Regarding Warships

[Evie]

That could be useable too, but then you'd have to make them carriable aboard just about every warship. Probably give the ASW helo ability to the standard transport helo to make them *generally* useful.

 

[a4phantom]

That would probably work for gameplay (assumption because I never use transport choppers and my enemies don't get to use subs) although it might annoy some of the accuracy fiends - I don't know what we're using for ASW choppers these days but I doubt it's the Black Hawk!

Another option would be to designate a certain fast and cheap ship for them (Destroyers or a new ship) that could dart around the carrier group launching the ASW helo on a sweep that would cover a certain radius and alert you to the sub's presence and make a bombard attack on it. You would need quite a few of these and have to be constantly vigilant, which would mirror reality, and since nuke subs are fast they would still have a dangerous chance.

 

[Arkaynnus]

i like the idea of an anti-sub helicopter (ASH) that could be carried aboard ANY surface ship. after all, IRL all large warships have helo pads, and the ASH is a modern Destroyer's best weapon against subs.

if you had a ship equipped with an ASH it would bombard any sub once it got in range of your ship's "sonar" -- it wouldn't wait until the sub tried to sneak attack your ships.

unfortunately, a new unit isn't something that can be added in a patch. that's why i wish the devs could simply modify the warships' stats to make naval warfare more fair, as opposed to simply to having surface ships being sitting ducks for enemy bombers and subs.

 

[IglooDame]

Originally posted by a4phantom
That would probably work for gameplay (assumption because I never use transport choppers and my enemies don't get to use subs) although it might annoy some of the accuracy fiends - I don't know what we're using for ASW choppers these days but I doubt it's the Black Hawk!

Another option would be to designate a certain fast and cheap ship for them (Destroyers or a new ship) that could dart around the carrier group launching the ASW helo on a sweep that would cover a certain radius and alert you to the sub's presence and make a bombard attack on it. You would need quite a few of these and have to be constantly vigilant, which would mirror reality, and since nuke subs are fast they would still have a dangerous chance.

Actually the latest ASW helo is a modified Blackhawk, called the Seahawk, SH-60.

I think if you add ASW helos to the game it becomes too detailed from a tactical perspective. Most ASW-mission ships these days carry one or even two helos, and the game reflects this simply by having destroyers and cruisers able to detect submarines.

 

[IglooDame]

The simplest and IMHO best modification to make to carriers (assuming you have WW2 and supercarrier versions) is that WW2 carriers can only carry fighters, and supercarriers can only carry fighters and jets.

 

[Warspite2]

Originally posted by Arkaynnus
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.

I like #1, #3, definitely #4, #5, #6 would really be cool, and #9 is very good.

One thing about warships, I think battleships should become obsolete during the modern age. Being replaced by AEGIS cruisers. Real world battleships are no longer in use and cruisers now take their place. I think AEGIS cruisers should become available earlier as well, in fact when jets are available. Then they should have the ability to carry cruise missiles.

Also I think a strike fighter should come between a bomber and stealth bomber. It should have more bombardment then a bomber, longer range, and ability to intercept and recon. These would make bombers obsolete. Kind of like a US F-18 Hornet or an A-10 Thunderbolt.

Alot of this can be changed in the editor. Has anyone tried changing this stuff in the editor? Arkaynnus, I know there were many who changed the carrier capacity and some other things in the editor. You can surely add a WW2 carrier and modern carrier just as you mention. I say go for it and see how it works out. I was messing around in the editor a while back and had a pretty good modern era mod going. I will have to try and finish it.

At last I kind of like how naval and air works in CIV3, I always did. They have even improved many things much further in C3C. I never had problems wreaking havoc with carriers. Anyone ever read that thread a long time ago over at Apolyton were someone mentioned they had destroyed an entire small nation with only 4 carriers? I know this was in vanilla CIV3 and it was a long time ago. Anyway I do this stuff all the time with the default carriers. Simply put Aircraft Carriers are powerful and kick butt period.

Someone mentioned just take a coastal city and transport your aircraft there. Problem is, what if you do take it and the AI takes it back? There goes all of your aircraft. Especially if its a large nation with a big army. If you use a few carriers offshore, you can bombard safely, launching multiply sorties every turn. Destroy the inland roads/rails. Then the reinforcements can't come through which will make taking the coastal city much easier.

 

[Evie]

I'm not particularly worried about that kind of retaliation. If you plan your invasion well (instead of piece-meal carriers-backed attacks), you just plain don't need carriers, not in their present form at least. By the time I take a town like that I'll have a fleet of fully loaded transports of MAs and MIs coming in to hold the town after I take it, so my airplanes would be as safe if not safer this way than any other way - for example they wouldn't have a big target sign fo any stray sub, which they have when on a carrier. I'd much rather trust my plane's safety to a stalk of 30, 40+ Mech Infantries (which is usually the minimum I have to defend my bridgehead during the early turns an invasion against a modern enemy) than to a carrier which any submarine can sink with barely any effort.

As for "liking naval like it is", the way naval combat is currently set makes it an unimportant sideshow - you don't need it. Which is complete bull in regard to history.

Regarding leveling a small nation with carriers...that's four carriers *AND* the sixteen (costly) bombers built for them, which represent twenty units.

With twenty modern armors and arty (combined in any number), I could probably level a small nation pretty easily too. And one may note, he would have leveled the small nation faster if he had built 20 bombers operating from a land base instead of the four carriers which provided nothing except a base of operation. Carriers are essentialy entirely worthless the second you have a land base, and even when you don't, it's generally equally easy to just *take* a land base than to sit around and waste your build points on more carriers than you need to provide air cover to your fleet.

Now, I see the following as missions that could be added at sea (in Civ IV) to make things far more interesting.

1)Blockade. A unit on "blockade" order (only available for frigates, ironclads, subs (and nuke subs), cruisers, aegis cruisers and battleships at sea, and for attack planes in the air) instantly cause any square around it on the map to become part of your territory as long as the unit is on blockade duty (city square being, of course, exempted from this effect). The unit essentialy become a 0-culture city, except that the unit's "cultural influence" wins out against any other cultural influence for determining who control the territory. Of course, if any units move in the blockade zone you can ask them to leave, and just as well, any sea trade through the blockaded area becomes impossible (if you want it to be so). (Note : the cultural influence from a blockade CANNOT extend to a land square).

Attack planes operating from carriers would do the same, except they would count as 10-culture city to determine their radius of control. Carriers suddenly look a whole lot yummier if they have the ability to exert this kind of influence.

This would virtually force players to make navies to keep their ressoures trade flowing if they have any (except on pangea maps, of course), which would make naval warfare a lot more important - you need warships for more than escorting your troop transports and bombarding a few targets at that point.

 

[a4phantom]

I like the blockade idea, I was trying to think of a feasible way to do that.

 

[Arkaynnus]

i've been tinkering around the units using CivEdit, which has allowed me to more or less create or modify the sea units like i've wanted to.

basically what i did wuz take the Destroyer, Battleship, and Carrier and create "Modern" variants of them all. the main difference wuz that they had increased Anti-Air Defence, so they weren't so vulnerable against conventional Bombers.

i created my "Super Carrier" with an 8 plane capacity, as well as increased its Defence, so it wasn't so vulnerable to sub stealth attacks. i tried to figure out how i could load Cruise Missiles onto the Modern Battleship, but i figured it would be easier just to modify the Battleship's bombard attack to be equivalent in range and power of a Cruise Missile, which simplified matters.

i added a Hunter/Killer Sub, which is faster and more powerful than the Nuke Sub. i'm working on balancing it though, 'cuz right now at 12/8/8 it can stealth attack and sink Carriers and Transports with no problems -- i want to make it harder, so i might reduce it to 10/6/8. i also modified what ships all the subs could stealth attack, so they can only stealth attack ships that lack sub detecting abilities. it's not a huge change 'cuz they still can target Carriers and Transports, but they can't Stealth Attack Nuke Subs anymore.

i also a Missile Frigate as well as a Nuclear Cruise Missile. i'm having difficulty getting the NCM to work correctly. i want to be able to load at least 2 NCMs onto a Missile Frigate, but i don't want the MF to be able to load Tact Nukes. also, i'm trying to figure out how to enable the NCM to nuke a single square without leaving collateral damage in the adjacent squares.

to balance the threat of bombers, i've changed it so Bombers and Stealth Bombers can no longer be loaded aboard Carriers. i've also added a Torpedo Bomber and Naval Bomber. the NB is basically a combination of a Fighter and Bomber -- it has shorter range and a weaker bomb attack than the standard Bomber, but more than the Fighter, and can be loaded on carriers. i'm having difficulty with the Torpedo Bomber, 'cuz i want it to have a devastating attack against ships, but it cannot attack land targets at all. i also tried adding an Anti-Sub Helicopter; i gave it sub detecting ability and a decent bombardment power, but it has the same problem that it can attack land targets but it shouldn't be able to. also, i've tried to allow my Modern Destroyers and Modern Battleships carry a single helicopter, unfortunately, they can carry ANY aircraft, which is wrong.

although the game editor is simple enough to use, it just doesn't allow you to do certain things -- or at least i haven't figured out how to do them yet.

 

[Warspite2]

Originally posted by Oda Nobunaga
I'm not particularly worried about that kind of retaliation. If you plan your invasion well (instead of piece-meal carriers-backed attacks), you just plain don't need carriers, not in their present form at least. By the time I take a town like that I'll have a fleet of fully loaded transports of MAs and MIs coming in to hold the town after I take it, so my airplanes would be as safe if not safer this way than any other way - for example they wouldn't have a big target sign fo any stray sub, which they have when on a carrier. I'd much rather trust my plane's safety to a stalk of 30, 40+ Mech Infantries (which is usually the minimum I have to defend my bridgehead during the early turns an invasion against a modern enemy) than to a carrier which any submarine can sink with barely any effort.

As for "liking naval like it is", the way naval combat is currently set makes it an unimportant sideshow - you don't need it. Which is complete bull in regard to history.

Regarding leveling a small nation with carriers...that's four carriers *AND* the sixteen (costly) bombers built for them, which represent twenty units.

With twenty modern armors and arty (combined in any number), I could probably level a small nation pretty easily too. And one may note, he would have leveled the small nation faster if he had built 20 bombers operating from a land base instead of the four carriers which provided nothing except a base of operation. Carriers are essentialy entirely worthless the second you have a land base, and even when you don't, it's generally equally easy to just *take* a land base than to sit around and waste your build points on more carriers than you need to provide air cover to your fleet.

Now, I see the following as missions that could be added at sea (in Civ IV) to make things far more interesting.

1)Blockade. A unit on "blockade" order (only available for frigates, ironclads, subs (and nuke subs), cruisers, aegis cruisers and battleships at sea, and for attack planes in the air) instantly cause any square around it on the map to become part of your territory as long as the unit is on blockade duty (city square being, of course, exempted from this effect). The unit essentialy become a 0-culture city, except that the unit's "cultural influence" wins out against any other cultural influence for determining who control the territory. Of course, if any units move in the blockade zone you can ask them to leave, and just as well, any sea trade through the blockaded area becomes impossible (if you want it to be so). (Note : the cultural influence from a blockade CANNOT extend to a land square).

Attack planes operating from carriers would do the same, except they would count as 10-culture city to determine their radius of control. Carriers suddenly look a whole lot yummier if they have the ability to exert this kind of influence.

This would virtually force players to make navies to keep their ressoures trade flowing if they have any (except on pangea maps, of course), which would make naval warfare a lot more important - you need warships for more than escorting your troop transports and bombarding a few targets at that point.

Just out of curiosity, what level have you been playing C3C at and what map settings? I think carriers rule and I have done many things with them that MA and MI could never do, this was before lethal bombardment too. Say if you are playing one of the larger maps with continents seperated by a large ocean. You want to attack an enemy across this ocean. When you take over a coastal city, it is too far to just rebase all of your planes. How else could you do it without carriers?

A carrier with 4 aircraft is alot more versatile and useful then 5 MAs for nearly the same price. Planes have always been more versatile then land units. They can attack ground, air, and sea targets and can attack from very far range. Carriers increase this range by providing a mobile airfield. Think about this... four planes on a carrier has more range then four planes in a city period. You can move the carrier then attack, instantly adding to the aircrafts range.

There are many times when trying an amphibious invasion on a super power with a massive ground army at higher difficulty levels is suicide. On the other hand, you maybe able to bomb them to hell and back at a strategic location with 20 or more bombers for 4 turns. Then send in your ground army and it will be 10x easier to take what you want. You will be able to get more then one city then in a single turn.

Another thing, if you invade a coastal city on the other side of a large continent, your newly positioned airforce will be out of range to attack the other side of the continent. With carriers, this is not a problem, simple move them.

So I think carriers rule. These are just a few reasons I think this. Its like I want air power now, not wait until I capture a city. I want to use it before I take a city. Its like GIVE ME CARRIERS!

 

[Warspite2]

Originally posted by Arkaynnus
i've been tinkering around the units using CivEdit, which has allowed me to more or less create or modify the sea units like i've wanted to.

basically what i did wuz take the Destroyer, Battleship, and Carrier and create "Modern" variants of them all. the main difference wuz that they had increased Anti-Air Defence, so they weren't so vulnerable against conventional Bombers.

i created my "Super Carrier" with an 8 plane capacity, as well as increased its Defence, so it wasn't so vulnerable to sub stealth attacks. i tried to figure out how i could load Cruise Missiles onto the Modern Battleship, but i figured it would be easier just to modify the Battleship's bombard attack to be equivalent in range and power of a Cruise Missile, which simplified matters.

i added a Hunter/Killer Sub, which is faster and more powerful than the Nuke Sub. i'm working on balancing it though, 'cuz right now at 12/8/8 it can stealth attack and sink Carriers and Transports with no problems -- i want to make it harder, so i might reduce it to 10/6/8. i also modified what ships all the subs could stealth attack, so they can only stealth attack ships that lack sub detecting abilities. it's not a huge change 'cuz they still can target Carriers and Transports, but they can't Stealth Attack Nuke Subs anymore.

i also a Missile Frigate as well as a Nuclear Cruise Missile. i'm having difficulty getting the NCM to work correctly. i want to be able to load at least 2 NCMs onto a Missile Frigate, but i don't want the MF to be able to load Tact Nukes. also, i'm trying to figure out how to enable the NCM to nuke a single square without leaving collateral damage in the adjacent squares.

to balance the threat of bombers, i've changed it so Bombers and Stealth Bombers can no longer be loaded aboard Carriers. i've also added a Torpedo Bomber and Naval Bomber. the NB is basically a combination of a Fighter and Bomber -- it has shorter range and a weaker bomb attack than the standard Bomber, but more than the Fighter, and can be loaded on carriers. i'm having difficulty with the Torpedo Bomber, 'cuz i want it to have a devastating attack against ships, but it cannot attack land targets at all. i also tried adding an Anti-Sub Helicopter; i gave it sub detecting ability and a decent bombardment power, but it has the same problem that it can attack land targets but it shouldn't be able to. also, i've tried to allow my Modern Destroyers and Modern Battleships carry a single helicopter, unfortunately, they can carry ANY aircraft, which is wrong.

although the game editor is simple enough to use, it just doesn't allow you to do certain things -- or at least i haven't figured out how to do them yet.

What you can do with the torpedo bomber, is just make it lethal sea bombardment but not land. It can still attack land targets, but in reality, TBs could be and were armed to attack ground targets. The NB can have lethal land but not sea, or it can have both, just weaker stats. If your changes work out good, maybe you can upload it as a mod? Would be good.

 

[Warspite2]

Oda, I forgot to mention I do like your idea of blockade

 

[cldwarhist]

Hey everyone,

I don't know if anyone has mentioned this yet but ASW helicopters dont work (at least for me). I've created two types, the SH-3F and the SH-60J (the -3F upgrades to the -60J at robotics). Anyways I made sure to click "Detect invisible" for both of them but they don't spot submarines.

Has anyone toyed with a LHA type ship? One that can carry both helicopters and troops? Right now my tactic is to have a transport (with marines and a worker) with a carrier that carries helicopters and fighters so that once the marines go to shore, an airfield can be built and the marines can use the choppers and fighters as needed. I'd like to consolidate these two ships into one but when I tried, the computer basically said load one or the other, not both.

 

[redhulkz]

Originally posted by Arkaynnus
.

to balance the threat of bombers, i've changed it so Bombers and Stealth Bombers can no longer be loaded aboard Carriers. .

in editor. i uncheck the stealth bomber's "Load' button.
but stealth plane still can load onto carrier. don't know why

so how do u do it?

 

[a4phantom]

Is your intention to make carriers into purely defensive ships that only provide air support? That seems a little . . . castrating. Do you lower the carrier's cost if you do that?