Punishment to obsolete units, need feedback

[Ungooo]

Hi, now I changed the file to 1/2/3/4 - that is, x1 to ancient unit, x2 to middle age unit, x3 industrial unit, and x4 to modern unit.

BS now have greater A/D value than Cruiser.

I tested out the new 1/2/3/4, it is much more balanced than 1/2/4/8, end of age unit could now compete with next age early units, but next age unit still has higher probability of winning.

I've attached the new file, punishment2.zip
Please give it a try, and feedbacks are greatly appreciated. I thank everyone for giving me comments, suggestions, and in depth discussion.

Dave


Hi, this is my first post, so please don't flame me if it has been done before.......

I was thinking of a way to have punishment on obsolete units... So I looked up the tech tree, and categorized all units into ancient, middle age, industrial and modern. I did nothing to the ancient units, but x2 to the middle, x4 to the industrial, and x8 to the modern units... (attack and defend values, movement stayed the same)

I thought in this way, you'll have the same result between units of the same age, but have greater advantage over the previous age units. I thought the problem with this tweak is, making end of age units useless..... since they might be the strongest unit in that age, but they will definitely lose to the earliest units in the next age... (i.e. Calvary, Cossacks)..

So I will attach this .bic file, and can someone please try it, and give suggestion and comments on how I can furthur improve this...( I ddin't post this in complete modpack, because it is really not a complete mod pack...

And one last thing, AEGIS cruiser will be a better unit than battleship, so i switched their cost, cruiser=200, battleship=160.

As for bombard units, only the bombardment value had been changed, range, operational range, rate of fire stayed the same.

Any comment and suggestion would be greatly appreciated.
Thanks

 

[Ungooo]

I need some feedbacks.........

 

[Bamspeedy]

Haven't tried this one yet, but after thinking it over I some thoughts. This would make science so much more important. But would make some units way too much stronger. Lets compare cavalry to infantry:

Before Cavalry had attack of 6, infantry of 8. Infantry is 33% stronger in attack. Now under the new plan Cavalry would have attack of 12 (6*2), Infantry would have 32 (8*4) so its 167% stronger. The first player to advance to the next age would have a superior advantage.

Maybe look at what the numbers would be if you did *2 for middle, *3 for industrial, and *4 for modern. Make a little closer but still keeping your idea you thought of. I think something certainly needs to be changed because I hated that my Rifleman and even alot of my infantry was being obliterated by my opponents cavalry.

Definitly agree that the Aegis cruiser should be stronger than the battleship since it becomes available so late in the game, this was discussed on another thread.

 

[Vger]

Hi,

I've been futzing about with this issue also. However, if anyone cares, it would be unrealistic to give the AEGIS cruiser better stats than the BB. The Battleship's weakness is airpower. They are still, within their range, queens of the sea and could certainly sink an AEGIS-class cruiser if they got in range.

While I know of no test to prove this conclusively, most SSMs (surface-to-surface missiles) would probably bounce off a BBs armor, doing little damage, as they are not designed to penetrate armor. Certainly, Kamakazes in WW2 didn't do any significant damage. Heck, the BBs used after the war in A- and H-bomb tests survived remarkably well and some of them were still in fighting shape.

The advantages AEGIS has over a BB are range of bombardment (through the use of Tomahawk cruise missiles) and terrific air defense, thanks to their radar/SAM systems.

My solution to this (and I'm not sure the game supports it) is to let AEGIS carry cruise missiles (4 of them) and have a longer range for bombardment.

Probably more than you wanted to hear on the subject. :crazyeyes

 

[majwalrus]

i'd agree with this vger, an aegis has f*** all firepower compared to a battleship, just a longer range and better electronics for tracking aerial threats.

 

[Kryten]

Wait a minute. If Battleships are so good, then why have none been built since WWII? Plus every
nation has de-commisioned all the ones they did have (except for a few American ones).

I like to think that the 'AEGIS Cruiser' represents ALL the modern missile armed ship classes, just
like the 'Tank' unit represents ALL the (allied) AFV's of WWII, and the 'Fighter' and 'Bomber' units
cover ALL the aircraft of both WWI & WWII.

And a modern missile-armed ship, with superior radar, superior range, superior hitting power, and
superior accuracy (no need to fire a full broadside to 'stradle' the target in the hope that one shell
will hit --- each guided missile, unless jammed or shot down, WILL hit!) has got to be better.

Ok, a modern ship's armor is thin. But think of a WWII cannon armed fighter against a modern jet.
If it got close enough it COULD shoot down the jet. But it'll never get thet close, cos the air-to-air
missile (if radar seeking) will take the fighter out at 20 miles! It's the same at sea...

 

[Vger]

Hi,

BBs are STILL good at what they're good at. The problem (and why they are no longer built) is not other ships, it's the invention of the airplane. Air superiority is the key to modern warfare. Aircraft have superior reach to any ship.

Therefore, the rise of the Carrier Battle Group. The US Navy is built around this concept. Because of the reach of the airarm there is no NEED for the BB, because AC can do the job better.

Except for subs, ALL of our ships are built with their role in the CVBG in mind, though, of course, they can undertake operations on their own. So, we have AEGIS cruisers and destroyers to provide close air defense, frigates for ASW (along with 2 dedicated SSNs, which are the real teeth of our CVBG ASW defense) and the carrier air group. The air group can take on any of these roles and many more, even hundreds of miles away from the CVBG.

BBs were very rugged and good at what they did. The aircraft (and the CV) just did the job better, by projecting their firepower to a much greater range. For an example of just how rugged they were, look up details on the sinking of the Yamato or Musashi. Those BBs took many 500 and 1000 lb bomb hits as well as many torpedoes before sinking. Damage no other ship class could have survived, then or now. BTW, those bombs were armor piercing, unlike cruise missiles, which do not have that capability.

Interestingly, the US Navy has had a rethink about shore bombardment and has discussed putting an 8" gun on their new DDs, though I don't remember where that debate stands at the moment.

 

[hzm]

Originally posted by Kryten
Wait a minute. If Battleships are so good, then why have none been built since WWII? Plus every
nation has de-commisioned all the ones they did have (except for a few American ones).

All our battleships are museums. We decommissioned our last 2 at the end of the persian gulf I think.

 

[Kryten]

Cheers hzm, I didn't know that.

Getting back to Vger, I agree --- aircraft in WWII proved that the battleship was obsolete.

But suppose you took those bombs off the aircraft, stick an engine on the back, give it a
guidence system, then suddenly you've got a flying bomb/missile. Anything an aircraft can do
against a battleship a missile can also do. It's just a different delivery system after all.

The Germans did this back in 1943 with the Henschel HS 293A and HS 294 guided bombs.
Both were dropped from Dornier Do 217E-5 aircraft and radio directed to their target
(the HS 294 was designed to dive into the water and attack heavily armoured vessels
below the waterline, using a torpedo proximity fuse). In autumn 1943 following the Italian
surrender, the 45,000 ton 'Littorio' class battleships 'Roma' and 'Italia' tried to surrender
to the allies. The 'Roma' was sunk and the 'Italia' severely damaged by these flying bombs.

The problem seems to be with the words "Cruise Missile".
I think that the Cruise missile unit in Civ3 is ment to represent ALL modern surface-to-surface
missile delivery systems. And I agree that modern anti-ship missiles are not armour-piercing,
but thats because their tragets are not armoured. If they were, then modern missiles WOULD be
armour-piercing. After all, thats what the Germans did in 1943. And I'm sure that anything they
did back in WWII could easily be done today after some 60 years of research and development.

Civ3 is a game that is supposed to reflect human technology over the past 6000 years. The fact is
that ALL battleships, like sail warships and paddle steamers, were extinct by the 1950's and
replaced by modern guided missile warships. The game should show this.

Have a happy New Year! I know I will.

 

[s3d]

Well this exponential increase was done already in Moraelin exponential mod. I've played it and liked it. Science really more important ( as it should be), but some units (like cavalry, sworsman) were adjasted to eveoid discrepancies like mentioned. For example expirienced cavalry hold it's own against infantry, battlship sink AEGIS etc. I based my SpecOps mod om this Moraelin mod.

 

[Optimizer]

Increasing the differences between units is a good idea, as long as the gaps do not get too big; that would make techs like Nationalism and Replaceable Parts (or whatever techs that give you new units) too decisive. You could create new units between the existing ones. A few suggestions:

Bayonet Musketeers - come with Military Tradition, stats between Musketeers and Riflemen
Heavy Cavalry - come with Steel, stats between Cavalry and Tank
Bombard - come with Industrialization, stats between Cannon and Artillery

 

[Agent Roo]

lets see, a 16" gun fire a 1ton shell, thats approx. 2000lb. The Tomahawk Cruise Missile (Conventional warhead) has only 1000lb explosive power. Tomahawk range is over 200 miles, further than a battleship or battle cruiser; however, most missiles will not do much to a battleship - as previously stated, they need AP or Nuke warheads. Finally, the Iowa Battlecruisers carried 9*16" guns which can be reloaded faster than the 6 or so tomahawks and 8 or so harpoons carried on a AEGIS. Finally, an AEGIS is the same size and displacement as a battlecruiser - without the armour or ammunition. makes you think, doesn't it?

i agree that the multipliers should be 1/2/3/4 for the ages - a late previous age unit should be able to handle an early current age unit reasonably well, but not stupid things such as Hoplites massacring Modern Armour units.

just my view

ps - almost forgot - the Iowas were only recommissioned for shore bombardment purposes - Under Siege being to the contrary

 

[Ungooo]

After actually testing it out, the useless end of age unit become too much of a problem...... I changed it to 1/2/3/4, it's more balanced this way...... haven't test it out yet....

With 1/2/3/4, aegis will not be a better attack/defend unit than battleship. After some thought, I decided that bb having a better attack and defend than cruiser is a better idea. Although bb has a greater a/d value, there are things it couldn't do but the cruiser would be able to, as what the game intended....

There's one problem I'm afraid that 1/2/3/4 will create... it might played too much like the original game.....

Oh well, I'll give it a try. Thanks everyone for the input.

p.s. about the mod created by moraelin, I will definitely try it out.

I didn't want to fool around too much with the a/d value other than multiply them, I'm just a casual gamer trying to fix something I don't like

Dave

 

[Kryten]

To answer Agent Roo...

I can see your point (it's been years since I played Harpoon!). However, I've said it
before and I'll say it again...if battleships are so good then why did EVERY nation in
the world get rid of their battleships as fast as they could after WWII?

The main theme of Ungoo's thread is to make combat between obsolete and more
advanced units a bit more realistic. Well, if its unrealistic to have longbows knocking-
out tanks, then its also unrealistic to have battleships floating about in the 21st
century when in reality ALL the navies of the world gave up using them in the 1950's.
You wouldn't expect hydrogen filled Zepplins to still being built in the year 2000.
And nor should battleships. Both types of weapons are now extinct.
(Unless you think that we civ3 players know something that all the modern naval
strategists don't know...)

As for the increasing combat factors....hmmm....I've been thinking. Shouldn't the Acient
and Medieval units all stay at x1? After all, the very best Middle Age unit (the Knight)
used the same sort of hand weapons as the Romans/Greeks (swords/spears/lances).
The main difference was the amount of plate armour the Knights wore. But this is
already factored into the game. Thus you have Alexander the Great's Companion
cavalry (armed with lances and swords) with 2 attack and 1 defence, and
a Medieval Knight (also with lances and swords, but better armour) with
4 attack and 3 defence. This seems ok to me.

So here is my suggestion:-

x1 The Melee Period (all Ancient units plus Knights, Pikemen, Longbows).
x2 The Gunpowder Period (Musketmen, Riflemen, Cavalry, Cannons).
x3 The Machinegun Period (Infantry, Marines, Paratroops, Artillery, Tanks).
x4 The Missile and Computer Period (Modern Amour, Mech Inf, Radar Artillery).

Naval and air unis to be added as you think best.

What do ya think?

 

[Vger]

Hi,

Well, the problem is that BBs are NOT obsolete in relation to other ships, but only to aircraft. Except for subs, BBs would kick booty against any current naval vessel, if they could get in range.

Now, as for why a cruise missile wouldn't do much to a BB when a bomb does, that's because the bombs used on BBs were made to pierce their thick armor. Even at that, the most reliable method to sink a BB was with torpedoes.

Now, you want to sink a BB with today's weapons, take a flight of FA-18's and load them up with those 2,000lb, penetrator bunker buster iron bombs and the BB would certainly sink after enough hits. And, since the FA-18s would have to fly rather close to drop their loads, probably some of them wouldn't make it back.

So, planes and subs should be able to sink a BB with little to modertate effort. An AEGIS shouldn't be able to. Also, the BB would win hands down at shore bombardment, within their range. Firing 2700lb shells (Iowa class) tends to make things go away.

From what I've read, the major reason our last 2 BBs were mothballed was because of the cost to man them, NOT that they had become ineffective. Also, they had become specialty ships, only used for shore bombardment, which aircraft can perform as well.

While I'm in this debate, notice that the USSR built several nuke battlecruisers, which use missiles as their main offensive armament.

Unlike the other obsolecent technologies that have been mentioned, such as dirigibles, which became ineffective, the BBs were replaced because other technologies were more effective or flexible. A BB could still do her job today, just not as well as aircraft. In a way, the real replacement of the battleship is an SSN.

 

[Kryten]

Hello Vger.

I've quite enjoyed this little discussion. You, along with Agent Roo & majwalrus, have
made some good points. Some very good points. In fact, too bleedin' good!
I can see that I'm losing this particular debate. I think I may have to concede (damn it,
I can't find a smiley face with a white flag!).

One last thing though:-

--- Should we as Civ players be allowed to build battleships all the way up to the year
2050 AD when, IN REALITY, every nation on Earth stopped using them in the 1950's?
In other words, shouldn't Civ3 be historicaly accurate? ---

(..."Kryten you old smeg-head. I thought you'd already admitted that you've lost
the argument!"...)

If anyone out there wants to join in (hopefully on my side!), then please do so. I need the help!

 

[GenPatton]

The US used the Battleship New Jersey in the Persian Gulf War. It was retrofitted with tomahawk cruise missle launchers. Plus the guns were used in conjunction with unmanned plans which spotted the shots. The main guns of a battleship can fire a distance of 25 miles. The shell of a battleship gun is much less costly then a 1.5 million dollar cruise missle. However the cost of operating a battleship is much higher than a crusier and requires much more man power, for those reasons the battleship was no longer used. It is true the plane from aircraft carrier ended the traditional role of ship to ship battleship fights, but the battleship is still one of the most powerful land bombarding weapons ever created.

 

[s3d]

Originally posted by Kryten
To answer Agent Roo...



As for the increasing combat factors....hmmm....I've been thinking. Shouldn't the Acient
and Medieval units all stay at x1? After all, the very best Middle Age unit (the Knight)
used the same sort of hand weapons as the Romans/Greeks (swords/spears/lances).
The main difference was the amount of plate armour the Knights wore. But this is
already factored into the game. .

What do ya think?

Absolutely wrong ! I'm not sure how it in english(not my native language) but all post X century horsemans had braces (the thing hanging from saddle you to put foot into, I forget english word). It was a huge force multiplyer. Even V centery cavalry didnt have them and therefore had no chance agains knights. Before horseman had to hold spear over head, or he would fall from horse from impact. He could not rotathe in saddle, could not deliver powerful stroke by sword. All ancient hevy cavalry were in fact master of balance, trained from childhood, but even then they could wear only basic armor or they would fall from saddle in the battle. Also kights didn't wear plated armor until introduction of firearm. Mostly they were wearing chainmails. The stell was expensive.Their main advanatge were lances, then they were standing in braces the force of horse was included in impact. Also though steel was seel expensive in middle ages, it was great deal more expensive in ancient time. The Roman were able organize legions also because they had a lot of cheap steel. But they were the only ancient civilization with a lot of steel. They were the only ancient force on par with middle age armies. (Chinise also, but their middle ages begun about I-II centures)

 

[Kryten]

hello s3d,

Your English is very good, and the word you are looking for is 'stirrups'.
Yes, Medieval Knights had the stirrup, as well as upright padded saddles. But this
is already factored into the game.

Horsemen units = 2 attack, 1 defence
Knight units = 4 attack, 3 defence

As you can see, even though both units are using lances (or spears) & swords, the
Knight has already got twice the attack and three times the defence. Isn't this enough?

(I'm already losing one argument in this thread. I can't afford to lose another one!)

And to answer GenPatton:-
Yes, the battleship is one of the most powerful weapons ever built. BUT, if all the
great fleets of WWII were gone by the 1950's, and no new battleships have
been built since, should we be allowed to build them in Civ3? Either the game is
faulty on this point (because it does not follow what the history books tell us), OR,
the game is right and it's the real world that is wrong!
Which do you think is correct?

 

[s3d]

Originally posted by Kryten
hello s3d,

Your English is very good, and the word you are looking for is 'stirrups'.

Thanks

Originally posted by Kryten
Yes, Medieval Knights had the stirrup, as well as upright padded saddles. But this
is already factored into the game.

Horsemen units = 2 attack, 1 defence
Knight units = 4 attack, 3 defence

As you can see, even though both units are using lances (or spears) & swords, the
Knight has already got twice the attack and three times the defence. Isn't this enough?

(I'm already losing one argument in this thread. I can't afford to lose another one!)
[/B]

Well, score this thread as your victory , but nethertheless, it is factoring horseman vs knight, but not swordsman vs knight Swordsman with attack 3 and knight with attack 4 ? Knights force would smite any ancient army, with only exeption of fortified dig in legion, or chinise crossbow/pike infantry, trained to hold off sunnu nomads. Legioner is separate unit, so it in not factored in swordsman, and crossbow/pike infantry belong to middle ages in Civ3.

Originally posted by Kryten
And to answer GenPatton:-
Yes, the battleship is one of the most powerful weapons ever built. BUT, if all the
great fleets of WWII were gone by the 1950's, and no new battleships have
been built since, should we be allowed to build them in Civ3? Either the game is
faulty on this point (because it does not follow what the history books tell us), OR,
the game is right and it's the real world that is wrong!
Which do you think is correct? [/B]

Well, while no new battleships was built some Iova class battleships were rebuilt to cruise-missile carriers. They are of service now, but with growing importance of cruis missile I think US Navy wish them back. In most of mods, my including battleships could carry cruise misssiles if available.