Why are war ships' defense values lower than attack values?

[AbuHab]

I'm working on a mod that will emphasize naval warfare, and I began to question why the game designers chose to make so many war ships have higher attack than defense values. Dromons, Carracks, Privateers, Man-O-Wars, Destroyers, Cruisers, AEGIS Cruisers, Battleships, Submarines, and Nuclear Submarines all have significantly higher attack than defense values. The result of this discrepancy is that battles among these ships will generally be heavily lopsided in the attacker's favor.

Is there a real life reason why the defense value of a war ship should be significantly lower than its attack value?

This doesn't seem realistic to me. I could understand it if we were talking about surprise attacks, but it can't be that every naval attack is deemed to be a surprise attack.

It seems to me that a war ship that is being approached by another war ship in the open sea would have sufficient time to turn its broadside or its ram to the attacker and fully defend itself. In real life, naval battles (at least in ancient and medieval times, which is where most of my historical knowledge is), were set up with a great deal of care, with lines of ships, flanking maneuvers, and so on. With the exception of the occasional blunder (like the Spartans catching the Athenians with their boats beached), ships always seem to have time to position themselves in the best possible manner, so that the attacker would actually quite often be at a DISADVANTAGE.

Am I missing something, or should war ship attack and defense values be equalized?

 

[Cu Chulainn]

They should also have zone of control, some should be able to carry cruise missles, and AEGIS should give a bonus similar to radar towers.

 

[majk-iii]

At least the modern warships with greater firing-range wold get a "first hit"-bonus... like; if u throw the first punch, u will probably win the fight.

 

[majk-iii]

...or so one could imagine.

 

[Dida]

I have no problem with the attack and defense value. But I think AGEIS should have the radar tower effect on surrounding units, and it should be able to fire cruise missle directly on board.

 

[Padma]

The answer is quite simple, I imagine:

Game Balance.




Realism always takes second-place to playability in these games. If it's too "realistic", then only hard-core types will buy the game. Better to go a little light on the realism, and sell a few million more copies of the game.

 

[AbuHab]

The answer is quite simple, I imagine:

Game Balance.




Realism always takes second-place to playability in these games. If it's too "realistic", then only hard-core types will buy the game. Better to go a little light on the realism, and sell a few million more copies of the game.

You are certainly correct that realism takes second place to game balance, so, assuming that's the answer, I wouldn't argue with it.

But is it really the answer, or was Firaxis trying to simulate something in the real world that I've overlooked?

If it's just game balance, how does it help balance the game to have war ships have specs that favor the attacker over the defender? Or, to put it a different way, how will I be unbalancing the game if I make the war ships in my mod have equal attack and defense values?

 

[Tomoyo]

It will be taking away from the importance of naval power. The whole purpose of a navy is to protect your transports and destroy others'. When it becomes harder, it will be less worth it to protect your transports from enemy ships because they are now more defense oriented.

 

[AbuHab]

They should also have zone of control, some should be able to carry cruise missles, and AEGIS should give a bonus similar to radar towers.

Please provide more details as why you believe war ships should have zones of control and which war ships should have zones of control.

 

[AbuHab]

At least the modern warships with greater firing-range wold get a "first hit"-bonus... like; if u throw the first punch, u will probably win the fight.

Is that how modern naval combat works in the real world? Unfortunately, I don't know anything about modern naval combat.

 

[searcheagle]

Is that how modern naval combat works in the real world? Unfortunately, I don't know anything about modern naval combat.

Well, The attacking forces first fires off missiles. The defending ship has to activate countermeasures to try to defeat the missiles from hitting them by either firing off flares or radar "chaff", both of which distort the ship's signals. The ship, especially those with "Aegis" can attempt to shoot down the missile using the ship's Anti Aircraft guns.

During this period of time, the attacking ship can prepare its next set of attacks. So, the attacking ship has the advantage.

The ships systems work similar if attacked by any aerial threat, except guns only. Even then, I'd assume the ships would have the same technology that M1A2's have that allows them to figure out where the shot came from.

Contrary to logic, it is possible to hide on the open ocean, even with RADAR. It is even easier to hide when land can help. Hiding ships is a big priority in naval warfare. If they can't find, they can't hit you. Simple as that.

 

[Chauliodus]

Civ combat simpley isn't suited to naval battles, from a fleet bombarding another till all the ships in that sqaure are at 1 life, then picking them off, to only needing one detect invisible ship in a group to spot subs and then sink every one in your path (and of course sinking subs by just running into them when you didn't even know they were there).

Civ combat works on land (unless you have alot of arty or the defenders have a really good defence area and are impossible to beat without arty) and even on air battles, but I can't see a way they can improve ship fighting without overhauling the whole turn based system.

Now don't get me started on how the AI uses ships...

 

[Cu Chulainn]

Please provide more details as why you believe war ships should have zones of control and which war ships should have zones of control.

I doubt any hostile vessel could come within one square (half the gun range) of a modern battleship without taking fire. As for which ships, I would say Battleship at the very least and all ships with bombard ability at most. My personal preference would be BS, Destroyer, and maybe the Cruiser classes.

 

[FenrysWulf]

Even though most ships have a higher attack value, I still seem to suffer way too much damage when I attack another ship. I've had to start saving before I attack, because I will often need to reload four times to sink a destroyer with a battleship. I don't know if I just have the worst luck in the world, but my ships which seem to have the numerical advantage have a real problem winning.

One of the worst practical ships in civ is the submarine, because they seem to lose way too often while attacking, where in reality it seems like a sub would be a much more dangerous weapon than it is in the game. Subs often have trouble sinking transports, and even if they do, they end up with one hit point left. And I'm not talking about my subs because I don't build them - this is what I've seen from the AI's sub attacks.

 

[mikehunt]

not much you can do to stop the rounds from a battleship's 16inch guns
I could see the ancient ships having a higer defense since didn't those usually involve bordings?

because I will often need to reload four times to sink a destroyer with a battleship. I don't know if I just have the worst luck in the world, but my ships which seem to have the numerical advantage have a real problem winning.

I've encountered this, so I try to have at least 3 modern ships grouped together and do 2 bombardments before the 3rd ship goes in on a normal attack

 

[Nicci]

Now don't get me started on how the AI uses ships...

very annoying indeed . . . . . .

it's hard to determin (in the real world) which party is favourite. attacking or defending. a few centuries ago it was more important where the wind was blowing . . .

 

[tR1cKy]

Naval fight sucks seriously in civ3. For example, a carrier cannot defend with its aircraft, and a submarine cannot pass 200 meters under an enemy ship...

About the higher attack values, i think it's consistent with reality. A single missile can sink a warship, and a single torpedo can neutralize a submarine.

 

[jst666]

I've had to start saving before I attack, because I will often need to reload four times to sink a destroyer with a battleship.

Do you reload also, when your defending destroyer sink attacking AI battleship?

 

[Nicci]

Naval fight sucks seriously in civ3. For example, a carrier cannot defend with its aircraft, and a submarine cannot pass 200 meters under an enemy ship...

About the higher attack values, i think it's consistent with reality. A single missile can sink a warship, and a single torpedo can neutralize a submarine.

no, it doesn't suck. just don't send any carriers un-escorted! a single carrier (WW2 period) didn't have much of a defense. if a battleship suddenly appeared (that's why u can send out a fighter to look around!), the carrier didn't stand much of a change.
as far as the submarines . . . during the first en the start of the second world war navy ships weren't able to spot a submarine. after that they could and submarines didn't go near a serious warship. once a submarine was spotted they were iin trouble.
in Civ. Call to power submarines had the ability to 'bomb' other ships with torpedos. that was nice . . . . they should bring that back in civ 4.

 

[AbuHab]

I could see the ancient ships having a higer defense since didn't those usually involve bordings?

Yes, they used both boarding and ramming, with different civilizations emphasizing different tactics. But you don't want to make ancient ships' defenses too high, because this game often involves conflicts between ships of different eras, and a ship with cannons should have no trouble whatsoever dispatching a trireme.