Why can't Airplanes destroy Ships?

[Seraiel]

Usually everything in CIV is somehow explanable, but that one I can't. I'm looking for an inGame balancing or mechanic answer, because obviously, Aircrafts were able to sink quite a lot of ships in the 2nd WW for example, just think of those epic Torpedo-bombers.

It's also a mystery to me that Battleships, who cannot see Submarines are able to see and attack them, when they're set to sea-patrol a certain tile.

 

[Lexicus]

I agree.

It would be cool if there was promotion that enabled it.

 

[traius]

They can in the WW2 scenario that comes with BTS. Honestly, it's over-powered as hell, even if realistic-ish. Planes can even destroy boats hiding in port (again, realistic, but overpowered). It means making a ship in that scenario is a complete waste of hammers. Again, probably realistic, but unbalanced in a game.
EDIT: That being said, it could be made to be less unbalanced than it is in that scenario. That scenario gives "ship destruction" its own button, and simply gives a pass/fail instead of damage. The odds even seem pretty good, at a guess 75% plus if not intercepted (intercept = auto-fail). So full-health boats can easily be sunk by a single airplane in a turn.

 

[Seraiel]

They can in the WW2 scenario that comes with BTS. Honestly, it's over-powered as hell, even if realistic-ish. Planes can even destroy boats hiding in port (again, realistic, but overpowered). It means making a ship in that scenario is a complete waste of hammers. Again, probably realistic, but unbalanced in a game.

Ships without air-support are victims to aircrafts! That's why a carrier accompanies any combined fleet of battleships and destroyers. There is no limit to the number of carriers on one tile, so any fleet could basically have unlimited amounts of fighters with it!
How is any attacker then overpowered when a fleet can have indefinite amounts of defenders. Even destroyers can help defending with their 20% chance of intercepting attacking aircrafts!

 

[Lexicus]

Well, in real history land-based aircraft almost always outnumbered carrier-based aircraft.

If planes can sink ships then guided missiles should also be able to, of course.

 

[Pangaea]

They had to make some sacrifices for game balance I suppose. Siege has been known to kill a few people too.

 

[elmurcis]

They had to make some sacrifices for game balance I suppose. Siege has been known to kill a few people too.

Well.. In theory any single unit in Civ4 represents many soldiers that fill up that 1000 square miles... so any catapult that damages any unit, actually kill some people too... just later they have 1 or 50 years between turns to restore full power

/But it is little strange that Submarine with 3 guided missiles can do more damage to enemy ship than Carrier with "just" 3 fighters.../

 

[Lennier]

I agree that aircraft should be able to destroy ships; each attack should cause damage so that it should take several successful air strikes to sink a ship. Missiles should do more damage than single aircraft.

 

[omnimutant]

They should have a UU Aircraft for Japan too

 

[Lexicus]

Re: the balance issue, a Fighter costs 100 hammers while a destroyer (which if I recall is the cheapest modern naval unit) costs 200.

 

[Macksideshow]

They should have a UU Aircraft for Japan too

LOL, that would be epic.

 

[plasmacannon]

They should have a UU Aircraft for Japan too

It could be a UU missile but changed to be the Zero fighter, kamikaze only.

 

[kingbeef]

It's probably still a bit too sensitive to put a kamikaze unit in the game from a marketing point of view. There is probably something unofficial out there though.

It's well known the rise of air power signaled a huge decline in the significance of navies. Firaxis probably felt intercontinental invasions would be near impossible if fighters had the capability to sink ships.

 

[reddishrecue]

airplanes were meant to intercept I guess, particularly fighters. Bombers should be able to destroy units though.

 

[Rusty Edge]

The American medium and heavy bombers were notoriously poor at striking ships, particularly moving ones. Probably because theses bombers flew high enough that the ships could dodge when the lookouts saw the bombs being released, and alter course enough to be safe.

Interestingly enough, a major scourge of the Japanese Navy were the "Black Cats" , PBYs that were painted black and equipped with both radar and radio altimeters , attacking only at night, closing the distance by flying low at 90( longest range ) - 125 mph( top speed). They were the "stealth bombers" of their time. They had a tremendous range, allowing them to attack behind enemy lines undetected.

The attack approach was by gaining altitude, approaching the ship or column from the stern, then cutting the throttles and glide bombing. A 500lb , fro the wing, then 2 1000lb bombs from the belly, then the 500 pounder from the other wing.
http://www.daveswarbirds.com/blackcat/history.htm

I think the best solution for Civ s to give fighters a torpedo or dive bomber promotion, which would allow them to exceed the damage limits of ships.