1. We have added a Gift Upgrades feature that allows you to gift an account upgrade to another member, just in time for the holiday season. You can see the gift option when going to the Account Upgrades screen, or on any user profile screen.
    Dismiss Notice

Regarding Warships

Discussion in 'Civ3 - General Discussions' started by Arkaynnus, Feb 9, 2004.

  1. Arkaynnus

    Arkaynnus Chieftain

    Joined:
    Feb 8, 2004
    Messages:
    52
    Location:
    Ontario, Canada
    i have several suggestions for improvements to the existing warships.

    1) i find it strange that an Aircraft Carrier costs fewer production shields than other warships, like a Battleship or AEGIS Cruiser, especially when you consider that WWII wuz the end of the era of the battleship, and the aircraft carrier became the most deadly surface warship.

    so my suggestion would be for the devs to use the WWII-style "flat-top" carriers from the Conquests WWII scenario and make them available in the regular campaign, raise their production cost to at least the same as Cruiser, or perhaps a Battleship, and give them a 4 plane capacity. then make the current Aircraft Carrier the most expensive surface warship (perhaps 50-100% more expensive than a Battleship) and increase its plane capacity to 8. naturally, the Flat-top carrier would have lower Attack/Defence/Movement ratings than the modern Aircraft Carrier too.

    2) the Nuclear Sub should be the most expensive warship, period. an Aircraft Carrier is like a Greek Trireme compared to a Nuclear Sub. and a single Nuclear Sub carrying a Tactical Nuke is more powerful than any Aircraft Carrier fully loaded with bombers. so at the very least a Nuclear Sub should be equally expensive as the 8-plane Aircraft Carrier i proposed, but should probably be ~100% more expensive than that.

    3) it's a shame that there's only the WWII-style Submarine and the Tactical Nuke-carrying Nuclear Sub. i think there should be a Hunter-Killer Sub, with better A/D/M ratings than the both of the regular sub, and would specialize in, what else, hunting and killing opposing subs. considering that nuclear subs are faster than any surface warship, if an AEGIS Cruiser has an 8 movement rate, than a H/K Sub should have a ~10 movement rate. also, regardless if there's a new H/K Sub or not, Submarines should either upgrade into one of the advanced. also, the Nuclear Sub should have better A/D/M ratings than the regular Submarine.

    4) advanced warships should be able to carry Cruise Missiles. i think it should work as follows:

    Destroyer = 1 Cruise Missile (CM)
    Cruiser = 2 CMs
    Battleship = 3 CMs
    AEGIS Cruiser = 4 CMs
    Nuclear Submarine = 2* CMs

    * - Possibly the Nuclear Sub could carry either 2 CMs or only 1 Tactical Nuke.

    5) Transports should be able to carry Tactical Nukes, but they wouldn't be able to launch them. also, if advanced warships were given the ability to carry Cruise Missiles, than a Transport should be able to transfer the missiles it carries to those ships AT SEA, so they can be fired by the warship. however, Tactical Nukes could only be loaded aboard a Nuclear Sub in a city's port.

    6) perhaps add a Missile Frigate ship, which could be an upgrade to the standard Frigate. failing the ability to load Cruise Missiles onto all advanced warships, perhaps the proposed Missile Frigate could be loaded with CMs instead. or perhaps the Missile Frigate would simply attack with its own missiles, which would be roughly equal in attack power and range to a Cruise Missile. however, the Missile Frigate would only have the "view" range equal to an AEGIS Cruiser, so it would need a spotter to attack targets out of its visual range.

    7) regarding a submarines Sneak Attack ability, i think if there is a opposing submarine in the enemy's ship stack, the sub should have to defeat that sub first before it can sneak attack its target. for example, if you have 2 Subs and the enemy has a stack of 2 Battleships, a Carrier, and a Sub, if you want to destroy the Carrier, you have to defeat the enemy Sub first. basically you couldn't sneak attack the Carrier at all until the Sub wuz destroyed. so your first Sub would attack and destroy the enemy sub, thereby using up its attack that turn, and then your second Sub could sneak attack the Aircraft Carrier. this is far more realistic, because an attacking Sub couldn't get anywhere near an Aircraft Carrier while it's under escort by a defending Sub, therefore it should have to destroy it before it could attack the carrier.

    8) after researching the Tech that allows you to produce Marines, you should gain the ability for ANY military unit to attack directly from water, however they would incur a significant attack handicap, perhaps -50%, for doing this. perhaps only non-vehicle units could attack from water, like Infantry or TOW Infantry, NOT Tanks or Modern Armour, etc. also, regardless if non-Marine units can attack from the water, a Worker should not be able to prevent a non-Marine unit from moving onto the land square it occupies, thereby preventing players from using Workers as blockades from water attacks.

    9) i've come up with a NEW IDEA, which is a Repair Ship. we all know that the defender always is at an advantage, but this is never more true than in naval warfare. the defender can use their ports for shelter and repair, whereas the attacking ships are totally exposed and incapable of self-repair. i propose a Repair Ship, or some type of mobile ship repair facility, which would enable you to repair your ships away from your city ports. it would be similar to the Sub Pens used in WWII by both sides to refuel and repair submarines and U-boats. it would be similar to an oil rig, a slow-moving facility, perhaps with a maximum movement rate of 2, and would have no attack or defence abilities, just like an artillery unit -- and therefore could be captured by the enemy.
     
  2. sealman

    sealman Hater of Babylonians

    Joined:
    Jan 23, 2002
    Messages:
    3,326
    Location:
    Manassas, VA
    I like your suggestions regarding submarine warefare with the exception of #7. In the situation you describe, once that defending sub is destroyed, the entire fleet will know for a fact that there is an enemy sub around and will step up anti-sub operations to the point that an attack on teh carrier would be suicide.

    In fact, a sub should be able to get a shot at the carrier with defending subs in the area. What would work better here would be if the carrier, or which ever is the targeted ship, defense numbers are increased with each friendly sub or AGEIS in the vicinity.
     
  3. IglooDude

    IglooDude Enforcing Rule 34 Retired Moderator Supporter

    Joined:
    Oct 2, 2003
    Messages:
    22,223
    Location:
    Igloo, New Hampshire
    1) (allow cheaper WW2 carriers and better modern carriers) - good idea, I like it.

    2) (nuclear sub twice as expensive as modern carrier) - From the 1998 US budget: one carrier costs $6.5 billion (unsure if that includes the air wing, but I doubt it) and one nuclear submarine costs $2.2 billion.

    3) (high speed attack subs) - Nuclear subs may be faster than any surface warship, but to go that fast they sacrifice their primary defense: stealth. A sub going at flank speed can be sunk by an antisubmarine helo relatively easily.

    4) (CMs being carried by ships) - Agreed.

    5) (TacNuke specifics) - Agreed, except that cargo aircraft (in real life) can transport tactical nukes as well.

    6) (Missile Frigate) - The US Navy refers to your Missile Frigate concept as an Arsenal Ship. Makes sense to me.

    7) (Escort sub prevents stealth attack) - Tough concept to implement programmatically I think, I'd just stick with subs needing to do distant escort of surface ship task forces.

    8) (Marine abilities to ground units) Amphibious attack is a fairly specialized skill that in real life only Marine forces possess, so I disagree about giving all units the ability, but I agree that workers should not block ANY military unit from offloading from a transport.
     
  4. Arkaynnus

    Arkaynnus Chieftain

    Joined:
    Feb 8, 2004
    Messages:
    52
    Location:
    Ontario, Canada
    IRL carriers are escorted by carrier groups, with warships, supply ships, and subs, which provide a blanket of protection from every possible threat: surface, air, and underwater. an enemy sub would have to get within 10,000 yards to attack the carrier, and at that range it would be detected by a sub or destroyer, probably both. the defending sub should easily be able to intercept the enemy sub before it can fire on the carrier, or whatever the sub's target is.

    in the situation i described, after the sub first attacked, successful or not, they would be on alert anyway.

    to accurately reflect real-life combat, when a sub sneak attacks, a sub-detecting enemy ship shouldn't get a first-shot bombardment, the sub should be able to attack its intended target, and if it's successful, THEN the escort ships should be able to bombard it as it escapes. after all, the whole idea of the sneak attack is to attack by surprise, so how are the escort ships surprised if they are able to bombard it first?
     
  5. Arkaynnus

    Arkaynnus Chieftain

    Joined:
    Feb 8, 2004
    Messages:
    52
    Location:
    Ontario, Canada
    given a nuclear sub's stealth properties and advanced computer systems, i find it hard to believe a state-of-the-art Sea Wolf-class Hunter/Killer Nuclear Submarine is less expensive than a modern Aircraft Carrier. if it is, i suspect that the AC's increased cost reflects the crew's wages or something (AC = ~5000 crew, Nuke Sub = ~100 crew), 'cuz i just can't fathom how an aircraft carrier could cost more to build than a nuclear submarine.
    i suppose you're right that a sub would reduce speed when it goes "ultra quiet," which would decrease it's average speed, which is probably what is reflected by its movement rate.
    i understand that, but i think it's fair to force players to incur the danger of ferrying Tactical Nukes across the water in Transports rather than just airlifting them. if nukes were allowed to be airlifted, than artillery and Armies would have to be also. so it's simpler just to not open that can of worms.
     
  6. sealman

    sealman Hater of Babylonians

    Joined:
    Jan 23, 2002
    Messages:
    3,326
    Location:
    Manassas, VA
    According to the Navy's Fact Sheet on the Nimitz Class Carrier, the cost per ship is $4.5 billion.

    According to the Navy's Fact Sheet, the Seawolf class submarine costs about $2.1 billion.
     
  7. lbhhh

    lbhhh King

    Joined:
    Jun 17, 2003
    Messages:
    923
    Location:
    Montreal, QC
    In Conquests, any unit can land and capture a worker on the coast, so worker can no longer be used to safeguard coastlines, which is IMO a good improvement.
     
  8. Evie

    Evie Pronounced like Eevee

    Joined:
    Jan 5, 2002
    Messages:
    9,018
    Gender:
    Female
    Location:
    Ottawa, Ontario
    IMHO Destroyers should have a "1 in X" chance to intercept a Sub sneak attack - and of course the more destroyers you have, the higher the chance.

    Arkaynnus - escorts do not only COUNTER-attack a sneak-attack by a sub, they also try to actively detect it and counter it before it can happens, and given teh map scale in Civ, having to do so by deploying your destroyer in a eight-square ring about your carrier is just plain ridiculous - a battlefleet deployed like that in a huge civ game covers more ground than the whole of Ireland!

    So, instead, sneak attack, which are automatically successful if no anti-submarine patrol are active, have less and less chance of being launched succesfully for the more ASW units present on the same square as the sneak attack target (destroyers, planes, etc), which makes a lot more sense - and seriously increase the value of destroyers as they are the units that keep your big ships alive when submarines come about.

    (Note : if a submarine attempts to attack a carrier and the sneak attack fails, the resulting battle is done with the submarine *defending* and one of the destroyer (or other convenient unit present) *attacking*, and using the matching stats.
     
  9. Bluemofia

    Bluemofia F=ma

    Joined:
    Dec 8, 2003
    Messages:
    7,976
    Location:
    Dimension called Elsewhere
    also, in the wwii era, aircraft carriers were just battleships with a big wooden deck added on it
     
  10. Evie

    Evie Pronounced like Eevee

    Joined:
    Jan 5, 2002
    Messages:
    9,018
    Gender:
    Female
    Location:
    Ottawa, Ontario
    Whoa, whoa! That's a statement that hovers somewhere between not quite true and utterly false.

    A *handful* of active carriers in WW II were conversion from pre-existing capital warships, most noticeably the american Lexington and Saratoga (converted from battlecruisers, not battleships) and the Japanesse Akagi and Kaga (converted one from a battleship and the other from a battlecruiser), and later the Shinano (largest carrier of the war, converted from the keel of the third Yamato battleship). The conversion was also far more complex and complete than just slapping a wooden deck on a standard warship.

    However the vast majority of capital carriers used (Japanesse Shokaku, Zuikaku, Hiryu, Soryu ; American Enterprise, Yorktown, Hornet, Wasp and later Essex-Class) were designed and built as carriers from the start.

    It is true however that many *escort* carriers used to cover up for lack of bigger ships and to hunt for subs (ie, not the big carriers that fought the great pacific battles) were converted from smaller warships (ie, cruisers) and cargo vessels.
     
  11. GeneralMeng

    GeneralMeng Warlord

    Joined:
    Jun 24, 2003
    Messages:
    147
    Location:
    surrey Canada BC
    Battleship = 3 CMs
    I disagree with that, i think battle should mainly relie on its guns, so it should only carrier on missile
     
  12. Sir Bugsy

    Sir Bugsy Civ.D.

    Joined:
    Jun 20, 2003
    Messages:
    7,834
    Location:
    Berkshires
    One of the reasons that modern aircraft carriers cost so much is their size. Think about how much steel goes into a vessel that is 250 feet from keel to masthead and 1100 feet from stem to stern. A Nimitz class carrier, with a full load is around 100,000 metric tons :eek: We're talking a serious amount of cash to assemble something that large.

    One of the things that the game doesn't recognize is that while a carrier task force is one of the most powerful military forces the world has ever known. A carrier all by itself is very vulnerable. Take away the air wing, escort ships and submarines and the only defense a Nimitz class has is the gatling gun for point defense and no offensive capabilty at all.

    The four Iowa class battleships had cruise missles when they were recommissioned during the 1980's.
     
  13. royfurr

    royfurr "Klotzen, nicht Kleckern"

    Joined:
    Nov 21, 2001
    Messages:
    368
    Location:
    USA
    Some addl. comments on reasons for CV's costing more than even SSN (H/K nuke boats) or SSBN (boomers- nuclear missle subs NOT designed for H/K action):

    The Los Angeles class SSN's mass some 6,927 tons and the larger Seawolf Class 9,300. These ships have crews of 130-140 or so. Ohio Class vessels (SSBN's) are about twice the size but with only slighltly larger crew complements (~160). Compare to the Nimitiz class CV's at 101,000 to 104,000 tons and a crew size of 3000 sailors and 2900 more in the airwing.

    The CV's are MASSIVELY larger then the subs.

    Data source: http://www.hazegray.org/worldnav/
     
  14. Arkaynnus

    Arkaynnus Chieftain

    Joined:
    Feb 8, 2004
    Messages:
    52
    Location:
    Ontario, Canada
    so perhaps carriers are more expensive than nuke subs, but at the very least the Aircraft Carrier should be the most expensive warship in the game. offhand, i can't remember precisely how many prod. shields an AC costs, but 20+ pop city can usually build one in 2-3 turns, whereas an AEGIS Cruiser can be built in 3-4 turns. so i think that if the AC's plane capacity wuz doubled to 8, it's prod. shield cost should be increased to +50-100% the cost of an AEGIS Cruiser. granted, an AC has very limited attack power on it's own and is terribly vulnerable to attack, but it's ability to project air power into enemy territory as well as provide air superiority coverage for your warships is vital.

    typically, i load a Carrier with 2 fighters and 2 bombers; the fighters are dedicated to air superiority and bombers, obviously, bomb. the problem is that 2 bombers is hardly a threat -- the AI will routinely throw all its bombers at you to attack a single unit stack, which if often 10+ bombers. 2 bombers, or even 4 if you max out the carrier, is barely sufficient to kill a single unit -- and if you fail to kill them and they're in a city, they'll just heal by the next round. so i definately think a carrier's plane capacity should be doubled to 8.
     
  15. superpelon

    superpelon DemoGame Pelon

    Joined:
    Feb 8, 2004
    Messages:
    164
    Location:
    Fanatikku
    If an Aegis can carry CM, shouldnt you add tactical nukes to its pay load?? Maybe the carrier should be able to carry them too, since carrier aircraft ARE able to carry out nuclear strikes...

    But i DEFINITLY agree that ships should carry CM.
     
  16. Arkaynnus

    Arkaynnus Chieftain

    Joined:
    Feb 8, 2004
    Messages:
    52
    Location:
    Ontario, Canada
    the submarine launched nuclear missiles carried by, well, submarines, are much larger than a cruise missile and they carry MIRVS, which means each missile is loaded with multiple nuclear warheads that blanket a wide area. the nuclear missiles carried by warships are merely nuclear tipped cruise missiles and only have a single nuclear warhead. sure they're powerful, but not nearly as much as a tactical nuke.

    perhaps the devs could introduce a new nuke, the "Nuclear Cruise Missile." it would be like a nuke but it would only affect a single square, basically killing everything in that square but not destroying everything in the adjacent squares.

    the Nuclear Cruise Missile would be a great new weapon, and if warships gain the ability to carry cruise missiles, then they should be able to carry the NCM too -- but not the Tactical Nuke, because realistically only subs or special land-based mobile missile launchers could carry those.

    also, it would be cool if the Tactical Nuke had a special "launch vehicle" while on land, similar to the Mobile SAM (but only carries the one missile), but if you load it on a Nuke Sub, it loses the vehicle and is just a missile. same thing with the Cruise Missile -- just give it a launcher vehicle so it's not just a floating missile. it's not a big deal, but it would be cool to see and more realistic.
     
  17. Evie

    Evie Pronounced like Eevee

    Joined:
    Jan 5, 2002
    Messages:
    9,018
    Gender:
    Female
    Location:
    Ottawa, Ontario
    Personally, I would make the carrier completely different than it is now. Rather than being able to carry air units (which often represent their land-based counterpart anyway), I would seriously consider giving the carriers a FLR (Fricking long range) bombardment capacity that can hit for a lot, and can hit as many time as the carrier has move points - ie, blitzing carriers - for a heavy punch.

    I think carriers would be a lot more used (and a lot more deserving of their heavy price tag) if they were handled that way.

    Just a random idea, which boils down to "have the planes come with the carriers", essentially. Not very realistic, but make the carrier unit a whole lot more attractive - it goes from a transport unit which gives extra range to some OTHER units *if* you build then to a unit more worthy of the "Queen of the seas" title which has belonged to it for the past half-century.

    Also IF possible give the ability to launch recon missions to the carrier.

    Admitedly this has its weaknesses (first and foremost, the whole "can't represent less trained pilots/loss of planes" thing), but I think that to make carriers more deserving of their price tag, it's the way to go.
     
  18. lbhhh

    lbhhh King

    Joined:
    Jun 17, 2003
    Messages:
    923
    Location:
    Montreal, QC
    I like the Nuclear Cruise Missile idea. It could get the job done without destroying everything around the target.
     
  19. Arkaynnus

    Arkaynnus Chieftain

    Joined:
    Feb 8, 2004
    Messages:
    52
    Location:
    Ontario, Canada
    the problem with this is that it would negate a city or unit's anti-air defences. we wouldn't get to see a superiority fighter intercept a bomber or a SAM missile destroy a fighter.

    a carrier's offensive power comes from its warplanes, not the carrier's own weapons. also, a carrier being able to attack for each of its 8 movement rate is actually worse than it is now, 'cuz it would mean if a character arrived off the enemy's coast and used up all its movement points to get there, it couldn't attack at all that turn. but as it works now, the carrier could reach it's destination and be free to scramble its fighters and bombers in the same turn. in that respect, Aircraft Carriers should be left the way they are in terms of how they attack and move.

    like i said, just double a modern AC's plane capacity and make them more expensive to produce and they'll be much more useful and realistic.
     
  20. Evie

    Evie Pronounced like Eevee

    Joined:
    Jan 5, 2002
    Messages:
    9,018
    Gender:
    Female
    Location:
    Ottawa, Ontario
    Except that with the price tag carriers and the planes to fill up in them have I just never bother with carriers - it's justually easier to just get a landbase from which to operate and rebase there. If I want to build warships, I build battleships - they tend to be far more useful for the invasion anyway by clearing up all on their self the coastal defenses, and once I have taken even one coastal cities I can just airlift in the airforce and be done with it.
     

Share This Page