Yes!
I've always argued that the submarine should be given +100% against BB's and Missile Cruisers. That would force everyone to deploy destroyers and attack subs to help screen those forces.
Submarines
- Thread starter PibbZ
- Start date
I've always argued that the submarine should be given +100% against BB's and Missile Cruisers. That would force everyone to deploy destroyers and attack subs to help screen those forces.
I also think that is the easiest solution, but perhaps +50% with a first strike or two would even match better given the natural first strike ability of the subs.
Very good point, but that doesn't mean that it should be ignored in the game. No one has sent a space ship to colonize another planet, and no country has ever been pounded with ICBMs... but that's still an option in the game.
I am no naval historian, but sea battles do not have to be large for sea power to have an important effect. From my understanding sea power was a major contributor to Great Britain power for a long time. Establishing control of the Pacific allowed our troops to "island hop" and avoid many battles. Controlling the sea allows a larger measure of control over the overall war.
I dont think it has been ignored in the game like some people are claiming. it isnt as dynamic or cool as land combat but i don't really lament it.
the naval units are not ends to themselves, they are means to enforce and support other units. thats the reasoning i see behind their abilities, etc.
the naval units are not ends to themselves, they are means to enforce and support other units. thats the reasoning i see behind their abilities, etc.
DrJambo
Crash-test dummy
I think the way the late game ships interact could be made more interesting though... As they are, subs are rather unappealing and dysfunctional. The best they get is simply as hit and run hopefuls, wounding solitary ships for others to finish off.
KrikkitTwo
Immortal
- Joined
- Apr 3, 2004
- Messages
- 12,418
I'd it should be
Battle+MC>Destroyer+SD>Subs+Attack Subs+Carriers>Battle+MC
so to implement
1. Give all subs +50% v. 'Capital ships' (Battleships+MC+Carrier)
2. Give the MC the ability to detect steath ships [remove it from Stealth Destroyers, let them slip past each other]
3. Give the SD +50% v. Subs [and have it defend when it would be the best defender in a stack]
4. give air units a promotion that makes them better v. sea units (preferably lethality, although increased stike ability would be good)
5. Let Intercepting aircraft in a Carrier automatically airstrike v. an attacking sea stack. (because battleships move too fast otherwise)
[or provide some coastal building at Radio that gives all surface ships the Sentry promotion]
(Radar)
Battle+MC>Destroyer+SD>Subs+Attack Subs+Carriers>Battle+MC
so to implement
1. Give all subs +50% v. 'Capital ships' (Battleships+MC+Carrier)
2. Give the MC the ability to detect steath ships [remove it from Stealth Destroyers, let them slip past each other]
3. Give the SD +50% v. Subs [and have it defend when it would be the best defender in a stack]
4. give air units a promotion that makes them better v. sea units (preferably lethality, although increased stike ability would be good)
5. Let Intercepting aircraft in a Carrier automatically airstrike v. an attacking sea stack. (because battleships move too fast otherwise)
[or provide some coastal building at Radio that gives all surface ships the Sentry promotion]
(Radar)
The modern era for naval combat should handle world war II at least, and the submarine is the biggest let down in that. The battleship/destroyer/carrier thing works, except that fighters can't actually sink ships or hurt them that badly, which is maybe good for game balance but isn't realistic.
Submarines suffer from not being given great roles. First, the initial submarine -- obviously a WWI/II Uboat sort of machine -- can't actually sink most of its targets. Only unescorted transports/carriers, or badly damaged warships, are practical prey for submarines.
Second, it "upgrades" into a missile submarine (sea launched ballistic (tac nuke)) with no other performance changes. The missile sub should be an upgrade, with enhanced performance as well as missile carrying ability. This should cost a little bit, but make up for this with superior performance -- speed and combat abilities.
Third, the attack submarine is intended to kill surface ships, not just other submarines, though it is of course ideal for the sub killer role. It should be about the best submarine for taking out enemy fleets, if you can get it into position.
For the first issue, the submarine's attack needs to be enhanced. A surprise attack gives an attack only bonus, say +50%, enough to let an undetected sub have a fair shot at killing a battleship and a decent one at pouncing on a destroyer. OTOH, if we want destroyers to beat them, either give them a bonus vs submarines (not unrealistic), or exempt them from the sneak attack bonus.
Another issue is that submarines can't take out transports without destroying or at least severely damaging all escorts. Giving them an ability to engage transports first -- like ballista elephants -- or giving them a choice of target types to go for -- would make submarines deadly to troop convoys. If they can pick their target, they'd be extremely dangerous vs carriers as well (enough so that perhaps carriers would need a defense bonus of some sort).
Either way, a destroyer screen would be essential to locate and attack any submarines before they could get into killing range of a convoy. Some might still slip past them.
The initial submarine then could be a very slow ship, but deadly if an enemy comes near it without detecting or destroying it. If its sneak attack advantages were enough, it could have an even lower strength and still succeed. The later models would be faster and harder to stop, with deadlier weapons (more strength).
The patch is beefing up the attack submarine, so other than it still not being able to destroy transports by surprise it won't be too bad. The missile submarine could work much as it does, guided missiles for a "first strike" hammering and a follow up direct attack, while the attack submarine with an attack bonus would be a solid killer of BB/MC, and lethal to any lesser ship it catches by surprise.
The power of the carrier is the only remaining modern war issue. The ship's power is mostly in its aircraft, but a supercarrier packs a huge amount of air combat and anti-submarine capability. The thing still needs escort ships for direct defenses (and screening to keep enemies at a distance), but three fighters, while OK (as three-ish squadrons) for a WWII era ship, simply doesn't reflect the power of a big modern carrier.
But that's another issue.
Submarines suffer from not being given great roles. First, the initial submarine -- obviously a WWI/II Uboat sort of machine -- can't actually sink most of its targets. Only unescorted transports/carriers, or badly damaged warships, are practical prey for submarines.
Second, it "upgrades" into a missile submarine (sea launched ballistic (tac nuke)) with no other performance changes. The missile sub should be an upgrade, with enhanced performance as well as missile carrying ability. This should cost a little bit, but make up for this with superior performance -- speed and combat abilities.
Third, the attack submarine is intended to kill surface ships, not just other submarines, though it is of course ideal for the sub killer role. It should be about the best submarine for taking out enemy fleets, if you can get it into position.
For the first issue, the submarine's attack needs to be enhanced. A surprise attack gives an attack only bonus, say +50%, enough to let an undetected sub have a fair shot at killing a battleship and a decent one at pouncing on a destroyer. OTOH, if we want destroyers to beat them, either give them a bonus vs submarines (not unrealistic), or exempt them from the sneak attack bonus.
Another issue is that submarines can't take out transports without destroying or at least severely damaging all escorts. Giving them an ability to engage transports first -- like ballista elephants -- or giving them a choice of target types to go for -- would make submarines deadly to troop convoys. If they can pick their target, they'd be extremely dangerous vs carriers as well (enough so that perhaps carriers would need a defense bonus of some sort).
Either way, a destroyer screen would be essential to locate and attack any submarines before they could get into killing range of a convoy. Some might still slip past them.
The initial submarine then could be a very slow ship, but deadly if an enemy comes near it without detecting or destroying it. If its sneak attack advantages were enough, it could have an even lower strength and still succeed. The later models would be faster and harder to stop, with deadlier weapons (more strength).
The patch is beefing up the attack submarine, so other than it still not being able to destroy transports by surprise it won't be too bad. The missile submarine could work much as it does, guided missiles for a "first strike" hammering and a follow up direct attack, while the attack submarine with an attack bonus would be a solid killer of BB/MC, and lethal to any lesser ship it catches by surprise.
The power of the carrier is the only remaining modern war issue. The ship's power is mostly in its aircraft, but a supercarrier packs a huge amount of air combat and anti-submarine capability. The thing still needs escort ships for direct defenses (and screening to keep enemies at a distance), but three fighters, while OK (as three-ish squadrons) for a WWII era ship, simply doesn't reflect the power of a big modern carrier.
But that's another issue.
Forgive my ignorance, but what are subs supposed to be used for these days? I mean, I know there's missile subs for launching nukes, but what about the attack subs? A lot of people in this thread suggested that attack subs should get a bonus against battleships. Fair enough, that would make them more useful, but are subs IRL meant to take on battleships? I thought we used air power (carriers) for that.
anonymous4402
Chieftain
Letting subs pick out transports from a stack would be a terrible idea. It would make naval invasions practically impossible.
DrJambo
Crash-test dummy
Agreed. One would just need to build a stack of subs and park them in a city or just outside your borders and no enemy transports would ever get near you.
Just giving subs a +50% vs battleships/MC and one or two first strikes should do the job.
And what about nuclear submarines?
It would required fission/uranium and have more strength, range than Submarine(WW I/II. type). It can carry missiles, nukes, etc.
I'd also allow them to carry marines/SEALs.
Also the SD should have see subsmarines.
It would required fission/uranium and have more strength, range than Submarine(WW I/II. type). It can carry missiles, nukes, etc.
I'd also allow them to carry marines/SEALs.
Also the SD should have see subsmarines.
Soneji
Prince and Great Steward
Attack subs should be able to carry missiles, I mean have a look at the unit! It has missile bays on the top of it!!
WWI era submarines were meant as commerce raiders, and engaged merchant shipping primarily. In game terms, that would be blockading. If the ship was cheap enough, that would work OK -- all submarines can do this -- but they'd be easy prey for destroyers, and not much better than using your own destroyers for this role.
WWII era was much the same, but the vessels were better at their jobs, and the game's submarine seems to reflect this. WWI submarines were slower than transport ships when submerged (even WWII submarines weren't especially fast). But the WWII subs were better at taking on the escorting destroyers, and had a fairly good record of killing carriers and escorting ships, including cruisers. If cruisers are modelled in the game as battleships, then perhaps the submarines do need some sort of bonus against them, in order to reflect the killing potential.
Modern attack submarines -- and for that matter nuclear missile submarines, though not as fast or capable -- are fast enough to catch carriers and outrun transports, and have the weaponry to sink big ships. Both torpedoes and missiles are carried on both, but the attack submarines are better at killing ships, and better at evading attack.
There hasn't been a war to test these capabilities so far, thankfully, but they should be fairly good at killing bigger ships like missile cruisers if they get into position.
Everyone here is highlighting the fact that subs are deeply understimated and are in extremely urgent needing of an injection of tremendous amount of power that Fireaxis deliberately forgot,IMO.
Ok,now, to satisfy us all and to give the game at least a tiny shape of reality,how can we do ? The patch is already on Quality Tests and it will be out within days therefore there is no chance Fireaxians listen to customers,therefore is the xml tweak the only chance to fix this part of the game by ourselves or maybe do you know anyone... ( Solver ? ) that can produce an own patch that bring some justice in this desperate nightmare ?
thanks
Ok,now, to satisfy us all and to give the game at least a tiny shape of reality,how can we do ? The patch is already on Quality Tests and it will be out within days therefore there is no chance Fireaxians listen to customers,therefore is the xml tweak the only chance to fix this part of the game by ourselves or maybe do you know anyone... ( Solver ? ) that can produce an own patch that bring some justice in this desperate nightmare ?
thanks
PibbZ
Paladin
I wont expect changes to happen NOW, but in a future patch it would be nice. After all, the Sub as we know it in Civ today, is underpowered and mostly ignored, since you can just build a lot of battleships to do the job even better.
Going back to the prehistory of civ (and computer gaming too!), in the game Empire submarines were slow but only destroyers could see them. Since only one unit could be in a square, transports were vulnerable (as were carriers, to a lesser degree), requiring several destroyers to "escort" it by spotting the slow submarines before they reached the transports. Battleships, while unable to spot submarines, could kill them. The game was much simpler than civ, but the origins of civ's combat system are from it, and so the basic balance -- and ship types -- in civ are the same as in Empire.
There are other changes, and there is no reason that civ's naval combat can't offer more tactical and strategic options. No reason at all to stick with a 30+ year old combat model for the modern navy, not when the land combat has a lot more options.
Stuff which could help out submarines:
Defensive withdrawal. Unlike any other unit, submarines can evade their attackers. This is reflected OK on the attack -- a good withdrawal chance upgradeable by flanking -- but not on defense. A submarine, if attacked, may escape via withdrawal. If it can share the square with a hostile unit, leave it there. But I expect it would have to be moved one square, likely at random, in order to do this in the game.
This would make submarines much more survivable. Sure, enough attackers will eventually catch and kill them, but using them wouldn't be so much of a suicide mission.
Modern submarines -- missile and attack submarines for certain -- are especially deadly against fleets and convoys in formation. Several targets can be engaged at once. Either give them collateral damage outright, or let them take the barrage upgrades like armor can.
Doing this lets them weaken a defending stack, and makes it more likely that the next submarine in a "pack" will actually get kills.
Now, I understand that letting submarines have a priority attack vs. transports would make transport survival a lot harder. Maybe if the attack worked sort of like an airstrike, and if the submarine was intercepted by a destroyer it would be back to a normal attack, this would still be balanced? Having a lot of good destroyers defending would be a priority, and missile cruisers/battleships wouldn't be very good transport/carrier escorts.
Without something like this, the only way for submarines to sink transports is just like with any other naval unit: destroy or damage all other defenders, so the transports are the weakest targets. If you are trying to fight a "wolf pack" war, this just isn't going to be easy to do, not without beefing up submarines a whole lot. Letting them have some sort of specific-target or transport attack (even like cavalry's flanking attack vs. artillery might work) would give them a very special role in combat, and make defending against them most important.
Giving submarines a couple first strikes is probably a good, simple way to simulate the difficulty of detecting them. In a sub vs sub fight they would cancel out, but it would be a big help vs. all other ships. If they get an undefended transport to hit, they'd have a decent chance to kill it with little or no damage, and thus able to continue their mission.
If submarines get beefed up to realistic levels, then countermeasures need to be added too. Allowing units an anti-submarine promotion would help. First, it could increase detection range for them. Second, it would give a bonus vs. them. Both sea and air units could get this. Air units, even on recon, should only have a one or two square search radius, not their whole visible range.
I'm hoping that the issue of modern era combat is something fixable for the next patch. It won't happen for this one -- it is done already -- but I don't think that it is beyond a patch level change.
There are other changes, and there is no reason that civ's naval combat can't offer more tactical and strategic options. No reason at all to stick with a 30+ year old combat model for the modern navy, not when the land combat has a lot more options.
Stuff which could help out submarines:
Defensive withdrawal. Unlike any other unit, submarines can evade their attackers. This is reflected OK on the attack -- a good withdrawal chance upgradeable by flanking -- but not on defense. A submarine, if attacked, may escape via withdrawal. If it can share the square with a hostile unit, leave it there. But I expect it would have to be moved one square, likely at random, in order to do this in the game.
This would make submarines much more survivable. Sure, enough attackers will eventually catch and kill them, but using them wouldn't be so much of a suicide mission.
Modern submarines -- missile and attack submarines for certain -- are especially deadly against fleets and convoys in formation. Several targets can be engaged at once. Either give them collateral damage outright, or let them take the barrage upgrades like armor can.
Doing this lets them weaken a defending stack, and makes it more likely that the next submarine in a "pack" will actually get kills.
Now, I understand that letting submarines have a priority attack vs. transports would make transport survival a lot harder. Maybe if the attack worked sort of like an airstrike, and if the submarine was intercepted by a destroyer it would be back to a normal attack, this would still be balanced? Having a lot of good destroyers defending would be a priority, and missile cruisers/battleships wouldn't be very good transport/carrier escorts.
Without something like this, the only way for submarines to sink transports is just like with any other naval unit: destroy or damage all other defenders, so the transports are the weakest targets. If you are trying to fight a "wolf pack" war, this just isn't going to be easy to do, not without beefing up submarines a whole lot. Letting them have some sort of specific-target or transport attack (even like cavalry's flanking attack vs. artillery might work) would give them a very special role in combat, and make defending against them most important.
Giving submarines a couple first strikes is probably a good, simple way to simulate the difficulty of detecting them. In a sub vs sub fight they would cancel out, but it would be a big help vs. all other ships. If they get an undefended transport to hit, they'd have a decent chance to kill it with little or no damage, and thus able to continue their mission.
If submarines get beefed up to realistic levels, then countermeasures need to be added too. Allowing units an anti-submarine promotion would help. First, it could increase detection range for them. Second, it would give a bonus vs. them. Both sea and air units could get this. Air units, even on recon, should only have a one or two square search radius, not their whole visible range.
I'm hoping that the issue of modern era combat is something fixable for the next patch. It won't happen for this one -- it is done already -- but I don't think that it is beyond a patch level change.
Actually, unless you're playing a Pangaea-type map (and sometimes even then), the new blockade feature in BtS makes naval warfare much more important. You can end up with coastal cities starving from lack of food, even if all their trade routes aren't actually cut off.
Now, if submarines could blockade, then you'd need to send out sub hunters to find where they were and sink them... this would make which units could see and not see submarines a lot more important.
