Stealth bomber shot down by Spitfire

georges bonbon · September 23, 2003, 08:05

In my last game a Stealth Bomber was shot down by something that looked like a Spitfire (probably the unit was a fighter, which I never use).

This is really hilarious, considering the height and speed of Stealth Bombers in air compared to WWII planes.

Cookie Monster · September 23, 2003, 08:13

IIRC a stealth bomber in Civ3 terms is not entirely invulnerable. One of the big advantages of the stealth bomber is that there is a very very low chance of being intercepted and shot down by enemy fighters. You may have just gotten unlucky.

Jaybe · September 23, 2003, 12:45

I have also had a stealth bomber downed by a fighter, and yes, it was an "amusing" shock!
Imagine over Taliban Afghanistan: A stealth bomber doing lazy-eights waiting for a targeting order in a presumed threat-free environment. Even a prop-driven aircraft could have shot it down if it knew where it was, possibly even with 20mm cannon. (Of course, an AWACS would probably have spotted it way too soon.)

G'Kar · September 23, 2003, 14:46

As Jaybe suggested, almost any plane with an engine that runs and a gun can shoot down a stealth bomber.

The scenario is easy to imagine, the B-2 drops a bomb, the bomb bay door gets jammed open, stealthiness is compromised, P-51 scrambles to intercept the target and lets loose with a couple hundred rounds, ...B-2 fleet decreased by one.

Of course you can simulate a fighter escort in Civ by sending your fighters on a "bombing" mission to hit the same target first. Thus your fighter fights with the enemy fighter before the B-2 enters the scene.

Kuciwalker · September 23, 2003, 19:07

Regardless of the unit doing Air Superiority, the chance for the Stealth Bomber or Fighter to be shot down is the same: one in twenty. The Stealth planes have a defense of zero, so they automatically die (in fact, they can be captured when you take a city), but the Stealth flag means they are only intercepted 5% of the time.

bobbo008 · September 23, 2003, 21:25

yeah, 5% for stealth units.

although other units are 50%. so that means if you send a non-stealth fighter to "simulate fighter escort" will only work 1/2 the time theoretically. then they have to win or the AI fighter can intercept next turn.

Jaybe · September 24, 2003, 14:58

Quote:

... fighter escort" will only work 1/2 the time theoretically.

I much prefer 2/3 (I changed it to 67%)!

C3C may change things a bit with the availability of AA units.

Elias · September 24, 2003, 23:41

There are lots of unrealalistic things about civ3.such as a worrior
injuring modern armor. they couldent even get close enough
much less hurt it.

Jaybe · September 25, 2003, 00:04

Elias, that is a very old argument that is still invalid. Armor is vulnerable in mountains/cities/woods/canyons. Losing hitpoints can also be from lack of supplies, breakdowns, etc. A "warrior" unit with imagination, and lack of good intelligence by a tank unit is all it takes.
(What am I TALKING ABOUT! I don't think I've lost an MA HP to a warrior yet. Tank HP, yes but not MA).

Just because ZERO (one less than ONE) Abrams tanks were lost directly to enemy action in Iraq doesn't mean that units of them COULD not have been lost.

G'Kar · September 25, 2003, 00:09

Jaybe,

There were coalition tanks damaged beyond operability directly due to enemy action. They may have all been repairable, but not cheaply.

Elias · September 25, 2003, 00:17

I was fighting a civ who was behind the times a little and they had a lot of worriors so under the right circamstances(pardon my terible spelling) that could happen. by the way the people
in Iraq had Rpgs not Stone axes.

Jaybe · September 25, 2003, 04:00

A warrior/spearman/pikeman in the modern age has RPGs also. It just isn't a modern professionally-trained unit. Just because the graphic doesn't show it ....

Elias · September 25, 2003, 23:18

Where did you hear that?

G'Kar · September 25, 2003, 23:34

That's the fundamental Temporal Displacement-Technological Diffusion Theory (copyright mine).

Many people believe units progress throughout the ages wether we can see it on the screen or not. So a warrior is still called a warrior but he may have black market access to an M-16 or a rocket propelled grenade. Thus when he takes a HP off your tank that was really RPG damage you sustained.

edit: rocket propelled grenade, NOT rock propelled

Jaybe · September 25, 2003, 23:47

Elias, I'll put it this way:
It is obvious that a "warrior" cannot damage tanks (hardly even support vehicles) with an ax. Therefore, he MUST have had more modern weapons -- otherwise the believability disappears!

It's called rationalization.

Elias · September 26, 2003, 00:01

good point if i was a worrior i would try to get a hold of at least a hand gun of corse they have low attk for having RPG's and M-16's even if they are untrained.

Killazer · September 26, 2003, 02:16

Ya i cant wait to try charging an Abrams with a pistol.

CerberusIV · September 26, 2003, 04:39

The really funny thing about a fighter shooting down a stealth bomber is that fighters, jet fighters and F-15's all have the same chance and effect to shoot down stealth aircraft.

Now that's what I call progress!

georges bonbon · September 26, 2003, 08:17

Quote:

Originally posted by CerberusIV
The really funny thing about a fighter shooting down a stealth bomber is that fighters, jet fighters and F-15's all have the same chance and effect to shoot down stealth aircraft.

Now that's what I call progress!

You must be joking, the same odds?

CerberusIV · September 26, 2003, 08:47

Quote:

Originally posted by georges bonbon

You must be joking, the same odds?

No joke. They all have the same 5% chance of intercepting. As the stealth bomber has a defence of zero it is always shot down regardless of the attack value of the intercepting aircraft (as long as that value is >0) so they all have exactly the same effect.

Of course jet fighters and F-15's are more effective against bombers where the bomber has a defence value.

Ecthy · September 26, 2003, 08:52

It does remind of the phalanx beating the battleship in Civ 1

spy14 · September 26, 2003, 13:19

A guy with a spear in one hand and an RPG in another is an intriguing combination - but while I can stomach the idea of an MA losing 1 hit point to a healthy spearman/musketman/whatever, losing 2 hit points or more is dumb. The amount of Abrams disabled in Iraq by RPG's wouldnt read more than 1 hit point on the Civ system, and as for tank battles the Abrams beat standard tanks in the first gulf war by 1200 - 0.

Jaybe · September 26, 2003, 13:43

Iraq was a special situation; a short war with one-sided results, mostly on the coalition's side, despite the difficulties aluded to in the anti-war/alarmist press. Iraq had the bad luck (in addition to inept top leadership and totally disrupted command-&-control).

vmxa1 · September 26, 2003, 15:48

I have always had a problem with the people that say a warrior has an RPG or any modern type weapons. In the early versions of the game, they may have been aboe to claim that, but now they cannot. If they have these items and knowledge they would have to be upgraded to guerillas. If they are shown as warriors, I have to take them at that level, not even MedInf.
So they are cavemen and no one is going to train them to be moderm fighters. That is not profitable. I view the upgrade not as a training, but more of retirement for the original and hiring of a replacement.

Elias · September 28, 2003, 16:51

What about changing the graphic and the attk/def Rate automaticaly after geting a certin tec so worriors can have
a guy with an RPG and be a 4/8 or somthing like that.I think
i just got a great idea for a new thread.

georges bonbon · September 29, 2003, 03:50

Maybe we should consider the warrior or whatever obsolete unit that kills modern war-technology, as a clone of Arnold Schwarzenegger or Sylvester Stallone.

SpencerH · September 29, 2003, 15:37

There were variants of the spitfire after WWII that flew close to 500mph which is not much slower than a B-2 at sea level. I dont know why a B-2 would be low enough to engage, but if it was low and spotted, the spitfire pilot would have a chance to intercept from a dive.

spy14 · September 29, 2003, 17:51

The last Spitfire was the MK24... top speed 460 mph at around 20,000 ft and in a lengthened dive it would approach the speed of sound. A B2 sortie would never be flying low enough in enemy territory for the dive to occur, and in a level chase the Spit would almost certainly have to turn and refuel before it was able to catch the B2. Which is a shame because the idea of shooting down the B2 with 60 year old technology is great

star mouse · September 29, 2003, 19:47

For those who think stealth bombers should be invincible from lower-tech units, and spearmen cannot possibly destroy a tank:

* An Iraqi farmer with a machine gun allegedly shot down an American helicopter in this year's conflict.

* To see what primitive weapons can do to tanks, watch the tank scene towards the end of the movie Saving Private Ryan. Granted, these might have been Infantry, not Warriors, but they did use fairly primitive weapons.

* A rock and a machine gun can both kill a human.

* The most vulnerable parts of most modern war machines is the bits that make them go: the engines on an aircraft, the treads on a tank or the propellor of a ship. If you can hit them there, they will not be able to move out of harm's way. Dumb luck can be all it takes.

Elias · September 29, 2003, 21:23

Helicopter shot down by an Iraqi farmer? Isnt that want sadam said to the people to keep them from thinking they were being slaughterd?Anyways a low flying helicopter could be shot down by a macine gun but not by a musket or a stone ax.The people in saving privat ryan had wepons and training of the time they did not have axes.