Civ: now _this_ is *ridiculous*!!
Topi Ylinen
understand that almost every unit stands at least some chance of winning in
any given combat. Fair enough. But when you have the combat luck of the very
unfortunate prince Gobbledigook! of the Aztecs, you can only complain.
All these ridiculous things happened to poor Gobbledigook yesterday:
-A chariot got killed by a barbarian diplomat
-A bomber was shot down by barbarian musqueteers. Now, some may argue
that the appropriate term for these units is "guerillas" and thus,
they are equipped with modern rifles. But I have two pieces of
evidence, which I hope will show they shot my bomber down with
musquets. 1) there is a different counter for gunmen with modern
firearms (Riflemen) and 2) if you buy a guerilla with a diplomat,
you will get a musqueteer unit. And I do not find it very convincing
that they change their weaponry to antique firearms if you buy them...
-Better yet, another of Gobbledigook!'s (the name, btw, refers to
the Aztec cities, which I find very aptly named) bombers was
destroyed by barbarian knights! Now, was he flying too low or
what!
I guess these are quite modest examples and many of you will have experienced
worse. But they all happened in the same game (the losses of 2 bombers almost
consecutively)... and during 2 h of real time. And yes, all these units were
veteran units. So the bomber fliers had their licenses in order!
Finally... I love communism - NOT in real life, though!
But in Civ, yes.
Why?
Simply because your cabinet looks great!
--
*****************************************************************************
TOPI YLINEN f1t...@kielo.uta.fi
=============================================================================
The brotherbeat to any bull-eyed bulbomasons with an applemeter of
blunderblood in his veins... the philo-oxidative paygreen pathofinder,
a terror firmly tiger-belted in a toad-twisting taxbus.
*****************************************************************************
T.Drew Bayliss
>I know full well that Civilization is not an overtly realistic game. I also
> -A bomber was shot down by barbarian musqueteers. Now, some may argue
>I guess these are quite modest examples and many of you will have experienced
>worse. But they all happened in the same game (the losses of 2 bombers almost
Sigh. had to post. I lost a Battleship the other day when attacking a rifleman
unit. This was bad enough, so I said to myslef, OK, I will only use it to
harass. Ha. Veteran Battleship killed by a SETTLER UNIT! 2nd unit attacked.
On another note, playing Emp level with 7 civs, Mangaed to wipe out 5 of them,
realized I was almost alone on a HUGE continent, except for just rome. I start
irrigating the world, mass producing wonders, and generally preparing for a
long, high scoring game. Then, what the hell, lets send a diplomat into Rome.
See what they got.
If anyone ahs read the short science fiction story " Something Passed By" then
they will know what happened.
My tech was all screwed up. I lost pottery, but gained Atomic Theory. No more
wheel, but metallurgy. Some unirragated spacs became irrigated. Some roads
diappeared. others appeared. mY government changed without revolution. I turned
the computer offa nd went to sleep. It would have been a gnarly game, but I
was more in the mood for a long drawn out "by the book" emp lev 7 game.
Sigh. should have saved it.
drew
--
T. Drew Bayliss UU UU SSS CCCC University of Southern California
Questions gladly UU UU SS CC Soon to be unemployed.
answered, answers UU UU SS CC UUCP: uunet!usc!bayliss
gladly quesitioned. UUUUU SSS CCCC ARPA: bay...@skat.usc.edu
M.E. Donnaruma
>understand that almost every unit stands at least some chance of winning in
>any given combat. Fair enough. But when you have the combat luck of the very
>unfortunate prince Gobbledigook! of the Aztecs, you can only complain.
>All these ridiculous things happened to poor Gobbledigook yesterday:
[Lists of units with attack of 10 being destroyed by units with
defenses of 0 and 1. deleted]
>
>I guess these are quite modest examples and many of you will have experienced
>worse. But they all happened in the same game (the losses of 2 bombers almost
>consecutively)... and during 2 h of real time. And yes, all these units were
>veteran units. So the bomber fliers had their licenses in order!
>
>
My favorite impossibility is when you attack a town with a Phallanx
with a Battleship (attack 12 v defense 2) still, I understand that with
city walls the defense is 4, and terrain gets you another 1. BUT a ship
10 miles off the coast, bombarding a city with 120mm shells, simply
CANNOT be destroyed by 50 guys with polearms all packed together. Same
goes with Bombers (at 30,000 feet, carpet bombing) get destroyed by
ground units that have NO realistic chance of winning, surviving yes,
winning no. That and militia attacking 3 muskateers (attack 1 v def 3)
in the mountains (defense now 6) and behind a fortress (defense now 9)
and all three get destroyed, one by one by 3 militia!!!!
Mark
Bruce Hilton
>understand that almost every unit stands at least some chance of winning in
>any given combat. Fair enough. But when you have the combat luck of the very
>unfortunate prince Gobbledigook! of the Aztecs, you can only complain.
>All these ridiculous things happened to poor Gobbledigook yesterday:
>
> -A chariot got killed by a barbarian diplomat
>
>
Every civ player feels this pain - but the odds for combat are
ratios determined only by off/def & terrain, not by type.
Try this... with a big tech lead in a Ver 4 emperor game, I sail
up to an enemy city with a veteran battleship. I know they don't
even have gunpowder yet (they've been demanding it.) I am ready
to blast it to ruins next turn.
But a courageous sailboat (attack 1 - probably veteran, so 1.5)
sallies out to do combat with my battleship - def (vet) 18.
And kills my ship...
And (!) the next battleship that I send in AS WELL.
That sailboat deserves a medal. True, he was sunk on the third try,
and I eventually won, but...!
--
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
+ Bruce D. Hilton +
+ hil...@fcs280s.ncifcrf.gov +
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Hoi Chong
I say we corner Sid at a game convention and make him answer all these
question....
Maybe we can organize a protest in front of MPS, or even his house.
How about if we file a lawsuit against his waton disregard for the Laws of
Physics. Perhaps we can get a Nobel physic laural to be the co-plantiff
which will get the press more to our side. How about some descendent
of Darwin? We will call it the "Monkey Trial, Part II" Do we have to
pay royalty for that famous Monkey Trial song if we use it a part of
our campaign?
How about if we form an organization "People Against Sid's Unrealistic
Simulations" (PASUS)?
Yeah, that will teach him...
Samuel DiRocco
All this may have been written into yhe game for realism, otherwise
anybody with a battleship or bomber would be practically invincible. Do'nt
get me wrong I agrree, all this has happened to me also. To keep from
pulling my hair out and tossing the game from frustration, I pretentd that
maybe that bomber had an engine malfunction and the plane ditched or maybe that
battleship hit an ICEBERG!, Just a suggestion
--
From: Argon 238
Dear Conan,
"Werewolves were gloves, keep hands warm."
No Fate but the Destiny you create!
mpe...@waikato.ac.nz
>
> All this may have been written into yhe game for realism, otherwise
> anybody with a battleship or bomber would be practically invincible. Do'nt
> get me wrong I agrree, all this has happened to me also. To keep from
> pulling my hair out and tossing the game from frustration, I pretentd that
> maybe that bomber had an engine malfunction and the plane ditched or maybe that
> battleship hit an ICEBERG!, Just a suggestion
out and put a mine on the side of your battleship.
Tic Tic Tic Tic ...
.
.
KABOOM.
(I seam to remember a similar accident in NZ a few years ago).
This Space for Rent
> My favorite impossibility is when you attack a town with a Phallanx
>with a Battleship (attack 12 v defense 2) still, I understand that with
>city walls the defense is 4, and terrain gets you another 1. BUT a ship
>10 miles off the coast, bombarding a city with 120mm shells, simply
>CANNOT be destroyed by 50 guys with polearms all packed together. Same
>goes with Bombers (at 30,000 feet, carpet bombing) get destroyed by
>ground units that have NO realistic chance of winning, surviving yes,
>winning no. That and militia attacking 3 muskateers (attack 1 v def 3)
>in the mountains (defense now 6) and behind a fortress (defense now 9)
>and all three get destroyed, one by one by 3 militia!!!!
Maybe they were killed by friendly fire. Just going on a mission
entails some risks. In most wars the casualties were mainly the
result of disease.
>Mark
--
Eu-Ming Lee (aka CyberGeek) el2...@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu
"You know I'm a swimmer, but I'm not the only one."
- Profound John Lennon T-Shirt seen in Taiwan.
Bill Seurer
my Veteran Battleship" posts.
Civ uses an EXTREMELY ABSTRACT combat system. Its only nods towards reality
are that land units can't attack naval and air units and naval units can't
attack air units. Do you understand what abstract means?
Other than the naval/land/air distinction, units are just numbers. The game
doesn't distinguish between Armor and Militia other than armor has an attack
factor of 10 (or whatever) and militia has 1. So the militia will win 1 in 11
combats between the two by the way the combat is resolved.
Is this realistic? No! Do most people care? Apparently a few do.
Face it, Civ is totally unrealistic in MOST of what it does, especially
at later tech levels. In one "year" I can ship ALL of my ground units
by rail from Alaska to Chile but I can't sail ANY ship or fly ANY plane
the same distance. At the movement scale used here WWII
would have taken decades to fight instead of 6 years (8 years if you
include the Japan-China conflict).
Ignore the unrealities, accept the abstractions, and have fun!
--
- Bill Seurer Language and Compiler Development IBM Rochester, MN
Internet: BillS...@vnet.ibm.com America On-Line: BillS...@aol.com
Huh!?
>In article <70...@kielo.uta.fi> f1t...@uta.fi (Topi Ylinen) writes:
>>I know full well that Civilization is not an overtly realistic game. I also
>>understand that almost every unit stands at least some chance of winning in
>>any given combat. Fair enough. But when you have the combat luck of the very
>>unfortunate prince Gobbledigook! of the Aztecs, you can only complain.
>>All these ridiculous things happened to poor Gobbledigook yesterday:
> [Lists of units with attack of 10 being destroyed by units with
>defenses of 0 and 1. deleted]
>>
>>I guess these are quite modest examples and many of you will have experienced
>>worse. But they all happened in the same game (the losses of 2 bombers almost
>>consecutively)... and during 2 h of real time. And yes, all these units were
>>veteran units. So the bomber fliers had their licenses in order!
>>
>>
> My favorite impossibility is when you attack a town with a Phallanx
>with a Battleship (attack 12 v defense 2) still, I understand that with
Battleships have higher attack values than that...
>city walls the defense is 4, and terrain gets you another 1. BUT a ship
>10 miles off the coast, bombarding a city with 120mm shells, simply
>CANNOT be destroyed by 50 guys with polearms all packed together. Same
>goes with Bombers (at 30,000 feet, carpet bombing) get destroyed by
>ground units that have NO realistic chance of winning, surviving yes,
>winning no. That and militia attacking 3 muskateers (attack 1 v def 3)
>in the mountains (defense now 6) and behind a fortress (defense now 9)
>and all three get destroyed, one by one by 3 militia!!!!
Wait... muskateers = 3, mountains add 200%, so up to 9, fortress makes nother
100%.... Hmmm, is that 100% of the original value or 100% or the now raised
to 9 value? yuck... bad isn't it?
>Mark
In one bizarr emp game I played, my enemy successfully used settlers, def = 0
to hold of my hi tech empire for a century or so... 8-)
Huh!? rcj4...@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu
Bill Seurer
|>
|> How often have you seen a battleship sunk all by it's lonesome? I am sure
|> they also spend millions of dollars to build and maintain a battleship
|> and then skim on a couple thousand dollars of medical vaccine.
Serious accidents *DO* happen to ships in wartime. I remember during the
Vietnam war one of our aircraft carriers was almost sunk when a returning
plane crashed on deck (or had a stuck bomb drop loose?) that started a
fire that set off other munitions and fuel. The ship looked like it had
been through a major battle when it arrived back in the USA.
This isn't why Civ combat works the way it does (see my previous post),
but it is possible for a warship to sink without enemy intervention.
Hoi Chong
> med...@ultb.isc.rit.edu (M.E. Donnaruma) writes:
>
>> My favorite impossibility is when you attack a town with a Phallanx
>>with a Battleship (attack 12 v defense 2) still, I understand that with
>>city walls the defense is 4, and terrain gets you another 1. BUT a ship
>>10 miles off the coast, bombarding a city with 120mm shells, simply
>>CANNOT be destroyed by 50 guys with polearms all packed together. Same
>>goes with Bombers (at 30,000 feet, carpet bombing) get destroyed by
>>ground units that have NO realistic chance of winning, surviving yes,
>>winning no. That and militia attacking 3 muskateers (attack 1 v def 3)
>>in the mountains (defense now 6) and behind a fortress (defense now 9)
>>and all three get destroyed, one by one by 3 militia!!!!
>
> Maybe they were killed by friendly fire. Just going on a mission
> entails some risks. In most wars the casualties were mainly the
> result of disease.
How often have you seen a battleship sunk all by it's lonesome? I am sure
Chuck Dupree
Civ uses an EXTREMELY ABSTRACT combat system. Its only nods towards reality
are that land units can't attack naval and air units and naval units can't
attack air units. Do you understand what abstract means?
Other than the naval/land/air distinction, units are just numbers. The game
doesn't distinguish between Armor and Militia other than armor has an attack
factor of 10 (or whatever) and militia has 1. So the militia will
win 1 in 11 combats between the two by the way the combat is resolved.
Is this realistic? No! Do most people care? Apparently a few do.
Entirely true. Also, people seem to be miscalculating the numbers in
most of the "how could that x have killed my y?" postings. For
example, a phalanx can beat a battleship more often that one would
like because the phalanx is almost always a veteran who is fortified
behind city walls. The numbers, as I understand the formula, are
2 * 1.5 = 3.5 (the phalanx is a veteran)
3.5 * 1.5 = 5.25 (the phalanx is fortified)
5.25 * 3 = 15.75 (the phalanx is behind city walls)
I'm not sure about the "fortified" multiplier, but I think the other
numbers are correct. If so, then a veteran battleship, which is a 27
on offense, can still lose about 1 out of 3 battles against a veteran
phalanx fortified behind city walls.
Given such heavy multipliers, it seems to me that an increase of one
or two in the defensive number of a unit provides a large increase in
capability.
Face it, Civ is totally unrealistic in MOST of what it does, especially
at later tech levels.
Not to mention its portrayals of the personalities of leaders (I love
having Gandhi threaten to nuke me if I don't give him all my money).
I mean, making the Babylonians the best neighbors (smart but not
aggressive) is okay, and possibly the Chinese too. But making the
Americans non-aggressive??? And forcing war on everyone all the time?
This game is a libertarian's idea of what the world ought to be like.
It doesn't represent the world as it is. So, as Bill says,
Ignore the unrealities, accept the abstractions, and have fun!
- Chuck Dupree
--
- Chuck Dupree
cup...@oracle.us.com
_--_ _--_ _--_ _--_ _--_ _--_ _--_ _--_
( () )___( () ) ( () )___( () ) ( () )___( () ) ( () )___( () )
\ / \ / \ / \ /
( ' _ ` ) ( ' _ ` ) ( ' _ ` ) ( ' _ ` )
\ ___ / \ ___ / \ ___ / \ ___ /
.__( `-' ) ( `-' ) ( `-' ) .__( `-' ) ___
/ ! `---' \ _--'`---_ .--`---'\ / /`---'`-' \
/ \ ! / \___ / _>\ / / ._/ __
! /\ ! / / ! \ / /-___-' ) /' /.-----\___/ / )
! !_\______/\. ( < !__/ /' ( _/ \___// `----' !
\ \ ! \ \ \ /\ \___/`------' ) \ ______/
\___/ ) /__/ \--/ \ / \ ._ \ `< `--_____----'
\ / ! `. )- \/ ) ___>-_ \ /-\ \ /
/ ! / ! ! `. / / `-_ `-/ / ! !
! /__ /___ / /__ \__/ ( \---__/ `-_ / / /__
(______)____) (______) \__) `-_/ (______)
Hoi Chong
> I always get a chuckle when reading all these "How did that Diplomat destroy
> my Veteran Battleship" posts.
>
> Civ uses an EXTREMELY ABSTRACT combat system. Its only nods towards reality
> are that land units can't attack naval and air units and naval units can't
> attack air units. Do you understand what abstract means?
>
> Other than the naval/land/air distinction, units are just numbers. The game
> doesn't distinguish between Armor and Militia other than armor has an attack
> factor of 10 (or whatever) and militia has 1. So the militia will win 1 in 11
> combats between the two by the way the combat is resolved.
>
> Is this realistic? No! Do most people care? Apparently a few do.
>
> Face it, Civ is totally unrealistic in MOST of what it does, especially
> at later tech levels. In one "year" I can ship ALL of my ground units
> by rail from Alaska to Chile but I can't sail ANY ship or fly ANY plane
> the same distance. At the movement scale used here WWII
> would have taken decades to fight instead of 6 years (8 years if you
> include the Japan-China conflict).
>
> Ignore the unrealities, accept the abstractions, and have fun!
No, lets protest in front of Sid's house!
John Brinckerhoff Clements
>Entirely true. Also, people seem to be miscalculating the numbers in
>most of the "how could that x have killed my y?" postings. For
>example, a phalanx can beat a battleship more often that one would
>like because the phalanx is almost always a veteran who is fortified
>behind city walls. The numbers, as I understand the formula, are
>
> 2 * 1.5 = 3.5 (the phalanx is a veteran)
> 3.5 * 1.5 = 5.25 (the phalanx is fortified)
> 5.25 * 3 = 15.75 (the phalanx is behind city walls)
>
understand it most ships and airplanes, also artillery, conduct
"shelling" or "bombing" which negates the city walls bonus, bringing the
phalanx's (phalanx'? phalanx'es?) total defense back down to 5.25. This
makes the final comparison something like 5:1, adjusted by the degree to
which the computer feels like cheating.
Note: does anyone else think that the computer slams the odds against
you when you reject a peace offer? I may just be paranoid, but I really
do feel as if the computer is thumbing its nose at me when I refuse to
talk and then my Battleship loses to an unfortified militia
(exaggerating, sorry :) ).
john clements
21, Heil Hufnagel
Walrus and April
>In article <CDUPREE.92...@hqsun2.oracle.com> cdu...@oracle.com (Chuck Dupree) writes:
>>Entirely true. Also, people seem to be miscalculating the numbers in
>>most of the "how could that x have killed my y?" postings. For
>>example, a phalanx can beat a battleship more often that one would
>>like because the phalanx is almost always a veteran who is fortified
>>behind city walls. The numbers, as I understand the formula, are
>>
>> 2 * 1.5 = 3.5 (the phalanx is a veteran)
>> 3.5 * 1.5 = 5.25 (the phalanx is fortified)
>> 5.25 * 3 = 15.75 (the phalanx is behind city walls)
>>
> Minor point--you were right about the veteran status, but as I
>understand it most ships and airplanes, also artillery, conduct
>"shelling" or "bombing" which negates the city walls bonus, bringing the
>phalanx's (phalanx'? phalanx'es?) total defense back down to 5.25. This
>makes the final comparison something like 5:1, adjusted by the degree to
>which the computer feels like cheating.
I believe that bombers and artillery are the only units which ignore the
city walls. Fighters wouldn't make sense in this instance because their
primary use in the game seems to be knocking down bombers before they can
reach your cities (or for a retaliatory strike when one has just done so).
Not sure if this is in the manual since I don't have mine handy, but I
seem to remember that this is the case.
> Note: does anyone else think that the computer slams the odds against
>you when you reject a peace offer? I may just be paranoid, but I really
>do feel as if the computer is thumbing its nose at me when I refuse to
>talk and then my Battleship loses to an unfortified militia
>(exaggerating, sorry :) ).
Hey, I know how you feel. I lost *two* battleships and a cruiser to a
phalanx once...'Twas a sad day for the Roman navy, indeed...:)
>john clements
>21, Heil Hufnagel
The Walrus
Chuck Dupree
understand it most ships and airplanes, also artillery, conduct
"shelling" or "bombing" which negates the city walls bonus, bringing the
phalanx's (phalanx'? phalanx'es?) total defense back down to 5.25. This
makes the final comparison something like 5:1, adjusted by the degree to
which the computer feels like cheating.
walls, but nothing else does. However, like the rest of the manual,
it is rarely clear. (As a technical writer myself, I find this
particularly irritating...) My experience gives me the feeling,
unsubstantiated by any numbers, that Battleships do not ignore city
walls. But maybe I've just had bad luck attacking walled cities. No
way to determine for sure, as far as I can see. Does anyone who has
the follow-on book ("Rome on 640K a Day" or whatever) have any light
to shed on this?
Note: does anyone else think that the computer slams the odds against
you when you reject a peace offer? I may just be paranoid, but I really
do feel as if the computer is thumbing its nose at me when I refuse to
talk and then my Battleship loses to an unfortified militia
(exaggerating, sorry :) ).
I regularly have the feeling that the computer has it in for me. Not
just because I lose a battleship on a phalanx, but because an entire
string of attacks, each one up for grabs as far as I can tell based on
terrain, veteran status, etc., will simply go the computer's way at
critical moments sometimes. 'Course, this could just be paranoia...
- Chuck
James Dusek
>In article <1992Oct20....@netcom.com>, hch...@netcom.com (Hoi Chong) writes:
>|> How often have you seen a battleship sunk all by it's lonesome? I am sure
>|> they also spend millions of dollars to build and maintain a battleship
>|> and then skim on a couple thousand dollars of medical vaccine.
>Serious accidents *DO* happen to ships in wartime. I remember during the
>Vietnam war one of our aircraft carriers was almost sunk when a returning
>plane crashed on deck (or had a stuck bomb drop loose?) that started a
>fire that set off other munitions and fuel. The ship looked like it had
>been through a major battle when it arrived back in the USA.
The Japanese Battleship Mustu was sitting in harbor, and blew up.
No enemy action at all. One minute peace and quite, next minute BOOMMMBBB.
All gone.
A British batleship rolled over and sank when it fired a full broad-
side. It wasn;t hit by enemy fire.
James Dusek
Alan Heckman
I was several hours into a game, (easiest level, 3 civs - down to me and a small one)
All of a sudden, the games stops, out prints a "Divide by Zero Error",
and it throws me into 40 column DOS.
I don't think that's very fair!
--
Alan J. Heckman
ahec...@oracle.com
Hoi Chong
But were there sabotage? I mean, we did exactly win Midway by just
waking up one morning and said "Gee, I think there are going to attack
Midway." Even after the war has been over for decades, they are not going
to come out and admit it. "Err.. Mr Russian Bear, we have saboteers on
each and every of your Tycoon class submarine..."
I suspect foul-play.
ppug...@pimacc.pima.edu
>>>Serious accidents *DO* happen to ships in wartime. I remember during the
>>>Vietnam war one of our aircraft carriers was almost sunk when a returning
>>>plane crashed on deck (or had a stuck bomb drop loose?) that started a
>>>fire that set off other munitions and fuel. The ship looked like it had
>>>been through a major battle when it arrived back in the USA.
>>
>> The Japanese Battleship Mustu was sitting in harbor, and blew up.
>> No enemy action at all. One minute peace and quite, next minute BOOMMMBBB.
>> All gone.
>>
>> A British batleship rolled over and sank when it fired a full broad-
>> side. It wasn;t hit by enemy fire.
>
> But were there sabotage? I mean, we did exactly win Midway by just
> waking up one morning and said "Gee, I think there are going to attack
> Midway." Even after the war has been over for decades, they are not going
> to come out and admit it. "Err.. Mr Russian Bear, we have saboteers on
> each and every of your Tycoon class submarine..."
>
> I suspect foul-play.
The investigators in each & every accident undoubtedly thought exactly as
you did. (Including those that looked into the accidental explosion aboard
a US BB about 3 years ago.
That's probably why the problem wasn't ever solved.
This problem was unique to Dreadnought-style BBs. It happened in both
peacetime & wartime, & is the #1 cause of the loss of such ships!
In hindsight it was discovered that BBs that didn't fire their guns
very often were more likely to have this happen. (The USN has just
about the best record because they used to practice alot)
Most accounts I've read attribute the problem to the deterioration
of the cordite charges used in the main guns, thus triggering a mag-
azine explosion.
Apparently, alot of navies never really depleted their magazines &/or
never thought of "turning-over" the stock!
PHIL
Peter Mancini
sinking it... now way! In 1979 an F14 pilot all doped out on coke
decided the runway was moving too much so he landed on the six-pack. 7
FULLY armed F14, 6 fully FULED blew up, taking a large section of ship
with them and set fire to the hull. Now, even if the fire hit the
magazine, the explosion would have gone through the upper deck, but that
would have been the extent of it. Even if the plane hit the ship at the
waterline AND penetrated to the R-Chambers the ship still would have
been boyent. More modern examples are 1985 a 1,000lbs. powdercharge
destroyed a 16" gun turret and killed the gunners when it went off
outside of the tube. You'll remember this as the case where Navy tried
to pass it off as a gay love affair gone wrong. Even more useful, the
Tripoli, a 600' cruiser, hit a mine in the persian gulf in febuary of
91. The hole was 20' long and 16' wide. My friend who was on the
bridge at the time said the ship 'kinda leaned to one side, then kinda
leaned to the other side and stayed'. Do you know how big 20'x16'x???'
is? Your average American house isn't that big!
In all three cases the ships were back in full service within months.
Oh, lets not forget the stark which was hit by a missile that is 1/4 its
length. It made it back to base on its own power.
Point of all this: Ships are damn hard to sink by accident. You need a
lot of collateral damage. The problem with most wargames is they take
rare cases like the HMS Hood and extrapolate from there. Don't know
what happened to the HMS HOOD? Look it up in WWI literature. You'll be
more shocked than the lame description I could give here. ;-) Lets
just say Spielburg couldn't make an explosion that loud!
--Pete
Daniel M Silevitch
haf...@Lise.Unit.NO (Helge Hafting) writes:
|> It may seem strange when a battleship is sunk by a land unit.
|> But imagine that the land unit saw the ship coming, and dropped a few mines
|> in the sea. That makes it a little more realistic.
|> --
Are you suggesting that a phalanx unit (technologically equivalent with the
trireme) would be able to create something as complicated as a marine mine,
never mind place it in such a way as to threaten a battleship. IMO, sea or
air units attacking low tech units such as phalanxes and chariots should
never lose. They might not win, i.e. the defender is still alive, but there
should be no way for them to die.
Daniel Silevitch dms...@athena.mit.edu
Massachusetts Institute of Technology
Edvard Sorbo
> -A chariot got killed by a barbarian diplomat
>
> -A bomber was shot down by barbarian musqueteers. Now, some may argue
> that the appropriate term for these units is "guerillas" and thus,
> they are equipped with modern rifles. But I have two pieces of
> evidence, which I hope will show they shot my bomber down with
> musquets. 1) there is a different counter for gunmen with modern
> firearms (Riflemen) and 2) if you buy a guerilla with a diplomat,
> you will get a musqueteer unit. And I do not find it very convincing
> that they change their weaponry to antique firearms if you buy them...
>
> -Better yet, another of Gobbledigook!'s (the name, btw, refers to
> the Aztec cities, which I find very aptly named) bombers was
> destroyed by barbarian knights! Now, was he flying too low or
> what!
OH Yeah?!
I thought a little cavalry unit was a little too close to one of my cities
so I why not nuke it? I shot up a nuky sendt it against the cavalry and whoo-
oops, the cavalry wins but the usual black spots appear all around it. Heck, I
thought mabye I should have trained the rocket in duels. (It wasnå’¨ veteran)
Oh, one of those things that happen, like one militia winning against double
attack from bombers.
But there is a good side to all this. The same thing can happen to you. With
a catapult I won about 40 fights against various opponents. (Most of them were
actually defensive)
And as a tip this time, make a lot of roads and rails around a city and watch
it grow to about 30 people.
EXS
Why do men like clones?
(Or was it blondes?)
James Dusek
>> The Japanese Battleship Mustu was sitting in harbor, and blew up.
>> No enemy action at all. One minute peace and quite, next minute BOOMMMBBB.
>> All gone.
Nope, It was in Japan when it blew up. Kinda hard to sabotage
a Japanese battleship in Japan during WW2.
>I suspect foul-play.
I suspect poor Japanese quility.
James Dusek
Elliott Kleinrock
>most of the "how could that x have killed my y?" postings. For
>example, a phalanx can beat a battleship more often that one would
>like because the phalanx is almost always a veteran who is fortified
>behind city walls. The numbers, as I understand the formula, are
> 2 * 1.5 = 3.5 (the phalanx is a veteran)
> 3.5 * 1.5 = 5.25 (the phalanx is fortified)
> 5.25 * 3 = 15.75 (the phalanx is behind city walls)
>I'm not sure about the "fortified" multiplier, but I think the other
>numbers are correct. If so, then a veteran battleship, which is a 27
>on offense, can still lose about 1 out of 3 battles against a veteran
>phalanx fortified behind city walls.
All the multipliers are correct, however a unit behind city walls gets no
benifit from fortifing. So the value is:
2 * 1.5 = 3 (Not 3.5)
3 * 3 = 9
A vet Battleship will have a 27 Attack -- 25% chance of dying.
Don't attack a city with walls with a battleship unless you have to, or
can afford to lose the ship.
> Ignore the unrealities, accept the abstractions, and have fun!
>- Chuck Dupree
- Elliott
ell...@oliafd.shel.isc-br.com
...!{ philabs | yale | oliveb | decvax | iscuva }!oliafd!elliott
Elliott Kleinrock
>understand it most ships and airplanes, also artillery, conduct
>"shelling" or "bombing" which negates the city walls bonus,
Only Bombers and artillery negate city walls (but a fortified unit then
gets it's fortification bonus). Net effect is a halving of the defense.
>john clements
>21, Heil Hufnagel
Juan Ardura
|> Xref: merlin.dev.cdx.mot.com comp.sys.amiga.games:9719 comp.sys.ibm.pc.games:17373
|> Newsgroups: comp.sys.amiga.games,comp.sys.ibm.pc.games
|> Path: merlin.dev.cdx.mot.com!isunix.cdx.mot.com!mothost!ftpbox!uunet!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!usc!snorkelwacker.mit.edu!bloom-picayune.mit.edu!athena.mit.edu!dmsilev
|> From: dms...@athena.mit.edu (Daniel M Silevitch)
|> Subject: Re: Civ: now _this_ is *ridiculous*!!
|> Message-ID: <1992Oct24.1...@athena.mit.edu>
|> Sender: ne...@athena.mit.edu (News system)
|> Nntp-Posting-Host: w20-575-71.mit.edu
|> Organization: Massachusetts Institute of Technology
|> References: <dusek.719769734@shale> <1992Oct23....@netcom.com> <1992Oct23.1...@ugle.unit.no>
|> Distribution: comp
|> Date: Sat, 24 Oct 92 08:38:55 GMT-0:09
|> Lines: 15
Many accidents occur in war and often result in the destruction of equipment
and loss of life. i.e. A plane attacking chariots may crash due to pilot
error, and the chariots will win.
John Brinckerhoff Clements
>Are you suggesting that a phalanx unit (technologically equivalent with the
>trireme) would be able to create something as complicated as a marine mine,
>never mind place it in such a way as to threaten a battleship. IMO, sea or
>air units attacking low tech units such as phalanxes and chariots should
>never lose. They might not win, i.e. the defender is still alive, but there
>should be no way for them to die.
Look, the object here is playablility. Let's just assume that the
"phalanxes" are in reality the _modern_equivalent_ of a phalanx. Say,
for instance, a small military unit of the modern age. Where, you say,
does that leave the riflemen? Aren't _they_ a small military unit of
the modern age? Look, fergeddit. The way Sid did it is far more
entertaining than calling the units "small unit," "bigger unit," and
"honking big unit." Whatever....
john clements
21, grammar fascist
Daniel M Silevitch
Are you saying that an entire squadron of veteran bombers will just crash, on a
mission in which they have no opposition to speak of? Please.
Dave Frederick
In article <1992Oct29.1...@athena.mit.edu>, dms...@athena.mit.edu (Daniel M Silevitch) writes:
|>
|> Are you saying that an entire squadron of veteran bombers will just crash, on a
|> mission in which they have no opposition to speak of? Please.
|>
|> Daniel Silevitch dms...@athena.mit.edu
|> Massachusetts Institute of Technology
Let's look at a few real world examples ...
American bombers v. Vietcong militia. Are you saying that the US did
not lose any bombers in this one?
Soviet Armor and Artillery v. Afghan militia. I guess the Afghans
didn't stand a chance here either, right?
History has demonstrated that one cannot assume victory simply by
having the technological upper-hand. However, superiority in such
areas as technology, production, and population *usually* can
overcome the enemy (discounting the above counterexamples). In those
instances where an apparently outmatched opponent wins a battle, view
it as one of those historic examples where a supposedly inferior
unit, through the determination of defending their homeland, wins
a battle against a superior-armed yet less motivated aggressor
(as has occurred throughout civilization).
Dave Frederick sas...@unx.sas.com
Kenneth Sullivan
>
> In article <1992Oct29.1...@athena.mit.edu>, dms...@athena.mit.edu (D
> |>
> |> Are you saying that an entire squadron of veteran bombers will just crash,
> |> mission in which they have no opposition to speak of? Please.
> |>
> |> Daniel Silevitch dms...@athena.mit.edu
> |> Massachusetts Institute of Technology
>
> Let's look at a few real world examples ...
>
> American bombers v. Vietcong militia. Are you saying that the US did
> not lose any bombers in this one?
>
> Soviet Armor and Artillery v. Afghan militia. I guess the Afghans
> didn't stand a chance here either, right?
>
> History has demonstrated that one cannot assume victory simply by
> having the technological upper-hand. However, superiority in such
> areas as technology, production, and population *usually* can
> overcome the enemy (discounting the above counterexamples). In those
> instances where an apparently outmatched opponent wins a battle, view
> it as one of those historic examples where a supposedly inferior
> unit, through the determination of defending their homeland, wins
> a battle against a superior-armed yet less motivated aggressor
> (as has occurred throughout civilization).
>
> Dave Frederick sas...@unx.sas.com
Of course on emperor levels, the little rebels beating the almighty giant
happens an alarming amount of times, at least when the user has the upper
hand
--
INTERNET: big...@netlink.cts.com (Kenneth Sullivan)
UUCP: ...!ryptyde!netlink!bigbro
NetLink Online Communications * Public Access in San Diego, CA (619) 453-1115