Opinions on my Naval Unit changes (mostly attack and def) (balance)

How do these changes sound?

  • Bad - Don't keep them

    Votes: 0 0.0%

  • Total voters
    9
True, especially considering no one builds actual battleships anymore.
 
No... Stealth bombardment doesn't work. Only stealth attack.

Pity. The ideal stacking would be DD on top, CA/BB/CV as the last defender, with subs and air strikes having stealth attack.

OTOH, there's no allowance for guns vs. torpedoes, and the mechanics for those are QUITE different (a DD can only hope to run away from a BB or even a CA when considering gun strength, but add a torpedo tube mount, and the DD can potentially sink the BB).

You could do something with the "cruise missile" concept to act as torpedoes, but that seems like more trouble than it's worth.
 
True, especially considering no one builds actual battleships anymore.

Why bother building a $10 billion behemoth with a dozen 20" guns and a kilaton of armor when it'll just be sunk by a missile from a jet fighter/bomber on its first combat mission? You're better off with carriers, missiles, and anti-air cruisers/destroyers.
 
Actually, for the modern age unit's, you should multiply by 12 instead of 10. A real AEGIS Cruiser is pretty powerful.

A real Aegis cruiser is very good at shooting down aircraft, and is a nice ASW platform. As for surface warfare missions, take away the limited number of cruise missiles and Harpoons carried, and it is pretty much useless. As for shore bombardment with guns, it is a joke. I give it a rating of 8 for anti-air, and a combat rating of 12 for attack, 10 for defense, and a bombardment rating of 6, range of 2, rate of fire of 2. Two 5"/54 caliber guns do not a bombardment ship make.

Battleships get a 54 attack rating (which I think is still too low), a defense of 48, +8 HP, bombardment of 18 (which is low, but reflects a limited supply of bombardment ammunition), and anti-air of 4. A cruiser is roughly half of this and a destroyer about a quarter, so that you have a sufficiently wide range of values for differentiation.

A 1938 pound 15" high explosive shell was determined to be the equivalent of six 6" HE rounds for ground suppression purposes. The US 16" High Capacity round weighs 1900 pounds and is highly comparable. The current standard artillery piece is the 155mm, firing a 95 pound shell, compared to 110 pounds for the 6" High Capacity round. A full 9 gun salvo from an Iowa-class battleship represents the equivalent of FIFTY-FOUR 155mm rounds landing at the same time, or the full artillery of a division firing one shot. That is FIREPOWER!
 
Why bother building a $10 billion behemoth with a dozen 20" guns and a kilaton of armor when it'll just be sunk by a missile from a jet fighter/bomber on its first combat mission? You're better off with carriers, missiles, and anti-air cruisers/destroyers.

There are no current aerial weapons, except for a few very specilized ones weighing around 4400 pounds that would inflict serious damage on a battleship armored like an Iowa-class. The standard Harpoon or Exocet would do a nice job denting the outer hull and really messing up the paintwork. A Tomohawk might shake it a bit, but is not going to get through the outer hull, much less the armor belt, turret armor, barbettes, or armored deck.

The best way for aircraft to take out an Iowa-class or comparable ship is using large anti-ship aerial torpedoes, with 1200 pound TNT-equivalent warheads. Such weapons have not been made in about 50 years, and would have a hard time surviving a high speed drop from a jet.
 
Oh, that's what you wanted. That's an easy, simple fix.
Ancient Age units: Do nothing.
Medieval Age units (and Ironclads): Multiply A/D 5.
Industrial and Modern Age units: Multiply A/D by 10.

All units are now kept the same relative strength with their contemporaries, and the possibility of a Galley beating a BB is negligible.

That would require upgrading land artillery (and likewise land units) also, as now non-naval bombardment units are now useless against naval units.
 
There are no current aerial weapons, except for a few very specilized ones weighing around 4400 pounds that would inflict serious damage on a battleship armored like an Iowa-class. The standard Harpoon or Exocet would do a nice job denting the outer hull and really messing up the paintwork. A Tomohawk might shake it a bit, but is not going to get through the outer hull, much less the armor belt, turret armor, barbettes, or armored deck.

The best way for aircraft to take out an Iowa-class or comparable ship is using large anti-ship aerial torpedoes, with 1200 pound TNT-equivalent warheads. Such weapons have not been made in about 50 years, and would have a hard time surviving a high speed drop from a jet.

I think you're overestimating the benefits of the armor on WW2-era BB classes like the Iowa or the Yamato. It didn't save them from bombing runs or torpedo hits in WW2, and it wouldn't save them now. That said, I will concede the point that it would require heavier ordnance than the ~500 lb. Harpoon warhead, considering that Japan's WW2 B5Ns carried ~1700 lb. weapons.

Really, I should have mentioned modern bombs, not missiles.
 
I always thought the point of bombing runs was more just to disable the ship then to actually sink it. Also, hitting the right spot on the deck can cause the ammo hold to ignite, then it's bye-bye BB.
 
That would require upgrading land artillery (and likewise land units) also, as now non-naval bombardment units are now useless against naval units.

I wasn't aware of land artillery being much use against ships past the age of Sail anyway, and most of those being fixed fortifications (Coastal Fortress).
 
I think you're overestimating the benefits of the armor on WW2-era BB classes like the Iowa or the Yamato. It didn't save them from bombing runs or torpedo hits in WW2, and it wouldn't save them now. That said, I will concede the point that it would require heavier ordnance than the ~500 lb. Harpoon warhead, considering that Japan's WW2 B5Ns carried ~1700 lb. weapons.

Really, I should have mentioned modern bombs, not missiles.

I am using as the basis for my conclusions the study down by the US Navy Bureau of Ships in 1944 on the vulnerability of ships to aerial weapons. That is turn was based on the analysis of a wide range of wartime US damage reports to US naval vessels, both those sunk and those damaged. The conclusion of the study was that a modern battleship, i.e. Iowa-class, could not be sunk be bomb attack alone, but would need to be hit by multiple torpedos on the same side, with the intent to capsize the ship. Bombs would be useful in degrading the ship's anti-aircraft defenses to allow the torpedo planes to approach close enough for successful attacks.

Now the current US 2,000 pound deep-penetrating bomb is credited with the capability of penetrating 7 feet of reinforced concrete, assuming a perfect 90 degree angle of impact. As a rule of thumb, 1 foot of reinforced concrete is equivalent to 1 inch of high-tensile strength steel, so in theory, the bomb is capable of penetrating 7 inches of high-tensile strength steel. The side armor of the Iowa is 12.1 inch thickness of Class A face-hardened steel armor, with the external side plating being 1.5 inch high-tensile strength steel. I would say that there is no possibility of the bomb penetrating the side armor, and a fairly high order of probability that the bomb will break up on impact with the main belt with a low-order detonation. Now, again in theory, the bomb could penetrate the main armor deck, assuming a near 90 degree angle of impact, however, there is a fair amount of steel decking that the bomb would have to get through prior to hitting the armored deck. At that point, you would be very heavily dependent on the correct functioning of a long-delay fuze to give the weapon time to possibly penetrate to the armor deck and then through it. I will not even get into the issue of bomb ballistics once it hits the upper bomb deck and penetrates. By the way, it is going to take a lot of penetrating hits from 2,000 pound bombs to have a chance at sinking the ship. A single hit is not going to do it. The Iowa-class was designed to withstand 16" gunfire, assuming 2,000 pound shells.

I always thought the point of bombing runs was more just to disable the ship then to actually sink it. Also, hitting the right spot on the deck can cause the ammo hold to ignite, then it's bye-bye BB.

The Italian battleship Roma was sunk in September of 1943 by a penetrating hit to its forward magazine by a 3,600 pound (approximately) Fritz-X guided bomb dropped from approximately 14,000 feet from a German Dornier 219. The German Tirpitz was sunk by 12,000 pound British Tallboys dropped from about the same altitude. To penetrate the armored deck of a WW2 battleship required that size of weapon. There are no current bombs available, aside from a very few 4400 pound special penetrators designed during the 1991 Gulf War, of that size. I do not believe that the US has any 3,000 pound bombs left in stockpile, and those were high explosive bombs only, with limited penetration of heavy concrete. There in no 1600 pound AP bombs left in the stockpile, as I asked for those in 1991 to use on Iraqi bunkers. As I discussed earlier, you might have a chance at getting through the armored deck of an Iowa-class ship if you made a 90 degree angle of impact hit on the upper bomb deck, and your fuze worked perfectly. I would not the the dog house on it, much less the farm. Two thousand pounds is generally the limit on a single hard point of current fighter bombers. When carrying that type of bomb, they are limited in maneuverability. A battleship is not going to operate in todays environment in isolation, but as part of a task group, including air defense ships and air cover as well. Aside from a few NATO countries, the US, Russian, China, and India, a country is going to have to commit virtually its entire air force in one strike to have a chance at seriously damaging a Iowa-class or equivalent ship, and will also need to assume a loss rate of between 50 and 90 per cent, ON THAT ONE ATTACK!.

Battleships designed in the 1930s were designed with 16"/2000 pound armor-piercing rounds in mind, arriving at between 1500 and 2000 feet per second terminal velocity. They were, and still are, extremely tough ships to sink. Unless you use a tactical nuclear weapon, a one-shot kill is just not going to happen.
 
Battleships designed in the 1930s were designed with 16"/2000 pound armor-piercing rounds in mind, arriving at between 1500 and 2000 feet per second terminal velocity. They were, and still are, extremely tough ships to sink. Unless you use a tactical nuclear weapon, a one-shot kill is just not going to happen.

While I agree with pretty much everything you've said, I would like to point out something before someone else brings it up: The USS Arizona was launched in 1915 and while it was refitted in 1929 or 1930, it wasn't a modern warship, and the bomb that was dropped was a 16" AP 800KG bomb.
 
While I agree with pretty much everything you've said, I would like to point out something before someone else brings it up: The USS Arizona was launched in 1915 and while it was refitted in 1929 or 1930, it wasn't a modern warship, and the bomb that was dropped was a 16" AP 800KG bomb.

There was an excellent analysis of the loss of the Arizona in the Naval Institute Proceedings during 1975, by Dr. Thomas Hone, which was summarized in Norman Friedmann's US Battleships Design and Development. Having studied the armor-penetration characteristics of the Japanese AP bomb used, I would agree with Dr. Hone's conclusions as to the reason for loss. The reports on the other bombs of that type which hit US battleships along indicate that the maximum armor penetrated was around 3 inches, based on two hits on turret tops, and in both cases the bomb broke up with a low order detonation. There was also one case of the bomb detonating after it passed through a CANVAS AWNING. That I suspect was due to the located of the bomb fuzes and the very large fins used to stabilize the bomb.
 
I wasn't aware of land artillery being much use against ships past the age of Sail anyway, and most of those being fixed fortifications (Coastal Fortress).

Well, when ships are in harbor in a port town, and people bombarding the port, the ships get hit first. And the extra range of artillery, rather than 1 range from catapults.

How about bombers and aircraft then? They need to be able to do damage against Naval units.
 
Hi everybody!
I just registered to the forum, but i always used civfanatics in the past 4 years to use all the great units, graphics, etc.

Now i finally decided to register.
I took this decision, coz i red your comment, Arcades057, and i liked the idea of making ships really expensive.

Destroyers, cruisers and battleships get huge bumps in everything, including shield cost. Carriers go up to a 60 unit capacity, higher defense (somewhere in the neighborhood of 40-50) and a VERY high shield cost (5000 or somthing).

I tried to give some units a shieldcost higher than 1000, but the editor won't let me. How can i give a unit a shieldcost above 1000?

Thx in advance!
 
Hi everybody!
I just registered to the forum, but i always used civfanatics in the past 4 years to use all the great units, graphics, etc.

Now i finally decided to register.
I took this decision, coz i red your comment, Arcades057, and i liked the idea of making ships really expensive.

I tried to give some units a shieldcost higher than 1000, but the editor won't let me. How can i give a unit a shieldcost above 1000?

Thx in advance!

Welcome to the forums, Marsodin.

There is no way to get a unit to cost more than 1000 shields in the game, as there is a limit on that cost field. The limit is hard coded into the game and cannot be exceeded.
 
There is no way to get a unit to cost more than 1000 shields in the game, as there is a limit on that cost field. The limit is hard coded into the game and cannot be exceeded.

Thank you timerover51! :)

How did arcades057 manage to give his ships a cost over 1000?
 
If you use the Play the World editor and game, I believe that you can go over 1000 shields, but i am not positive about that. You might want to ask that on the Creation and Customization forum.
 
Welcome to the Forums! :)
 
I tried to give some units a shieldcost higher than 1000, but the editor won't let me. How can i give a unit a shieldcost above 1000?

Welcome to the forums. Making a unit very expensive can prevent the AI building it. The Civ AI is not very good at building naval units and I have read that making these less expensive than they are in the regular game gets the AI to make more of them. But if you make a unit cost more, they will be even less likely to build it. So as you raise the cost of units, the AI will be less likely to build them, especially ships.

As timerover51 said, the Creation and Customization forum is the best place to ask these kinds of questions. They know everything. ;)
 
I don't know if this has been said before, but subs shouldn't have such high stats. It is extremely hard for one sub to take down a carrier, especially a modern supercarrier.
 
Top Bottom