Turn back to the navy, I can't deny that I am a big gun lover. My biggest disappointment in Civ 6 was the missile cruiser. It was way too much small to be an upgradeable unit of the massive battleship.
I hope Civ 7 will contain more reasonable modern navy tree. We need Battleship-and-Cruiser for the WW2 era, and Destroyer-and-Frigate for the later era.
Civ 6 has the missile corvette as the missile cruiser...
And nowadays destroyers become very big, even some of them weight over 10,000 tons. Actually they are building the cruisers and just naming it the destroyers for the political and diplomatic purpose.
Civ 6 has the missile corvette as the missile cruiser...
And nowadays destroyers become very big, even some of them weight over 10,000 tons. Actually they are building the cruisers and just naming it the destroyers for the political and diplomatic purpose.
Fleet commanders existed, or at least some are listed, going back to the Classical Era, but they didn't command much in any 'fleet' battle. Even the British Royal Navy, which probably spent as much effort as anyone on Naval Command and Control, was still fiddling with a workable flag system to send and receive messages and orders right up to the beginning of the Napoleonic Wars around 1800. And even when they got a system that worked, it only worked for about 5 miles in really clear weather before everybody started filling the air with black powder smoke, when the range dropped to maybe a quarter mile if you were looking in the right direction . . .
Earlier 'fleet commanders' were for getting a bunch of ships to a designated Battle Place at roughly the same time with some idea of what they wanted to do. Once the battle started, nobody commanded much of anybody who was more than shouting distance away and in direct line-of-sight of the 'Flagship'.
It's actually pretty appropriate that the in-game Naval Commanders are relegated to the Exploration Age, when presumably they could (in theory) take advantage of the Fleet Instructions issued by various navies in the 17th and 18th centuries and the flag systems developed in the 18th and 19th centuries to actually Command a Fleet.
This didn't explain how Salamis and Actium could be won. to me Fleet Commander should be in Age 1, think of Themistocles who wom Salamis and Agrippa who served Octavius and made use of liburnia fleet to beat much mighter Marc Anthony's fleet of heavy polyremes (all were bigger than what Octavius had)
Civ 6 has the missile corvette as the missile cruiser...
And nowadays destroyers become very big, even some of them weight over 10,000 tons. Actually they are building the cruisers and just naming it the destroyers for the political and diplomatic purpose.
Post-WWII the size and nomenclature of non-aircraft carriers has gotten extremely confusing. You have Ticonderoga class "missile cruisers" weighing less than 7000 tons, the Zumwalt class 'destroyers' that weight 15,000 tons, and 3 classes of the Swedish Missile Corvettes that weigh less than 1000 tons. And of those three, guess which one has the most varied suite of missile launch capabilities: the Swedish ships, the smallest of the lot!
Basically, whether they call it a Missile Frigate, Missile Cruiser, Missile Destroyer, or Missile Corvette they can give it almost any set of factors they want to and still be correct.
And then a short 17 years after the B-17 the B-52 comes around and a single one carries a full squadron of B-17s worth of ordinance. Evolution did not slow after WW2.
(And more meaningfully, even modern fighters carry 2 or 3 B-17s worth or ordinance)
- and they all carry the ordinance to much longer ranges even without aerial refueling, and the ordinance has gotten much more lethal.
Air Unit Progression, of all the progressions in the game, is the one most likely to resemble a Geometric rather than a Linear set of upgrades, from 1916 to 1996 or later . . .
I think it hits you most how much airplane tech has advanced when you actually see the WW2 olanes up close. A B-17 is a *small* plane by modern standards, closer in size to a two-engine beechcraft than to any self-respecting airliner. And then you look at behemoths like the 747, 380, Mriya (RIP), and it's a whole other world.
I think it hits you most how much airplane tech has advanced when you actually see the WW2 olanes up close. A B-17 is a *small* plane by modern standards, closer in size to a two-engine beechcraft than to any self-respecting airliner. And then you look at behemoths like the 747, 380, Mriya (RIP), and it's a whole other world.
I think that's what makes the old planes so cool. Aeronautical design was in its infancy and as much an art as it was a science. Everything was done by trial and error. For every successful design, there was a dozen failures that looked great on paper. So, great planes like the Spitfire and Martin B-10 were like a cross between genius and miracle when they happened. Each success and failure contributed to learning how to design a plane, whether through example or counter-example. By the late 1960s, aeronautical engineers had more or less optimized the basic design for various roles and every fighter plane looked like every other fighter plane, cargo planes like cargo planes, and passenger planes like passenger planes. It's barely interesting anymore.
I specifically mentioned about Civ 6 missile cruiser so I think there was no room for misunderstanding. Civ 6 used very small one, as long as I know, Nanuchka class.
Post-WWII the size and nomenclature of non-aircraft carriers has gotten extremely confusing. You have Ticonderoga class "missile cruisers" weighing less than 7000 tons, the Zumwalt class 'destroyers' that weight 15,000 tons, and 3 classes of the Swedish Missile Corvettes that weigh less than 1000 tons. And of those three, guess which one has the most varied suite of missile launch capabilities: the Swedish ships, the smallest of the lot!
Basically, whether they call it a Missile Frigate, Missile Cruiser, Missile Destroyer, or Missile Corvette they can give it almost any set of factors they want to and still be correct.
But you can't call Nanuchka as cruiser, it can't cruise. And it can't be the successor of the battleship. Even worse than the battleship outdated without any upgrade tree like Civ 5.
I'll be honest and say that I never paid much attention to unit graphics. The unit is described as a missile cruiser, the civilopedia describe a missile cruiser, the stats and role (better than a battleship) fit a missile cruiser. That the artists fubbled where they took inspiration from doesn't particularly bother me in this case. I can also see why they'd take a ship with very visible missile tubes (so, smaller) over one with missile cells (like Kirov).
It's like that time the local newspaper illustrated a story about the space vessel Orion with a picture of the P-3 Orion. Getting the picture wrong didn't change the topic of the article, and nobody expected a four-engined aircraft to fly to the moon.
I'll be honest and say that I never paid much attention to unit graphics. The unit is described as a missile cruiser, the civilopedia describe a missile cruiser, the stats and role (better than a battleship) fit a missile cruiser. That the artists fubbled where they took inspiration from doesn't particularly bother me in this case. I can also see why they'd take a ship with very visible missile tubes (so, smaller) over one with missile cells (like Kirov).
It's like that time the local newspaper illustrated a story about the space vessel Orion with a picture of the P-3 Orion. Getting the picture wrong didn't change the topic of the article, and nobody expected a four-engined aircraft to fly to the moon.
I really care about naval unit's looking, and the missile cruiser was the biggest reason why I searched a lot of mods to fix it.
And it was not the only problem in the naval units in the Civ franchise. FXS totally faild to catch the flow of the navy technology in Civ 5 and 6, and it always bothers me. I hope we can see more reasonable and fun to play navy in Civ 7, but I guess we've already seen the USS Monitor/CSS Virginia style ironclad in the trailer... :/
I really care about naval unit's looking, and the missile cruiser was the biggest reason why I searched a lot of mods to fix it.
And it was not the only problem in the naval units in the Civ franchise. FXS totally faild to catch the flow of the navy technology in Civ 5 and 6, and it always bothers me. I hope we can see more reasonable and fun to play navy in Civ 7, but I guess we've already seen the USS Monitor/CSS Virginia style ironclad in the trailer... :/
Ah, God damn I was right. I never loved that mutant ironclad in Civ franchise. It can't properly represents the part of naval history.
ANY in-game system that tries to stuff virtually all of human history into any single pattern is going to range from mildly annoying to 'causes serious mental imbalance' in DSM V.
The '3-Tier' is probably going to edge towards the latter the longer we play it and the more different Civs, Units, Ages and Tech it is applied to. I already have several instances that have been revealed that Make No %$#^& Sense, but am willing to let it slide until I confront in game play. Then we will see how long I can stand it before I'm back in these Threads Ranting about it . . .
This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.
if the top tech is battleships
