Zeppelin bombs Destroyer -20%... uh huh.

Oddible

signal / noise > 1
Joined
Apr 7, 2002
Messages
907
Location
Vancouver, BC
Wth? The notion that a blimp could even remotely touch a destroyer is absurd to the extreme! Are these torpedo blimps??? Even so, it would take zero effort for a destroyer to shoot a blimp out of sky at extreme range. This needs a tweak.
 

anduril171

Chieftain
Joined
Aug 21, 2006
Messages
16
Airships were used mainly for reconnaissance... The idea that they can conduct airstrike missions seems a little over the top.

It really bugs me that the AI races to physics and builds tens of airships, which really have no counter until fighters... in a twisted way, airships absolutely rule the skies for a long time in BtS, something which absolutely was not true historically
 

Stylesrj

Tabitha SEAL
Joined
Jul 7, 2006
Messages
4,311
Location
New LA, Planet Mira
The AA gun was created by the Prussians because they were sieging Paris and the French sent up hot air balloons to distant areas to get help. The Prussians were angry at how they couldn't find any means to shoot them down as they were out of rifle and cannon range.

Thus the AA gun was born...
 

Venger

Give it a tumble, sport
Joined
Apr 18, 2002
Messages
783
I have to call apocryphal BS on that one... in as much as it'd be like calling David the first sniper for his one round head shot on Goliath. Leaning a cannon up against a tree and firing it, or strapping it to a surrey, really doesn't qualify as AA to me. It would have to be effective, because otherwise throwing rocks at airplanes would be AA. Even in WWI, they were still leaning guns up against a fence and calling it AA, they didn't really get AA right until the end, and even that was usually a modded LMG... anything bigger than that, and it was just a noisemaker. Until WW2... big German 88 (hey, point that at that tank over there...), US Quad 50 (a NASTY piece of equipment, especially when directed against infantry... yikes).

Maybe having a sight should denote what we think of first AA...

I bet there's just as apocryphal a tale of a Chinese firework being launched at a recon kite in 1252, but I refuse to call that the first SAM site...

Venger
 

DemonMaster

A.K.A. Fenhorn
Joined
Oct 20, 2003
Messages
1,648
Location
Sweden
Statistics from WWII has shown the AA didn't shot down so many aircraft, it was more used to disturb the enemy aircraft, forcing them to abort (and/or be stressed when bombing) and if the AA was so poor at WWII, I don't think any "AA" weapons before that was more effective, especially since Z. usually flew much higher than aircraft did when they was on a bomb raid. Statistics from WWI also shown that Z. that was "shot down" more often managed to land (sometimes in enemy land though) and in civ that would more accurate be heavy damage and an aborted mission.
 

alpaca

King of Ungulates
Joined
Aug 3, 2006
Messages
2,322
Yeah the Airhips are a bit over the top, I don't really know why they included them.
I think they were pretty inaccurate in reality (they flew high and there was no good way to determine where to drop the bombs) so even hitting ships with them would be pretty difficult. They could carry a lot of bombs though.
 

DemonMaster

A.K.A. Fenhorn
Joined
Oct 20, 2003
Messages
1,648
Location
Sweden
They should have a lower strength, making them infact (even more) useless against units (think -20% sounds a little bit to high) or make them be "city bombes" only. They were mostly used as "terror-bombers".

OR

They should have a permanent mishap chance making them abort even before they reach the target area (perhaps also with damage).

OR

We could introduce Turkish AA (i.e. a laying on the ground with a rifle), perhaps with only a small chance of success.
 

Stylesrj

Tabitha SEAL
Joined
Jul 7, 2006
Messages
4,311
Location
New LA, Planet Mira
I read in a book about aerial warfare that the Prussians built an AA gun while attacking Paris. It was on a cart with 4 wheels and it was a small rifle-like cannon thing. Whether or not it was effective, I don't know, because the book didn't elaborate on it, but it was an AA gun and it was used specifically to shoot down hot air balloons
 
Joined
Dec 28, 2005
Messages
976
Location
NJ, USA
I believe airships were a counter to German U-Boats during WWII on the US east coast. They were excellent spotters and could even attack. That said, I think a modern destroyer would be shooting one of these out of the sky before the airship even knew a destroyer was there.
 

DemonMaster

A.K.A. Fenhorn
Joined
Oct 20, 2003
Messages
1,648
Location
Sweden
I believe airships were a counter to German U-Boats during WWII on the US east coast. They were excellent spotters and could even attack. That said, I think a modern destroyer would be shooting one of these out of the sky before the airship even knew a destroyer was there.
The problem here is that it was a huge different between WWI and WWII destroyers and battleships (AA, detecting subs, etc.) and there is a huge difference between WWII and modern destroyers and cruisers.

A modern destroyer is more like a Missile Cruiser than a destroyer.

My (almost perfect) solution to all this would be.

Destroyers and Cruisers come with a basic stats. Then through upgrades and/or promotions (probably better with promotions) it can improve it's AA capacity, sub detection, sub warfare, offensive, defense.

If you look at the russian navy, it has very specialized ships. They have for example both a destroyer class and a cruiser class that is specialized in sub warfare but with only basic other weapon system. And they have both destroyers and cruisers that is AA specialists, but with only basic other weapons systems.

This would mean that if you have a "WWI" fleet and then if you face an enemy that have flights and you don't have promoted your fleet with AA (or cannot) then your ships are more or less sitting ducks or if you have your "WWI" fleet and then you haven't promoted them to counter subs then you may have trouble finding any (like early WWII). OR

There could be one set of ships (pre WWII) and another set of ships (WWII) and a third set of ships (modern).
 

scorth

Chieftain
Joined
Aug 9, 2007
Messages
45
Location
Kingston, Canada
Nothing worse than being pummelled by f*ing airships whilst beelining to flight just to get some relief.

I personally like airships for recon and for softening up cities (as does the AI), to be honest, I've never built more than 3 or 4, they just don't seem very realistic to me (maybe that's my downfall). But I agree that there should be some form of defence directly aimed at these blimps...
 

peter450

Prince
Joined
Sep 24, 2006
Messages
392
Airships as in ones that can realistically drop bombs need the internal combustion engine surely?
 

DemonMaster

A.K.A. Fenhorn
Joined
Oct 20, 2003
Messages
1,648
Location
Sweden
Airships as in ones that can realistically drop bombs need the internal combustion engine surely?
I'm sure they use half a dozen of gnomes with their strange crafty magic, but perhaps that would be a more suitable explanation for FfH.;)
 

Venger

Give it a tumble, sport
Joined
Apr 18, 2002
Messages
783
If you look at the russian navy, it has very specialized ships. They have for example both a destroyer class and a cruiser class that is specialized in sub warfare but with only basic other weapon system. And they have both destroyers and cruisers that is AA specialists, but with only basic other weapons systems.

This would mean that if you have a "WWI" fleet and then if you face an enemy that have flights and you don't have promoted your fleet with AA (or cannot) then your ships are more or less sitting ducks or if you have your "WWI" fleet and then you haven't promoted them to counter subs then you may have trouble finding any (like early WWII). OR

There could be one set of ships (pre WWII) and another set of ships (WWII) and a third set of ships (modern).

I wouldn't use the Russian Navy as a model of anything frankly - besides, almost all navies specialize the class of ship based on role. Reflecting this natural with abilities (destroyer +50% against sub, for instance) does alot for combat.

I do like the different naval eras - in Civ3, I added Ships of the Line, Dreadnaughts, and other ships to fill out the navy a little more. Dreadnaught was the first big iron in the Navy eventually superseded by battleships - though they were still effective.

Heck, even battleships weren't always battleships - you had pocket battleships, fast battleships, the treaty ships...

Wonder if minelaying would be a decent addition to the Civ naval architecture? Hmmmmmm...

Oh, and AA was very effective in WW2. See the Pacific theatre. It's those high flying bombers that AA wasn't always effective against.

Venger
 
Top Bottom