Submarine Confusion

[anti_strunt]

So, we have the Attack Submarine, which very clearly uses a Cold War ballistic missile submarine for its model, complete with several rows of hatches for a vertical missile launch system. It requires Rocketry... yet it cannot carry any missiles. It also requires Combustion, yet can only run on Uranium, not Oil.

Then we have the vanilla Submarine, clearly modelled on a vintage WW2 submarine, complete with deck gun. It does not require Rocketry, yet can carry missiles. It can run on Uranium or Oil, but does not actually require discovery of Combustion to do so.

In terms of game play effects, the technologically advanced Cold War ballistic missile submarine (which looks like a WW1/WW2 submarine) has fewer prerequisites and will almost always be invented before or at least always simultaneously with the pure ship-to-ship WW1/WW2 torpedo-only naval interdiction submarine (which looks like a Cold War submarine, natch)...

 

[plasmacannon]

Yea anti strunt. That always ticked me off.
They got the images mixed up.
They could have even created a Modern ballistic submarine to be modeled after the Ohio class vs. the older George Washington class.

How about the fact that it can only carry 3 missiles?
Instead of the 16, 20, or 24 missiles normally carried?

I suppose, they had to reduce it some, like with carriers.
Both should have been able to carry more units.

 

[Ghpstage]

For balance reasons its important that the nuke carrying version has at least one weakness, in this case its low . As Guided Missiles are of very limited worth the missile carrying ability doesn't become very significant until Manhatten is built, which is after Attack Subs are available.

If it makes you feel better think of them as have being upgraded to fit new techonlogies

How about the fact that it can only carry 3 missiles?
Instead of the 16, 20, or 24 missiles normally carried?

I suppose, they had to reduce it some, like with carriers.
Both should have been able to carry more units.

Both subs+tac nukes and carriers+fighters are game enders, they cause your killing and land taking ability to skyrocket. Increasing their strength even further is completely unnecessary.

 

[plasmacannon]

... Both subs+tac nukes and carriers+fighters are game enders, they cause your killing and land taking ability to skyrocket. Increasing their strength even further is completely unnecessary.

They could have limited their numbers, like missionaries, or gave them larger maintenaince costs for the vehicle itself. The ship would become a vulnrable target with 10+ fighters on it. Escorts would become even more important.

I guess percentage-wise, sub missle payloads are acceptable.
24/8 = 3, so, 1/8 of the actual unit. However, carriers, this percentage is off. 80/8 = 10, not the 3 fighters in game.

If, carriers had more fighters and a higher maintenaince cost, that aspect would be balanced out.

Aircraft, in general, needed longer range too.
But, this is getting off topic.

 

[Archon_Wing]

Aircraft are already ridiculously good in Civ. Giving them more range would be too much.

Nukes are also so good that the ability to carry them also had to be limited.

 

[anti_strunt]

For balance reasons its important that the nuke carrying version has at least one weakness, in this case its low . As Guided Missiles are of very limited worth the missile carrying ability doesn't become very significant until Manhatten is built, which is after Attack Subs are available.

If it makes you feel better think of them as have being upgraded to fit new techonlogies
Both subs+tac nukes and carriers+fighters are game enders, they cause your killing and land taking ability to skyrocket. Increasing their strength even further is completely unnecessary.

All the more reason to switch the two types around so the Attack Submarine is available earlier and, if anything, move the Missile Submarine a few techs further up the Tech Tree beyond the Manhattan Project; the introduction of ballistic missile submarine was one of the key strategic developments of the Cold War that lessened the dependence on fixed ballistic missiles silos (cities, in Civ 4), and as you say they can be ridiculously powerful for surprise attacks (as they were intended to be). There is no reason for this powerful and technologically advanced submarine to be the "default". Moving the two around (while also exchanging the models) could thus be beneficial for both realism and gameplay: the Holy Grail of Civ design...

(I have no complaints about their relative Strengths; obviously the Missile Submarine, being less focused on direct naval combat, and for purposes of balance, should be substantially weaker.)

 

[AJ11]

(I have no complaints about their relative Strengths; obviously the Missile Submarine, being less focused on direct naval combat, and for purposes of balance, should be substantially weaker.)

In real life, they weren't that much weaker. The SSBN were much quieter and had the same underwater weapons arrays as the SSN. Where the SSN shined was speed, maneouvrability and much lesser cost.

 

[anti_strunt]

In real life, they weren't that much weaker. The SSBN were much quieter and had the same underwater weapons arrays as the SSN. Where the SSN shined was speed, maneouvrability and much lesser cost.

Just for the sake of balance then. I hardly think anyone would agree that a Destroyer is "correctly" valued at 3/4th the combat value of a full Battleship (30 vs 40), but for gameplay balance it works fairly well...

EDIT: and superior manoeuvrability at least could certainly translate into generic Civ "combat power"...

EDIT 2: given their relative in-game costs (the Attack Submarine being 33% more expensive than the nuclear missile Submarine!) one "unit" of Attack Submarines would have to represent a larger number of vessels than a "unit" of missile Submarines...

 

[AJ11]

Just for the sake of balance then. I hardly think anyone would agree that a Destroyer is "correctly" valued at 3/4th the combat value of a full Battleship (30 vs 40), but for gameplay balance it works fairly well...

Actually, with modern systems, that is not far off. The problem with battleships is that they tend to miss a bit. A modern destroyer has less raw firepower, but its effective instantaneous firepower is not that far off of a WW2 era battleship

 

[anti_strunt]

Actually, with modern systems, that is not far off. The problem with battleships is that they tend to miss a bit. A modern destroyer has less raw firepower, but its effective instantaneous firepower is not that far off of a WW2 era battleship

Heh, for all we know the Battleship might even be a pre-dreadnought... Although we actually have both Stealth Destroyers and Missile Cruisers, so I don't see a reason to extend the courtesy of modern missile armament to the plain old Destroyer, usually the very first steel ship to see use (which is pretty silly in and off itself...). It just goes to show that whatever is decided for purposes of balance can usually be retroactively justified as reasonably accurate, which isn't necessarily a bad thing.

Except for giving the missile Submarine the model without missile hatches, and giving the big, honking SSBN model to the non-missile Attack Sub.
That is just plain silly.

 

[AJ11]

Heh, for all we know the Battleship might even be a pre-dreadnought... Although we actually have both Stealth Destroyers and Missile Cruisers, so I don't see a reason to extend the courtesy of modern missile armament to the plain old Destroyer, usually the very first steel ship to see use (which is pretty silly in and off itself...). It just goes to show that whatever is decided for purposes of balance can usually be retroactively justified as reasonably accurate, which isn't necessarily a bad thing.

Except for giving the missile Submarine the model without missile hatches, and giving the big, honking SSBN model to the non-missile Attack Sub.
That is just plain silly.

Agreed. They should make three types of subs:
1. The muclear attack subs that require uranium and has greater speed and cost and available at Nuclear Power (and after the Manhattan Project).
2. The diesel electric subs which are slow but just as powerful and dirt cheap (relatively, that is) and available as per now.
3. The SSBNs which can carry ICBMs (not just tac nukes).

 

[jtb1127]

Haha. I have noticed this issue before.

 

[plasmacannon]

In real life, they weren't that much weaker. The SSBN were much quieter and had the same underwater weapons arrays as the SSN. Where the SSN shined was speed, maneouvrability and much lesser cost.

SSNs had more torpedo launchers and could launch tomahawk cruise missiles out of them, or the new BrahMos missile equivalent of a sub.
SSBNs were much longer and less manuverable, making them easier targets to hit for the SSN. Not to mention, they could use their active sonar to aggressively hunt down the SSBN.
There have been dovens of different submarine classes, 6 or 7 general stages of evolution, if, I remember correctly. It's been awhile, since sub school, but, yes, civ should have the limited range deisel sub. Those couldn't stay under for very long, a couple of days max, and at least, one nuclear SS and SSB versions of the subs.
Unless, we are going to give the US a Nautilus class UU.
You can still see it up in Groton, Connecticut.

The subs had improvements, such as, changing their shape to make them more smoother underwater and quieter. Sound proofing was added inside to reduce crew noise and machine vibrations. The removal of the gun turret from the World Wars. Some designs changed the location of the planes, Fairwater to Foward. The new Seawolf and some British classes look much different than our US SSN classes. Think of the movie, "The Hunt for Red October", the USS Dallas SSN, for those not familiar with specific subs models.
We could add the British commando sub, used on a raid to destroy a German Ship during WW2.
Atleast 3 designs would be the minimum to be somewhat accurate. 5 would be better.
Though, that wouldn't take into account the SSBN arms race that went on either. The US had 16 missiles on their George Washington and later classes, the Soviets had 20 on their SSBN, so, we developed the Ohio with 24 missiles and to comply with the SALT II treaty. The A-Ha, "ours have more", moment, in the sub race.
Newer designs could be added to the Future Eras as well, with higher attacks, or larger missle payloads.

There should be a Cruise missle version, seperate from the Ballistic Missile version.
For game purposes, we could target the greater threat.

Anyway, this got longer that I was expecting.
Oh, here is a link to sub classes, just in the US. In case, anyone was interested in more info on the subject. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_United_States_submarine_classes
So, there were so many more around the world.
I was on a James Madison-class fleet ballistic missile submarine. Mine has already been recycled. Good for their time. The Ohios are nicer. They even have Porcelain toilets compared to our old metal ones. LOL!

 

[Dman4civ]

THATS HORRIBLE... the thought of toilets on a sub... i guess they had to go somwhere. So did they release the waste in the water, or was it retained till sub (or any ship for that matter) returned to port, to be dumped in a proper waste management plumbing system. Just carious. Never been on a naval ship.

 

[plasmacannon]

LOL.
It has been awhile, and now that I think about it, I never asked that question.
There is some waste that does go to into the ocean, at least back then it did.
It went into a shute where the trash was weighed down with a metal weight to send it straight to the bottom.
I believe, the waste was purely food based, from the kitchen. Things like, what do you do with a banana peels or egg shells? Gosh, there were alot of eggs. God help you, if, too many cracked in the box while they were being stored. Oh, they reaked. LOL!
The last thing anyone would want to do is be out to sea for a few months and have the place smell like trash. That would quickly become unbareable.

Note to any young person thinking of going into the NAVY, if, you have mess duty, handle the eggs very carefully. You have been warned.