• Civilization 7 has been announced. For more info please check the forum here .

Killing Ships with Planes???

RedwoodTree

What's a title for
Joined
Feb 18, 2002
Messages
106
Why can't you bomb a ship to death? It never lets me destroy a ship after it goes to one red??

In the real life, I surely tell you planes can destroy sea vessels!
 
This is one of the best known and most infamous of all the Civ III STUPIDITIES. It makes no sense whatsoever, is a step down from Civ II, and just has to be patched out.

I suppose Sid and Firaxis in their so-called "wisdom" never heard of Pearl Harbor or the Battle of Midway.:mad:

BTW, there is absolutely no point in making a WW II Pacific scenario owing to this notorious problem. Of course, in Civ III we can't even make scenarios.
 
Originally posted by Zouave
This is one of the best known and most infamous of all the Civ III STUPIDITIES. It makes no sense whatsoever, is a step down from Civ II, and just has to be patched out.

I suppose Sid and Firaxis in their so-called "wisdom" never heard of Pearl Harbor or the Battle of Midway.:mad:

BTW, there is absolutely no point in making a WW II Pacific scenario owing to this notorious problem. Of course, in Civ III we can't even make scenarios.

:sleep: :sleep: :sleep:

I'm going to try to reason with you for a change. Is that okay with you, Zouave??

Since you insist on repeating the same transparent argument on this topic ad nauseam, I'll retort with the same cogent reply that, for obvious reasons, doesn't seem to be able to find a suitable home in that "mind" of yours.

For the sake of game balance, planes should not be able to sink ships, particularly, modern warships.

Why, may you ask? Well, that's because to do so would be to give an unfair advantage to bombers. After all, you cannot give a bomber the ability to sink an Aegis cruiser without first giving IT the ability to shoot down that bomber....just as in real-life (do you know what that is, Zouave?).

Now why didn't Firaxis allow for both abilities is beyond me. But as usual, you asked the wrong question....and for the wrong reasons.

I can just see it now....Firaxis giving bombers the ability to sink battleships & Cruisers in their next patch, and Troyens...I'm sorry, Zouave, coming on here screaming that his Aegis Cruisers & Battleships should be able to shoot down bombers because that's how it's done in real-life.

Like I said: :sleep: :sleep: :sleep:
 
True the battleship and Aegis cruiser and modern frigate should have the ability to shoot back. I agree, maybe even the destroyer and carrier although the carrier kinda does. But jet fighters can fire missles from 60 miles out and sink a modern warship if it hits. Its realistic.

And im sorry, My stealth bomber should be able to sink that english galley. I know the build good ships but its been around for 3000 years, its gotta have at least one small section with dry rot.

I use the E-3 Sentry add on unit as a boat, It flys arounds the ocean and can do recon missions. Works great. As a result it can be shot down (fairly easily I might add) by anything in the water, I had one shot down by an ironclad last game. Ive contemplated making "long range bombers" which follow the same rules. short bomb run distance but mobile on the sea. The problem is the get shot down by galleys and iron clads.

oh well, This is one that firaxis bumbled and hopefully they will fix it.
 
I've been working through the logic of creating an AEGIS cruiser that can shoot down planes. It should be easy enough -> give the cruiser the ability to carry planes, and then create a "plane" with a range of 2 that looks like a missile.

Of course, I can't think of any way to keep people from using that rules change to put bombers on cruisers, which is not what is intended.

As for getting planes that sink ships, I think firaxis needs to give that one some thought.
 
Doesn't seem too much of a balance issue to me. Why not protect your fleet like a city and have it travel with an aircraft carrier or anti aircraft ships.

I like the game and all, but I'm a but dissappointed at how little the combat has progressed.
 
I like the game and all, but I'm a but dissappointed at how little the combat has progressed.

Same here,have written some posts on it too,not as eagerly as Zouave (or Troyens aha! :eek: ) but have added my .02 to some threads concerning the matter.I for one would like to see the Panzer General combat system integrated.That was cool and would fit a turn based game.(I mean part one,not the later ones) Have also thought on abilities,so I´ve added in our requests for the future expansion back the ASW (Anti-Submarine-Warfare)technology. Air war would have a similar tech.To me it seems silly that my sub can be sunk by an ironclad or an even more obsolete unit,without them having the necessary speed, waterbombs, sonar etc.

It seems some of you think that Firaxis has taken out the bomber killing ability because of game balancing issues,haha :nono: well it´s because they fear what I fear,the infamous bombervsspearman debate!!As if the tank ones weren´t worse enough.

Yes,I want to see proper bombers too,it would be more realistic, but I bet as soon as we have it there will be threads on bombers being destroyed by spearman and how it sucks,and how it can´t be..and...whine :cry:

:cry::whipped:
 
Originally posted by Dirk Aurel


Same here,have written some posts on it too,not as eagerly as Zouave (or Troyens aha! :eek: ) but have added my .02 to some threads concerning the matter.I for one would like to see the Panzer General combat system integrated.That was cool and would fit a turn based game.(I mean part one,not the later ones) Have also thought on abilities,so I´ve added in our requests for the future expansion back the ASW (Anti-Submarine-Warfare)technology. Air war would have a similar tech.To me it seems silly that my sub can be sunk by an ironclad or an even more obsolete unit,without them having the necessary speed, waterbombs, sonar etc.

It seems some of you think that Firaxis has taken out the bomber killing ability because of game balancing issues,haha :nono: well it´s because they fear what I fear,the infamous bombervsspearman debate!!As if the tank ones weren´t worse enough.

Yes,I want to see proper bombers too,it would be more realistic, but I bet as soon as we have it there will be threads on bombers being destroyed by spearman and how it sucks,and how it can´t be..and...whine :cry:

:cry::whipped:

Panzer General!! Now that brings back some good memories.:)

Elite units in Panzer General really were elite (15 hp as opposed to 10) and were almost impossible to deal with in battle, especially air units.

Being a big fan of PG myself, I find your idea about using that sort of combat system very intriguing. However, as you may recall, battles in PG were fought on a different scale then they are in Civ III. In PG, each scenario was based on an actual battle in WWII. Therefore, the battle maps, though they seemed huge at the time, were actually on a much smaller scale as opposed the global scale of civ III.

Since the particular combat system that a game employs is inexorably linked to the size and scale of the combat environment (maps), I'm not sure how well PG's combat system would work in Civ III.

Cool idea though.:king:
 
Nice to see a fellow fan of PG :)

Depends which one you played Minuteman,if you played part one in 1994 the map scale was indeed huge,take Operation Barbarossa,one would start in Poland and at the end of 13 turns one would be in Smolensk,that´s several hundred miles in reality, or the Stalingrad campaign stretching from the western Black Sea to the Caspian.The later parts were reduced in map scale.In general want to see the combat system though,which simply was a lot better than that of Civ.

~Difference between Hard/Soft/Air/Naval Targets,and units defense/offense ability towards them

~Supplies,ammo,fuel

~Units gained experience up to 599 points,not just 5hp,thus creating a proper diversity between conscripts and elites and gave units a tradition,making the player like them.Also units fight according to their status(elites would inflict heavier casualties etc.)

~Units could have elite or normal replacements,think this makes the most sense for civ since it would reflect a militaristics civs advantages,and the replacements would get worse if money ran out,due to less training etc.

~Proper Air/Naval units,and difference in height

Could go on and on,think it would be pretty easy to implement too,and would create a much better game,consider ammo running out because one is cut off from saltpeter,or tanks being stranded because lack of oil.But would have to be combined with a proper trade system.Hope they take this into account one day.

Last thing;naming units,I´d love to see tradition in my army :)

Btw you´re absolutely right concerning elite units,the air units were tough to destroy,but looking at history were so often elite units really held out against great odds,it makes all the more sense,oh morale would be cool too.

EDIT:Almost forgot one of the most important things,the fact that units would not have to be destroyed,they would try to retreat, take or create heavy casualties,as for this thread,remember how a Stuka dive bomber would most likely take heavy pounding attacking a battleship.
 
I'm a Mac user and therefore we have entered the Civ 3 arena a little late (as usual with Macs and the gaming world :) ). I guess I'm fuzzy on exactly how introducing the ability for aircraft to sink naval vessels unbalances gameplay. The comment was also made that then you would have to give ships the ability to destroy the bombers/fighters...well, isn't that how things work in combat? The introduction of the aircraft into naval combat forever ended the dominance of the battleship (and other combat ships) as the primary combatant in naval warfare. It had to have air cover now, just as the role of tanks was changed by the introduction of the tank-killing helicopter. It required an adaptation of new strategies to counteract the new threat from the air.

In this way the game has actually taken a step back from Civ 2 and SMAC, that's dissapointing. If anything this would balance gameplay more, for example say an island based civ has lost its navy, it could still defend it's shores through the use of massive airpower.

GourmetArtist is right (see above), after aircraft come on the scene you should have to model your fleets this way, since ships without aircover would be sitting ducks. After the introduction of Flight..ships (or all units for that matter) should automatically be given a new stat, AAA (anti-aircraft) defense strength.

Oh, and an Ironclad sinking a sub? :D Maybe if the sub commander decided to make it more fair and stay on the surface for the entire combat :lol:

Hey, Sid! Wait, come back with my game! I was only kidding! SIIIIDDDD!!! :cry:
 
Top Bottom