was facilitated by air, but actually finished by other battleships and cruisers, much like in the game. However, Japan's mammoth Yamato was completely destroyed by aircraft -- wait that was at Midway wasn't it?

No, it was a suicide mission they sent it on at Okinawa. They didn't even put enough fuel in Yamato tor return from the battle, didn't give it any air cover, and it was pounded unmercifully for hours, until it's main magazine caught fire & in a way it blew itself up.

 

[lutzj]

I do wish that subs could select a target amongst a stack to attack.

What about a UU (German U-boat?) that would automatically target weaker ships when attacking? Kind of like the ballista elephant. Very powerful, but with a small window where it is useful. Also keep in mind that the Anti-tank unit renders Panzers much more ineffective than they used to be.

 

[graves_09]

This discussion already took place a few months ago. (i know because i started it). If I remember correctly (I am too lazy to find a link, there were some similar suggestions to strengthen aircraft from carriers. While previously I advocated strengthening of the carrier, now I tend to agree with MarkM that it is fine the way it is for the sake of game play. Previous suggests that I would like to see implemented are some sort of carrier based bomber, and perhaps an air defense of the carrier (sort of a pre-attack on ships attacking a naval asset in the range of carrier aircraft.)