08-12-2001 05:02									#1
	Airplane sinking ships conundrum... Support Apolyton, buy Galactic Civilizations

You guys realize this is *NOT* a simple patch, right?

Simply adding this is as a feature or as a togable option opens up a whole score of tricky game balance issues.

Just one example.. If you make airplanes capable of sinking ships, then you've only got one unit (the carrier) at sea who can defend against airplanes. But there are scores of other examples: perhaps increasing the value of air units should increase their cost, perhaps ship units should be able to retaliate, etc. etc.

Adding this feature would require revamping the entire game's combat system and play-testing for balance for many months.

So, puh-leeze, don't keep saying.. "just make this an option" in the patch. It's not that simple, guys.

	08-12-2001 05:08									#2
	Re: Airplane sinking ships conundrum... Support Apolyton, buy Civilization III: Complete

quote: Originally posted by Frugal_Gourmet You guys realize this is *NOT* a simple patch, right? Simply adding this is as a feature or as a togable option opens up a whole score of tricky game balance issues.

Better to leave it goofy as is...

quote: Just one example.. If you make airplanes capable of sinking ships, then you've only got one unit (the carrier) at sea who can defend against airplanes.

Well...yeah! Sorta like real life - good luck without a carrier.

quote: But there are scores of other examples: perhaps increasing the value of air units should increase their cost, perhaps ship units should be able to retaliate, etc. etc.

How about making bombardment of any kind have a chance to destroy any unit with 1 HP?

quote: Adding this feature would require revamping the entire game's combat system and play-testing for balance for many months.

Wow, play-testing for balance for many months, that WOULD be a departure wouldn't it...

quote: So, puh-leeze, don't keep saying.. "just make this an option" in the patch. It's not that simple, guys.

And how do you know? Can you forward me the Civ3 source code?

Venger

	08-12-2001 05:12									#3
	Got spare money?

No, it's not simple, but it's not that hard either.

I would only give aircraft a small chance to sink a ship. And ships could have a chance to destroy aircraft. Of course, Firaxis can change it any way they like. They have enough experience with aircraft destroying ships and ground units in previous games, so I'm confident someone there could come up with some compromise rules.

	08-12-2001 05:15									#4
	Re: Re: Airplane sinking ships conundrum... Inflate your Upload Space

quote: Originally posted by Venger Well...yeah! Sorta like real life - good luck without a carrier.

Umm.. non-carrier ships have been able to blow up aircraft since FOREVER, dude.

quote: Wow, play-testing for balance for many months, that WOULD be a departure wouldn't it...

Naturally, not. Like I said, it will take a long time -- not a simple patch.

quote: And how do you know? Can you forward me the Civ3 source code?

Common sense with some experience. Game balancing a strategy game is always an arduous process. Course, I know you were just being a smart ass.

	08-12-2001 05:17									#5
	Support Apolyton, buy Call to Power 2

quote: Originally posted by Allemand I would only give aircraft a small chance to sink a ship. And ships could have a chance to destroy aircraft. Of course, Firaxis can change it any way they like. They have enough experience with aircraft destroying ships and ground units in previous games, so I'm confident someone there could come up with some compromise rules.

Welp. I agree with you in theory somewhat, but I tend to think balance is a great challenge. However, if this ever gets done (and we all know it won't), either:

a) it will take a very long time
or, b) we will be whining about game balance issues for many months more.

	08-12-2001 05:21									#6
	Re: Re: Airplane sinking ships conundrum... Support Apolyton, pre-order Civilization IV

quote: Originally posted by Venger How about making bombardment of any kind have a chance to destroy any unit with 1 HP?

Oh yeah, I forgot...

I was going to grudgingly admit that the above idea is probably a good one, and *might* work as a reasonable fix.

	08-12-2001 05:26									#7
	Re: Re: Re: Airplane sinking ships conundrum... Support Apolyton, buy Galactic Civilizations: Deluxe Edition

quote: Originally posted by Frugal_Gourmet Umm.. non-carrier ships have been able to blow up aircraft since FOREVER, dude.

Without air cover, any naval force since 1940 has been a floating reef...

Venger

	08-12-2001 05:28									#8
	Re: Re: Re: Airplane sinking ships conundrum... Support Apolyton, buy Call to Power 2

quote: Originally posted by Frugal_Gourmet Oh yeah, I forgot... I was going to grudgingly admit that the above idea is probably a good one, and *might* work as a reasonable fix.

That had to hurt...

But I think it's the most reasonable solution - I think with this change, bombardment can make a real claim to being a revolutionary step between Civ2 and Civ3. Without it, bombardment doesn't cut the mustard...

Venger

	08-12-2001 05:36									#9
	Support Apolyton, buy Alpha Centauri

Amen.

	08-12-2001 06:23									#10
	Tired of ads?

The mustard?

	08-12-2001 06:39									#11
	Remove this text

quote: Originally posted by Libertarian The mustard?

Do you really not know that phrase? It's an American colloqialism that basically means doesn't do the job well enough to be passable.

Venger

	08-12-2001 07:11									#12
	More Meat, Less Mustard Please... ;) Support Apolyton, buy Civilization III: Complete

How did this thread get sidetracked into a discussion of colloquialisms? Not that I have a problem with 'cut the mustard' -- it's a very good phrase, and you have good taste Venger.

However, to return to the subject, I too might like to see SOMETHING changed about the bombardment issue. I agree there are balance issues, but they shouldn't take months to fix. With the experience Firaxis has at this, it should be doable.

I'm mildly fond of the idea of letting any bombardment destroy units at 1 HP, except bombardment (historically speaking) isn't that accurate. It's extremely hard to completely eliminate a division of infantry with artillery fire -- rather, artillery has been historically used only as a softening tactic for a proper assault, something which Civ emulates very well. In the case of airplane bombardment of land targets, until recently the same applies. WWII era bombing runs were not the precision affairs that modern aerial bombardment is (alright, the precision of modern bombing is arguable, but that's a whole other thread for a whole other forum on a whole other website). So I could see modern-era Stealth Bombers being able to do it, but not earlier units.

On the other hand, since this thread was started about aerial attacks on naval vessels, torpedo dive bombers from their earliest days were and are effective at sinking ships... however, are they that effective at sinking entire fleets? (and please don't bring up Pearl Harbour, this isn't about fleets in port) The age-old question of just what is represented by a 'unit' in Civ plays a factor, here. I think everyone agrees that 1 Spearman is more than ONE man running around... but do we feel that 1 Battleship represents 6-8 or more actual ships? If it's only 1, then bombardment should have a chance to sink it (after all, they can focus all their attention on it), but as the number of units in a unit, if you will, increases, it gets more and more likely that at least a few will avoid being totally destroyed.

I guess, then, what I'm trying to say (heck, you don't think I know what I'm trying to say when I start a post, do you? consider yourself lucky if I figure it out by the time I finish...) is that if we're consistent with the logic we apply to the game's representation of units (ie since 1 spearman = many spearman, 1 ship must = many ships), the inability of planes to completely eliminate a fleet makes some sense... one does usually need to move in to mop up what's left...

Since this is getting quite long enough for me, I'll leave the issue of airplane-invincibility to another poster...

	08-12-2001 10:46									#13
	Full PM-box? Change here!

I disagree that a ship unit equals many ships, and I take issue with saying that because it applies to land units it automatically applies to naval units. I have always thought of ships as single units, and I'm sure that I'm not alone in this. Regarding combat capabilities, a lone spearman makes no sense in the large scale of civilization. However, a single ship does. Single ships can be effective in the large scale of this game. Also, if a single naval unit represents a fleet, then how can a single cruise missle sink all of them? Also, I find it hard to believe that a fleet of submarines can only carry one tactical nuclear missle. And if you argue that submarines are an exception and only represent a single sub, then they are completely unbalanced and would very rarely be able to sink any other fleet in its entirety. I think the only reasonable approach is that naval units are single ships, and that airstrikes should be able to sink them.

(Hope this makes sense to everyone else)

	08-12-2001 12:31									#14
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization III: Complete

Andy91:

Unfortunately, just because you imagine it as one ship doesn't mean that it is.

For evidence: Lets look at how you use them. In Civ, normally you send out a carrier by itself, or at least, you want to. I mean, the planes will take care of everything. You send out Battleships that act independantly to bombard targets. Destroyers also move about doing whatever you do with Destroyers.

Right now, how many ships do you think the US (or UK, or Russian) Navy has operating by themselves? Now, I'm no navy man (or woman), but last I checked they didnt like sending out the USS Nimitz all alone. I think it happened about never. Even the Kiev (one of the last actively used battleships) never opperated without its battlegroup.

Buy you say that you think 1 unit = 1 ship. So, I'm sure you send out each of your carriers with an escort of 3 destroyer units. I mean, we are being ultra-realistic here. And probably 2 destroyers with your battleship.

And sure, subs are a bit confusing, since they are often sent out alone, even though they are also often sent out in small groups. And (I know this will probably make some people so mad they will refuse to play the game, and insult Firaxis just thinking of it), I would support changing a subs attack to a bombardment style attack, provided that they be allowed to retreat from attacks, since in the real world, subs can be bastards to destroy.

But now I'm interested. You say you think of them as individual ships. Do you use them as such? Do you actually wait to build a battle group? Or do you weild them like most large navies weild battle groups?

Last edited by gachnar on 08-12-2001 at 13:00

	08-12-2001 12:48									#15
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization III: Complete

how about ship speed??

should it really take a caravel 25 years to sail from europe to North America if it left 1490? a 50 year round trip sounds a little bit much

	08-12-2001 13:25									#16
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

Can I assume here that when we try to attack ships, we like to use the Bomber planes?

Because, the bombers in Civ3 are based on the Liberator/B-52 type plane (going by the description in Civpedia and tha graphic). I.E. they are more "Carpet Bombing" types.
The main point here is that these types of planes CANNOT sink ships. It is true. When we talk about planes sinking ships (b/f Gulf War), we are talking about specialized torpedo bombers or dive bombers. In the Japanese invasion of the Philipines, the US B-17's in Clark AFB had a go at them for a bit, and didn't even score a hit. Planes with bombsights, made for bombing cities and ravaging troops in the field (like Afghanistan!) cannot hit ships, because the ship is too small, and moving, unlike, say a division, city, or factory. The bombadeer would not be able to hit it. The reverse is true too....try imagining a bunch of torpedo bombers lining up to hit Berlin.
If we are ever going to get planes that sink ships, I want a "Torpedo Bomber" plane, one that can sink ships, but has a fighters stats when against land based targets.

	08-12-2001 13:58									#17
	Support Apolyton or Terrorists Win

All of you shut up with your 1 unit = 1 ship, we know the score.

We are just saying we want naval combat portrayed as it is in real life, i.e aircraft and aircraft carriers.

I didnt do two tours of duty and take shrapnel in my head to have a bunch of hippies deny history.

	08-12-2001 14:29									#18
	Full PM-box? Change here!

quote: I didnt do two tours of duty and take shrapnel in my head to have a bunch of hippies deny history.

and what history would that be? B-17's sinking Aegis Cruisers, or F/A-18's being completely ineffective against a WW2 battleship?

really even if they allowed air units to sink ships jet fighters would have a problem sinking Ironclads because they have a bombard strength of 2 and a rate of fire of 1, against a veteran ironclad you'd need around 6 jet fighters to have a decent chance of sinking an ironclad, so this doesn't solve the problems present with air units

plus it upsets game balance and makes naval forces even weaker than what they are

if we are going torealistic lets start with naval movement, even on a small map the fastest ships in the game are moving less than six km a day, so even if ship movement was increased 25 times (giving an Aegis Cruiser a movment of 125) it would still only be moving around 6 km per hour on a small map, and i'm pretty sure that an Aegis Cruiser can go a little faster than that

	08-12-2001 14:33									#19
	Get a bigger avatar today!

Damn that's funny. Hippies indeed. But each ship represents mult...nevermind.

	08-12-2001 14:50									#20
	Tired of ads?

hehe and speaking of realism,
i mean we are a democracy who has a president that not only never dies, this leader never even has to run for office
it's not like it hasn't been done before, in tropico you hold elections every so often

and how about Alexander the great?
in a 13 year time frame (less than a turn) he built a huge empire, how could that be in the game in a realistic manner (without making each turn the exact same length of some small time frame like a month)?

the game is unrealistic, and there are other options to give the game a better balance, multiple moves for aircraft is one thing more hitpoints (for better combat results) is another

i agree that air units are too weak but this alone won't give the air units the right balance of power and it won't make the game any more realistic

	08-12-2001 14:58									#21
	Support Apolyton

The problem was probably the ai bombing the crap out of everything.You probably would not be able to leave a boat out of a city.
It would be nice,but I can see a bunch of problems with the ai here.It happens in civ2.They took care of it with, well you know and aegis ability.The difference is a stack in civ2 defends differently than civ3.With this combat system,it would be a nightmare.It might be too many calculations to do for each individual combat.

	08-12-2001 17:59									#22
	Support Apolyton or Terrorists Win

my favorite colloqialism is if u guys dont mind

That dog dont hunt, but i got one over here that'll make a bulldog brake his chain

	08-12-2001 19:34									#23
	Inflate your Upload Space

Aircraft should not be able to sink ships in Civ III.

Bombardment is a strategic action taken to weaken, disrupt, or force the enemy to abort his plans. It destroys only on the tactical level. This is a strategical-level game. Bombardment should have its strategic effect, IMO. On sea as well as land.

.....
Incidentally, here's my take on the units:
1 Destroyer = 1 Squadron of 8-10 destroyers
1 Battleship = 1 SAG of 1-4 battleships, 2 cruisers, and 6-8 destroyers and frigates.
1 Carrier = 1 CAG of 1-2 carriers, 2-3 cruisers, and 6-8 destroyers and frigates.
1 Transport = 1 convoy/phibron of whatever transports are necessary, plus a couple of frigates or escorts
1 Submarine = 1 worthless game unit, mildly useful if you want to disband it to speed up building something in a port city

I just wanna know what the deal is with the sub...they cost almost as much as a destroyer for much less than half the ability. Only thing I can think of is maybe you could use them to surreptitiously blockade an opponent's harbors...but I haven't tried it. Pre-patch the AI always knew they were there anyway. Mebbe the patch'll make 'em better. Still doesn't sound that useful though.

.....
And on the 'ships are sitting ducks' theory:
Contrary to popular belief, modern navies are not sitting ducks, who line up neatly in a tight row, sit still, and don't bother to defend themselves. They're loaded with SAMs, anti-missile missiles, AAA guns, and point-defense guns. They travel in dispersed formation, zigging and zagging through the waves, with covering fields of fire and layered defenses. They have radar and helicopters operating over the horizon to warn them of incoming attacks, so they can turn their best front to the threat axis.

From what I understand, attacking a modern surface group is primarily a case of overwhelming the defenses with incoming missiles. They can only track and shoot down so many at a time. (That's what makes the AEGIS superior...the ability to engage many more incoming air threats simultaneously.) But they can stop a lot, so only a relative few get through before the aircraft have expended their limited munitions and pulled out. A few ships may be sunk or heavily damaged, and a few more somewhat damaged, but the chances of sinking an entire group with one strike are fairly low. More likely, the strike will force the group to abort its mission and head back for repairs, or await reinforcements (which would arrive well within the time period covered by a single game turn).

WWII-era was substantially different, but it would come out close enough in game terms. The main difference is that there'd be a lot more aircraft casualties because they had to get a lot closer to release their ordnance. But in Civ III, there are no aircraft casualties anyway.

	08-12-2001 20:25									#24
	Support Apolyton, pre-order Civilization IV

This could be remedied in two steps:
1. have torpedo bombers, with attack ships flag on
2. after they become obsolete, make a tech and have Exocet Air to Ship missiles. I'm not sure if you can do this in Civ3 but give aircraft the ability to carry missiles and then give the Exocet a very short range and you have planes that could attack ships indirectly as well as cities could defend themselves.