Rhye's of Civilization - the fastest loading mod Expanded

Blitz for ships means X number of attacks, where X equals the number of move points. This would be EXTREMELY overpowering! I am utterly against this idea!

Rhye, I THINK he means just renaming Destroyers to Frigates... which probably wouldnt hurt ;p

It depends on the type of Ironclad; the earlier ironclads (like the CSS Virginia) were actually just wooden ships plated in metal. The USS Monitor was completely made of metal. The Brits produced ironclads mostly along the lines of the Virginia.

SO if we intend ironclad to mean fully-metal... then it is a HUGE break. BUT if it means iron CLAD then it is simply a matter of metal plating... and therefore just a change (albeit a big one).

Dreadnoughts were so huge and awesomely strong that they really did represent a massive change in how things worked.

Also, do you think there is any way to show the greater reliance of Industrial onwards ships on ports? Reducing movement is not a logical option, so how about increasing hitpoints by 2 or 3? That way HP losses will feel like a lot more to the player, and will force them to move into port sooner. Making them really expensive would also make sense (and would force most countries out of the serious naval game...).

Off to the airport, see you guys tomorrow!

USMC units can't board transports.

Just a quick point on the Monitor:

Monitor's upperworks were all iron, but the hull was wooden. This is true of all the monitor type vessels of the Civil War era. They were never meant to be ocean going, but rather coastal in nature.

True that Blitz is number of moves, but think of the fact that that also assumes that the blitzing vessel would not lose any HP.

In regards to ironclads, the first use of them was by the french in the mid 1850s as iron clad floating batteries set to fire against Russian naval defense positions. In 1859, the French launched La Lgoire which used iron plates sheathed over a wooden hull structure. (from wikipedia)

In the 1862, during the American Civil War, the CSS Manassas was an ironcald of a different design. rather than afixing iron plates to a wodden ship, the Manassas (which looked like an unsubmerged sub) was moderatly successful against the Union navy, until the US navy was able to discover her weaknesses.

The battle of Hampton Roads (1862) was the first battle all ironclad battle as the CSS Virginia battled the USS Monitor. The CSS Virginia was the rebuilt steam vessel USS Merimack, while the Monitor was a built from stratch iron steam vessel using a single gun turret.

The Monitor was excellent for river usage in the war as it had a a shallow draft, but due to its heavy turret was NOT well suited to ocean going travel, and foundered during a heavy storm off Cape Hatteras NC December 31, 1862.

So can the ironclad be coastal only?

I'm new to the Roc/RoX mods - I've been playing my first RoX game for about a week now and really enjoying it. I am France, it's about 1100 AD, and - what realism! - in the last four or five turns I've had nine cities get struck by the plague! I had a few bouts of plague early on, but this happened very suddenly and is quite widespread through my empire. I'm wondering whether this is built in for a realism effect - plague all across Europe in the middle ages - or if I have just been extremely unlucky, or both? Is the massive plague outbreak triggered by reaching a particular year or researching a particular technology in order to tie to a certain time period in history? Or is it just a result of the fact that I'm cruising along a bit and letting my cities grow?

This item deleted as it double posted on me.

SoL, Ironclad, Dreadnaught, Battleship were all battle ships. I think they should be in the same upgrade line.
Do you think the Age of Sail questions should be settled as a seperate issue to the Civil War era questions?
Ironclads would've been slower than SoL, no better in firepower but obviously hugely better in defence.

Barak said:

So can the ironclad be coastal only?

Click to expand...

It's definately possible to make it unable to enter Ocean, and it can have very very little movement at Sea and be able to sink there.
The best way to represent real history would be to add a new unit, called the "Iron Steamboat", that has okay movement in Coast, can sink at sea, where it has slow movement, and cannot enter Ocean. Then there would be the Ironclad which is an upgrade of the Frigate.
But Rhye said no more modern boats, so I guess this isn't an option. =\

Samart said:

SoL, Ironclad, Dreadnaught, Battleship were all battle ships. I think they should be in the same upgrade line.
Do you think the Age of Sail questions should be settled as a seperate issue to the Civil War era questions?
Ironclads would've been slower than SoL, no better in firepower but obviously hugely better in defence.

Click to expand...

1. Are you sure stuff should upgrade to Dreanought? I mean, wasn't the whole thing about the Dreadnought that it had to be built from scratch so the previous navy that the nation had became meaningless?
2. I think the two issues are too intertwined - defining the Ironclad will define what upgrade to and from it, and so it will affect the AoS stats.
3. Better in defense meaning they were better at figthing battles in which they were being attacked (as opposed to battles in which they were the attackers), or individually better at not taking damage? The former would be a higher Defense stat, and the latter increased HP.

Ironclads of the Monitor and early French flavours could enter deep water... but not on their own, they were towed into postition

Ironclads of the HMS Warrior flavour went where ever they liked (and for a while *through* anyone like liked)

Dreadnaughts were a class that completely died out... they were totally unable to match modern battleships. HMS Hood and the Bismark. They were replaced, not upgraded.

Crusiers aren't the core of many navies...the Royal Navy doesn't even have them Though we do use frigates and a varity of destoryers (the new Dareing/Diamond class looks fantastic ) along side our V/TOL carriers.

Barak said:

True that Blitz is number of moves, but think of the fact that that also assumes that the blitzing vessel would not lose any HP.

Click to expand...

If it means that a blitz ship also would be able to bombard x times, then it would be way too powerful. A single ship could bombard and sink a fleet and then bombard citydefence down to red.

About blitz for the Man-O-War, it would be balanced as long as they're more expensive than usual, and perhaps they should even have -1hp to slightly limit their power.

Three_Crowns said:

If it means that a blitz ship also would be able to bombard x times, then it would by way too powerful. A single ship could bombard and sink a fleet and then bombard citydefence down to red.

Click to expand...

Yes, if it affects bombard as well, it's entirely unfair and overpowered, I agree.

Are we done with the AoS issues? I know that we have moved onto Ironclads (intersting that in the standard C3C this came from optional tech). During the late AoS (not sure if this was said by Samart) the biggest improvements were not in ship size or speed, but gun size. During the war of 1812 (RN vs US navy) the USS Constitution fought many battles against British vessels (including HMS Java) using greater sized cannon (24 and 32 pound shells in stead of 18 pounders used by RN). The ships were of similar size, but the US broadsides were much more powerful.

Blasphemous said:

Yes, if it affects bombard as well, it's entirely unfair and overpowered, I agree.

Click to expand...

Forgot about the bombard. You guys are all right...no blitz then.

Okay.
The Dreadnoughts were not the first entirely metal ships or even the first metal battleships. The Japanese defeated Russia in 1901 with a huge metal battleship duel. The key difference at that point was explosive ammunition finally meant that the shells could penetrate the metal hulls and cause huge damage. The Dreadnoghts of WW1 were definetly bigger, more powerful and more advanced, but the development did happen over many decades. The function of the battle ships (SoL, Ironclads, Dreadnoughts and later Battleships) is what continues through the upgrade path. The Ironclad no more physically "upgrades" to a Dreadnought than a Dreadnought "upgrades" to a Battleship. The ships are all entirely different classes, but the function is the same.

The defence is to do with the amount of damage the Ironclad could have taken rather than to do with the damage it could inflict in return fire. So it would need to have higher HP.

To clarify: The destroyer should be renamed the modern frigate.

With the issue of generic names versus specific names, I will try and find some good specific names for you as a generalised Junk just doesn't sound right. The transport ships also need to be sorted out as the Galleon is specific to the Spanish and was not a transport ship, but a fighting ship that has occassionally transported troops (Spanish Armada) just like other fighting vessels have throughout the ages.

Samart

Just an idea. The ironclad could have very low costal/sea movement and extremely low ocean movement, but with blitz. It will differentiate the ships more and the ironclad could be a floating coastal fortress, protecting cities from enemy bombardment. It will also make it necessary to scout the oceans for ironclads before they come in range of your cities.

Samart said:

Okay.
The Dreadnoughts were not the first entirely metal ships or even the first metal battleships. The Japanese defeated Russia in 1901 with a huge metal battleship duel. The key difference at that point was explosive ammunition finally meant that the shells could penetrate the metal hulls and cause huge damage. The Dreadnoghts of WW1 were definetly bigger, more powerful and more advanced, but the development did happen over many decades. The function of the battle ships (SoL, Ironclads, Dreadnoughts and later Battleships) is what continues through the upgrade path. The Ironclad no more physically "upgrades" to a Dreadnought than a Dreadnought "upgrades" to a Battleship. The ships are all entirely different classes, but the function is the same.

Click to expand...

But the thing is that in civ, if we have the Ironclad (or worse, wooden ships) upgrade to the Dreadnought, anyone with a large fleet and alot of money will instantly have a devestating fleet of Dreadnoughts. And that's not very historical. I think with the naval units the ability to upgrade should be based on how similar the two ship types were in their construction, and how possible it was to reuse parts of the older ship to create the new one. There is, after all, a much bigger difference between a wooden frigate and a dreadnought than there is between an Arquebus and a Musket.

Blasphemous said:

I just noticed that the Secret Police HQ doesn't create any unhappy faces. Should it?

That's an interesting idea... It would produce a dilemma of corruption vs. unhappiness for communist nations.

Click to expand...

What do you think Rhye? In terms of historical realism, it produced quite a lot of unhappiness (in the USSR and the Gestapo).

Samart said:

Okay.
The Dreadnoughts were not the first entirely metal ships or even the first metal battleships. The Japanese defeated Russia in 1901 with a huge metal battleship duel. The key difference at that point was explosive ammunition finally meant that the shells could penetrate the metal hulls and cause huge damage. The Dreadnoghts of WW1 were definetly bigger, more powerful and more advanced, but the development did happen over many decades. The function of the battle ships (SoL, Ironclads, Dreadnoughts and later Battleships) is what continues through the upgrade path. The Ironclad no more physically "upgrades" to a Dreadnought than a Dreadnought "upgrades" to a Battleship. The ships are all entirely different classes, but the function is the same.

Click to expand...

We must keep an eye on gameplay. Even if they couldn't upgrade, we can't go on building everything from scratch.
I think that the ironclad was a good choice to start the new line of heavy&slow battleships.

Rhye said:

We must keep an eye on gameplay. Even if they couldn't upgrade, we can't go on building everything from scratch.
I think that the ironclad was a good choice to start the new line of heavy&slow battleships.

Click to expand...

I think it's better to have the Frigate upgrade to the Ironclad, and nothing upgrade to the Dreadnought.
Then you can have the SoL enslave to create Frigates, and have the SoL upgrade to Cruiser, so the SoL suddenly becomes even more powerful and useful once you research Ironclads, and then by the time it's replaced by the Cruiser you'll have plenty of Frigates and Ironclads and you'll wanna upgrade your SoLs to the superior Cruiser.
And the Ironclad can upgrade to Destroyer/Modern Frigate.