OMFG...I lost a battleship to a frigate!!!

[hornfaust]

Well in Civ Revolutions a 7 to 1 matchup means automatic success (and no damage) so looks like the Spear v. Tank has been resolved (although Battleship v. Frigate is only 5 to 1)

Good form.

 

[Evie]

Basically I think if you are two ages above another unit you shouldn't lose ever. There is no way, and i do mean no way.

You shouldn't have a chance to win in a fight, you shouldn't be able to overload a opponent with vast numbers with clearly inferior weapons. This would force people to catch up in tech rather than load up on frigates or caravels to take out a destroyer. Basically if you don't have a destroyer, you SHOULD be screwed until you do.

P.S. Longbowman do beat Musketmen and its not a problem with me, that is fine. Naval and Air Battle is another situation and SHOULD be remedied.

And THAT would kill game balance, unless the difference is really extreme (Ancient age unit vs modern unit I can sort of see).

Sorry, game balance beats "OMFG REALISM", so no I don't think it should be "fixed".

And "get out of here with your list"? Wow, talk about intelligent answers.

First it's not from 1893 to 2008, since, with very few exceptions (the four Iowas), there haven't been battleships around since the 50s.
Second losing a battleship in a freak battle (ie, against a frigate) is a rare event in the game.
Add up every player and every battleship every last one of them ever built; you will have a whole lot more battleships than ever existed in reality. Ergo more lossesandmore freak losses too.

And in case you didn't realize, Civ does NOT have ways for units to be lost out of battle. Ergo, ships lost in freak battles = accidents and minefields (and daring strategies, and so on and so forth), since those aren't otherwise represented.

 

[KrikkitTwo]

What is truly unrealistic is not Frigates beating Battleships, it is Frigates Fighting Battleships (or Spear Fighting Tanks)... the fact is by the time Tanks came out all "civs" that existed had reached Muskets/Rifles... by the time Battleships came out, Frigates were almost gone everywhere.

For civ to be realistic in this aspect, you would have to have the ability to automatically get tech your neighbor had...given enough time.

As it is, Civ's combat model is Highly abstracted and the 5 to 1 strength is MUCH better that 5 to 1 odds, so bad luck seems reasonable.

 

[Ur_Vile_Wedge]

And don't jump on the "OMFG REALISM" boat without explaining how ships can travel for hundreds of years without returning to port for maintenance, how you don't need say, Iron to build a battleship. (The Bismark took up more steel than an entire armored division used back in WW2), why, without a magic "blitz" promotion a battleship can sink one puny wooden ship a year at most on the offense, why it takes thirty years for a modern ship to circumnavagate, how you can pay maintenance for troops that are isolated behind enemy lines for hundreds of years without a trade route, or even a corridor of friendly territory (Oh yeah, cuz I pay gold for it! ) and literally *hundreds* of other events.


*stops to breathe*


Seriously, you can't have a game where a turn, at the *least* is six months, and in earlier times can take up to forty years, and then bark about how "unrealitsic" wars are. I don't think that the Civ designers wanted to make a realistic wargame, and if that's what you want to play, then Civ is not for you. I'm not saying it's a bad game, I think Civ is a great game, but that's not what it was designed to be. I mean really, WW2. Do you really think that it should be, game wise, that Germany advanced a huge amount in *THREE* turns, only to have it all reversed, and Germany almost completely occupied in three more? Come on, don't be absurd.

 

[Evie]

What is truly unrealistic is not Frigates beating Battleships, it is Frigates Fighting Battleships (or Spear Fighting Tanks)... the fact is by the time Tanks came out all "civs" that existed had reached Muskets/Rifles... by the time Battleships came out, Frigates were almost gone everywhere.

For civ to be realistic in this aspect, you would have to have the ability to automatically get tech your neighbor had...given enough time.

As it is, Civ's combat model is Highly abstracted and the 5 to 1 strength is MUCH better that 5 to 1 odds, so bad luck seems reasonable.

Also of note is that there were many transitional steps CIV just plain doesn't have. In the game it's represented as a simple napoleonic sail frigate fighting WW II battleships, but if it was a frigate about to be replaced by the discovery of destroyer and a newly researched pre-dreadnaught battleship...

I mean, the first battleships weren't World War II radar-equipped 15-inch guns vessels, and the last frigates weren't the USS Constitution.

An iron-hulled, mixed steam-sail power frigate armed with early torpedoes (the great equalizer...) would certainly stand a (low) fighting chance against a coal-powered battleship with nothing better than 10 inches guns, no fire-control radars, and the sort of weapon mix that would mean it doesn't carry much amunition for any of its guns.

 

[hornfaust]

You all are losing the point. You can keep game balance, by forcing people to spend money to upgrade there units from ancient to modern instead of walking around with warriors and archers guarding cities and frigates fighting on the modern battlefield. Ironclads/Dreadnoughts are the ships that should "have a chance" vs. a battleships.

My biggest contention is the way people can use ridiculously obsolete units for combat, instead of actually having to disband or upgrade them with cost.

 

[Evie]

And what about people who just haven't gotten that far in the technology tree?

I agree on forced upgrades (or at least, graphical upgrades if forced upgrade is deemed bad for game balance) once you have the technology. But if you don't have the technology to build ironclads...

(Plus, in actual combat of two ships trying to sink one another, the Ironclad stands no more chances than the frigates - its guns are about as likely to pierce the world war II battleship's armor, and the armor of an ironclad might as well not exist against 15 inches guns.)

 

[MMV]

I think it is fairly clear what happens to wooden ships if one incendiary bomb hits them.
Anyone who posted on this subject rationalizing, might as well say that maybe if you bread radio active spiders you could create a huge army of spidermen.
We all know i should be fixed.

And anyone who's been in the navy knows what CAN (easily) happen when ONE incendiary spark hits the main powder magazine of a battleship
(and frigates had/have cannon)

...not to mention "fleet tactics" that a battleship isn't/wasn't developed to "defend itself" and in fact, just as an aircraft carrier, is EXTREMELY vulnerable when operating on it's own without the requisite escorts to DEFEND it

Odds - both RNG as well as "conditional" odds of the game (and the "unknown parameters" of the game conditions itself)

wooden ships -
my father was on a submarine (USS RAZORBACK SS-394) in WWII off the coast of Japan when it was "discovered" and attacked by a japanese coastal trawler - WIND driven - SAIL boat - NO ENGINE/MOTOR - that was rigged for coastal patrol with passive sonar and depth charges. The trawler continued to silently stalk and to depth charge the Razorback, causing fires onboard while submerged; after several hours of depth charging (the submarine's torpedos/firing pins were ineffective against wooden hulls), with batteries running low, smoke/poisonous fumes taking it's toll on the crew of the disabled submerged vessel, the submarine captain decided to "emergency surface" - ONE gunner's mate raced to the small deck-gun of the submarine the moment it surfaced and got off ONE LUCKY SHOT that took out the "wheel-house" of the japanese sailboat. They escaped with their lives because that ONE LUCKY SHOT that took out the "wheel-house" of the japanese sailboat knocked out the sailboat's radio and fortunately, the japanese "coastal patrol" sailboat had never radio'd for support (air or surface support)
The Razorback immediately "escaped" the hostilities (with casualties), leaving the trawler behind
(who won? who lost? WOOD and SAIL vs. combat ship-of-the-line submarine)

A true story - a wooden sail boat vs (what was) a modern WWII U.S. submarine.

ANYONE who's been in ANY navy knows that ANY ship of the line IS vulnerable to ANYTHING, anyone, anytime, anywhere

now then..... as far as "bread spiders" I'll have take someone elses word on that as I don't have the yeast bit of information about them (much less the dough to buy a book about them)

But - when you say you should be fixed, are you refering to being repaired? spayed? neutered?

Words - I love them (meant in fun, not intended to insult)

 

[Rusty Edge]

how could this have happened?

the only thing I see as explainable is that my battleship was healing, but just for 1 turn. That's no excuse. I declared war on alexander & his vassal state asoka. As my navy was patrolling the sea line of alexander I saw a indian frigate waiting for me to destroy it...man was I wrong...


I was so shocked...I completely exited the game cause I couldn't believe what just happened...urgh!!!!!!!!!!!

</rant>

My all-time asymetrical loss was an enemy galley sinking my battleship in CIV I.

I understand your frustration! Could the galley have wedged itself between the screws and triggered a boiler expolsion? No, it would have shattered between those gear-driven props!

Someone here at fanatics reminded me that it's a group of galleys, and many were probably fireships because it was a suicide mission. That's more plausible if they timed their attack when an oiler or ammunition ship was alongside the battleship .


One of my favorite parts about this forum is commiserating about the improbable and ahistorical occurences , and rationalizing them. Sometimes it's funny, sometimes it's educational.

 

[hornfaust]

i am saying at least a iron clad is faster and much better armament. Iron clads and the subsequent metal/wooden ships built were a lot better. Wooden sail ships are just a joke. 1000 sail ships couldn't catch or even get near a destroyer. Have you seen how fast a destroyer moves compared to sail ships. I just can't stop laughing, go to a port and look at frigates size vs. a destroyer. Try not to cry laughing.

 

[Evie]

First off, you are just plain wrong about speed, at least as far as Ironclads go.

USS Constitution (a frigate) has a top speed of 13 knots.
HMS Inconstant, a mixed steam-sail frigate reached 16.2 knots.

Comparedly

USS Monitor, the archetypical ironclad, never beat 8 knots.
CSS Virginia, its well known opponent, was limited at 9 knots.
The English built Peruvian then Chilean ironclad Huascar had a top speed of 12 knots.

So no, the Ironclad wouldn't be faster.

Second, Iron-hulled and Iron-Wood frigates most certainly did exist. "Frigate" does not necessarily mean a wooden ship.

And of course a frigate wouldn't be able to catch a destroyer. But a late frigate (such as HMS Inconstant, above, top speed of 16.2 knot) would certainly be able to compare for speed with an early battleship (such as USS Maine, top speed of 17 knots)

 

[przemuch]

and for consistency's sake: what exactly are you referring to when talking about "destruction of BS"? some sort of "naval battle"? that's interesting, because no one can say anything about "it" - animation representing "battle" is purely symbolic, just as well as tank sprite doesn't mean it's a "one tank"; therefore the only things we know for sure are:

#1 - some segment of player's naval forces has been engaging enemy ships in certain sector
#2 - engagement lasted for certain amount of time, for details please refer to lenght of turn in given historical period
#3 - combat log consists some abstract data, regarding amount of damage inflicted and taken during given time, which we can refer only to amount of hammers used to build "Battleship" and to it's combat chances in next engagements, no more clues were given - we can't say HP refers to ship's overall effectiveness, crew status or amount of ammo left - nothing here
#4 - message "Frigate destroyed Battleship" is far from detailed; we haven't been provided with details of engagement, and any attempts to translate combat log into volleys are rather hilarious blind-guessing with no real substance; for what we know "destruction" could have meant "1:1 combat", trick, sabotage, mercy killing after some heavy malfunction, yadda yadda yadda - with no knowledge about details assuming any conceivable answer to be "one true and holy" is simply guessing and playing with %%% with no real rules for counting them;
#5 - we know nothing about order of battle, nothing about amount of enemy contacts, shots fired etc - our imagination is restricted only with assumption that: armed forces represented in game are of human origin, follow some guidelines when it comes to historical development and that numbers present in game may or may not relate to reality - if they relate, we know nothing about such particular relation - ie. no one can say 1 HP represents 100 soldiers;

conclusions:

if you were for some reason misled by silly animations and assume one Battleship and one Frigate/ whatever, 100 BS and 100F if you want/ fixed their positions and fired some volleys at each other then you are indeed living in "la-la-land" because you have as much data to prove it as have people assuming Battleship exploded due to sabotage and "as much" means - none; you can argue all night if sabotage was possible, if possibility reflects this 0,5 % in combat predictions, also - if sabotage was more probable than engine malfunction, mutiny, or in extreme case: frigate disguising as merchant ship or ignored by crew, firing on supply ship filled with ammo right next to BS - the point is you can only say destruction of Frigate in 1:1 combat seems more probable - how much more is hardly relevant as no one can precisely say and the common sense is 99% winning chance is doing quite good job on this matter; throwing away vast amount of accidents, random encounters, vis maior, and other events not covered by "two sprites shootin each other" just because "i think it happened that "right" way" is only another way of baseless assumptions and worshipping self-invented imaginary "reality"

for what we know "Battleship" is lost, it's pretty rare in such conditions (combat predictions), we have endless set of possible explanations for unusual event - either have some fun, use imagination and stick to one of those or just forget about it and build another one convincing everyone that "this is ahistorical" is pointless because no one has any idea what and how happened except above facts; of course if you want to convince someone that "certain battleship would sink certain frigate in direct combat in certain situation", have fun and disregard what i wrote

 

[foobarred]

so if any civ advances into a new era, the graphics (not the names or strengths) for all obsolete units would change game wide; for all civs.

What I was thinking if that a civ "advances" in graphics whenever the majority of civs (per population) are at or above a particular era. That way, advanced units can still face older units, but ridiculous scenarios like tank vs. archer will likely never happen.

The justification is that technology will disperse even to the most primitive civs. Somalia is a great example of a country that has arguably have no technological advances, but yet brought down a U.S. gunship back in the early 90's. If this was Civ, it would have been the equivalent of a long-bowman taking down a gunship. However, the reality is that longbows are far more expensive than guns or RPGs because trading partners simply don't make bows anymore.

 

[Cutlass]

(and why does the frigate with only wind-power always make it through the reefs, when a much more controleable battleship doesn't?)

Because a frigate sticks 8 or 10 feet below the waterline and a battleship sticks 30 feet below waterline

 

[Evie]

What I was thinking if that a civ "advances" in graphics whenever the majority of civs (per population) are at or above a particular era. That way, advanced units can still face older units, but ridiculous scenarios like tank vs. archer will likely never happen.

That would sounds about right to me.

Although I could see an exception that this only kicks in a few turns after getting contact with the rest of the world, to allow for isolated primitive civs.

 

[warpus]

I also don't tink two or three hundred guys with swords and muskets are going to overwhelm a ship of 1,500 men with rifles and automatic weapons... not that the guys in a frigate would even have much luck getting over the sides of the ship (and how did the frigate get within 20 miles of the battleship without being annihilated).

Hey, maybe a guy from the Frigate swam over to the Battleship, climbed on board, and blew himself up in the armory?

 

[Wolfshanze]

First off, you are just plain wrong about speed, at least as far as Ironclads go.

USS Constitution (a frigate) has a top speed of 13 knots.
HMS Inconstant, a mixed steam-sail frigate reached 16.2 knots.

Comparedly

USS Monitor, the archetypical ironclad, never beat 8 knots.
CSS Virginia, its well known opponent, was limited at 9 knots.
The English built Peruvian then Chilean ironclad Huascar had a top speed of 12 knots.

So no, the Ironclad wouldn't be faster.

Wow... that's pretty short-sited... so American Coastal Gunboats are the "archetypical" Ironclad? That's a pretty American-centric view of Ironclads in the world... last time I checked, Civ4 BtS includes 34 Civs from around the world, not just America.

MOST nations in the world with fleets had ocean-going Ironclads... like England's HMS Warrior... which could make anywhere from 13 to 17.5 knots under power.

Just saying you have to look at things from more then one angle/viewpoint. I've already added ocean-going ironclads, pre-dreadnoughts and dreadnoughts to my own mod (sig-line).

 

[mourndraken]

I think that it is possible to make this graphics change when any civ passes into a new era. Visually it would make these stupid encounters easier to accept. If any civ advances into a new era, the graphics (not the names or strengths) for all obsolete units would change game wide; for all civs. This would be a cosmetic change that we humans can relate to.

Everybody is free to mod the game to their own liking.

I've been working on making a cosmetic graphics change that works much like workers do in the standard game. This bit of a fashion mod is not finished yet. My trigger for the graphics change hopefully will be when any civ passes an age. I don't know how to define age + x turns. If I like my work I may present it on CFC. But like most of the other things I've created, it may just stay in my home. If you are interested, let me know

 

[hornfaust]

The justification is that technology will disperse even to the most primitive civs. Somalia is a great example of a country that has arguably have no technological advances, but yet brought down a U.S. gunship back in the early 90's. If this was Civ, it would have been the equivalent of a long-bowman taking down a gunship. However, the reality is that longbows are far more expensive than guns or RPGs because trading partners simply don't make bows anymore.

No sir, it's like a bunch of guys with guns say shooting down one helicopter. Call it SAM infantry or guerrillas. They get one chopper down out of hundreds of sorties fine.

What I am saying is in CIV stuff like that happens way to much not like .001% this happens all the time like 4-5 times a game you lose units to joke combat.


P.S. I was talking about overall speed, like going AGAINST THE WIND. How in the heck does a frigate maneuver into range of a battleship before it gets blown out of the water? Have 5 frigates in civ attack a battleship they will do damage.

 

[Evie]

And the battleship is going to expand ammunition and oil over the combat, therefore limiting its ability to fight the next unit that comes up. IE, in civ terms - light damage.

Speed-wise, while the ironclad may have had an advantage sailing directly against the wind (and thereabout), the frigates would from what I know of them hold the advantage in most other directions. ironclads just weren't build to be fast or agile ; they were built to take punishment. They were excellent in narrow, restricted (and preferably calm) waters, but not so good out in the open sea, where by and large warships had decent hopes of escaping them. Also, again, refer to the mixed steam-sail frigates ; they were essentialy identical to the sail frigates, only with an additional steam engine; certainly in CIV the frigate is the closest representation I can see.

Now of course destroyers would be able to run circles around an ancient frigate, but that's not quite the point here.

And "happens way too often" is dubious. Out of all the games every Civ player plays, each player encounter a handful of incidents of this. Personally I don't remember ever running into a tank-killing spear or a battleship-killing frigate (destroyer, yes, but there, there is unimpeachable historical evidence that destroyers sinking battleships in combat has happened, without any resorting to any sort of justification whatsoever), and I've played hundreds of game on Civ II-III-IV.