I think it's rahter silly that bombers can only damage ships. I mean, I find it funny that my bomber doesn't blow that rickety old Greek frigate to kingdom come! With bombers not being able to kill ships, Pearl Harbor in this game would've been a complete laughing stock. Please Firaxis--let the bombers sink ships!
Plea for the next patch: Allow Bombers to Sink Ships!
- Thread starter Toasty
- Start date
I don't agree (and I feel the majority of other people don't either). There's a good reason for bombers not being able to sink ships. In Civ2, I *never* used a navy, except when I had to use D-day tactics. It simply wasn't worth the cost of battleships, when I could simply build loads of stealth bombers and destroy enemy fleets.
Now I have to have a large standing navy, and it adds a much better dimension to the game. It's just a difference you'll have to get used to.
Now I have to have a large standing navy, and it adds a much better dimension to the game. It's just a difference you'll have to get used to.
Dirk Aurel
Warlord
msrsb you didn´t really NOT modify your units in Civ2 did ya?! Back in Civ2 they had this AEGIS ability of of doubling units defense towards aircraft,I added this to battleships and some other units,thus making it cost dearly to attack ships.I agree with you but it´s really more about the lacks of the combat system than what is realistic,as for Civ3 with carriers and fighters on "air superiority" missions it could work properly,don´t know if you have played Panzer General,but in that game a stationed fighter would intercept incoming bombers everytime,it depended on how one had weakened the fighter defense,then the bombers would attack the naval vessel,the outcome was determined on the bombers "naval attack value" and the ships "anti-aircraft defense",ahh PG had a much better combat system,which I wanted to see in Civ3.
When you build military in Civ you build units. When you build an infantry unit you build a brigade (or batallion or whatever). When you build a battleship unit, you build a fleet of battleships. The same with aircraft, artillery and so on.
Have you ever in history heard about a whole unit of ships being completely destroyed only by aircraft? When you attack a naval unit with bombers, the naval unit loses hitpoints, which means that some ships are sunk and/or damaged.
Air units and artillery are, both in real life and in Civ3, designed to soften a target before it is killed by manoeuvre units.
However I do agree with you that planes should be able to sink wooden ships from Antiquity.
Have you ever in history heard about a whole unit of ships being completely destroyed only by aircraft? When you attack a naval unit with bombers, the naval unit loses hitpoints, which means that some ships are sunk and/or damaged.
Air units and artillery are, both in real life and in Civ3, designed to soften a target before it is killed by manoeuvre units.
However I do agree with you that planes should be able to sink wooden ships from Antiquity.
Dirk Aurel
Warlord
I don´t think so,yes you do build a brigade of Infantry,but you don´t build a fleet of battleships,they count as a single unit in my mind,maybe two at the most.The same goes for all naval vessels.
loki
Warlord
People, there is a definite reason why bombers aren't able to sink ships : you need to build ships to destroy ships. It's purely a game balance feature. It's not historically, nor military accurate, however I think it's a fair game balance issue : if you want to get rid of your enemy navy, build a navy.
There is no point in ranting about this non issue over and over. This will not be changed and I expect Firaxis
to stand firm on this.
loki
There is no point in ranting about this non issue over and over. This will not be changed and I expect Firaxis
to stand firm on this.loki
Dirk Aurel
Warlord
It is a game balance issue,correct loki,but am pretty sick of having every flaw in Civ3 being explained by game balance issues, now if the had implemented a proper combat system (look below) we wouldn´t have this problem!
Yes, it seems a shame that Firaxis will remain steadfast about certain glaring issues. Things like the absurd anti-cheat mechanism and the dire combat system are so integral to the game itself that it'll take more humility for Firaxis to change them than they probably have. It's kind of sickening to see how such incongruities impinge on an otherwise fine game. Anyhow, I'll be putting off playing it until someone gets round to hacking the damn thing.
konigstiger
Chieftain
- Joined
- Feb 27, 2002
- Messages
- 80
I agree that we should be able to sink ships, but only with rigorous bombing. let's say a battleship is sinkable after 12 series of succesful bombardment ?
just my 2c.
just my 2c.
simwiz2
Warlord
That wouldnt be soooo bad, except:
When a FLEET of ships has had all but a few ships sunk, how many shields does it cost you to build 3/4 of a fleet back? 150 out of 200 shields? No. Absolutely none.
Also, you say its a FLEET, take this example: a transport with 8 units on board is bombarded down to one HP. So 3/4 of the ships have been sunk, therefore about 3/4 of the units on board should be dead, right? No. They have all miraculously survived.
Just damaging wouldnt be so bad if it were represented properly and units (at least ships, come on they are expensive in RL) didnt repair for FREE. Even if this were implemented I would prefer bombardment be able to destroy ships, but not ground units.
One last thing: If you consider the shield cost and maintainence costs, a ship unit is one ship, not a whole fleet. Are you telling me that a fleet of battleships only costs twice as much to build as a brigade of mech inf? And an entire FLEET of ships costs the same maintenance as a brigade of infantry?
Some comments to Squirrel, loki, and msrsb, et al.-
Yes, units probably represent more then ONE, but not necessarily a LOT more then one. As a units cost and valure rises, (esp. cost, in terms of the % of a nationality's income to build) it would seem reasonable that the number of pieces in a unit drops. I HIGHLY doubt that a Battleship represents a FLEET of them or they would cost a heck of a lot more then less then twice that of a Destroyer. More likely a "unit" represents the "manuver unt" quanity of that type of miliary resource. Thus a BB ("battleship") might represent a single unit or a pair, a "Squardon" at most (often, a BB "division" was 2 ships. Read about Jutland and look at the order of battle.)
And a squardon or division of BB or other ships COULD be wiped out by just aircraft. Some historical examples:
8 Dec. 1941 The Royal Navy's Prince of Wales and Repusle are both sunk by Japanese aircraft as they sortie from Singapore. All BB's present are sunk.
Almost all Americans know what happened to the Battleships of the US Pacific Fleet on 7 Dec. 1941. 4 of 8 destroyed, 1 beached to avoid sinking, and 3 heavily damaged. Thats a couple of BB units destroyed.
4 June 1942 All 4 of the carriers present in the Japanese "Kido Butai" are sunk by American air attack as they advance to attack Midway Island. So are a couple of heavy cruisers as well.
6 April 1945, the largest battleship in the world, the flagship of the Japanese Second Fleet, the IJN Yamato sorties to attack the American invasion force off of Okinawa. Her, her escorting Crusier, and 4 of her 8 accompaning DD's (Destroyers) are all sunk by American aircraft long before they get within ranges of their ships guns of the American tranports off Okinawa. The 4 surviving DD's only get away by scattering while the aircraft pounded the Yamato until she sank. All American aircraft are from carriers.
There are MANY MANY other examples that aircraft could in fact wipe out entire units of ANY SIZE naval craft.
As for play balance and the need to build Navys-
Aircraft alone cannot defeat ships IF THE SHIPS have their own air cover- provided at sea by CARRIERS, which the last time I looked, were in the game as part of Navies. You need Navies to invade over the ocean, so you got to build them no matter what, (unless your a Turtle style player). Oh, also last time I looked, there are quite a few possible years between the developement of Galleys and Flight, so Aircraft alone DO NOT mean you do not build a Navy. Aircraft being able to sink ships MEANS YOU MUST BUILD CARRIERS WITH AIRCRAFT TO DEFEND SHIPS FROM PLANES, not that you don't build navies at all. Part of the problem, see below, is the way costs and unit values are set up, of course.
I do hope that people understand that when one says they want airplanes to be able to sink ships, it goes without saying that ships should be able to defend from (ie cause the destruction of) attacking aircraft. (It would be rather stupid and unbalancing to allow aircraft to sink ships but keep aircraft invulnerable from ships. Historically, those attacking aircraft often paid very very heavy prices in blood in their attacks on ships. Aircraft casualities ran from 10 - 100 % depending on the situation, typically 20-30%. It was however VERY variable.)
Ships sink ships pretty well until aircraft came along, but in less then a blink of an eye, in the span of a single generation, the domination of aircraft over ships changed the role of Capitol Shp from the BB to the CV. The ability of the carrier to attack at far greater range then that of ships guns sealed the fate of the BB. BUT aircraft from the CV do just find defending the fleet of ships from land borne, as well as naval based, aircraft.
Part of the problem is of course the poorly thought out air and naval unit costs and parameters (A/D/M B/R/R), and the reduced carring capacity of carriers (carried to CivII), not to mention the poorly done air combat system. But those are other questions. It took a LOT of effort to sink large ships. And a Lot of planes to do it. And they cost a hugh amount of a nations economy. But they could do it. That is reality, and saying "its not there, for game balance" is justing saying this game is disconnected from reality and is a fantasy. Now, maybe that is so, but many of us enjoy the immersive experience and the feeling that it really is what history was all about. They could have done better, and should have.
Unfortunately, loki may be right in that Firaxis will not fix this. Thats too bad, this game is good, but could have been truly great and for that reason (with a few others, admittedly) it falls short of being outstanding. But I wouldn't call this a non issue, unless your not interested in this game being better.
Personally, I like the game a lot and have spent a hugh amount of time playing it. And have heavily modified the unit values for ships and aircraft, and their costs.
Unfortunately, the editor will not fix the biggest flaw in this game, the basic combat system. I am frustrated by corruption, but can live with it and look at it as a challenge. But the inability of air to sink ships cannot be fixed in the editor.
I won't even talk about that "other debate". Death to spearman/swordsman etc that are around in the modern age! Same applies to Killer Galleys!
Dirk Aurel, I think the PG system would make the game too complex for the Builders types and would probalby make it play way too slow. Perhaps something greatly simpified. But we are in agreement that the combat system could be better. And that it WOULD add to the game.
Sigh, we will be lucky indeed if that is what we get in Civ IV (if it happens). Afterall, they have already got our money, so there is pretty much little chance that anything more then minimal tweaking (read getting rid of each new startegy as they become known) will occur. I'm all for getting rid of true exploits. But the tweaking to the trading system, to do in the Pope Strategy, has been detremental to the game with the 1.17 patch.
Gotta go. Flame on folks, I'm sure people will defend Sid and Co. to the last data bit. And truthfully, I'll say- this *is* a good game. Actually, a very good game.
But sadly, it could have been so much, much better.
Yes, units probably represent more then ONE, but not necessarily a LOT more then one. As a units cost and valure rises, (esp. cost, in terms of the % of a nationality's income to build) it would seem reasonable that the number of pieces in a unit drops. I HIGHLY doubt that a Battleship represents a FLEET of them or they would cost a heck of a lot more then less then twice that of a Destroyer. More likely a "unit" represents the "manuver unt" quanity of that type of miliary resource. Thus a BB ("battleship") might represent a single unit or a pair, a "Squardon" at most (often, a BB "division" was 2 ships. Read about Jutland and look at the order of battle.)
And a squardon or division of BB or other ships COULD be wiped out by just aircraft. Some historical examples:
8 Dec. 1941 The Royal Navy's Prince of Wales and Repusle are both sunk by Japanese aircraft as they sortie from Singapore. All BB's present are sunk.
Almost all Americans know what happened to the Battleships of the US Pacific Fleet on 7 Dec. 1941. 4 of 8 destroyed, 1 beached to avoid sinking, and 3 heavily damaged. Thats a couple of BB units destroyed.
4 June 1942 All 4 of the carriers present in the Japanese "Kido Butai" are sunk by American air attack as they advance to attack Midway Island. So are a couple of heavy cruisers as well.
6 April 1945, the largest battleship in the world, the flagship of the Japanese Second Fleet, the IJN Yamato sorties to attack the American invasion force off of Okinawa. Her, her escorting Crusier, and 4 of her 8 accompaning DD's (Destroyers) are all sunk by American aircraft long before they get within ranges of their ships guns of the American tranports off Okinawa. The 4 surviving DD's only get away by scattering while the aircraft pounded the Yamato until she sank. All American aircraft are from carriers.
There are MANY MANY other examples that aircraft could in fact wipe out entire units of ANY SIZE naval craft.
As for play balance and the need to build Navys-
Aircraft alone cannot defeat ships IF THE SHIPS have their own air cover- provided at sea by CARRIERS, which the last time I looked, were in the game as part of Navies. You need Navies to invade over the ocean, so you got to build them no matter what, (unless your a Turtle style player). Oh, also last time I looked, there are quite a few possible years between the developement of Galleys and Flight, so Aircraft alone DO NOT mean you do not build a Navy. Aircraft being able to sink ships MEANS YOU MUST BUILD CARRIERS WITH AIRCRAFT TO DEFEND SHIPS FROM PLANES, not that you don't build navies at all. Part of the problem, see below, is the way costs and unit values are set up, of course.
I do hope that people understand that when one says they want airplanes to be able to sink ships, it goes without saying that ships should be able to defend from (ie cause the destruction of) attacking aircraft. (It would be rather stupid and unbalancing to allow aircraft to sink ships but keep aircraft invulnerable from ships. Historically, those attacking aircraft often paid very very heavy prices in blood in their attacks on ships. Aircraft casualities ran from 10 - 100 % depending on the situation, typically 20-30%. It was however VERY variable.)
Ships sink ships pretty well until aircraft came along, but in less then a blink of an eye, in the span of a single generation, the domination of aircraft over ships changed the role of Capitol Shp from the BB to the CV. The ability of the carrier to attack at far greater range then that of ships guns sealed the fate of the BB. BUT aircraft from the CV do just find defending the fleet of ships from land borne, as well as naval based, aircraft.
Part of the problem is of course the poorly thought out air and naval unit costs and parameters (A/D/M B/R/R), and the reduced carring capacity of carriers (carried to CivII), not to mention the poorly done air combat system. But those are other questions. It took a LOT of effort to sink large ships. And a Lot of planes to do it. And they cost a hugh amount of a nations economy. But they could do it. That is reality, and saying "its not there, for game balance" is justing saying this game is disconnected from reality and is a fantasy. Now, maybe that is so, but many of us enjoy the immersive experience and the feeling that it really is what history was all about. They could have done better, and should have.
Unfortunately, loki may be right in that Firaxis will not fix this. Thats too bad, this game is good, but could have been truly great and for that reason (with a few others, admittedly) it falls short of being outstanding. But I wouldn't call this a non issue, unless your not interested in this game being better.
Personally, I like the game a lot and have spent a hugh amount of time playing it. And have heavily modified the unit values for ships and aircraft, and their costs.
Unfortunately, the editor will not fix the biggest flaw in this game, the basic combat system. I am frustrated by corruption, but can live with it and look at it as a challenge. But the inability of air to sink ships cannot be fixed in the editor.
I won't even talk about that "other debate". Death to spearman/swordsman etc that are around in the modern age! Same applies to Killer Galleys!
Dirk Aurel, I think the PG system would make the game too complex for the Builders types and would probalby make it play way too slow. Perhaps something greatly simpified. But we are in agreement that the combat system could be better. And that it WOULD add to the game.
Sigh, we will be lucky indeed if that is what we get in Civ IV (if it happens). Afterall, they have already got our money, so there is pretty much little chance that anything more then minimal tweaking (read getting rid of each new startegy as they become known) will occur. I'm all for getting rid of true exploits. But the tweaking to the trading system, to do in the Pope Strategy, has been detremental to the game with the 1.17 patch.
Gotta go. Flame on folks, I'm sure people will defend Sid and Co. to the last data bit. And truthfully, I'll say- this *is* a good game. Actually, a very good game.
But sadly, it could have been so much, much better.
Dirk Aurel
Warlord
Totally agree with your post royfurr,I´ve been playing this game a few months and I like it a lot,some seem to think that complaining or offering suggestions is a sin,whining,but in fact it´s just an effort to improve something which is already good,I don´t quite understand why one gets flamed for critizising this and that,if at the end of the day or the year 2010 a great game comes out,it was worth it.Because face it ppl,the game isn´t perfect and a lot of the implementations we have now could already have been in Civ2,just as an example take how many good ideas form Colonization were skipped in Civ2.
As for the Panzer General combat system,I too thought it might get to complicated,as would any change in the combat system, but it wouldn´t really.One way this game can´t go is RTS,so there turn based games are all there is left,and I´m on about PG1,I don´t need the fancy graphics,part 1 of PG was basically the same from the optical view to what we have now in Civ3,in fact it was simpler,what I want is the different calculations, which simply would fit very well into the entire concept of Civilization. Supplies,ammo,fuel,the distinction between soft(unarmored), hard(armored),naval and air targets,individual A&D values towards these units,the difference of unit quality would determine it´s combat ability and so on.
When I first played Panzer General,and I really mean part one, none of the later,I was sure that it would fit great into Civilization, and Civ3 has certainly shifted towards PG,just take the range aspect.What is more is that PG and Civ just seem the perfect match,what I liked about Civ is that it´s "yours",you care about your Civ,about your people and about what you have built and created,but the military otoh is more like that of a RTS game, just mass produce and throw them into battle.
Lastly in XCOM3 you could "thankfully" deactivate the real time combat and go back to turn based,the same could be done for the Civ&PG mix,offer the simplified Civ combat system and that of PG to the user,let them decide,but I´m pretty sure most would in fact play the game with that of PG.
P.S:royfurr,as for sinking ships,compare the same situation in PG, one would have a limited number of horizontal bombers to surpress the BB,a fighter would intercept incoming aircraft,after that one could go in with the tactical bomber,if the ship wasn´t surpressed it would cost the tactical bomber dearly,either not causing too much damage simply due to combat confusion and defensive fire,or taking a lot of hits itself, not every unit had to be destroyed,the BB might be damaged, pull out of the battle and return to the docks for repairs, effectively ending it´s part in the battle.That´s what I really miss, in Civ it´s either Victory or Death,which is ridiculous,in reality most losses in war are/were in fact casualties,that is basically what strategy is all about,taking out the enemy one way or another to gain an advantage.
Similar threads
