Vast Continent - No Rubber?!!

[psweetman1590]

Good show, Aceman! Way to not give up. However.....

But what if the Marine was regular?

I don't build regular marines, silly.

Question: What is more important to you BB's (as they say!) or carriers?

They are rather equally important, I guess. The carriers cannot exist without the BBs protecting them.

On the other hand, the BBs can still bombard anything within two tiles of the coast, even without air cover, so I suppose that makes the BBs more important. Carriers would be more important to me if they could carry more planes, or if they cost fewer shields. As it is, they're too expensive for the punch they pack. They're still useful, but only in specialized roles. I can't mass produce them like BBs.

This has been a very interesting debate. If the city had a few TOW's, as well as mech's the TOW's could nock of a hitpoint of the veteren marine when it attacks, which would make it a regular. What are the odds now?

I can't do the math like MAS did (probablilities has always been my weak spot), but a comparison of relative strength would look something like this...

Mech infantry - 18 * (100 + 50 + 10 + 25)% = 33.3 * 1hp = 33.3
Marine .- 12 * 3hp = 36

Still a better than 50% chance by those numbers.

 

[Aceman101]

Good show, Aceman! Way to not give up. However.....

.

I don't build regular marines, silly.

You would if you didn't have barracks in the city .

They are rather equally important, I guess. The carriers cannot exist without the BBs protecting them.

Carrier's defense is quite allright though (8). But if a 15 attack battleship cam e then I quess the carrier would be gone. I think I probably wouldn't risk losing a carrier loaded with planes without any protection.

On the other hand, the BBs can still bombard anything within two tiles of the coast, even without air cover, so I suppose that makes the BBs more important. Carriers would be more important to me if they could carry more planes, or if they cost fewer shields. As it is, they're too expensive for the punch they pack. They're still useful, but only in specialized roles. I can't mass produce them like BBs.

Yeah, they do cost a fair bit. Especially the bombers that are needed. But I still build about 5-10 of them.

I can't do the math like MAS did (probablilities has always been my weak spot), but a comparison of relative strength would look something like this...

Mech infantry - 18 * (100 + 50 + 10 + 25)% = 33.3 * 1hp = 33.3
Marine .- 12 * 3hp = 36

Still a better than 50% chance by those numbers.

It seems the maine has cursed me. Whatever bonuses the Mech has it still seems to be the marine that wins. Maybe they should make a better Mech Infantry .

If the town was also on a hill then....

Can AEGIS cruisers really carry cruise missiles like MAS said? If so, how many?

 

[psweetman1590]

No, AEGIS cruisers cannot carry cruise missles.

If the city were on a hill, the mech infantry would, I think, have a slightly better than 50% chance of winning, but I don't mind losing a few marines if I take the island.

And I don't build build marines in cities that don't have barracks, silly. In fact, I don't think I build any units at all in cities that don't have barracks. When was the last time I even owned a city that was productive that didn't have barracks...? Hmmmm....

Edit: I thought Battleships had 24 attack? Carriers are vulnerable from anthing better than an ironclad when unprotected... and even the ironclad would have a fighting chance.

 

[Aceman101]

No, AEGIS cruisers cannot carry cruise missles.

I just thought they could because MAS said this...

An AEGIS can carry some missiles, that have lethal bombard, even in vanilla...

I might have understood, but what does he mean by that .

If the city were on a hill, the mech infantry would, I think, have a slightly better than 50% chance of winning, but I don't mind losing a few marines if I take the island.

. So there you go! Few Mech Infantry + a few TOW infantry + a few bombers + a sam battery to stop enemy bombings + Civil defense + a hill = INDESTRUCTABLE!!! . Okay maybe not but...

And I don't build build marines in cities that don't have barracks, silly. In fact, I don't think I build any units at all in cities that don't have barracks. When was the last time I even owned a city that was productive that didn't have barracks...? Hmmmm....

Very well, I would build barracks too in productive cities but I thought you might not .

Edit: I thought Battleships had 24 attack? Carriers are vulnerable from anthing better than an ironclad when unprotected... and even the ironclad would have a fighting chance.

24 attack????? . I would love that!! But it isn't 15 either like I said. It seems we are both wrong. It's actually 18. As with all things that I'm unsure of, I checked in the civilopedia.

I didn't say carriers arn't vulnerable, I just said 8 defense is quite good. But I would always bring BB's or cruisers for protection. And a destroyer to detect subs. And also when AEGIS cruisers come, I'll get plenty of those. And i'll also get nuclear subs...

 

[MAS]

Battleships have 18 attack, as for the cruse missiles thing... I checked the Civlopedia, and I couldn't find it anymore, but could have sworn I read somewhere about ships carrying cruse missiles, either crusers or destroyers.. I don't know.

Maybe I'm confused somehow. It does seem strange for me that no ship can carry missiles...

I know Nuke-subs can carry one tactical nuke (not a cruse missile) but thats not what I'm talking about.

 

[Aceman101]

Well Transports can carry cruise missiles . Maybe I should try loading a cruise missile in the ind-modern naval ships.

 

[Sashie VII]

Aceman, I recall some time ago that I tried transporting cruise missiles with transports for attack.

Unfortunately, they cannot fire while they are at sea.

 

[Aceman101]

Yeah, because they're not amphibious. But you can always transport them for backup artillery.

 

[Sashie VII]

they're not amphibious

Which is a pity, since I would love the idea of torpedos in Civ. Wouldn't it be nice if your sub can carry a couple of missiles along?

 

[psweetman1590]

Well, if you go into the editor and flag cruise missles as being tactical missles (don't flag nuclear weapon though), nuke subs will be able to carry cruise missles. I think...

 

[Sashie VII]

So just giving them amphibious stats won't work?

Too lazy to try now, I have a score to settle with Shaka

EDIT: But thanks for that, I'll try it soon

 

[psweetman1590]

Giving them amphibious would allow you to launch them off of transports, but I didn't think that's what you were looking for.

Actually, you might have to give them amphibious to work off of subs too, not sure about that one.

 

[Sashie VII]

Then I'll try it out some time and PM you to confirm

 

[Aceman101]

Yeah that would be good. Amphibious attacks with cruise missiles...

 

[Sashie VII]

@psweetman1590

It works! I tried your suggestion and the cruise missiles sinks an enemy ship, fired from aboard a sub!



Now I can make changes to my mod!

Thanks

 

[Aceman101]

That's good news .They should have made it like this in civ.

 

[psweetman1590]

It works? Really? Wow, I'm better with the editor than I thought. I'll have to do this my own mod too.

 

[Sashie VII]

Things I did:

(i) Flag Tactical Missile option for Cruise Missile.
(ii) Flag Amphibious for Cruise Missile.
(iii) Flag Carry Tactical Missile for Subs.