Subs can't go within enemy borders?

[mercury529]

I am sure there are also examples of troops moving into nation's borders without consent. I think this is a case where the mechanics of the game are meant to represent the most common case. And the majority of the time, military units are not in foreign borders without consent unless they are at war.

 

[6-Star General]

STOP GIVING REAL LIFE INCIDENTS


Nobody cares if it's occurred in real life or not. Nobody. [...] This isn't a ___ing debate class.

Allow me to retort:

First of all, debates do actually happen outside of debate classes. In fact, most of them do. Merely by bringing an argument to the table (or board, as it is), you have implicitly accepted that debate is a perfectly acceptable behavior here.

Second (and I'll keep this simple for you, since you seem so adverse to debate classes), just because you and your friends don't care if it's like real life or not doesn't mean that everyone in the world doesn't care if it's like real life or not. This is called a hasty generalization. [Pause so you have time to take notes.]

Class dismissed.

 

[Fistalis]

STOP GIVING REAL LIFE INCIDENTS

You are playing a game, not a historical simulator.


Nobody cares if it's occurred in real life or not. Nobody. What we care is about game balance. If it makes you happy assume that your civilization has sonar stations along the coast, but whatever. This isn't a ing debate class.

You're playing a game where you can produce an infinite amount of troops from a city. Where did all these people come from? Was cloning invented in 4000 bc? How do the pyramids increase worker construction speed? How come the great wall doesn't keep barbarians out? How come you can't use enemy roads? How can an island city pump 10 wonders out? Do they have matter replicators?


I know some moderator is going to give me an infraction, but this needs to be told. You're playing a game. Trying to explain Civ by using historical references is like trying to find historical evidence for every single piece of scripture in the bible. It doesn't exist. Capiche?

Ya we get it.. CIV V doesn't give 2 shots about historic reality its just historically flavored and anyone who doesn't like it should quit buying civ games... is that what your trying to say?

 

[AlpsStranger]

Meh.

Tired argument is tired.

Civ has always been a lightly historical game. There is definitely a shadow element of realism to it, but it never gets in the way of the game's fundamental nature. It's not the same as, say, EU or HoI in the realism category.

 

[Padapolis]

if a submarine cant do the one cool thing that submarines do in real life (see historical stories like Japanese subs in Sydney Harbour in World War Two) why have them in games? Subs are all about being covert and being an unseen vehicle of potential great damage. 'Sleeper' units in enemy and friendly territory, if they cant go ‘void’ borders why have them? you might as well just build a destroyer?

Well said. I also hope that a subs ability to be unseen returns to ciV.

 

[Carver]

STOP GIVING REAL LIFE INCIDENTS

You are playing a game, not a historical simulator.


Nobody cares if it's occurred in real life or not. Nobody. What we care is about game balance. If it makes you happy assume that your civilization has sonar stations along the coast, but whatever. This isn't a ing debate class.

You're playing a game where you can produce an infinite amount of troops from a city. Where did all these people come from? Was cloning invented in 4000 bc? How do the pyramids increase worker construction speed? How come the great wall doesn't keep barbarians out? How come you can't use enemy roads? How can an island city pump 10 wonders out? Do they have matter replicators?


I know some moderator is going to give me an infraction, but this needs to be told. You're playing a game. Trying to explain Civ by using historical references is like trying to find historical evidence for every single piece of scripture in the bible. It doesn't exist. Capiche?

"You're playing a game" is not a reason to include or exclude any particular feature or rule. The feature should make sense for a game called "Civilization," in that it should, in some way, be modeled after the kinds of things civilizations have done. Subs entering rival territory during peacetime is like breathing for many RW navies.

 

[Drakarska]

I've seen Russian submarines sink for less.

I also don't see much value in this feature. As said, only for a brief period in history, submarines were really undetectable. With sonar, they are just another bleep on the radar.

Just to clarify Sir ; Sonar= ping, Radar= blip, and ESW = paints. Just thought you'd like to know.

 

[gunter]

This could be where espionage points concept enter.

You buy super stealthy buff for your unit for X turns with your EP. For those turns your subs are undetectable, cannot attack, but have impoved visibility range to gather intelligence. IMHO also much better use of units than simply manufacturing spy units.

I'm sure US/Russian/chinese subs, violate soveriegn borders all the time to test defenses, and do surveillance work.

Yeah good idea here, I like it a lot !

 

[Meeber]

This is a very abstract game, when a crossbowman kills a submarine you are a fool if you think that represents an actual crossbowman shooting their crossbow at a sub.

Stop being so literally minded, if you are all versions of civ will simply drive you nuts.

No it's not. What happends in the game is really happening on an alternate world.

 

[Lightzy]

I've seen Russian submarines sink for less.

I also don't see much value in this feature. As said, only for a brief period in history, submarines were really undetectable. With sonar, they are just another bleep on the radar.

So you say, but every coastal nation on earth still maintains its very expensive submarine fleet