Whats wrong with this picture?
- Thread starter zeeter
- Start date
cracker
Gil Favor's Sidekick
First you need to read the easy-upload instructions for the forum. It really is easy but don't stick you finger in it and slam the lid before reading the instructions.
On Carriers, you can build them before flight because Firaxis mad them that way and because strategically, you need to build the carrier first and assemble it into a task force with protective ships like battleships and submarines (just for the remote cahnce of detecting a sub) and then drive them around the world to where they can be useful. When flight is discovered, you can probably build aircraft in many more locations than you could possible build carriers and the aircraft can be instantly "rebased" all the way around the world to populate the carrier and conduct operations.
If the carriers came after Flight (which would be historically correct) then it would be many more turns before they could be used in the game.
On Carriers, you can build them before flight because Firaxis mad them that way and because strategically, you need to build the carrier first and assemble it into a task force with protective ships like battleships and submarines (just for the remote cahnce of detecting a sub) and then drive them around the world to where they can be useful. When flight is discovered, you can probably build aircraft in many more locations than you could possible build carriers and the aircraft can be instantly "rebased" all the way around the world to populate the carrier and conduct operations.
If the carriers came after Flight (which would be historically correct) then it would be many more turns before they could be used in the game.
Zouave
Crusader
- Joined
- Dec 21, 2001
- Messages
- 1,603
Another example of lack of game realism. I'll remind everyone it was a good twenty years AFTER flight was discovered before the first effective carriers came into being in the 1920's.
This problem could be solved with a more intelligent tech tree that included Naval Flight resulting in quicker to build carrier-based airplanes such as dive bombers and torpedo bombers. We expected that after Civ 2, but Civ 3 just made naval warfare even more simplistic. I was really loooking forward to a GOOD scenario for the Pacific with real cariers for Civ 3.
Flight is an area that would be high on my list for expanding (if I ever got round to building my own scenarios etc.).
I'd like to see something like:
Advance: Flight, Units: Biplanes (mainly for recon, limited attack, no bombard), Zeppelins (a la Civ2).
Advance: Aerial Combat, Units: WW2 style fighters & bombers, aircraft carriers, airfields, airports (maybe), anti-aircraft guns.
Advance: Jet Flight, Units: Modern Jets, Nuclear Carriers (larger capacity and better defensive strength)
Advance: Stealth, Units: Stealth fighters etc.
Or something like that anyway.
I'd like to see something like:
Advance: Flight, Units: Biplanes (mainly for recon, limited attack, no bombard), Zeppelins (a la Civ2).
Advance: Aerial Combat, Units: WW2 style fighters & bombers, aircraft carriers, airfields, airports (maybe), anti-aircraft guns.
Advance: Jet Flight, Units: Modern Jets, Nuclear Carriers (larger capacity and better defensive strength)
Advance: Stealth, Units: Stealth fighters etc.
Or something like that anyway.
cracker - unless you're being sarcastic, I don't agree with you. There is no possible way that anyone can convince me that an aircraft carrier should available before flight. It would be like building the internet before the computer is discovered. Sure, you can design it, but where did the concept come from? I don't think that some scientist somewhere said "lets build this ship and call it a 'carrier'. A few years later we may build something called an 'airplane' and the 'airplane' can be based on the 'carrier'. What are you designing for? What are the specs of the planes that you're building space for on the carrier. How long does the flight deck need to be for an aircraft that we haven't even designed yet?
No, I don't buy it. I think that someone just didn't consider this in the game's design. I think it can be corrected, though. I'll check tonight.
No, I don't buy it. I think that someone just didn't consider this in the game's design. I think it can be corrected, though. I'll check tonight.
Pygzilla
loser of lost games
The discovery of flight does not seem to actually be the discovery of flight.
The units we get with flight are not the wright bros plane or even WW1 era. They appear to be mid to late WW2 planes. aircraft carriers were already present by then.
The units we get with flight are not the wright bros plane or even WW1 era. They appear to be mid to late WW2 planes. aircraft carriers were already present by then.
- Joined
- Aug 15, 2001
- Messages
- 20,065
I generally hate supporting anything on the realistic game arguement. However, in this case, I agree that the timing of the carrier is STUPID. It this case, since the planes are WW2 fighters - have carrier appear with flight.
I addition - can someone please tell me why the carrier is SLOWER than the battleship? In real war, it was the battleship that was slower.
I addition - can someone please tell me why the carrier is SLOWER than the battleship? In real war, it was the battleship that was slower.
LKendter - I also like to avoid arguments of semantics. I don't care that they skipped the early crude tanks. I don't care that they skipped bi-planes. But in this case it seems exceedingly wrong. How can you build something to house something else that hasn't been discovered yet?
I think that it should be flight, then Naval Warfare - and add planes that can only be launched from Carriers. This may be unfair, though, as the AI rarely (never?) uses carriers. On the other hand, these planes could have lethal sea bombardment abilities while land based planes do not. But land based might have lethal land bombardment while carrierplanes do not.
I think that it should be flight, then Naval Warfare - and add planes that can only be launched from Carriers. This may be unfair, though, as the AI rarely (never?) uses carriers. On the other hand, these planes could have lethal sea bombardment abilities while land based planes do not. But land based might have lethal land bombardment while carrierplanes do not.
In my last game three Russian carriers were raising bloody hell on my poorly defended northern coastline. They had bombers destroying everything as fast as my workers could build. If you give the AI time to build up they will use just about everything.
Mine isn't, I give it 5 movement.
Zeeter, regent. In that game the Russians had a huge continent to themselves with large coastal cities which I'm sure were good at churning out large ships easily. My continent originally had 5 civs on it and was at virtually constant warfare. So the Russians had an early naval lead over everyone else.
-proletarian-
Chairman and CEO
It doesn't bother me. This was obviously a decision made for better gameplay. Read that word again; GAMEPLAY.
CivIII is by no means meant to be a realistic simulation. It is a fun strategy GAME based on history. It seems to me that 90% of the criticism levelled against this game is from those who want Civ to be an uber-realistic war sim. If that's what you want then this game isn't for you.
CivIII is by no means meant to be a realistic simulation. It is a fun strategy GAME based on history. It seems to me that 90% of the criticism levelled against this game is from those who want Civ to be an uber-realistic war sim. If that's what you want then this game isn't for you.
-proletarian-
Its not the realism that I am questioning here, its simple logic. Correct me if I'm wrong, but a Carrier is useless without planes to put on it. Therefore, why would an advance give me the ability to build a carrier before I've discovered flight? Carrier should be taken out of whatever advance grants it and put into one that is after flight. Maybe advanced flight.
While this is a game, which is something I've pointed out hundreds of times to people on this board, and not a historical reference, the game is based on many historically events. Now, I don't mind the fact that it doesn't take six years to travel from NYC to Washington DC, nor do I mind the fact that I can discover bronze working and build spearmen without a bronze resource when Iron working is the complet oposite.
These examples are all gameplay examples. My point with the Carriers is that someone didn't think it through and put it into the wrong advance. Easily fixable, but I wonder how it ever made it through testing to begin with?
Its not the realism that I am questioning here, its simple logic. Correct me if I'm wrong, but a Carrier is useless without planes to put on it. Therefore, why would an advance give me the ability to build a carrier before I've discovered flight? Carrier should be taken out of whatever advance grants it and put into one that is after flight. Maybe advanced flight.
While this is a game, which is something I've pointed out hundreds of times to people on this board, and not a historical reference, the game is based on many historically events. Now, I don't mind the fact that it doesn't take six years to travel from NYC to Washington DC, nor do I mind the fact that I can discover bronze working and build spearmen without a bronze resource when Iron working is the complet oposite.
These examples are all gameplay examples. My point with the Carriers is that someone didn't think it through and put it into the wrong advance. Easily fixable, but I wonder how it ever made it through testing to begin with?
-proletarian-
Chairman and CEO
Yeah, I know.....it's a bit stupid to have aircraft carriers before aircraft themselves, (unless we are to believe that reverse-engineering is responsible! 
) I agree with whomever said that the most plausible reason for this is so that you can build up a carrier fleet before you get the advance to begin making aircraft, so that you don't have to wait around for too long in order to have fully functional carrier battle groups. That's the only reason I can think of that would justify this decision.....either that or it's just a mistake.
-shrugs-
If you ask me though, I'm more upset about the skipping of world war 1 in this game. I'd like to see primitive tanks and industrial-age infantry in this game before you get to the "infantry" we have now and the tanks that come with motorized transportation. Perhaps in the expansion?
) I agree with whomever said that the most plausible reason for this is so that you can build up a carrier fleet before you get the advance to begin making aircraft, so that you don't have to wait around for too long in order to have fully functional carrier battle groups. That's the only reason I can think of that would justify this decision.....either that or it's just a mistake.-shrugs-
If you ask me though, I'm more upset about the skipping of world war 1 in this game. I'd like to see primitive tanks and industrial-age infantry in this game before you get to the "infantry" we have now and the tanks that come with motorized transportation. Perhaps in the expansion?
I actually started a thread on the missing WWI units. Its here somewhere.
I don't buy the building up the fleet before planes reasoning. In line with the game, the player doesn't necessarily know that planes will ever exist, so why build carriers? This would be along the same lines as building a coastal fortress in a city before any units even exist that can bombard. In actual gameplay bombardment doesn't exist, so why defend against it?
I don't buy the building up the fleet before planes reasoning. In line with the game, the player doesn't necessarily know that planes will ever exist, so why build carriers? This would be along the same lines as building a coastal fortress in a city before any units even exist that can bombard. In actual gameplay bombardment doesn't exist, so why defend against it?
-proletarian-
Chairman and CEO
Yup, I saw your thread about missing world war 1, that's what reminded me about that particular gripe of mine.
They could have made the industrial age so much more interesting, but they under-represented it, in terms of units available in that era. Same for the modern age. Once you get there it's all about "modern armour for attack, mech infantry for defence." Can you say BORING?
They could have made the industrial age so much more interesting, but they under-represented it, in terms of units available in that era. Same for the modern age. Once you get there it's all about "modern armour for attack, mech infantry for defence." Can you say BORING?
One reason that they may have neglected WWI is that what's the point? There are several significant milestones here.
One is getting to Musketeers. To me, the move from Pikemen to Musket Men is significant, while the move from Musket Men to Riflemen is not. Riflemen to Infantry is significant because Infantry will be the main defensive unit throughout most of the remaining portion of the game (I've never gotten mech infantry while it could still help me).
So we have six defensive units - Spearmen and Pikemen; Musket Men and Riflemen; and Infantry and Mech Infantry. Therefore, once you get to Riflemen, why not wait a few more turns until Infantry become available before going to war?
This is different on the mobile front. Knights to Cavalry doesn't take long, although Cavalry to Tanks does. Therefore, Cavalry will be a mainstay of the army for much longer than Knights and will be used for combat more often.
At sea, the Ironclad is nice, but not that great since it cannot be upgraded. Therefore I'm not going to war until my navy is better. When Destroyers become available, why not wait a few more turns until Battleships are discovered.
This thought process works for me. To summarize, by the time I get to the Civil War/WWI era troops, I'm so close to the WWII troops that it would be foolish to go to war.
One is getting to Musketeers. To me, the move from Pikemen to Musket Men is significant, while the move from Musket Men to Riflemen is not. Riflemen to Infantry is significant because Infantry will be the main defensive unit throughout most of the remaining portion of the game (I've never gotten mech infantry while it could still help me).
So we have six defensive units - Spearmen and Pikemen; Musket Men and Riflemen; and Infantry and Mech Infantry. Therefore, once you get to Riflemen, why not wait a few more turns until Infantry become available before going to war?
This is different on the mobile front. Knights to Cavalry doesn't take long, although Cavalry to Tanks does. Therefore, Cavalry will be a mainstay of the army for much longer than Knights and will be used for combat more often.
At sea, the Ironclad is nice, but not that great since it cannot be upgraded. Therefore I'm not going to war until my navy is better. When Destroyers become available, why not wait a few more turns until Battleships are discovered.
This thought process works for me. To summarize, by the time I get to the Civil War/WWI era troops, I'm so close to the WWII troops that it would be foolish to go to war.
sealman
Hater of Babylonians
BRAVO!
