Unit Strengths by Era

[planetfall]

Subs in this game are ridiculous. In sub vs gallery, both lost the same points. The sub should be able to attack once and disappear without taking any hits when going against galleys, caravels, ironclads. They did not have any capability to respond to a modern sub. Other games have a first strike sub advantage where sub gets extra hit points for first attack and then gets the option to continue attach or retreat. This capability seems much more in line with sub's real use.

Summary changes to sub unit:
1. attack vs obsolute units with no hits
{they can't find the sub}
2. first strike power advantage
3. retreat option after first strike

Should not be hard to program. Just add ability to bombard with a torpedo with range of 1 tile for the first strike.

What do you all think??

[Zachriel]

Originally posted by planetfall
Subs in this game are ridiculous. In sub vs gallery, both lost the same points. The sub should be able to attack once and disappear without taking any hits when going against galleys, caravels, ironclads.

That is not correct. Subs of the first half of the 20th century had to surface to fire torpedos. They also had to be close to the target for any sort of chance of hitting anything. They are therefore subject to counterattack. Long-range bombardment would not be the correct model.

There is still plenty of room for improvement. They should let the sub hit the weakest member of a stack for instance.

[player1]

Originally posted by Zachriel
There is still plenty of room for improvement. They should let the sub hit the weakest member of a stack for instance.

That's an excellent idea!
That would make subs transport killers.

[Zachriel]

Originally posted by player1
That's an excellent idea!
That would make subs transport killers.

That is what subs were for. Very risky too. Sink the transport, then hope to survive the counterattack.

Would be easy for Firaxis to implement.

[planetfall]

RE: "That is not correct. Subs of the first half of the 20th century had to surface to fire torpedos. They also had to be close to the target for any sort of chance of hitting anything. They are therefore subject to counterattack. Long-range bombardment would not be the correct model. "

I can't find any data to support contention subs had to surface to fire torpedos. The average torpedo range seems to be about 2 miles, effective probably a mile as Japan had a long range torpedo of 4 miles. Firing a torpedo from 1 tile away with no return fire, like a bomber attack on land tiles seems reasonable. With 1 tile distance, counterattack of survivor would be likely. But if target is wooden ship with no sonar how are they going to find a submerged sub????

Sub - the very early Submarines operated in a manner which is much different from the
"Run Silent, Run Deep" way that we think of them today. Submarines were really surface
vessels, which had the ability to submerge beneath the surface for small periods of time
(usually under an hour). In WWI, U-Boats operated by running along the surface until they spotted a target, then if the vessel had the ability to fire back at them, to submerge long enough to move in for a torpedo shot, then move away and resurface.



See included sub history summary and URL's especially:
Diary of a U-boat commander

Adolf K.G.E. von Spiegel commanded a German U-boat during the First World War. He published his memoirs in 1919. Here he
describes the attack on a cargo vessel in April 1916.

[Zachriel]

Originally posted by planetfall
I can't find any data to support contention subs had to surface to fire torpedos.

Quote from your text file:
U-boats traveled under water unseen, could close in on a surface ship, fire a torpedo and slip away

[Zachriel]

I will humbly apologize for not being clear. The sub must surface to periscope depth to find the target, where the wake can often be seen by surface ships.

Nevertheless, it would certainly be extremely unlikely for a wooden vessal to sink a sub, and more than likely it would be because the sub commander made a serious mistake, or because of a mechanical problem, such as probably happened on the Kursk.

I do stand corrected.

Here's a good link describing a sub attack:
http://web.ukonline.co.uk/chalcraft/sm/attack.html

[planetfall]

Ok Zachriel in the URL finding. And I did think you were saying the sub had to be on the surface vs at periscope depth. More history than I wanted to learn today, but very interesting.

Now back to civ3 world, still think the sub unit needs to be fixed. In WWI only US involvement stopped German uboat attacks, and
in WWII for every German UBoat the allies had to allocate 3 units.

I like the idea of picking off transports from the bottom of the stack. Uboats were not good against warships, but were great with psychological impact on supply ships. Hard to image real effectiveness was only 1% of total tonage shipped.

Until fixaxis changes sub, workaround may be to increase attack strength of sub by 1.

Have a good weekend, and thanks again for the url and the clarification.

[Encomium]

Subs in WW II attacking convoys at night usually remained on the surface to move quickly between the ships. They submerged only after they attacked to try to avoid detection.

Nuclear subs always stay submerged and run very quickly; WW II era subs only could make several knots underwater. That difference is not reflected in the game.

Naval Warfare in Civ III is a JOKE.

Bombers can't sink surface ships?? Did Sid miss Pearl Harbor?? How absurd. I changed all bomber values in the Editor to allow them to attack.

Privateers and submarines were in reality designed to attack Trade Routes and merchant shipping - not warships. But any number of privateers between rivals' harbors will accomplish NOTHING in Civ III!

And naval warships did not spend all their time bombarding improvements. I removed that function from every ship except battleships and Aegis.

At least in Civ II we could atack seaborne caravans and diplomats.

[Zachriel]

Originally posted by Encomium
Subs in WW II attacking convoys at night usually remained on the surface to move quickly between the ships. They submerged only after they attacked to try to avoid detection.

Exactly. Traditional subs were air-breathing machines.

It should be easy for the gamemakers to redesign naval warfare to better reflect naval combat, using a bombard attack (I have changed my position on sub bombardment.)

- Subs should be invisible unless a unit just happens to enter their square.
- Most defenders should not see the sub, but just get a notice that they have been attacked and what the damage is.
- The sub should normally attack the weakest unit in the stack.
-Like all bombardment, traditional subs should end their turn after the bombardment.
- After the attack, the defenders units could spread out searching for the sub.
- Cruisers should be able to sight the sub at a distance of one square.
- Advanced subs should be able to move after the attack, as a counter to the cruisers.

- Cruiser could be the cavalry of the seas, and should also be able to move after the attack.

[Willem]

Originally posted by Encomium

Bombers can't sink surface ships?? Did Sid miss Pearl Harbor?? How absurd. I changed all bomber values in the Editor to allow them to attack.

Keep in mind that a Battleship unit represents a small fleet, not an individual ship. And even in the attack on Pearl Harbour, a number of ships survived the attack and were able to get away, or they were heavily damaged and were repaired later. There weren't really that many ships that were completely destroyed.

[player1]

Originally posted by Willem


Keep in mind that a Battleship unit represents a small fleet, not an individual ship. And even in the attack on Pearl Harbour, a number of ships survived the attack and were able to get away, or they were heavily damaged and were repaired later. There weren't really that many ships that were completely destroyed.

But in Civ3 you CAN'T ever destroy a single enemy battleship unit.

Still, Cruise Missiles are usefull for DESTORYING ships.
But, there is one problem:
-you can't attack 1hp ship with cruise missiles (BUG), although you can destory 2hp ship
-You can't transport cruise missle by water

If someone from official team consideres to give Radar Atrillery a movement of 2, then Cr. mis. should have land movement of 2 also.

[Willem]

Originally posted by player1

But in Civ3 you CAN'T ever destroy a single enemy battleship unit.

But that's the point I'm trying to make! Even in Pearl Harbour, the Japanese were not able to destroy ALL the ships of the Pacific fleet. Some got away and some were repaired/rebuilt later. And since a single ship unit represents a fleet, like at Pearl harbour, then aircraft should not be able to destroy a unit completely, only damage it severely.

-You can't transport cruise missle by water

Yes you can, check out this thread. There's another one around somewhere as well, called Cruise Missile Tweaks.

http://apolyton.net/forums/showthrea...threadid=40278

Originally posted by player1


If someone from official team consideres to give Radar Atrillery a movement of 2, then Cr. mis. should have land movement of 2 also.

Thanks for pointing that out to me, I didn't realize their range was so limited. That is rather ridiculous. Cruise missiles are a medium range weapon, there's no way they should only have 1 movement. 3 would be more like it, maybe even 4. Oh well that's easy enough to fix in the editor.

[player1]

Just to clarify:

It's land movement is 1 (transport), but its Bombard range is 2.

Both of them need to be boosted.

[Willem]

Originally posted by player1
Just to clarify:

It's land movement is 1 (transport), but its Bombard range is 2.

Both of them need to be boosted.

You think? Those things can fly for hundreds of miles! What were they thinking? I've been noticing a LOT of unit stats that don't make any sense.

[Unregistered]

Originally posted by player1

But in Civ3 you CAN'T ever destroy a single enemy battleship unit.

Still, Cruise Missiles are usefull for DESTORYING ships.
But, there is one problem:
-you can't attack 1hp ship with cruise missiles (BUG), although you can destory 2hp ship
-You can't transport cruise missle by water

Cruise missiles are a little flakey in the game. I hope they fix the 1hp 'feature' in the next patch, it is a bit annoying.

This has probably been reported before, so sorry if this is old news. I've noticed that while you can't load a cruise missile onto a transport in a city, you can move it onto a transport that is just off shore. If anything, I would think this should work the other way around.

And does anyone else besides me think it odd that when you capture a city the ships & planes there are automagically destroyed? One would think that the captains & pilots would have enough time to raise anchor or take off as the city is falling. I suppose you could make a case for there not being enough time for this in a small city, but I have trouble seeing this with a large city. Or perhaps there should be a chance that should happen, but 100% of the time??

thanks,

[Ney]

Originally posted by Venger
There needs to be an increased potency of early gunpowder units versus older units. You are likely looking at either modifying the way HP works or giving an HP bonues or era bonus in combat.

Combat should make sense - not with a predetermined outcome, but I shouldn't be losing subs to frigates...

Please expire UUs that don't make sense. I don't want to build any more legionarys when I have mechanized infantry available.

Venger

I completely agree with you, and I have to add that Civ3 is a delusion and a step back compared to Civ2, with regard to interface and combat system.
This is a prayer to Firaxis:
1) Show all the unit in a stack - otherwise is a pain in the ass to know what you have under the damn top one
2) Adjust the power of units with firepower versus ancient units, ando so on (a frigate should sink by the simple look of a destroyer)
3) Expire obsolete units in the building list
4) Put back in the game spies, or at least saboteur
5) Put back all the nice reports we used to have with Civ2: statistics on the other civs, list of their technology and so on
And please do not let us wait till Civ4; release a patch as soon as possible for the sake of the people who spent their money on a (not so) new game.

Ney

[vmxa1]

Go get em Ney.

[barefootbadass]

Originally posted by Ney

1) Show all the unit in a stack - otherwise is a pain in the ass to know what you have under the damn top one
2) Adjust the power of units with firepower versus ancient units, ando so on (a frigate should sink by the simple look of a destroyer)
3) Expire obsolete units in the building list
4) Put back in the game spies, or at least saboteur
5) Put back all the nice reports we used to have with Civ2: statistics on the other civs, list of their technology and so on
And please do not let us wait till Civ4; release a patch as soon as possible for the sake of the people who spent their money on a (not so) new game.

For 1, what in the world do you expect? You can see them in the list.

For 2, you're beating a dead horse.

For 3, good point, I agree completely here.

For 4, why? Do you want MORE units to move around? I'll take the abstraction, thank you.

For 5, You know what techs they have, unless they are way ahead of you, in which case you shouldn't, because your people don't understand those advanced techs or even how to research them. You can find out their govenment they are in in the military screen, what resources they have that you lack or vice versa in the resource screen and diplomacy screens, what kind of political agreements they have with other nations in the diplomacy screen, and if you have embassies, and just about anything else with a spy and embassy. You can trade for their world map to know what they know and where their cities are. You can see what wonders they have or are building in what cities in the wonder screen... Really, what else is there to know? Have I forgotten anything?


My biggest issue with the interface is that there are certain areas in the diplomacy screens and negotiations that you can't use your keyboard as far as I can tell, making me reach for the mouse. That and the fact that certain screens come up slowly because of my slow computer, but that's not a fault of the game, and soon I'll have a new one which will hopefully find this game to be like notepad is to my current one. Muahaha!

[King of Norway]

Something I have encountered when attacking spearmen, is that I have a much greater chance of victory when attacking Regular spearman with a veteran Archer than with a regular Swordsman.
I rather send in a Catapult and 3 Archers to attack two Spearmen than risk losing two Swordsmen. It`s got something to do with the Archer being a ranged unit, and not so vulnerable to spear stabs as Swordsmen fighting at close quarters, I guess. It also seems like Pikemen have defense bonus against mounted units.

Immortals are godlike. I have never set out an entire nation as fast as when I built 5 Immortals and slayed all the Impis. I guess it took me 20 turns to fight down the Zulus with approx. 20-30 Impis with max 10 Immortals. Maybe they are too good attackers and should have 3-2-2 instead, as they were fighters that always sent fresh soldiers to the front, and the wounded went back to rest?

[Anglophile]

A lot of this thread - at least until sub warfare broke out - was to do with the relatively overpowered Cavalry and underpowered Musketman. To some extent, I agree with this view but would offer a different solution than was generally given. Cavalry did and should have a high probability of beating Musketmen in the open. As well, I am presuming the Musketman represents the early musket/arquebus armed infantry who had essentially no mobility and therefore very limited offensive capability. Reloading was very slow so even defense really was almost a one shot deal. Therfore the Musketman as is, is about right, as is the Cavalry unit.

The game's units reflect open field combat values well but seem to me to greatly undervalue the benefits of any and all levels of fortification. I have increased the bonuses for being fortified/in a fortification in my mod and believe that it gives a more realistic simulation of warfare. If I could, I would give that benefit only to infantry and I would also give an additional bonus to fortified infantry units when fighting cavalry/armor. This would raise the value of all infantry units from musketmen to motorized infantry, force combined arms attacks on dug in defenders in the two modern eras and force players to have historically realistic, balanced armies or face serious disadvantages on attack and defence.

Two more points. First, until the Germans invented the snorkel (not the German spelling) during WWII, submarines had very limited underwater endurance as both diesel engines and submariners require lots of oxygen to function. There are many historical examples of combat and non-combat vessels ramming surfaced subs and damaging/crippling/sinking the sub. Finally, I believe that the archer and especially the longbowmen have the wrong values. These units were defensive units used to whittle down attackers as they approached, or as support for their own attacking units. The greatest victories of which I am aware that are attributed to bow armed soldiers are the victories of the English longbowmen vs French knights early in the last millenium. These were achieved in entirely defensive battles. So, to be historically accurate, archers and particularly longbowmen should be low attack but with a bombard value and high defence - particularly if in a good defensive position. That said, given the very limited combat model of Civ3, the values they have probably work better than a more historically accurate set.

[player1]

Originally posted by Anglophile
I have increased the bonuses for being fortified/in a fortification in my mod and believe that it gives a more realistic simulation of warfare.

There is one problem.
That solution makes "Tank vs Phalanx" problem even worse.

Fortified Spearmen in city (7-12pop):
2*(1.0+0.25f.b.+1.0c.b.)=4.5
Tank wins battle less often then Knight vs Warrior on open (3:1)

Fortified Musketmen in city (7-12pop):
3*(1.0+0.25f.b.+1.0c.b.)=6.75
Tank wins battle less often then Swordsmen vs Warrior on open (3:1)

Fortified Musketmen in metropolis (13+ pop):
3*(1.0+0.25f.b.+1.5m.b.)=8.25
Tank wins battle less often then Knight vs Spearmen on open (3:1)


Higher defensive values make these things even worse.

[Zachriel]

Originally posted by Anglophile
A lot of this thread - at least until sub warfare broke out - was to
Finally, I believe that the archer and especially the longbowmen have the wrong values. These units were defensive units used to whittle down attackers as they approached, or as support for their own attacking units. The greatest victories of which I am aware that are attributed to bow armed soldiers are the victories of the English longbowmen vs French knights early in the last millenium. These were achieved in entirely defensive battles. So, to be historically accurate, archers and particularly longbowmen should be low attack but with a bombard value and high defence - particularly if in a good defensive position. That said, given the very limited combat model of Civ3, the values they have probably work better than a more historically accurate set.

As far as Archers. The idea is that if they get to strike the charging Knights first, then they have great effect, but if the Knights cross the ground quickly enough, the Archers are destroyed. This allows maneuver for position, as the Knights attempt to "get the drop" on the Archers. If the Archers are stacked with Spearmen, then the Knights must stop and destroy the Spearmen first, allowing the Archers an attack on the Knights the next turn with a high attack value.

That is why they have low defense. They are very vulnerable to being overrun unless protected by other units. Agincourt was an exception, which is why we remember it. Basically, the Knights got stuck in the mud. The randomizer deals with the possible exception.

[Jaybe]

Originally posted by player1
There is one problem.
That solution makes "Tank vs Phalanx" problem even worse....
Higher defensive values make these things even worse.

That was Anglophile's whole point.
You should NOT be using Tanks to attack fortified infantry in cities, forest, jungle, hills or mountains unless you are attacking with supporting infantry that can keep up with the tanks.

The conflicts in Anglophile's position come when we assume that Tanks and Modern Armor contain their own integrated infantry and support units.

[player1]

Originally posted by Jaybe

That was Anglophile's whole point.
You should NOT be using Tanks to attack fortified infantry in cities, forest, jungle, hills or mountains unless you are attacking with supporting infantry that can keep up with the tanks.

The conflicts in Anglophile's position come when we assume that Tanks and Modern Armor contain their own integrated infantry and support units.

I have no problem in having infantry beat tanks in fortified positions.

BUT I HAVE PROBLEM IN LOSING TANKS TO:
-SPEARMEN
-MUSKETMEN
-RIFLEMEN

Also,
supporting units have very low attack rating.




Anyway having no reteat when attacking with HORSE (all non-tank units) walled of cities with 7+ pop should be best solution.

Also, Tanks should have higher defense, but LOW fortify & city bonuses, wich will make them good open defenders, but bad city defenders.

[Patience]

Originally posted by player1

I have no problem in having infantry beat tanks in fortified positions.

BUT I HAVE PROBLEM IN LOSING TANKS TO:
-SPEARMEN
-MUSKETMEN
-RIFLEMEN

What about if your tanks were the WWI kind?
Are we all assuming they are the tiger/panzer/sherman variety or better?
Besides, when you have tanks, expect defenders to at least know about molotov cocktails

Also,
supporting units have very low attack rating.

Makes bombarding the city first all the more attractive, although I see your point.
In warfare, however, taking cities is considered high-risk, so perhaps this is not so far off from reality?
Bombard them to smithereens first, I say (or starve the sons of b****** to a proper citysize )

Anyway having no reteat when attacking with HORSE (all non-tank units) walled of cities with 7+ pop should be best solution.

Nah, they could be riding outside the walla, throwing stones after the defenders and then withdraw when taking too many casualties.

Also, Tanks should have higher defense, but LOW fortify & city bonuses, wich will make them good open defenders, but bad city defenders.

Great idea

[player1]

Originally posted by Patience
What about if your tanks were the WWI kind?
Are we all assuming they are the tiger/panzer/sherman variety or better?
Besides, when you have tanks, expect defenders to at least know about molotov cocktails

molotov cocktails knowledge <==> has at least Rilemen unit (not speramen or musketmen)

Not even a WWI tank should lose from Musketmen or Spearmen

Rilfemen vs WWI: maybe if lucky

[Zachriel]

Originally posted by player1
molotov cocktails knowledge <==> has at least Rilemen unit (not speramen or musketmen)

Just because we call them spearmen does not make them stupid.

After the first encounter with a tank, they will understand the threat and adjust their tactics accordingly. Most will run (disbanding = unit destruction). A few will fight and die (again destruction). A rare exception will succeed.

The ony technology required to destroy a tank is the stoneage technology called "fire." Consider a tank surrounded by a wall of fire. Or consider a tank chasing some spearmen into the brush only to fall into an elephant pit. Or consider that the spearmen may attack your fuel depot at night, steal fuel, make molotovs, slit your soldiers throats, etc.

Tanks without infantry support are next to useless.

[player1]

Originally posted by Zachriel


Just because we call them spearmen does not make them stupid.

After the first encounter with a tank, they will understand the threat and adjust their tactics accordingly. Most will run (disbanding = unit destruction). A few will fight and die (again destruction). A rare exception will succeed.

The ony technology required to destroy a tank is the stoneage technology called "fire." Consider a tank surrounded by a wall of fire. Or consider a tank chasing some spearmen into the brush only to fall into an elephant pit. Or consider that the spearmen may attack your fuel depot at night, steal fuel, make molotovs, slit your soldiers throats, etc.

Tanks without infantry support are next to useless.

To make M.C. you need a KNOWLEDGE to do it.
That means advance. If you don't know to make m.c. then fuel won't help you.

And even M.C. without fire-gun infanry won't be enought. That's poor spearmen would probably die (machine guns) before thowing that M.C.


And chasing spearmen is not tank job. Taking position is always infantry job.

And do you think that TANK UNIT doesn't have support units?

[Zachriel]

Originally posted by player1
poor spearmen would probably die (machine guns) before thowing that M.C.

And chasing spearmen is not tank job. Taking position is always infantry job.

And do you think that TANK UNIT doesn't have support units?

Very good points. The word "probable" is what the randomizer is all about. Chasing spearmen is a job for infantry, or better yet, combined arms. Tank units, without infantry support, are very vulnerable to counterattack. Indeed, tanks tend to "run away" in the heat of battle and can be cut off and trapped by opposing infantry -- if the tank commander is not careful.

Infantry is not part of a tank unit as then the tanks would move at the speed of the slowest foot soldier.