05-11-2001 06:43									#31
	Got spare money?

Think of the implications for scenario design:

-Pearl Harbour is now impossible
-'Sink the Bismarck' is now impossible
- Japanese aircraft sink UK battleship task force (Prince of Wales and Repulse) near Singapore! : Impossible
-UK aircraft sink Italian battleships at Tarento!: Impossible

Four events that I have seen in World War II scenarios are now impossible.

This is incredibly silly.

More Examples:
-surrender of whole German infantry divisions(10 000 soldiers or one unit) to US p-47c attack aircraft during opertation cobra: impossible
-Crippling of whole Panzer columns (effective mission-kill) prior to Kursk and other tank battles by Sturmovik attack aircraft: impossible
-Gulf War: annihilation of entire armoured divisions by A-10s, F-14s, and Apache ground attack aircraft: can't be done
-1942-43 many u-boats sunk by planes dropping depth charges or dive bombing surfacing u-boats; the sub isn't just 'damaged' it sinks right to the bottom
-Giant Battleship Yamato, flagship of the Imperial Japanese Navy, is finally sunk by 50 dive bombs and 60 air-dropped torpedoes in 1945 off of Okinawa. Its 18.1" guns, designed to engage enemy battleships at long range, are useless against wave after wave of carrier-born aircraft. It is sunk solely by aircraft: Impossible in Civ3
-Dunkerque, 1940 German Luftwaffe sinks dozens of transport vessels

Just think of it in real life terms: If you put enough torpedoes and bombs into a ship, no matter how well armoured, it will SINK, not just get 'damaged a little'!!!

	05-11-2001 06:55									#32
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization: The Boardgame

I have been using bombers to quiet a bit of success. They may not destroy the enemy, but rarely do they fail to soften up the target to make them very easy to clean up with whatever units you have in the area. Air power was given the ability to cripple but not destroy units. It is fairly reasonable to expect this because for every Bismark, peral harbor example, there are many more examples of air power not being able to completely destroy the enemy. No matter which way you go you can show examples of the other being more valid. I take the opinion that while it may not be completely agreeable, there is no a really reasonable way to compromise so that everyone is happy.

As an additional thought on this: In the Gulf war, the iraq army was decimated by air power. Even in that case, land units had to mop up pockets of resistance. This could very well be demonstrated by attacking a unit that has been reduced to red by air strikes.

I figure, Firaxis has to pick one of the two and either way we wouldn't be happy.