 |
| |
|
|
aznblader
|
|
his patch includes all changes from the previous "prepatch fix mod" by Anunikoba:
http://forums.civfanatics.com/showt...=&threadid=7714
PLUS:
Increased range of Paratroopers to 8:
To make them a lot more useful
Fixed bombardment strength of Cruise Missile to 18:
There was a bug that set this to 28 in the previous mod
Increased range of Helicopters to 6:
Same reason as for the Paratroopers
Increased attack strength of Nuclear Sub to 10:
So that they can defeat a regular Sub from the previous patch.
Increased bombardment strength of all AIR units by 4 points:
(not in addition to the original mod)
Gives some of the advantage sthat carriers and aerial bombardment SHOULD enjoy.
Increased movement rate of all MODERN naval units by 3 TIMES:
So it doesn't take ten years for a battleship to move a couple of thousand of kilometers.
The old changes from Anunikoba's mod can be found in the OldPatchReadme.doc
To install, just copy the civ3mod.bik over to your Civ3 dir. A backup of the original is included.
Email aznblader@yahoo.com if you have any problems of suggestions.
 Attachment: moderncombatpatch.zip
This has been downloaded 1402 time(s).
|
|
| |
|
|
|
blorq
|
|
but should nuclear subs really be that superior in attack to "regular" subs? when you get down to it, the biggest difference is that nuclear subs don't need to stop to refuel or surface to recharge their batteries from the diesel. the only advantage should be movement.
additionally, i agree with regular subs not being able to carry missiles. if you consider a regular sub to be the ww2 style submarine, then they did not carry any sort of missile (cruise missiles didn't even exist). however, nuclear subs (the sub version of modern armor) should be able to carry cruise missiles as well as nukes.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
aznblader
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by blorq
but should nuclear subs really be that superior in attack to "regular" subs? when you get down to it, the biggest difference is that nuclear subs don't need to stop to refuel or surface to recharge their batteries from the diesel. the only advantage should be movement.
additionally, i agree with regular subs not being able to carry missiles. if you consider a regular sub to be the ww2 style submarine, then they did not carry any sort of missile (cruise missiles didn't even exist). however, nuclear subs (the sub version of modern armor) should be able to carry cruise missiles as well as nukes. |
i was thinking that nuclear subs would be much quieter than diesel, and noise is the most important part of a sub's effectiveness. in addition, i'd assume that a nuclear sub is all around more advanced over the regular sub considering decoys, sonar, etc etc.
yeah... i didn't really notice that about the regular subs being able to carry missiles. you can change that yourself if you like... it just carried over from the pre mod patch that i was working off of.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Leonidas
|
|
While the older (WWII) variety sub had its limitations, the newer modern conventional subs (SSKs) are almost on par with nuclear attack subs (SSNs) and nuclear ballistic missile subs (SSBNs).
Newer versions like the U212 and U214 (Germany/Italy) can remain submerged for a month, are very stealthy, and can fire a variety of torpedoes and missiles, including anti-sub/anti-ship missiles and cruise missiles.
Same goes for the Sauros Class (Italy) and Scorpene Class (Spain) subs.
In a recent naval exercise off Hawaii, an Australian conventional sub successfully stalked and "sank" an American Nuclear attack sub.
The world. . . she is a-changing. . . 
BTW: in this version of the Mod, can ALL fighters now use the Air Superiority command successfully?
Also: If possible it would be very helpful if the Coastal Fortress could be fixed to actually attack enemy ships as it should.
Thanks for all the work. . .
Last edited by Leonidas on 06-11-2001 at 21:17
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Barnacle Bill
|
 |
Somewhere on the wine dark sea
Oct 2001
time: 00:16
|
|
If equal technology is used in their construction, a conventional submarine operating on its battery will have a tactical combat advantage over a nuke boat due to lower noise emissions, except at the very most advanced levels of technology where advanced sound silencing negates the higher radiated noise from the nuke and makes it an equal playing field.
Nuke boats have much higher speed capabilities, which is an advantage in evading torpedos that have actually been launched at you.
Conventional submarines have a much slower transit time than nukes because they can't run at high submerged speed for very long. If they run on the surface, or at periscope depth using their snorkel, they will be detected easily by surface ships, patrol aircraft, etc...
In Civ3, the initial submarine is like a WWI/WWII submarine. It should not even be able to see other submarines. It should have an attack capability that lets it easily sink transports and have a good shot at sinking a destroyer if it is the attacker. Its defense relative to the destoyer's attack should be such that the destroyer has a good shot at sinking the sub if it is the attacker. In other words, the advantage should go to whoever shoots first. It's speed should be pretty slow.
The Civ3 nuke sub should be as fast as any modern ship, and have an attack ability such that it can sink anything (even battleships & carriers). Its defense should be strong enough to give it a slight advantage against destroyers if the destroyer attacks it. It should be able to see submarines. If a nuke boat attacks another nuke boat, the advantage should be with the attacker. It should be expensive - not as much as a carrier or battleship but more so than any other ship.
A hypothetical modern conventional sub for Civ3 should have the same attack strength as its nuclear counterpart, weaker defense, slower speed (same as the WWI/WWII boat), and significantly lower cost.
To get very realistic with subs, the above nuke sub is an SSN, and should not be able to carry missiles (or maybe cruise missiles but not ballistic missiles). There would be another nuke sub for the SSBN which would differ from the SSN as follows: carries ballistic missiles, weaker attack, same defense, slightly slower (still faster than a conventional sub).
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Yaga
|
|
Modern Submarine weapons make them far, far more destructive than their WWII counterparts. Originally, torpedoes had very little in terms of both explosive power and guidance systems: You pointed them at where you thought the target would be after the torpedo had crossed a specific distance, set timers or suchlike, came to the surface, fired them, then ducked back underwater and listened for explosions.
Modern Mark 48 torpedoes are not only far bigger in terms of destructive power, but they also house their own sonar and guidance hardware which allows them to home in on the specific target, based on it's noise signature, turn to follow it, have multiple reactions concerning what to do when it loses a target, etc etc etc. All this requires a greater amount of hardware and technical knowhow on the part of the crew, but has the added trade off of being able to fire torpedos submerged, fire a spread against multiple targets both front and rear, and then, also, dive much, much deeper then their WWII counterparts.
However, once detected, a submarine is pretty much dead. Most of their defensive capabilities rely on not being detected, or having their target lose them once they are detected. Not too sure how this would work in game play, other than to have their positions disappear once they've attacked.
So, IMHO, Nuclear Submaries should own the seas until AEGIS cruisers show up, however be woefully s****ed if they're detected.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Yaga
|
|
Modern Submarine weapons make them far, far more destructive than their WWII counterparts. Originally, torpedoes had very little in terms of both explosive power and guidance systems: You pointed them at where you thought the target would be after the torpedo had crossed a specific distance, set timers or suchlike, came to the surface, fired them, then ducked back underwater and listened for explosions.
Modern Mark 48 torpedoes are not only far bigger in terms of destructive power, but they also house their own sonar and guidance hardware which allows them to home in on the specific target, based on it's noise signature, turn to follow it, have multiple reactions concerning what to do when it loses a target, etc etc etc. All this requires a greater amount of hardware and technical knowhow on the part of the crew, but has the added trade off of being able to fire torpedos submerged, fire a spread against multiple targets both front and rear, and then, also, dive much, much deeper then their WWII counterparts.
However, once detected, a submarine is pretty much dead. Most of their defensive capabilities rely on not being detected, or having their target lose them once they are detected. Not too sure how this would work in game play, other than to have their positions disappear once they've attacked.
So, IMHO, Nuclear Submaries should own the seas until AEGIS cruisers show up, however be woefully s****ed if they're detected.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
aznblader
|
|
i completely agree about the aegis cruiser vs submarine. the sure death on detection is the reason why submarine defense was left unchanged. the hard part is to modify the damage of the submarine so that they own the seas, and modify the the aegis cruiser so that they own submarines. that would completely screw up the naval balancing.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
aznblader
|
|
i completely agree about the aegis cruiser vs submarine. the sure death on detection is the reason why submarine defense was left unchanged. the hard part is to modify the damage of the submarine so that they own the seas, and modify the the aegis cruiser so that they own submarines. that would completely screw up the naval balancing.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
rrrob
|
|
San Francsico
Nov 2001
time: 21:16
|
|
AEGIS cruisers aren't anti sub ship, destroyers are. I think there is only one AEGIS cruiser and that is the Ticonderoga class cruiser. It is used in a defensive role, able to intercept incoming missiles and has some anti-aircraft capabilities. It's sole offensive power comes from the Tomahawk and Harpoon missiles it can carry, it doesn't really have any big cannons or anything. Don't think its sonar is that great, but it has a big-ass surface radar.
Destroyers and possible some frigates are the only sub-hunting vessels so an AEGIS cruiser shouldn't really rule subs, sub rule AEGIS & carriers, AEGIS rule destroyers, destroyers rule subs. That's more realistic and would make a really good game balancing relationship.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
xane
|
|
I agree with rrob, although if you look at modern naval units, most have some form of anti-sub capability, but some ships are superior in one form of offense/defence.
AEGIS is specifically an anti-missile defence, nothing to do with subsurface combat, but an AEGIS cruiser will have some anti-sub capability.
A better example would be the OH Perry class (frigate) or A Burke class (destroyer) that have impressive anti-submarine systems.
Doesn't anyone here play Harpoon ???
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Barnacle Bill
|
|
Somewhere on the wine dark sea
Oct 2001
time: 00:16
|
|
In real life, with modern as opposed to WWII submarines, the only truely effective offensive anti-submarine system is another submarine. I know from personal experience in naval excercises that, even with unrealistic handicaps on the sub, destroyers & ASW aircraft are pretty helpless against a well-handled modern submarine. The problem is that submarines can't perform all naval missions, so you still need other ships to do what the subs can't. So it is a matter of teamwork, unless your entire naval strategy is to deny the seas to your enemy. ASW surface ships should not really have any significant ability to attack submarines, just to defend themselves and anything stacked with them if the submarine attacks (even then, the sub should win more often than the skimmer). If you want to go sub-hunting, you need another sub. In a Civ3 mod, I'd model that by giving nuclear (i.e. modern as opposed to WWII) subs a significantly higher attack & defense factor than any other ship. However, since they can't carry troops, launch aircraft, bombard coastal squares, etc... you still need the skimmers for that stuff.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
knott
|
 |
Sweden
Sep 2001
time: 06:16
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Barnacle Bill
In real life, with modern as opposed to WWII submarines, the only truely effective offensive anti-submarine system is another submarine. I know from personal experience in naval excercises that, even with unrealistic handicaps on the sub, destroyers & ASW aircraft are pretty helpless against a well-handled modern submarine. The problem is that submarines can't perform all naval missions, so you still need other ships to do what the subs can't. So it is a matter of teamwork, unless your entire naval strategy is to deny the seas to your enemy. ASW surface ships should not really have any significant ability to attack submarines, just to defend themselves and anything stacked with them if the submarine attacks (even then, the sub should win more often than the skimmer). If you want to go sub-hunting, you need another sub. In a Civ3 mod, I'd model that by giving nuclear (i.e. modern as opposed to WWII) subs a significantly higher attack & defense factor than any other ship. However, since they can't carry troops, launch aircraft, bombard coastal squares, etc... you still need the skimmers for that stuff. |
Sound logic, but you should make them very expensive.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
mrbilll
|
|
The combat in CivIII is abstracted, of course. But even so, I found the air and naval combat to be disappointing. The naval combat in particular bears no resemblance whatsoever to reality. But IMHO this has always been a shortcoming of the Civ series.
An exposed sub is relatively easy to kill, but for either deisel or nuke subs, finding them in the first place is the whole trick. Unless they are damaged or exposed by combat ops such as a missile launch, they're nearly impossible to detect- though there's always human error to figure on, too.
It's true that deisel boats enjoy a tactical advantage in terms of sound silencing, but I think Leonidas vastly overstates that advantage. Especially on the operational level, those expensive nuke boats perform their intended tasks exceptionally well. The trouble now is, who are they going to fight? The navy of Afghanistan?
My credentials- U.S.N., 1985-1993, Nine patrols aboard the U.S.S. Von Steuben, SSBN 632, and the U.S.S. James Madison, SSBN 627.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
mrbilll
|
|
Ooh, naval experts. I never claimed to be that. 
I can't speak for all kinds of vessels, but I can tell you, you don't want an accurate missile sub in the game. A modern Ohio class has 24 tubes, each of which can carry a missile with mulitple warheads. Even with the unrealistically weak CivIII rules for nukes, the payload of a single sub could devastate a continent.
As for combat rules, I'd make it very weak in conventional terms- give it a defense strength of 1, with the attack only a bit better. The catch would be, it would be extremely difficult to find the thing in the first place- only detectable by certain units, and even then, maybe a 20% chance tops.
In Civ terms, I've got no problem with the movement rates of modern units. You'll notice in real life that if a carrier group leaves port in California or Virginian, it doesn't turn up in the Med or the Indian sea the next day! Sure, they're much faster and more reliable that a galleon, but the world is still a might big place.
As for the combat, I don't know if you can do better with the Civ engine. It's always going to be very abstract, and give you weird results. The biggest thing is that I would vastly expand both the range of cruise missiles, and the amount that a sub can carry and launch. I guess it's a game balance issue. But in general, I find the naval units so worthless, I don't even bother with them, except for transportation and exploration.
Why bother with large campaign against an enemy on another continent? The corruption will eat you alive!
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Barnacle Bill
|
|
Somewhere on the wine dark sea
Oct 2001
time: 00:16
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by mrbilll
As for combat rules, I'd make it very weak in conventional terms- give it a defense strength of 1, with the attack only a bit better. The catch would be, it would be extremely difficult to find the thing in the first place- only detectable by certain units, and even then, maybe a 20% chance tops.
|
I have to disagree with this. A modern SSN can easily sink anything afloat - that says high attack strength. In Civ, there is no way to make it sometimes detected and sometimes not, so the overall difficulty of attacking a sub (finding it then killing it) has to be abstracted into a single high defense factor. In my experience, both surface ASW ships and ASW patrol craft are pretty worthless at sub hunting - their only chance is if the sub comes to them and attacks whatever they are protecting, and then they are pretty lame (I can tell sea stories to illustrate). Subs do hunt other subs, though, and do it quite well. Ergo, my proposal for a Civ3 naval mod is that nothing can see submarines except "Nuclear Subs" (i.e. modern SSN's). If the sub attacks a surface ship, the defense factor of surface warships would give them a chance to survive and win (unescorted transports would be toast) and that would represent the real-life ability of ASW ships to defend task forces/convoys when a sub reveals itself by attacking. I would assume that carrier, battleship & cruiser units actually include their escorts, since there is no way in Civ3 to give a unit different defense factors against surface ships and subs.
quote:
Originally posted by mrbilll
I can't speak for all kinds of vessels, but I can tell you, you don't want an accurate missile sub in the game. A modern Ohio class has 24 tubes, each of which can carry a missile with mulitple warheads. Even with the unrealistically weak CivIII rules for nukes, the payload of a single sub could devastate a continent.
|
On the scale of the Civ games, you have to think more abstractly. In real life there are a lot more targets that don't exist in Civ because everything is abstracted into cities. So, figure one civ nuke represents a wad of real-life nukes and 24 on a Civ sub is excessive - I'd say no more than 4, maybe just 2. I don't know if it can be done in the editor, but the ideal thing would be a seperate SSBN unit that has the same defense as an SSN, weaker attack, and carries not "tactical nukes" but "ICBM'S".
quote:
Originally posted by mrbilll
My credentials- U.S.N., 1985-1993, Nine patrols aboard the U.S.S. Von Steuben, SSBN 632, and the U.S.S. James Madison, SSBN 627.
|
USN 1978-1986, USNR 1987-2000, Med run & Northern Run on USS Sunfish (SSN-649), plank-owner on USS Olympia (SSN-717).
|
|
| |
|
|
|
mrbilll
|
|
I pretty much agree with everything you say, Barnacle Bill. I think I said something similar somewhere else. Civ is so abstract that it's very difficult to do more than approximate unit performance. But it's fun to speculate- "OK, you REALLY wanna know what one missile boat could do to a continent?" Not in a game of Civ, you don't. Two words- game balance.
On the other hand, you could make separate units for fast attacks and missile boats. I'd give the fast attacks a higher speed and attack rating, with the ability to carry cruise missiles only. The missile boats would be slower, with a lower attack rating, but a much larger carrying capacity of both nukes and cruise missiles.
The missile boats DO have teeth, and you wouldn't want to tangle with them. But the fast attacks are much more suited for ship to ship, and the boomers are slugs by comparison.
I like your idea of nuke subs only being visible to other subs. When the bragging stops and the fit hits the shan, an ASW force actually has pretty slim odds of finding a sub before it attacks.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
sachmo71
|
|
de Tejas
May 2001
time: 23:16
|
|
While I understand that the Aegis is mainly used for anti-aircraft/missle fleet protection, I believe that they are meant to represent the modern sensor suite avaliable on modern warships, which far outclass the sensors avaliable on earlier class ships. Those include passive/active sonar as well as radar, among others. So they should have a better defense, plus a better offense which would include missles and ASW helicoptors.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
mrbilll
|
|
You're right in Civ terms, Sachmo, but again, there are limits to how much you can represent in Civ. Generally speaking, yes, modern AEGIS ships are state of the art at this time. But if this were more of a pure operational level military simulator, there'd be a world of difference between finding an air unit, a surface unit, and a sub.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Temujin69
|
|
In the mod, the detection needs to be fixed. In my first game, playing chieftain to get a feeling for the game, I had subs and nuke subs all over the place... no other civ had the ability to build anything better than an ironclad, and yet, everytime my sub or nuke sub entered enemy territory, I would get a request to "remove my troops". My question is: How the hell did they know my sub was there? I thought only another sub or destroy could detect it and there was another naval unit for miles! Those ancient cities must have some kind of really advanced sonar or something...
And the cruise missile needs to be fixed as well... the AI's cruise missile sank my nuke sub... in my territory. Since when did cruise missiles become surface to surface and are convertable to torpedoes?
Oh yeah, no one else has talked about this, but when my subs attack, say, a frigate, they can still be destroyed rather easily... the commander of that sub must be an idiot to be taken out by cannon fire...
|
|
| |
|
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by mrbilll
My credentials- U.S.N., 1985-1993, Nine patrols aboard the U.S.S. Von Steuben, SSBN 632, and the U.S.S. James Madison, SSBN 627. |
quote:
USN 1978-1986, USNR 1987-2000, Med run & Northern Run on USS Sunfish (SSN-649), plank-owner on USS Olympia (SSN-717). |
Hi guys nice to see some more people from the Navy. My credentials are US Navy Feb 1962 to March 1965 USS Navarro APA-215, and then Mare Island Aug. 1965 to Nov. 1995. I help build the SSN 662, 665, 666, 672, 677. Did overhauls on a ton of boats. My last boat was Test Supervisor on the SSN 688. The only two boats that I have not worked on is Ohio and Seawolf Class.
BTW a few Diesel boats did carry cruise missile. It was called Regulus 1 & 2. The USS Tunny, Barbero, & Grayback. The Grayback was a Mare Island design and built at MI as a missile boat.
Spec on Regulus was 670 mph, 250 miles range, ceiling was 50,000 ft. w/either Nuc or Non Nuc warhead.
|
|
| |
|
| |
All times are GMT. The time now is 05:16.
Apolyton Time is 00:16. |
top of page
|
|
|
Forum Rules:
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
|
HTML code is ON
vB code is ON
Smilies are ON
[IMG] code is ON
|
|
|
|
|
|
06-11-2001 17:57
|