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

[777]

I found subs pretty useles in Civ3, mostly because of their laughable! attack value. One time my nuck sub losted to one wooden crank. I can't remember what ship was, but it wasn't modern not even ironclad. Oh come on! Sub could easily just over run the damn boat.

But I was luckily too, battleship went down when it tried to attack my destroyer Oh well, I guess everything is possible in world of Sid.

 

[AbuHab]

Call to power submarines had the ability to 'bomb' other ships with torpedos. that was nice . . . . they should bring that back in civ 4.

This could be simulated by adding a bombard attack in the Editor, couldn't it?

 

[AbuHab]

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

So, to summarize, do you believe the 3:2 Attack/Defense ratio that the game assigns to modern ships is a reasonably accurate representation of reality?

It seems odd to me, because it means a destroyer has a 50% chance of destroying a battleship if the destroyer is the attacker. But, as I've said, my notion of what's "realistic" in naval warfare depends upon my knowledge of ancient and medieval naval warfare, which is probably not applicable to modern naval warfare. In ancient warfare, we generally don't have to deal with the type of problems tR1cKy points out, i.e., "a single missile can sink a warship, and a single torpedo can neutralize a submarine."

 

[Jaybe]

This could be simulated by adding a bombard attack in the Editor, couldn't it?

Been there, tried that. Submarines bombarding coastal improvements and cities is NOT a fair simulation of torpedoes, and you cannot prevent the AI from doing it!

OTOH, small bombardment values for ancient ships to represent raiding parties isn't too bad.

--
Regarding battleship vulnerability to destroyers , lower the destroyer values to 10/8. Raise battleship defense to 16, +1 Hitpoint and make it more expensive.

 

[AbuHab]

Been there, tried that. Submarines bombarding coastal improvements and cities is NOT a fair simulation of torpedoes, and you cannot prevent the AI from doing it!.

Good point.

Regarding battleship vulnerability to destroyers , lower the destroyer values to 10/8. Raise battleship defense to 16, +1 Hitpoint and make it more expensive.

I've been giving some thought to raising hitpoints on many ships. After all, ships are really big things, and would, logically, have many hitpoints. But having ships with a wide range of hit point values could make things very confusing for the human player. After all, how many of us can quickly glance at a potential battle and make an informed decision as to whether our three 15-Attack 7-HP cruisers have a good chance of beating the AI's two 12-Def 10-HP battleships? Variable hitpoints add a second dimension to the equation that significantly increases its complexity.

 

[mikehunt]

I should clarify. higher in relation to their attack on the ancient ships (ie 2/2) versus later ships that might be 12/4 or something

 

[AbuHab]

I should clarify. higher in relation to their attack on the ancient ships (ie 2/2) versus later ships that might be 12/4 or something

Yep. Sorta like tank vs. spearman. And we all know how that turns out.

 

[tR1cKy]

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.

Man, i'm always open to constructive debate... but could you please read the post before replying? Your statements are true, but don't address the points i've put in evidence about the weak points of naval combat.

Regarding carriers, i was talking about them defending with aircrafts i.e. sending some planes to sink the attacking warship. Suppose a North-Korean cruiser attacking the Nimitz. In real life, the Nimitz would simply send a squadron of F-15 to dispose of the attacker. In Civ3 world, the F-15 sit idle on the airfield and the pilots play cards while the Nimitz defends with a lousy machine gun... go figure.

About submarines, they simply cannot pass under a ship. They share the same tile, regardless if they're deeply submerged or on the surface. A submarine stationed 300m under the sea would simply remain unnoticed by a North-Korean cruiser (or even a sailing vessel) passing around. In Civ3 world, the ship would ram into the submarine instead.

These serious flaw are the reason why naval combat DOES suck in Civ3. Luckily, they are not too important to impact the game enjoyment, at least in the majority of situations. Naval combat play a marginal role in the whole game, and lots of players usually finish the game before carriers and submarines are around.

 

[Nicci]

euh, i read it.
u are simply wrong.
a sub would be spotted. with the right boat. the last few years the german subs were sitting ducks once spotted. and most of them were spotted.
the nimitz would be far too late if the 'north korean' cruiser(why must it be north korean?) had allready opened fire. or if a sub had allready fired his torpedo's.
a 1950's battleship could gun down a carrier from 10 - 20 miles. the responstime of a cruiser was somewhere between 15 to 45 minutes.once the carrier has it's planes in the air it is defensless against other attacks . . .
so, it is cruisial that the carrier spots the aproaching warship first. that's why u are able to look around with ur fighters.

 

[wombatoftruth]

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.

Yes and no. The Lexington (the one sunk at Coral Sea, not her replacement) and Saratoga would have been able to stand up to any light cruiser of the era. The Yorktown and Essex classes had as many 5 inch guns as a destroyer. The attack rating of 1 that Civ assigns them isn't particularly accurate-I think it's safe to say they would be more than capable of destorying a 19th century iron clad without difficulty, let alone a man-o-war or a galley. Realistically, an iron clad successfully defending against a CV is an even more extreme inbalance than spearmen defeating tanks.
As for subs, I think you're a bit off. The U.S. lost two CVs in '42 to Japanese submarines, a CVE in '43 to the same, a CVE in '44 to the Germans, and of course the Indianapolis in '45. The Japanese lost two CVs to U.S. subs in '44, and a pair of CAs. WWII SONAR was a far cry from what it is now.
For realism, I think it would be great if subs had a chance to retreat from combat-after all, hiding is kinda the whole point of the underwater thing.

 

[wombatoftruth]

The board game Pacific Theater of Operations had a nice way of dealing with the carrier v battleship situation. If you attacked a carrier with surface ships, every air unit on board got to make a bombing run. Tended to make you reconsider plowing a couple battleships into the midst of a carrier task force, even if it was only escorted by a few destroyers.

I wonder if there's a way in the editor to give aircraft a defensive bombardment value?

 

[tR1cKy]

euh, i read it.
u are simply wrong.
...

We may have different opinions about real naval warfare, but you're still failing to address my points. And please note that the issue is the inconsistency of some aspects of the Civ3 combat model...

a sub would be spotted. with the right boat.

And with a galleon, or a lousy galley? In the Civ3 model, the galleon would ram into the submarine exactly as a modern warship. And, if in Civ3, destroyers, battleship and carriers cannot see submarines, what's the point in ramming into them while they are submerged? That was the point about submarines. Frankly, it's annoying when you need to explain the same thing twice.

About carriers, please note that the plane scouting take place during your turn, while the [insert random country] cruiser would attack during its turn, and in this case planes and pilots stay there for fun... If a ship can defend with its cannons, shouln't an aircraft carrier be defending with its aircrafts?

 

[Nicci]

u have a point. a galley would not be able to spot a sub. . .

about that scouting plane. if i go with a carrier into a sea and i expect trouble, i send out a fighter. or 2. i use destroyers or battleship circling around the carrier(s). that way there is no way in heaven somebody surprises me and takes out my carrier without me being able to at least and try to do something against it. this is how i do it and this is pretty much how it worked before and during WW2. nowadays a carrier can rely more on its own defense systems, but i think the civ navy was pretty much based upon the time WW2 was happening..