No more weak battleships!!!

[Dudedudeyo]

I am very disaponted with how weak battleship's bombardment is. Half of the
time it won' t hit a fortifed infantry. Also they should get lethal bombard and a boost to power.

 

[madviking]

Battleships already have 2 range and 16 some attack. They're already powerful units.

 

[Dudedudeyo]

They are OK but lets say a modern Armor could somehow attack it. as of right now the M.A. would be stronger.

 

[Tomoyo]

But the modern armour can't attack it. You can't compare them, really.

 

[GenMarshall]

They are OK but lets say a modern Armor could somehow attack it. as of right now the M.A. would be stronger.

The battleship would still win anyway. To the battleship, attacking a tank is like shooting fishes in a barrel .

 

[Himalia]

Well the truth is if you find the Battleships to weak (and i think they are) you can just edit them as long as everyone who plays if in multiplayer is aware and agrees then thats great. I have a highly tinkered with version of Civ for multiplayer , we all have agread on what the changes are and enjoy the game more this way. But i will play anyone of the basic rules if they prefere.

 

[mastertyguy]

The problem with the battleship is that it costs a lot.

 

[Ivan the Kulak]

Well, battleships cost a lot of money, and even more to staff, which is why you don't see them in the navies of the world anymore. I agree with your complants about the weakness of bombardment vs modern units, though. I wish someone would make an Arsenal Ship unit for the modern age. Adding this in and giving it very powerful 3-tile bombardment would make the modern navy more useful. It could cost 300 shields or so, and you could upgrade battleships if so desired (ouch, very expensive).

I've modded AEGIS cruisers to be much more powerful and versatile in the modern age, and increased their cost to reflect this. My AEGIS units are superior to battleships, which is historically accurate.

 

[seveb33]

Hear, hear

I also hope the battleship is more powerful and important throughout the industrial and early modern era. I know they can be modded, but that doesn't help for all mp games.

Battleships have recently fallen somewhat out of favor, but I believe that is more due to the increase of carrier importance than cost. Battleships sweeping unfettered up and down coastlines should be devastating weapons.

 

[Ivan the Kulak]

Making battleships very vulnerable to air units would be more realistic for the modern age as well. If a battleship is not escorted by AEGIS units it should be almost certainly sunk by a concerted attack of modern jet aircraft. If they face no real opposition then they could indeed blast a less advanced nation to bits with relative impunity, at leat along the coastline.

 

[rhialto]

There's a reason why battleships aren't dominant in the modern age anymore, and that's because it presents a ridiculously cheap weapon kill relative to the risk involved in attacking it. Compare it to a carrier, where you have to swat dozens of flies (fighters) first before you can even come close, and assuming you kill the carrier, and fighters that you failed to swat are going to be pretty pjssed off with you - the fight doesn't end with the ship kill, unlike with a battleship.

 

[Superkrest]

this once again comes as the lack of importance placed on the navy..they navy is a huuuugge part of warfare and has been realitivly downplayed...i like the bombard as opposed to the old attack(civ2)but i think leathel bombard would be huge. after all, the 16 inch guns of a battle ship arent there to just rattle the troops there shooting at...they're there to kill. it would just be nice to see an overall expanded role of the navy in the game.(blockades, shipping lanes, better carrier or battle fleet combat options, etc...)

 

[Superkrest]

The problem with the battleship is that it costs a lot.

they cost alot for the item...a civ3 player can ignore a combat navy and be reallitivly sucsesfull. a battle ship or carrier or anyship in a navy is an expensive yet powerfull tool...civ3 has not matched that reality(except the cost part) to there game and hopefully they do in civ4

 

[mastertyguy]

battleships should have penalties fighting subs, too. In civ3, subs are too weak.

 

[seveb33]

I agree with you mastertyguy. destroyers would then be a little more valuable (to hunt the subs). I guess I might be a little optimistic to thingk it will be worth my while to build a large navy in Civ4, but I can hope.

 

[Ivan the Kulak]

AFAIK, there is no historical instance of naval bombardment by a battleship wiping out a land unit. So lethal bombard would really not be appropriate. Battleships are made to sink other ships, though they have provided valuable gunfire support inland on many occasions.

I think the battleship need to be treated solely as an Industrial Age naval superiority unit. Going up against Industrial Age cruisers, destroyers, and everything earlier, it should be able to win the day most times. I would disregard the upgrading of WWII battleships with better AA and cruise missiles, as the player shouldn't be getting this kind of performance from an older unit for so long. (upgrade, upgrade )

Going up against naval air changes the equation drastically. The only way a battleship should ever get to a carrier is if it catches it all alone. Stacking a destroyer or cruiser with a carrier would guarantee warning of attack, and all the carrier planes could strafe the carrier before it moves in for a melee attack, and then it must engage the cruiser/destroyer screen before closing on the carrier itself, which makes success unlikely. Same thing should apply with subs - destroyers in the carrier group will actively engage the subs before they can close with the carrier. So, you would need a lot of battleships or subs to get in there and nail the carrier itself, especially if some kind of force multiplier bonus is applied.

A modern carrier group with a nuclear carrier and jet fighters should receive combat bonuses so strong as to render an assault by any industrial age naval unit tatamount to suicide. A modern carrier group should also be able to see several tiles around it. AEGIS cruisers and modern destroyers/frigates would provide the same sort of screening in modern times against attack by either land or naval aircraft and fast attack subs.

 

[Steve2000]

You should be able to load cruise missles onto battleships the way you can put tactical nukes on subs.

 

[rhialto]

I want to see the cruise missile unit eliminated. Any way of rendering a one-shot weapon either requires it to be insanely powerful (a la nukes), or else it will be insanely expensive for the kill power it provides.

The cruise missile carrying ability of subs etc should be reflected in a powerful bomard, not by counting beans and building ammunition.

Or would you have us build bullets for our riflemen units to carry too?

 

[mastertyguy]

Persepolis builds ammo for rifles. Susa builds smmo for Cavs. Veii builds bullets for canon. So much micromanagement!