Invincible Fleet

[Flynn]

I don't buy the fleet representation. I'm pretty certain the ship matchi is supposed to be 1-to-1. It's a bit different with tanks or warriors or horsemen, which are obviously squad representations. But a carrier task force, if memory serves, consists of...

1 Aircraft Carrier with one carrier wing (12 F-14s, 2 E-3s, 10 F-18s and assorted support planes, including some Orions)
1 Battleship carrying Tomahawks
4 Destroyers
2 Cruisers
1 Support Frigate
1 Fast-Attack Sub

Now... if a Carrier in Civ is supposed to represent all that, then I should be able to bombard coastlines and see enemy subs from far away.

The primary role of the non-Carrier Navy is interdiction. The primary weapon used to attack a ship is an aircraft, not another ship. Ask any U.S. Navy officer who's served in the last 50 years what the biggest threat to a modern warship is. It's an anti-ship missle launched from a jet fighter. In the Faulkland Islands war, an Argentinian jet launched a French-made Exocet missle that *BROKE A BRITISH DESTROYER IN HALF*. She sank in 12 minutes.

That's not 1 hp. That's -5 hp.

The use of air power against ships was the entire reason the carrier was invented: to project power over a radius against other ships. (It was only with the advent of carrier-based jets that carrier-based land bombing became a big deal.) The threat of air power against ships -- particularly the Exocet and its ilk -- was the entire reason behind the development of the AEGIS cruiser. (Did you know the AEGIS gun battery system can literally disintegrate an inbound antiship missle?) They're designed to shield carrier groups from close-range missle attacks by both aircraft and land-based cruise missles. When a jet can launch a rocket from 100 miles away that will sink a 6 billion dollar aircraft carrier with 5000 men onboard, you bet your ass someone's going to figure out a way to stop it.

Attacking a carrier group is like trying to rape a porcupine. You might get what you're after, but you're likely to come out a lot worse than the porcupine did.

Anyway, it's just unfortunate that Civ3 doesn't properly represent modern naval warfare.

 

[Flak]

I just got into my first real war. Because of all of the Air Superiority problems, I decided early on never to build any aircraft. So the fight begins. I charge in with dozens of tank and Mech Infantry. They respond with a seemingly endless number of bombers. At first I was kind of worried. But I never lost a single unit to any of those bombers. They don't even HARM workers! I rolled over 5 of their cities before War Weariness finally forced us into peace. I got to a point where I didn't even care about their bombers. As long as I remember to fortify all of my units in the open (that could be fortified), most never went into red. And even if they did, they would heal back quickly into the yellow because of the Battlefield Medicine Improvement.

 

[Jimmicus]

If we're going for realism, then aircraft have to sink ships!

Naval warfare changed forever during WWII and the ascendence of the aircraft carrier. Battleships, the former rulers of the sea, were reduced to support roles during amphibious assaults and protecting other ships in convoy, particularly in the Pacific. The US lost most of it's battleships at Pearl Harbour, but was still able to deal a crushing defeat to the Japanese at Mid-way some months later without them. U-boats prowled the mid-atlantic in area out of the range of allied patrol aircraft from the UK or US for much of the war, and their demise as an effective force can be traced to the closure of this 'gap'.

I guess it would be a fairly simple code change to allow aircraft to sink ships in the game, I hope that it is bought in with the patch currently in progress.

 

[Lonewolf359]

Flynn: First of all, I agree that bombardment (aircraft, cruise misslies, artillery) ought to be able to sink a ship. I also concur with your assessment that ships are individual units in the game scale.

Some (slightly O/T) info for you: Your assessment of modern naval warfare is pretty much spot-on. CVBG's have gotten a bit smaller in the last 10 years or so. Your composition is about right for a Regean-era battle group, but a more representative composition now is
1 carrier
1 F-14 squadron (AAW)
3 F/A-18 squadrons (strike/AAW)
1 S-3 squadron (ASW/ASuW/patrol/tankers)
1 E-2C squadron (airborne early warning/control)
1 EA-6B squadron (electronic warfare)
1 SH-60F squadron (helo's - utility/ASW/patrol)
2 cruisers (Aegis & Tomahawk-equipped)
1 missile destroyer (Aegis & Tomahawk-equipped)
1 destroyer (Tomahawk)
1 frigate
2 attack subs (Tomahawk)

For more details, check out the Stennis Battle Group's web site http://www.cvn74.navy.mil/pages/battlegroup.htm. (That's my old battle group, BTW I'm sub driver by trade.)

Minor nitpick: the Phalanx CIWS is the anti-missile gun system you described. Aegis is an integrated radar & missile defense system relying primarily on surface-to-air missiles for kills, with CIWS as a last-ditch backup.

I'd have to disagree with your assessment of the missile as the biggest threat to a modern warship. Ship drivers and carrier guys are certainly worried about missile attack, and the technology and composition of the battle group shows that. Mines and torpedoes are another matter, though. You can shoot down a missile, but you can't shoot down an incoming torpedo. Mines are also easy to place and hard to find. Both will smash a modern warship into bits with one hit (anything smaller than a carrier).

I know that this is a bit long, and slightly O/T, but it sure is nice to find some mature, thoughtfull conversation on the 'net.

Take care & happy civving!

Lonewolf359
Civ-addict & steely-eyed killer of the deep
LT, USN, formerly of USS Jefferson City (SSN 759)

 

[ironfang]

I hate to say this though, but!

If Bombers can sink ships, then ships can shoot down bombers. Look at WWII. All the ships were armed with AAA. It might not be a great chance, but they should be able to!

ironfang

 

[benn]

Originally posted by Maugan

The first thing I did was bomb all harbor cities until that little anchor icon disappeared. (wouldn't want them to actually be able to hurt me or something).

Just wanted to point out that the harbor produced veteran naval units. If you weren't bombing them to pieces, those cities could still produce regular units and sink your 1 hp units.
Not sure this strategy would work on MP against a human player.

 

[paguiob]

why don't they make naval units, besides galleys since they shoot arrows, just like artillery except that the bombardment can sink other naval units? and most ships could have something like sam missile batteries, except not broken like it is now.

and sometimes the way ships turn to defend and attack is away from the other unit and it looks funny.

tanks should be able to bombard as well as running into things.

 

[Flynn]

Originally posted by Lonewolf359
Flynn: First of all, I agree that bombardment (aircraft, cruise misslies, artillery) ought to be able to sink a ship. I also concur with your assessment that ships are individual units in the game scale.

Thanks.

Some (slightly O/T) info for you: Your assessment of modern naval warfare is pretty much spot-on. CVBG's have gotten a bit smaller in the last 10 years or so. Your composition is about right for a Regean-era battle group, but a more representative composition now...

I was hoping some sailor would correct me. I knew the information I was pulling out of my head was out of date, but I'm afraid I was too lazy to go look it up. Your clarity is much appreciated and frankly, I don't think it's particularly off-topic. The composition of the modern navy is certainly relevant to the realism factor of a game like Civ3.

(That's my old battle group, BTW I'm sub driver by trade.)

Sweet. My father was an aviator (rotary wing, trainer at Pensacola). Never been in the service myself, but always enjoyed learning about the world's biggest toy collection.

Minor nitpick: the Phalanx CIWS is the anti-missile gun system you described. Aegis is an integrated radar & missile defense system relying primarily on surface-to-air missiles for kills, with CIWS as a last-ditch backup.

You are correct. Sorry. I got my Greek history mixed up there. Nevertheless, the system is still cool as hell.

I'd have to disagree with your assessment of the missile as the biggest threat to a modern warship. Ship drivers and carrier guys are certainly worried about missile attack, and the technology and composition of the battle group shows that. Mines and torpedoes are another matter, though. You can shoot down a missile, but you can't shoot down an incoming torpedo. Mines are also easy to place and hard to find. Both will smash a modern warship into bits with one hit (anything smaller than a carrier).

Duly noted. I'll point out that torpedo countermeasures are a proven technology, and their threat is one of the reasons that attack subs are so important for both offense and defense. Mines... well yeah, I wasn't thinking of that, and it's certainly a threat that's on everyone's mind. But they're not really a problem in shore defense, right? I mean, when you're out prowling the China Sea, it's obviously a concern, but I don't imagine a group in the North Atlantic is too concerned.

By the way, and as a sub driver, you probably know this, would a CVBG use active sonar sweeps for mine avoidance?

I know that this is a bit long, and slightly O/T, but it sure is nice to find some mature, thoughtfull conversation on the 'net.

Hey! Careful who you're calling mature and thoughtful!

Lonewolf359
Civ-addict & steely-eyed killer of the deep
LT, USN, formerly of USS Jefferson City (SSN 759)

Thanks again, Lonewolf.

 

[Ryoma Wooten]

Hi, this is Ryoma Wooten. This my first time using a post. I've played about 4 games already and I on my 5th. On the post where it said more then one artillerly on a city is useless but what I do is fortify one of them on a fort and it really help in war!!!

By, Ryoma Wooten P.S. How con you use an icon!?!?

 

[Sarcastro]

Originally posted by Endureth
If it was a Civ game, there would probably be 3 battleships, 2 destroyers and some aircraft. This is a good example since air sup is broke as it didn't really help iin Pearl Harbor, teehee. In game terms, they were all knocked down to 1 hp, in real life about 90% of the fleet was sunk. See, the game represents well.

Actually, only three major ships at Pearl Harbor were so badly damaged that they weren't able to be salvaged and restored. The battleships Arizona and Oklahoma and the old target ship Utah were the only three big vessels that weren't eventually put into service against Japan before the end of the war. Interestingly enough, the Arizona and the Utah[/i] remain where they were sunk to this day. The Oklahoma was righted and moved away from its mooring (really, this was the whole purpose of righting it), but it was too badly damaged to see combat use again.

So, unlike everyone else in this thread, while I do believe air power can sink ships, I think Pearl Harbor isn't the best example of why it works. A better example would be the battle of Midway, in which 4 Japanese carriers were sunk by air power alone, and another (American) carrier was crippled by air power, and was subsequently finished off by a submarine. In addition to this, several Japanese support ships, including a couple of cruisers and destroyers, were also sunk by air power.

[/history teacher mode]

 

[knowltok]

Don't forget when the Japanese sank the Prince of Wales and the Repulse.

 

[tordo]

Originally posted by Ohwell


Ah, but you see Peer, I was not talking about the coastal fortress, I was talking about artillery units. Yes, coastal batteries have sunk ships, I know.

Establishing his Festung Europa, Hitler brought captured French field artillery pieces to Norway to use them for Coastal Batteries. As Hitler and his generals were no dummies when it came to planning for war, I believe those guns would have been good enough to sink ships. I don't think they ever did though, which probably means the allies believed so too.
And...
Essentially what is a coastal battery other than an artillery piece pointed towards the sea?

I think artillery should be able to sink ships.

tordo

 

[TrailblazingScot]

I think there should be a CHANCE that the aircraft bombardment sinks the ship...that is a good compromise...a damaged ship has lets say a 10 % greater chance of being sunk!

Maybe: undamaged ship bombarded...10 percent chance of sinking
and then each hitpoint lost makes it 10 percent more likely to sink due to the bombardment.

 

[nightwolf]

okay, If the icons represent a fleet, than an fleet of bombers should be able to completely destroy any naval fleet. A navel fleet is in the open, and exposed, and therefore can be complettly destroyed. One plane can search the ruins are if it spots a ship can call for more bombing. Okay captults against a battleship. A captualt has a limited ranged. A battleship can stay out of that range and still fire bomabardments against that captualt. Bombings against land units, Okay there will be a few survivors that can recurt more and make more of their weapons, therefore bombings against land units should not be able to completly destroy land units. In theory an artillery battlion can destroy a fleet of battleships, only when they sit sill for long enough. If the artillery is hiden and is firing on the fleet, what whould you do? Sit there and try to find the artillery or leave and have the area bombed?
My thought Planes destroying Ships
Planes destroying Land Units
Artillery Desroying Ships
Catpulates vrs Modern Ships

 

[Randor]

The way I think it should be seen from a realistic point of view:

1. Air vs. ground units should be as it is.
Just look at the Gulf war, Kosovo and Afghanistan. In the Gulf war they bombed for 100 days and then the Iraqy soldiers more or less surrendered, but the US/brits had to invade to make them surrender as there "units" were not was totally destroyed.
And in Kosovo the Serbian soldiers were able to hide some tanks, only the economic effect of the airwar and the treath of an invation made them agree to natos terms.
And if it hadn't been for the Northernalliance US would have had to invade Afghanistan them self - and then half the Talliban army wouldn't have changed side.


2. Air vs. sea units should be changed, because airplanes do sink ships. But modern ships (above ironclad) should be able to shot back at fighters and bombers. Less chance of damaging stealth units ofcourse.
I disagree that a navelunit in civ is more than one ship "in real life". How many carriers do the US have? I don't know the exact number, but I think it is under ten which you could easily build in civ3. And for support units for carriers they are units them self not a part of the carrier unit. Also in ww2 subs operated both alone and in packs so one sub unit is one sub - and the same goes for all other navalunits.

Question: If you have spotted an enemy sub can you attack it with airplanes? If so the sub should not be able to shot back, but insted have a much better chance to dive before taking damage (they can stay down much longer than any airplane can stay in the air, although som planes and helicopters can see them under water, but it is still a much more difficult target to hit than a surface ship).


3. The cruise missile should have a longer range (5 I think considering their use in Afghanistan where they fly over Pakistan) and you should also be able to launch them from AEGIS cruisers and nuclear subs (1-2 from subs and 2-3 from AEGIS cruisers I would say).
I think it is good that all missiles travel over land and can be launched from outside your cities (don't know the last for tactical nukes though), but cruise missiles should be airliftable.

 

[CrazyScientist]

I would tend to agree with the general sentiment being expressed here.
Ground units destroyed by bombardment=bad
Naval units being destroyed by bombarment=good, with the amendment that the bombarding unit must be of equal or greater era than the ship.
That is, a catapult could sink a galley or caravel, could bombard a frigate or ironclad for damage, but never finish it off, and not even damage a battleship or carrier.
Cannons, in turn, could sink medieval or industrial ships, and damage modern ships, but not be able to finish them off.
Artillery onward has the potential to sink anything.
Since there are (relatively speaking) so few bombarding units in the game I don't think this would be all that difficult to work in, but I'm not a programmer so I don't know for sure.

 

[Kiki]

I have a question.

Is it ever possible that a ship could fire back and destroy a costal fortress/cannon on the land? I heard that they fire from BEHIND a mountain, but a cannon of a ship is quite big and high calibur maybe it can fire over the moutain and hit it. Has this ever happened in real life? I once visited a place in the Philippines where it said to have the 'invincible fortress' or something like that and I saw a huge land cannon meant to sink ships. Some cannons were blown up by Japanese bomber planes I saw.

 

[dogen]

Will this be fixed in the patch???

 

[Tramapolean]

My 2 cents on this interesting topic...

I have had similiar frustrations and was initially amazed how bomardment worked, or didn't as the case may be.

Air vs Naval

Some of the more significant engagements along this line have been Midway, the sinking of the Bismark and the Yamamoto. All of these took a long time and a lot of resources, but very big ships were sunk, 4 carriers and 2 battleships. Therefore, if a sufficient number of attacks are made then it should certainly be possible. How to emulate this? I am thinking not a chance but perhaps a count, for instance after 10 bomber/artillery attacks that are able to reduce the unit below critical, then bye bye boat.

Mixed Era Warfare

As for catapults not sinking battleships, this pretty much works based on the attack and defense values, same as for a tank rolling over spearmen, etc. Sometimes the paintwork gets scratched, but the unit rolls on. I have another thought on this, one that occurred very early on when I lost my first tank to the aforementioned spear-chuckers. Basically, even though the troops only have spears, they still have brains and were born in a world where tanks exists, therefore there is always the possibility that some bright person - who may turn into a leader with that nice new addition - may manage to organise a tactic that can suddenly deal with a tank, until the other side work out how to counteract such a plan. Think Ewoks and tree trunks vs Imperial AT-ATs

Air vs Land

The mopping up with ground troops still seems to hold here.

Air vs Cities

My personal bonus gripe, maybe a little off-topic, is why do so many city improvements get destroyed when bombing cities? Surely, especially when using smart bombing tactics, you are targetting what is stopping you from taking the city, not the infrastructure yourself. Therefore, most efforts should fall on the garrisoning troops and military improvements such as SAM batteries IMHO.

Anyway, there is some interesting ways some of the stuff is interpreted, for instance the time line and scale thing still seems to be a bit out of whack, but overall it is a great game!

Cheers

Tramapolean

 

[Witchfinder]

Sounds good to me Randor - let aircraft sink ships, but let modern naval units have a chance to shoot down aircraft.