Bombers vs. Navy

[Black Gate of Mordor]

Why are bombers so weak against units, and suffer so much damage, specifically against naval units? Note this on the front page of Wikipedia (as of 19/03/11 7:50 AEST).


1945 – World War II: A single Japanese aircraft bombed the American aircraft carrier USS Franklin (pictured), killing over 700 of her crew and crippling the ship.

A single bomber (not a squadron) bombed an aircraft carrier and killed hundreds. Why is it bombers are so ridiculously weak in civ5? A bug? Game balance?

[Machturbo]

Wait... Navy is actually used in Civ V? I have yet to see any navy let alone any bombers be used by the AI. I've only seen fighters so far.

Also I think its a balancing issue, seeing how they need to have some kind of weakness. Stealth bombers are the way to go my friend.

[Onandoga]

Idk what your talkin about, i use bombers all the time to ward off the ai horde.

And people online use the navy alot. besides on the pangea games that is.

[Black Gate of Mordor]

Idk what your talkin about, i use bombers all the time to ward off the ai horde.

And people online use the navy alot. besides on the pangea games that is.

Well, against some units they're effective, and some units they suffer tons of damage, yet if you put them on a real battlefield their victims shouldn't be able to fire back (bombers sustain damage from longswordsmen?). But against all Industrial Era ships I've only ever seen bombers cause 2-3 damage. It's supposed to represent a whole squadron of bombers, I expected there to be some more damage.

[Onandoga]

hm, well iv only used em on land units so i guess i cant really say, except when i was usin flyin fortress once i took a destroyer down to half health... but idk if that had to do with it bein a UU or not.

[Fenhorn]

Japanese pilots wasn't exactly green when they brought US into WWII, they where very experienced actually. So in CiV you need to get some experience to your aircraft.

What I do miss btw is a way to build aircraft and ships that start with at least some experience (like barracks for land units) so your planes or ships start at least one step closer to the more fun promotions.

[SadItDoesNotWork]

I have to agree with the OP, naval aircraft were the downfall of the battleship. Battleships simply became obsolete almost overnight, it's a historic fact.

As to why they're weak against ships in the game, meh... I'd ask why an archer can do even 1 damage against any modern weapon, or how in the heck an non-ranged unit can do any damage against a plane -- they're extremely good molitov throwers!

[Furball]

Using the two styles of aircraft we have in the game, early bomber were very ineffective against ships due their high rate of inaccuracy which was made worse against a moving target so should receive a debuff when attacking ships compared to land units where they can compensate through saturation bombing.
Late game bombers would be equivalent to more modern aircraft which weapons like guided missiles which are very accurate and it is to be expected an aircraft unit could so significant damage to a ship (exocet missiles vs British ships in the Falklands as a case in point)

So using purely the aircraft types we have in the game it is right early bombers are poor vs ships but late bombers should not be.

Moving past what we have in the game there is a missing link between the fighter and bomber which is the dive bomber/fighter bomber and it is mainly those types of aircraft that have historically damaged/sunk ships in combat so it would be interesting to have that intermediate step included in the game.

[Shadow717]

I was basically going to say the same as furball. The bombers we have are modeled after the WWII bombers which dropped massive amounts of unguided bombs on cities, which is a much larger target than a moving ship. And as he mentioned fighter bombers and dive bombers, even though that wiki quote says "bomber", I'd say it is more likely that it was a fighterbomber of sorts dropping one, maybe 2 bombs right on the deck. Not a heavy bomber like a lancaster or B-17 dropping dozens of bombs from high altitude.

[rhettrongun]

Yep, bombing strategies against naval vessels changed later in WW2. Dropping from very high altitude was the traditional method, and it allowed ships to basically dodge incoming bombs. It was when they began using the dive bombing technique that they became more deadly. IIRC that didn't really start to happen until 1943 or so in the Pacific. Dive bombing was also more risky for the pilots of course, so it's not like it was just an obvious choice to change to.

[jacypr]

The problem here is the amplitude of the aspect being discussed: the game tries to hug a general rule cos it can't represent micro-eras, ie, it can't represent the time where some tech were waaaay ahead of others for a few years.

In this particular thread, we have the problem that the game skips a lot of phases of naval development and adaptation to the flying warfare, going directly to the modern era where pratically all ships are somehow protected against air strikes.

Since the Civilization series is about the big picture and crude advancement representation of a given civilization utilizing broad-representation techs, instead of utilizing micro techs representing each comma of history, this disparity is frequent and also present in other eras and units of the game where you can have the same discussion: "why is this so weak against that? I have an example of this pawning that".

While WWI and WWII were both very important to mankind in terms of science breakthroughs and global consequences, and each year during this 2 events we had different technologies on the field of battle, they are only a few years of history for a game like Civilization.

After all, gentlemen, it's a game with its own rules. We have to play it considering that.

[Takao]

To answer the OP's question. The "bomber" unit represents a strategic bomber(ie. B-17, B-24, Lancaster, Sterling, etc.) an not a tactical bomber(Stuka, Douglas Dauntless, Japanese Val, etc.). As other posters have said, the strategic bomber drops it's bombs from very high altitude and it is very inaccurate against pinpoint targets, especially pinpoint targets that are moving. The tactical bombers attack their targets from a lower altitude, preferred methods of attack being either a steep dive or a somewhat shallower glide. This allows the tactical bomber better overall accuracy, but they carry much less of a bomb load(usually 2,000lbs. as opposed to 8,000+ of the strategic bomber. All of the "vanilla" Civs have never had a tactical bomber unit, just the fighter and bomber. Remember the B-17 attacks at Midway...The B-17s dropped many bombs on the Japanese warships, but all they achieved was to kill some fish...Not one bomb dropped by a B-17 hit any Japanese ship, let alone sink one. Not that that stopped the B-17 crews from claiming sinkings of Japanese battleships and carriers.

Also, the attack on the USS Franklin had an "unusual" set of circumstances. The USS Franklin had a fully fueled and armed strike on her deck that was just getting ready to take off, as well as, fully fueled aircraft and armed aircraft in her hanger. A bomb or two can wreak great havoc when your deck is loaded with fueled and armed planes. If those planes had already launched, or not have been fueled and armed, the damage caused would have been a lot less than it was.




@rhettrongun,

Divebombing was not "new", nor did it begin in 1943. The German Luftwaffe was an early proponent of divebombing, as were the United States Navy and the Imperial Japanese Navy. All of their dive-bombing programs were well underway by the late 1930's. For various reasons, the United States Army Air Corp(precursor to the USAF) and the British RAF never subscribed to dive-bombing. Instead they chose to rely on medium bombers to accomplish the same tasks as dive-bombers.

@Furball,

The Exocet is more akin to the "cruise missile", laser guided bombs would be a better comparison.

There are many "missing links" in Civ, not only dive-bombers and fighter bombers, but "medium" bombers(twin engine types), torpedo bombers, ASW aircraft, anti-tank aircraft. But then again, Civ has never been a good wargame.

[mwallyn]

Well, against some units they're effective, and some units they suffer tons of damage, yet if you put them on a real battlefield their victims shouldn't be able to fire back (bombers sustain damage from longswordsmen?).

This is a complaint that I have with the new patch. EVERY battle does damage to you, no matter how lopsided it may actually be. My Modern Armor take damage from the pikemen that they've otherwise blown into oblivion. Early on, this makes sense, since every battle did inflict some casualties even to the winner. However, I don't see how archers being attack can inflict any sort of damage upon an armored tank. And you are right, things get even worse when using aircraft. My stealth bombers take damage from piddly little crossbowmen and pikemen. How? What exactly are they doing to damage my bomber? Is it flying an ultra-low ground mission where you can reach up and beat it with a sword?! If that's the case, I'm firing my Air Force commander, and fast.

More in line with your post, Pearl Harbor is the best example of aircraft's superiority against ships. Even after that, kamikazes could cripple an entire battleship in one shot. I'm aware that these were suicide aircraft, but torpedo bombers (essentially fighters with torpedoes strapped on) were still devastatingly effective against ships even at open sea. However, those were torpedos. Generally, the bombers portrayed in-game are more of the kind that drop a a large payload over their target. If that's the case, I can understand why bombers aren't effective against ships. Bombers are more suited to larger and immobile targets, like cities. Ships are FAR smaller and move about way more than a city ever will.

[Kevik]

Well the bombers in civ 5 represent the large 4 engine bombers that were used in ww2. While great in large numbers to destroy cities (carpet bombing) they were very inefficent agaist naval ships ( B-17s attack japanese warships at midway, no a signal hit). The plane presumed to have bombed the Franklin was a single engine torpedo/ dive bomber not a large 4 engine bomber. (though igniting fuel tanks did most of the damage anyways, so it was just like the Arizona taking one bomb then blowing sky high). WW2 brought an end to the dominace of the battleships, aircraft carriers can strike far out of a battleships range and a few dozen planes can easily sink a battleship. Also planes are a lot cheaper/ quicker to produce unlike the years it takes to build a new battleship. ( of course carriers take just as long but hopefully they arent in the line of fire too much) So a good idea would be to add a dive bomber/ torpedo plane to the mix so we can have an effient way of bringing down ships.

[Takao]

Actually mwallyn,

Pearl Harbor is hardly the best example of aircraft's superiority over ships. Like the British attack at Taranto over a year before, the American warships were docked(stationary), partially manned, and wholly unprepared for an attack. However, Taranto and Pearl Harbor are excellent examples of one of the virtues of the aircraft carrier, namely the ability to strike an enemy unexpectedly in his "home" waters.

The earliest "best" example of the aircraft's superiority would be a few days after Pearl Harbor, with the Japanese Navy's land-based aircraft sinking of the HMS Prince of Wales and HMS Repulse. While the HMS Repulse was a battlecruiser of World War I "vintage", the HMS Prince of Wales was "state of the art". In this battle, the warships and aircraft were on "equal footing"(prepared and ready for combat). Of course, the British had already felt the aircraft's sting, losing the light cruisers HMS Fiji and HMS Gloucester to German air attacks on May 22, 1941.

[mwallyn]

Actually mwallyn,

Pearl Harbor is hardly the best example of aircraft's superiority over ships. Like the British attack at Taranto over a year before, the American warships were docked(stationary), partially manned, and wholly unprepared for an attack. However, Taranto and Pearl Harbor are excellent examples of one of the virtues of the aircraft carrier, namely the ability to strike an enemy unexpectedly in his "home" waters.

The earliest "best" example of the aircraft's superiority would be a few days after Pearl Harbor, with the Japanese Navy's land-based aircraft sinking of the HMS Prince of Wales and HMS Repulse. While the HMS Repulse was a battlecruiser of World War I "vintage", the HMS Prince of Wales was "state of the art". In this battle, the warships and aircraft were on "equal footing"(prepared and ready for combat). Of course, the British had already felt the aircraft's sting, losing the light cruisers HMS Fiji and HMS Gloucester to German air attacks on May 22, 1941.

True, I was thinking more how the entirety of the American navy (sans its carriers) were destroyed in one single air assault, effectively crippling much of any resistance from the Americans for a few years. And also true is that carriers completely changed naval warfare, to the point that, along with long ranged missiles, heavy battleships like the ones from WWII were rendered obsolete. Eh, still, probably should have said ONE of the best examples, though. Hindsight.

[rhettrongun]

@Takao
I stand corrected then. I guess I didn't recall correctly in this case :D. That's what I get for using absolutes, although I would point out that I at no point used the word you quoted, that dive bombing was "new". I did not consider the Luftwaffe in this case, as I was thinking about civilization 5 which does not have stuka dive bombers.

I believe the evolution into using dive bombing techniques, at least for the US, was indeed late to arrive for the large bombers that civ 5 uses as models though. Traditional high altitude bombing was seen as the proper technique by mainstream US military throughout the 30s. This was with planes like the large B-17, which Civ 5 actually uses. In fact people worried about things like the wings of the heavy bomber coming off if used for dive bombing as late as 1942.

It was somewhat similar to the evolution from battleship minded naval philosophy into carrier minded. Sure, there were prominent military minds that spoke out about carriers being the future of naval warfare in the early 30s (or 20s?). I suppose they would not have been built if there weren't any proponents for them. But, the majority or mainstream view was still that battleships would continue to be the most important naval vessels leading into the attack on Pearl.

[SignalNoise]

This is a complaint that I have with the new patch. EVERY battle does damage to you, no matter how lopsided it may actually be. My Modern Armor take damage from the pikemen that they've otherwise blown into oblivion. Early on, this makes sense, since every battle did inflict some casualties even to the winner. However, I don't see how archers being attack can inflict any sort of damage upon an armored tank. And you are right, things get even worse when using aircraft. My stealth bombers take damage from piddly little crossbowmen and pikemen. How? What exactly are they doing to damage my bomber? Is it flying an ultra-low ground mission where you can reach up and beat it with a sword?! If that's the case, I'm firing my Air Force commander, and fast.

When it comes to battles, it's best to never take what's happening on the screen too literally. Even in a believable case where, for example, Paratroopers take on tanks, standing shoulder-to-shoulder firing their rifles repeatedly at the tanks isn't what is actually making them explode since tanks were designed to be totally immune to small arms fire. No, what probably actually happened that the graphics aren't representing is the Paratroopers use of shoulder-fired rocket launchers and placed explosives like anti-tank mines. So in a similar vein, I'm imagining the more extreme case of archers against modern armor to be unfolding in a couple of ways to justify that 1 damage you took before you grinded them into the dirt: #1 The severely out-teched archers are scrounging up more modern devices to use in their fight such as IEDs and molotov cocktails. #2 Every fight puts an amount of strain on a unit even where the odds were heavily in their favor: vehicles need to refuel, troops need to get their rest, regular vehicle maintenance needs to be performed even for the ones that took no damage, everybody needs to replace the ammo they used in the last fight, etc.

[Takao]

rhettrongun,

The B-17 was intended and used for mid-to-high altitude bombing. It was never intended to be, and only very, very rarely was used as a dive-bomber(mostly in the Pacific). Those precious few B-17s that were used in dive-bombing were usually scrapped or cannibalized for spare parts, because the airframe was unfit for further combat flying.

Going back and re-reading your original post, I believe you have confused "dive-bombing" with "skip-bombing." They are two very different bombing tactics. For a good summary of "skip-bombing" see here: http://www.kensmen.com/combatlessons6.html

Finally, pilots worried about the B-17 shedding it's wings in a dive and pull-put, not because they were dive-bombing, but because diving was the standard procedure for putting out airframe fires. Once, your airspeed built up to about 425-450MPH, that was usually fast enough to extinguish the fire, the pilot would "gently" pull out of the dive.

[mwallyn]

When it comes to battles, it's best to never take what's happening on the screen too literally. Even in a believable case where, for example, Paratroopers take on tanks, standing shoulder-to-shoulder firing their rifles repeatedly at the tanks isn't what is actually making them explode since tanks were designed to be totally immune to small arms fire. No, what probably actually happened that the graphics aren't representing is the Paratroopers use of shoulder-fired rocket launchers and placed explosives like anti-tank mines. So in a similar vein, I'm imagining the more extreme case of archers against modern armor to be unfolding in a couple of ways to justify that 1 damage you took before you grinded them into the dirt: #1 The severely out-teched archers are scrounging up more modern devices to use in their fight such as IEDs and molotov cocktails. #2 Every fight puts an amount of strain on a unit even where the odds were heavily in their favor: vehicles need to refuel, troops need to get their rest, regular vehicle maintenance needs to be performed even for the ones that took no damage, everybody needs to replace the ammo they used in the last fight, etc.

A good point, but the point of outdated units is that they are using outdated equipment. I don't see how archers can come up with armor piercing technology when the country itself doesn't even have that capability. Now, I am aware of the Ewoks and the Battle of Endor, but we all know how outrageous that is in theory and in practice. As for point 2, I would view things like refueling and vehicle maintenance in the support costs you pay every turn, not in extra damage. I could justify paying a little bit extra in support if a unit has battled multiple turns in a row, but not in extra damage. Damage is just that, casualties from battle. Exhausted soldiers basically represent the unit not being able to attack more than once per turn. I understand where you are coming from. I just don't think the mechanic as-is isn't a very good one.

[SignalNoise]

A good point, but the point of outdated units is that they are using outdated equipment. I don't see how archers can come up with armor piercing technology when the country itself doesn't even have that capability.
The country itself doesn't have to have that capability. There are multiple modern-day examples of insurgents who otherwise live as if they were still in a bygone era getting their hands on explosives. There are unscrupulous arms dealers, building your own improvised devices, getting support from various political groups or other hostile countries intelligence agencies, and what have you. Trust me, if a group of people want to kill you bad enough they'll find a creative way of doing it.


Now, I am aware of the Ewoks and the Battle of Endor, but we all know how outrageous that is in theory and in practice.
I wasn't thinking anything like that either. I was more using my own experiences deployed in Iraq and the things I saw and heard over there, as well as talking to other soldiers who had been deployed to Afghanistan. Again: Just because you see a unit of archers or swordsmen on the screen facing off against a tank doesn't mean that's how it's literally going down. I personally envision those archers and swordsmen breaking down into gangs of insurgents or guerilla fighters. Not very effective ones, of course.


As for point 2, I would view things like refueling and vehicle maintenance in the support costs you pay every turn, not in extra damage. I could justify paying a little bit extra in support if a unit has battled multiple turns in a row, but not in extra damage. Damage is just that, casualties from battle. Exhausted soldiers basically represent the unit not being able to attack more than once per turn. I understand where you are coming from. I just don't think the mechanic as-is isn't a very good one.

I'm not necessarily supporting the mechanic either. Just explaining why I can tolerate it. A single point of damage really doesn't bother me. I know it gradually stacks up but all it takes is just one turn of resting within your borders to heal up, which are usually extended by the time you need it if archers and swordsmen are the kind of opposition you have. I haven't really run into a case yet where taking a point of damage from a vastly inferior unit made me lose the whole war.

[mwallyn]

The country itself doesn't have to have that capability. There are multiple modern-day examples of insurgents who otherwise live as if they were still in a bygone era getting their hands on explosives. There are unscrupulous arms dealers, building your own improvised devices, getting support from various political groups or other hostile countries intelligence agencies, and what have you. Trust me, if a group of people want to kill you bad enough they'll find a creative way of doing it.


I wasn't thinking anything like that either. I was more using my own experiences deployed in Iraq and the things I saw and heard over there, as well as talking to other soldiers who had been deployed to Afghanistan. Again: Just because you see a unit of archers or swordsmen on the screen facing off against a tank doesn't mean that's how it's literally going down. I personally envision those archers and swordsmen breaking down into gangs of insurgents or guerilla fighters. Not very effective ones, of course.



I'm not necessarily supporting the mechanic either. Just explaining why I can tolerate it. A single point of damage really doesn't bother me. I know it gradually stacks up but all it takes is just one turn of resting within your borders to heal up, which are usually extended by the time you need it if archers and swordsmen are the kind of opposition you have. I haven't really run into a case yet where taking a point of damage from a vastly inferior unit made me lose the whole war.

Heh, I was being a little tongue-in-cheek with the Star Wars reference. More seriously, though, the Germans blitzed most of Europe in WWII, and they were up against relatively comparable units to their own (granted, German Panzers and military training were way ahead of anything the Poles or French could muster, but we're still not talking sword-on-guns here). An advance like that wouldn't be possible in game if they were taking that mini-damage for every engagement. In game, that little damage really slows down your advances. Like you, I haven't really lost too many units because of this, but it really backs up an advance needlessly. Although, you say you were a soldier, yourself, so being civilian, what do I know?

That all being said, I can reason (to an extent) with obsolete units getting advanced equipment to fight you. After all, America supplied Afghani militants with American weapons to fight the Soviets. Fast forward to the mew millennium and America is now squaring off against the same weapons that they gave the Afghans to fight the Soviets. I still think its a stretch, but its logical enough. Inevitably, you'll have black market dealers selling your stuff to anyone who can afford it.

[rhettrongun]

rhettrongun,

The B-17 was intended and used for mid-to-high altitude bombing. It was never intended to be, and only very, very rarely was used as a dive-bomber(mostly in the Pacific). Those precious few B-17s that were used in dive-bombing were usually scrapped or cannibalized for spare parts, because the airframe was unfit for further combat flying.

Going back and re-reading your original post, I believe you have confused "dive-bombing" with "skip-bombing." They are two very different bombing tactics. For a good summary of "skip-bombing" see here: http://www.kensmen.com/combatlessons6.html

Finally, pilots worried about the B-17 shedding it's wings in a dive and pull-put, not because they were dive-bombing, but because diving was the standard procedure for putting out airframe fires. Once, your airspeed built up to about 425-450MPH, that was usually fast enough to extinguish the fire, the pilot would "gently" pull out of the dive.

Ah, thank you for the information then. It's always nice to clear up some mistaken historical knowledge.

[Oosh]

Could this discrepancy be solved by removing the penalty for Fighters and Stealth Bombers performing a Strike on Naval targets?

Does the Air Sweep ability work against ships?

[Kevik]

Heh, I was being a little tongue-in-cheek with the Star Wars reference. More seriously, though, the Germans blitzed most of Europe in WWII, and they were up against relatively comparable units to their own (granted, German Panzers and military training were way ahead of anything the Poles or French could muster, but we're still not talking sword-on-guns here). An advance like that wouldn't be possible in game if they were taking that mini-damage for every engagement. In game, that little damage really slows down your advances. Like you, I haven't really lost too many units because of this, but it really backs up an advance needlessly. Although, you say you were a soldier, yourself, so being civilian, what do I know?

That all being said, I can reason (to an extent) with obsolete units getting advanced equipment to fight you. After all, America supplied Afghani militants with American weapons to fight the Soviets. Fast forward to the mew millennium and America is now squaring off against the same weapons that they gave the Afghans to fight the Soviets. I still think its a stretch, but its logical enough. Inevitably, you'll have black market dealers selling your stuff to anyone who can afford it.

maybe the outdated archers managed to land an arrow or two into the tank captin as he was shooting the machine gun.

I think a cool way to make fighters more effienct against ships/ ground targets is to add a ground/ strike option. The fighter will takes bombs attached to it and drops them on ground/ naval targets doing greater amounts of damage. You could also decrease the range they can fly to sorta balance that out. (a 500lb bomb does decrease the range)

Edit: yeah those ewoks did a great deal of damage, but the Empire could have easily won if the just started shooting at everything that moved, instead of chasing them down into the forest just to get beat with sticks.

[mwallyn]

Edit: yeah those ewoks did a great deal of damage, but the Empire could have easily won if the just started shooting at everything that moved, instead of chasing them down into the forest just to get beat with sticks.

So, you're implying that there is a moron-factor to each battle. Someone got a little too drunk last night and accidentally wandered into the enemies' line of fire...that's kinda lame, with all due respect.

[Black Gate of Mordor]

So, you're implying that there is a moron-factor to each battle. Someone got a little too drunk last night and accidentally wandered into the enemies' line of fire...that's kinda lame, with all due respect.

Well yeah, just get a Star Destroyer to shoot them down...

Also, regarding archers v. Tanks, whose to say that they aren't attacking at night?

[Kevik]

So, you're implying that there is a moron-factor to each battle. Someone got a little too drunk last night and accidentally wandered into the enemies' line of fire...that's kinda lame, with all due respect.

As i like to say, you win by explioting your enemies mistakes.

[Takao]

Well, the Battle of Endor is not that far-fetched, often it is seen as having it's basis in the Vietnam War. But how about this;

The Battle of Endor was fought between two opposing sides; the Ewoks and their ally, the Rebel Alliance, versus the more powerful and better equipped Galactic Empire. After losing several fights the Ewoks eventually gained the upper-hand. A large naval battle was fought between the Rebel Alliance and the Galactic Empire, which the Rebel Alliance won. This naval victory ensured an Ewok victory in the Battle of Endor.

Like I said, the Battle of Endor is not that far fetched.

In our time;
The American Revolution was fought between two opposing sides; the American Colonists and their ally, the French, versus the more powerful and better equipped British. After losing several fights the American Colonists eventually gained the upper-hand. A large naval battle was fought between the French and the British, which the French won. This naval victory ensured an American Colonial victory in the Yorktown and eventually, the whole war.


WRT tanks,

IIRC, the German combat figures for World War II, showed that an average German tank unit at 100% strength would be down to 50% strength on the second day of combat, by the third day of combat their numbers would be down to 25%. Thereafter, the number would stabilize at 25%, as tanks came out of the repair yards and damaged ones went in.

Tanks can, and will, mechanically breakdown or bog down when traversing soft ground. Sometimes these tanks cannot be recovered, especially when close to the enemy. These unrecoverable tanks are usually destroyed by friendly forces to prevent them from falling into enemy hands, or if the territory is captured these bogged tanks would be left to the recovery troops coming up behind the main thrust. Once these tanks had been recovered the would usually go into the replacement tank pool and were not sent back to their original unit. IIRC, both the Germans and Americans did it this way. So, either way if a tank is somehow damaged, it is usually lost to it's owning unit.

[slowtarget]

To answer the OP's question. The "bomber" unit represents a strategic bomber(ie. B-17, B-24, Lancaster, Sterling, etc.) an not a tactical bomber(Stuka, Douglas Dauntless, Japanese Val, etc.).

Totally agreed here. It's actually one of the "missing" units in the tree, but I can see how it falls out pretty easily. The naval/air force interplay has always needed some work, but its not something that would be easily remedied.

Part of the issue is really a lack of differentiation in modern naval equipment. The irony here is that the biggest problem (in my mind) comes from the Destroyer unit, not its later cousin the Battleship. This was indeed the right progression, but the pre-Battleship destroyers are nothing like the destroyers roaming the waters today. A modern destroyer is more than a match for any WW2-era battleship, and a WW2 battleship would easily put down even a small group of earlier destroyers.

Some of this is accounted-for with the Missile Cruiser, making it seem like the Destroyer is supposed to be the earlier-era unit, yet that wouldn't really match up with the Destroyers speed and anti-submarine capabilities (against nuclear/attack subs).

So... even if we had a Dive Bomber unit, what damage do we assign it against a Destroyer? Is this a WW2 bomber against a WW1 destroyer? Or a WW2 bomber against a fast-moving, do-everything modern destroyer?

Granted, naval units are not the only place where this problem shows up, but it highlights the fact that the issue with Bombers is hardly unique.

Also, the attack on the USS Franklin had an "unusual" set of circumstances. The USS Franklin had a fully fueled and armed strike on her deck that was just getting ready to take off, as well as, fully fueled aircraft and armed aircraft in her hanger. A bomb or two can wreak great havoc when your deck is loaded with fueled and armed planes. If those planes had already launched, or not have been fueled and armed, the damage caused would have been a lot less than it was.


@Furball,

The Exocet is more akin to the "cruise missile", laser guided bombs would be a better comparison.

While this might be nitpicking, the Exocet as its more famously recognized doesn't really fall into what we'd think of a cruise missile. It's classic use was as an air-launched anti-ship weapon, similar to the US's Harpoon, UK's Sea Eagle, and the somewhat famous "Silkworm".

For me, the distinction comes in the range of the weapon. The Exocet/Harpoon/Sea Eagle have a range of 100-300km. They are usually brought into range by aircraft designated for anti-ship operations. Cruise missiles have ranges in the 1000-3000km range, and are just as likely to come from ships or ground launchers. Point here: A cruise missile is more of a weapon unto itself (and therefore a unique Civ V unit). On the other hand, an Exocet missile is better represented as the improved damage/range capabilities of a specialized weapon load for a standard air unit.

...in my opinion.


So a good idea would be to add a dive bomber/ torpedo plane to the mix so we can have an effient way of bringing down ships.

I'd be all for the inclusion of a Dive Bomber, even given the problems noted above. I'd even be fine with a Dive Bomber promotion, which would be much easier to add. Bonus points if you could find a way to to turn the Dive Bomber promotion for the Fighter into something equivalent to a modern anti-ship missile attack for the Jet Fighter.

[Skunkone]

I have to agree with the OP, naval aircraft were the downfall of the battleship. Battleships simply became obsolete almost overnight, it's a historic fact.

As to why they're weak against ships in the game, meh... I'd ask why an archer can do even 1 damage against any modern weapon, or how in the heck an non-ranged unit can do any damage against a plane -- they're extremely good molitov throwers!

strong 2 lol, I can tossing that thing 20k feet lol.

[Skunkone]

Well, the Battle of Endor is not that far-fetched, often it is seen as having it's basis in the Vietnam War. But how about this;

The Battle of Endor was fought between two opposing sides; the Ewoks and their ally, the Rebel Alliance, versus the more powerful and better equipped Galactic Empire. After losing several fights the Ewoks eventually gained the upper-hand. A large naval battle was fought between the Rebel Alliance and the Galactic Empire, which the Rebel Alliance won. This naval victory ensured an Ewok victory in the Battle of Endor.

Like I said, the Battle of Endor is not that far fetched.

In our time;
The American Revolution was fought between two opposing sides; the American Colonists and their ally, the French, versus the more powerful and better equipped British. After losing several fights the American Colonists eventually gained the upper-hand. A large naval battle was fought between the French and the British, which the French won. This naval victory ensured an American Colonial victory in the Yorktown and eventually, the whole war.


WRT tanks,

IIRC, the German combat figures for World War II, showed that an average German tank unit at 100% strength would be down to 50% strength on the second day of combat, by the third day of combat their numbers would be down to 25%. Thereafter, the number would stabilize at 25%, as tanks came out of the repair yards and damaged ones went in.

Tanks can, and will, mechanically breakdown or bog down when traversing soft ground. Sometimes these tanks cannot be recovered, especially when close to the enemy. These unrecoverable tanks are usually destroyed by friendly forces to prevent them from falling into enemy hands, or if the territory is captured these bogged tanks would be left to the recovery troops coming up behind the main thrust. Once these tanks had been recovered the would usually go into the replacement tank pool and were not sent back to their original unit. IIRC, both the Germans and Americans did it this way. So, either way if a tank is somehow damaged, it is usually lost to it's owning unit.

Ya But the Americans were not using sticks....

[Skunkone]

Heh, I was being a little tongue-in-cheek with the Star Wars reference. More seriously, though, the Germans blitzed most of Europe in WWII, and they were up against relatively comparable units to their own (granted, German Panzers and military training were way ahead of anything the Poles or French could muster, but we're still not talking sword-on-guns here). An advance like that wouldn't be possible in game if they were taking that mini-damage for every engagement. In game, that little damage really slows down your advances. Like you, I haven't really lost too many units because of this, but it really backs up an advance needlessly. Although, you say you were a soldier, yourself, so being civilian, what do I know?

That all being said, I can reason (to an extent) with obsolete units getting advanced equipment to fight you. After all, America supplied Afghani militants with American weapons to fight the Soviets. Fast forward to the mew millennium and America is now squaring off against the same weapons that they gave the Afghans to fight the Soviets. I still think its a stretch, but its logical enough. Inevitably, you'll have black market dealers selling your stuff to anyone who can afford it.

TBH the French tanks at the start of the war were better, they had more armor and bigger guns, you have to remember they were using Panzer 2s, 3s, and just start making 4s. It was much like a Sherman vs a Panther for them when invading France. They did not have the numbers advantage either. All they had a advantage on was speed and tactics.

[Takao]

Skunkone,
Neither were the rebels...Still, the British and their forces were, in the beginning, better supplied and equipped.


Well, the Germans did enjoy "local" advantages of numbers, because the British & French diluted their armor strength by spreading their tank units amongst the infantry, while the Germans concentrated their tanks in large formations. Also, the German tanks were more reliable than the French, and the Germans were better prepared logistically to keep their armor units supplied and fighting. Further, the Germans also had better communications and better unit cohesiveness.

I find it ironic, as you have mentioned, that all this would reverse itself later in the war.

[Takao]

Totally agreed here. It's actually one of the "missing" units in the tree, but I can see how it falls out pretty easily. The naval/air force interplay has always needed some work, but its not something that would be easily remedied.

Part of the issue is really a lack of differentiation in modern naval equipment. The irony here is that the biggest problem (in my mind) comes from the Destroyer unit, not its later cousin the Battleship. This was indeed the right progression, but the pre-Battleship destroyers are nothing like the destroyers roaming the waters today. A modern destroyer is more than a match for any WW2-era battleship, and a WW2 battleship would easily put down even a small group of earlier destroyers.

Some of this is accounted-for with the Missile Cruiser, making it seem like the Destroyer is supposed to be the earlier-era unit, yet that wouldn't really match up with the Destroyers speed and anti-submarine capabilities (against nuclear/attack subs).

So... even if we had a Dive Bomber unit, what damage do we assign it against a Destroyer? Is this a WW2 bomber against a WW1 destroyer? Or a WW2 bomber against a fast-moving, do-everything modern destroyer?

Granted, naval units are not the only place where this problem shows up, but it highlights the fact that the issue with Bombers is hardly unique.
Yes, the Civ series has always been weak in the selection of sea & air units, especially in the later eras when air(World War II) & sea(1600s) units became more diverse.

Damage dealing, when it comes to dissimilar era units has always been a problem in Civ, perhaps if the devs had included a +25%/-25% or +50%/-50% bonus when attacking units of a previous/later era. My guess is that this was an intentional "balance" issue, rather than an oversight, to keep others "in the game" if they fall too far behind technology-wise. Still, the bonus/penalty for attacking units of dissimilar eras would alleviate the issue of having a WW2 bomber attack a modern destroyer, a modern destroyer attack a WWI destroyer



While this might be nitpicking, the Exocet as its more famously recognized doesn't really fall into what we'd think of a cruise missile. It's classic use was as an air-launched anti-ship weapon, similar to the US's Harpoon, UK's Sea Eagle, and the somewhat famous "Silkworm".

For me, the distinction comes in the range of the weapon. The Exocet/Harpoon/Sea Eagle have a range of 100-300km. They are usually brought into range by aircraft designated for anti-ship operations. Cruise missiles have ranges in the 1000-3000km range, and are just as likely to come from ships or ground launchers. Point here: A cruise missile is more of a weapon unto itself (and therefore a unique Civ V unit). On the other hand, an Exocet missile is better represented as the improved damage/range capabilities of a specialized weapon load for a standard air unit.

...in my opinion.
The Exocet, Harpoon, and Styx can be launched from a variety of platforms(air, surface, sub-surface), not just aircraft. Only the Sea Eagle is air-launched(a surface-launched version was designed, but lost out to the Harpoon).

The distinction, IMO, relies mainly on whether it is considered to be part of a "standard loadout", and not range, of it's parent delivery system. For instance, the Exocet, Harpoon, and Styx were all part of the standard loadout for the warships that carried them. Whereas, for aircraft, they are "mission specific". The same could be said for the long-range US Tomahawk(although, early on, not many US warships were capable of carrying it) and similar Soviet long-range cruise missiles. However, the introduction of Vertical Launch Systems(VLS) has blurred this distinction. VLS gives warships the ability better tailor their weapons loadout to meet the needs of a given mission. An Aegis warship's primary mission is air defense, thus it's regular load out consists of Standard missiles. Howevery, if needed for ground attack, they can carry some TLAMs(land-attack version of the Tomahawk), or if anti-shipping, carry some TASMs(anti-ship Tomahawk). Hence, Tomahawk cruise missiles are not considered part of the "standard" weapons loadout of an Aegis warship, but it has the ability to carry them if needed.

Here, Civ V contradicts itself. For the "missile cruiser", it is capable of carrying "guided" or "nuclear" missiles, while the "stealth bomber" lacks the ability to carry any missiles. Yet, one of the primary duties of a modern bomber is to carry such missiles(guided and nuclear), so as to be able to conduct stand-off attacks, thus remaining out of danger from enemy SAMs. Realistically, both platforms, have the ability to conduct stand-off attacks, yet in the game, only one does...

Really, Civ is a game based on "generalities" rather than "specifics". Since, most warships, submarines, and aircraft don't have cruise missiles as part of their basic weapons loadout, but can carry them, cruise missiles are treated as being a separate entities.

[Skunkone]

Skunkone,
Neither were the rebels...Still, the British and their forces were, in the beginning, better supplied and equipped.


Well, the Germans did enjoy "local" advantages of numbers, because the British & French diluted their armor strength by spreading their tank units amongst the infantry, while the Germans concentrated their tanks in large formations. Also, the German tanks were more reliable than the French, and the Germans were better prepared logistically to keep their armor units supplied and fighting. Further, the Germans also had better communications and better unit cohesiveness.

I find it ironic, as you have mentioned, that all this would reverse itself later in the war.

Can not Believe I forgot to mention communication, ya having a radio in each tank and all of them next to each other makes for a massive advantage over flags and having to call for help cause you 40tanks are spread over 3miles and they have 20 all at one location. And yes the rebels weren't but I was talking about cute furry death balls.

[Takao]

Yep, lack of radio communications really hurt the French and Soviets(not sure about the British) early on.

Of course, the Ewoks are going to win, how can you forget that all Imperial troops attended the Imperial Stormtrooper Marksmanship Academy...(gotta love GURPS!) IIRC, all those Imperials with blasters, and they kill what, one or two ewoks, damage R2, and injure the Princess...Ohand blow up some trees.

[Skunkone]

Yep, lack of radio communications really hurt the French and Soviets(not sure about the British) early on.

Of course, the Ewoks are going to win, how can you forget that all Imperial troops attended the Imperial Stormtrooper Marksmanship Academy...(gotta love GURPS!) IIRC, all those Imperials with blasters, and they kill what, one or two ewoks, damage R2, and injure the Princess...Ohand blow up some trees.

i think more trees blew them up lol.

[Skunkone]

I was to excited to take a screen shot, but when I posted this there were 666 views, devils thread plz close. sory im bored.

[Kevik]

Yep, lack of radio communications really hurt the French and Soviets(not sure about the British) early on.

Of course, the Ewoks are going to win, how can you forget that all Imperial troops attended the Imperial Stormtrooper Marksmanship Academy...(gotta love GURPS!) IIRC, all those Imperials with blasters, and they kill what, one or two ewoks, damage R2, and injure the Princess...Ohand blow up some trees.

they killed many many trees and if the empire had some bombers they could have killed even more trees :)