27-01-2004 02:58									#31
	Support Apolyton, buy GURPS/ Alpha Centauri

While I do agree that the civ3 style air combat is more realistic and better balanced, the civ2 style was certainly more fun.

Exactly the same situation as with spies: unbalancing but fun in civ2. I use spying in civ3 because it gives me useful info, but I don't find any fun in using it.

I'll give you an example how far these things have gone: I used to play civ2 with my gf, and not short games, but gigantic battles that lasted for days. She doesn't play anymore civ3 with me: she doesn't find it fun. She is certainly not interested in corruption calculations, RCP, palace jump and things like this; she is interested in the fun the game delivers, and while some new elements are certaily welcome (great leaders, civ specific units, culture, resources, and many more) others are missing: spies, air battles, caravans, etc. Yes, I know that lot of people found these tedious and unbalancing, but for just as many people they meant part of the fun.

Don't get me wrong, civ3 is a great game, but somehow a bit too streamlined and a bit too "borgish". Perfect for someone who likes to calculate in detail the level of corruption (I don't have anything against Alexman I am just using corr. as an example) and plans worker orders 20 turns ahead, but somehow not fun enough for a more common player. At least this is how I see it; just my 2 cents.

Last edited by Tiberius on 27-01-2004 at 03:21

	27-01-2004 03:25									#32
	Enter the AD-FREE zone

I like Civ3 air combat. To me it makes sense whereas the Civ2 way didn't.

I'm not too sure about C3C though. When you bomb an enemy city the first units you hit seem to be any aircraft in the city. I just took on the Scandies. I had about 20 bombers and they had 5 or 6 jet fighters and 3 bombers. Early on I lost a few bombers, then they lost 2 jets shot down intercepting my bombers. I then destroyed the rest of their aircraft by mass bombing of their cities.

It may be realistic to overwhelm by sheer numbers but I am beginning to think the bomber, used in significant numbers, with LLB, is very strong, possibly too strong, in C3C. It wasn't this effective in PTW or vanilla Civ3 where I used similar tactics and numbers. Coupled with resource scarcity limiting what units a civ can build deploying a large bomber force concentrated on a single target at a time is pretty much a guaranteed killer against the AI.

	27-01-2004 03:50									#33
	Support Apolyton, buy GURPS/ Alpha Centauri

The AU mod is removing lethal bombard from bombers to fix that. Massive arty strike (to limit collateral damage - arty only hits units) until everything is redlined followed up by bombers is an extremely easy way to take cities without any fighting by ground units.

	27-01-2004 10:39									#34
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization 2

I absolutely 100% like the way air combat works in CIV3 better then the old way. It works even better with C3C. This was one of my favorite changes to CIV3. I hated having to move all of my planes each square and all the way back. I vote a big massive "NO" to bringing back the old way air combat was handled.

	27-01-2004 19:16									#35
	Remove this text

quote: Originally posted by gunkulator [QUOT [QUOTE] [q]Helicopters: The attack ability is something I miss from civ3. however the fuel=health idea doesnt quite make sense. Should have make it with similar movement, with no ability to enter ocean

Why should helicopters not be allowed to enter an ocean square? In CIV 2 the helicopter was my primary ASW platform (And the only thing that I miss about the CIV 2 airwar)

quote: The ability to attack with helicopters from the sea is a cornerstone of US Marine strategy, however as you said, helocopters should be limited to coastal and sea tiles - never ocean unless they are near a carrier.

What about Destroyers and Aegis Cruisers?

	28-01-2004 00:56									#36
	Avatar Enlargement: We've got the solution

Helicopters are, by their nature, short range tactical weapons. Flying them across the ocean is not realistic, not that realism is a big deal, but there are already enough air units that can do it.

ASW helicopters are generally special purpose aircraft, not for ground attack or transport. They are intimately tied to their launching platform, a surface ship. The only thing they have in common with their land and amphibious based kin is the fact that they use rotors instead of fixed wings. As such, ASW could be better modeled with just a ship that has a decent "see subs" range. Flying helicopters around to find subs is just as tedious as flying any other air unit in Civ2. Civ3 did away that aspect of air combat and I, for one, am glad to see it gone. YMMV of course.

	28-01-2004 01:15									#37
	Full PM-box? Change here!

quote: Originally posted by gunkulator Helicopters are, by their nature, short range tactical weapons. Flying them across the ocean is not realistic, not that realism is a big deal, but there are already enough air units that can do it. ASW helicopters are generally special purpose aircraft, not for ground attack or transport.

Special purpose but infinately flexible, a helicopter could be converted from ASW to Attack to Transport missions with relatively few alterations (not like a surface ship, or even a fixed wing aircraft) Take the Huey which did everything from med evac to transport to gunship if the navy had them they would have been converted to ASW as well

quote: They are intimately tied to their launching platform, a surface ship. The only thing they have in common with their land and amphibious based kin is the fact that they use rotors instead of fixed wings. As such, ASW could be better modeled with just a ship that has a decent "see subs" range.

Not sure of your point here. The helo is short ranged but it is no different than land based helo's in this regard (although the army does tend to set up forward refuling bases, something that admittedly a naval ship is unable to do. Having the ASW helo capability built into the surface ship would not be accurate if the ship was produced before discovering advanced flight.

quote: Flying helicopters around to find subs is just as tedious as flying any other air unit in Civ2. Civ3 did away that aspect of air combat and I, for one, am glad to see it gone. YMMV of course.

I agree that I do not want to have to actually move the helo around as in CIV 2 but why does a Helo not discover a sub if on a recon patrol and modified to detect stealth units?

All I am asking for is a Helo that can rebase to carriers, destroyers, and aegis cruisers that can launch attacks against land and naval units and can detect subs on a friggin' recon patrol. (Also carriers that can transport helo's and Marines would be a huge plus)

	28-01-2004 01:29									#38
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

I think modelling ASW aircraft is far too much detail. Attack helicopters are not strategically significant such that they need to be modelled seperately from the unit of which they are a part. I think it's better to just assume the helicopter comes with the ship (or the the case of attack helicopters, assume that some level of combined arms is being used).

	28-01-2004 01:51									#39
	Tired of ads?

quote: Originally posted by Mad Bomber Special purpose but infinately flexible, a helicopter could be converted from ASW to Attack to Transport missions with relatively few alterations (not like a surface ship, or even a fixed wing aircraft) Take the Huey which did everything from med evac to transport to gunship if the navy had them they would have been converted to ASW as well

Gunship helos are not convertible to any other type. However, transport helos tend to be accompanied by gunships for ground support anyway so I don't mind combining them into a single unit. ASW, otoh, is a completely different use of helos and is necessarily supported by a surface ship. Therefore, combining the ASW helo and support ship into a single unit seems logical. My thought is to drop the helo and keep the ship.

quote: Having the ASW helo capability built into the surface ship would not be accurate if the ship was produced before discovering advanced flight.

Easily solved. ASW ships would nicely round out the (forget the name) combined arms(?) advance - the one where you get helos and/or paratroopers.

quote: I agree that I do not want to have to actually move the helo around as in CIV 2 but why does a Helo not discover a sub if on a recon patrol and modified to detect stealth units?

The vast majority of helos opperating today have no ability to detect subs. ASW capabilities require significant and special modifications, different crew with different training, etc. Even in Civ3 terms, they are different from other helocopters. Other helos are forward deployed units that are certainly at risk in combat. ASW helos are more like pure lethal bombardment units - they are at no risk from the sub, and indeed, posses practically no armor or defensive weaponry. Since ships already have bombardment, I would prefer ASW ships perform the role of sub hunter/killers.

quote: (Also carriers that can transport helo's and Marines would be a huge plus)

Indeed. The US Marines are organized into amphibous groups based around a carrier. The carriers not only carry helicopters, but significant numbers of Marines as well. Interestingly, amphibious carriers are incapable of launching or retrieving conventional fixed wing aircraft.