countering the naval 'sneak' attack

Don't see how you can counter a naval invasion unless you have detected it in advance, either using screening ships, subs, or aircraft (a tedious but effective routine of flying patrols out over the ocean looking for the enemy). In BTS you can spy on your enemy's ports and look to see if they are massing transports.

If you don't have the units to take on a detected fleet at sea you have to mass units on the shore to attack them once they've landed or to try to block tiles to make them fight their way ashore. Prior to the age of flight, unless an invasion fleet was intercepted and destroyed at sea by other ships, naval landings were pretty routine. It would only take one day to land a large force, which would then march toward their objective.

I think the game is partially flawed because aircraft units cannot by themselves sink naval units. They do a great job of it in real life.

Some sort of shore battery unit or tile improvement (like a Martello tower) might make a good addition to a mod, starting at the same time cannon are researched. Shore based batteries could really punish wooden ships, being able to use much larger, longer range guns along with furnace heated shot.
 
the problem is not seeing the ships. there a a host of ways to observe an incoming attack.

the problem is that if i see a flotilla coming towards my shores I am not allowed to engage them without the penalty of declaring war.

in real life if a country sent a battle group of ships and troop transports toward the US we would notice and start asking questions even if they were friendly and heading to attack some place else.

"why the troop build up?"
"where you heading"
"Your ships are a threat and if you come any closer we will attack"

at some point we would be justified in engaging the enemy fleet without being considered the aggressor force.

its why other nations get so pissed when we send battle groups cruising along their shores. the only reason it is allowed is because carrier groups do not contain amphibious assault ships and america has a traditional history of naval patrol and honorable war diplomacy. (meaning any one we have ever attacked knew we were coming well in advance.)

but in real life invation forces dont just float around willy nilly... it just does not happen.



on an unrelated side note... CIV6 should really introduce logistics. not in a crippling sence... but recognition that a gallion/transport (which of course represents a group of ships) should not be able to float around for month with say... cavalry units just hanging out... and damage delt to a transport should be reflected on the units being transported.
 
I agree there should be expanded diplomacy options. I'd also like to be able to query the presence of massed land units on my borders. It's a threat and being able to ask questions/use diplomacy should be a part of the diplomatic game.

Responses could range from the stack(s) moving away from the border "We will withdraw our forces immediately" all the way to saying "We are minding our own business" which would mean they aren't telling you why they're there (up to no good).

The AI should be able to ask the same questions and the player should have the ability to respond.

As it stands, if the AI maintains a persistent threat/force near your territory you have little choice but to maintain a counter force if you don't want to DoW.
 
on an unrelated side note... CIV6 should really introduce logistics. not in a crippling sence... but recognition that a gallion/transport (which of course represents a group of ships) should not be able to float around for month with say... cavalry units just hanging out... and damage delt to a transport should be reflected on the units being transported.

I like the idea of transported units suffering collateral damage.

Logistics and especially supply lines are pretty much ignored in Civ IV, just to keep things from becoming over complicated. In the real world they are so important that their absence is a major game mechanics trade-off.
 
the problem is not seeing the ships. there a a host of ways to observe an incoming attack.

the problem is that if i see a flotilla coming towards my shores I am not allowed to engage them without the penalty of declaring war.

in real life if a country sent a battle group of ships and troop transports toward the US we would notice and start asking questions even if they were friendly and heading to attack some place else.

"why the troop build up?"
"where you heading"
"Your ships are a threat and if you come any closer we will attack"
But you are thinking of this in terms of satellite imagery, etc, and the massive funding the USA has for these things, with today's technology.

It would be a lot harder to know if a fleet was headed your way even 200 years ago. I mean, we knew more redcoats would be landing during the revolution, but did we really know when and where?

That being said, you can use airships/fighters/bombers/vessels, etc to clear the fog of war and have an idea who is coming in the modern age.
 
But you are thinking of this in terms of satellite imagery, etc, and the massive funding the USA has for these things, with today's technology.

It would be a lot harder to know if a fleet was headed your way even 200 years ago. I mean, we knew more redcoats would be landing during the revolution, but did we really know when and where?

That being said, you can use airships/fighters/bombers/vessels, etc to clear the fog of war and have an idea who is coming in the modern age.

IMO you're still missing his point. His point is that once you see that stack, there is literally nothing you can do about it at sea unless you want to kill diplo. If you pre-empt DoW you will get angry civs and maybe even a defensive pact war enemy you'd have not had otherwise (or lose a DP ally). If you don't declare on that naval stack pre-emptively, they're going to land on your shore before you sink their ships. Yes, you can then sink their ships, but the requirement of extra land defenses are inefficient in this case.

Especially given how bad the AI is when it comes to dedicated naval tactics, the incentive to use the seas to defend with a minimal hometown garrison is enormous...except that you can't actually USE your naval assets AT ALL until YOU are the one that declares. It is indeed a slightly off-kilter mechanic, but unlike the AP, game controls, worst enemy maphack, etc this one doesn't have a clear answer...
 
This is why I always make sure to have a mega navy.
I do specialize multiple ports for the task of creating warships.

:D
 
This is why I always make sure to have a mega navy.
I do specialize multiple ports for the task of creating warships.

:D

:sad:. Read above posts THEN comment :sad:.

You could have 800000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000 warships and STILL the OP issue would exist.

People get angry at me for being mean/insulting, but it's also pretty insulting to completely ignore posts (including but not limited to the OP!) and answer questions that aren't even being asked...and that this happens CONTINUALLY in the same thread for multiple pages even AFTER clarification. Immediately after. It's amazing just how few posts on page 2 of this thread show any comprehension of the OP issue at all!

Logistics and especially supply lines are pretty much ignored in Civ IV, just to keep things from becoming over complicated. In the real world they are so important that their absence is a major game mechanics trade-off.

"pretty much ignored"...

...

Roads in this game are a pretty significant "supply line". The ability to use them or not use them (in the case of being in opposing territory) has a HUGE impact on the war. In competent wars cutting roads can often be decisive...and that's BEFORE getting into strategies such as denying strategic resources! You also have sheer travel distance...and protecting reinforcing armies. I guess those don't count? That would be odd considering they can decide wars.

While logistics in civ IV is certainly dumbed down when compared to reality, it is not materially more-so than many other aspects of real life that civ IV models. To say it's pretty much ignored when it can actually decide wars/games is a pretty big reach though.

@ OP:

The best thing I can think of for naval sneak attacks would be to increase the max distance culture tiles can reach at sea. It's a brute force solution and it still wouldn't be effective in the modern era (transports get very fast), but it would help.
 
Rather than expand cultural borders farther out, how a movement penalty of some form that accomplishes the same thing, a lag between war and invasion. Something to keep them from going from open ocean to shoreline in one unanswerable turn. Maybe that you cant land troops the same turn you entered a cultural border or declared war? That would give sea patrol a chance to get a turn of attacks in. Its not elegant, but it simulates at least the ships having to come through your defenses, even if it is post facto.

Something like

Random AI has ships outside your border, you have naval forces posted to contest
AI declares war, and steams to your shore.
AI gets there and cannot debark (call it preparations for invasion delay or whatnot)
your forces get one round to speak now or forever hold their junk.
round 2, things land.

That's really imperfect, and I can think of any number of problems, but at least you get a chance to respond to slow moving sea invasion that you have sometimes seen coming SINCE IT LEFT ITS HOME PORT. If you really are caught by surprise, that turn wont help much except with Nukes, but if you aren't caught by surprise, it adequately simulates "we the AI have telegraphed our intentions to amphibiously wreck you, and are now hosed in the face of your prepared naval defenses"

Dunno, nothing is perfect, but what the OP refers to is certainly irritating as hell and unrealistic
 
You could always just impose a flat penalty for movement in opposing borders for naval units. It would even be somewhat justified, as that's not the safest place for ships to be and reinforcement lines are going to be shorter for the civ whose coast is threatened (they'll also know local terrain better IE more obvious landing points, avoiding hazardous waters, etc).

Another possibility is a naval intercept mechanic, such that being within view + x tiles away at war is going to result in immediate battle, allowing defending ships to actually do something on the attacker's turn.
 
for the intercept mechanic:

I think that (all) units should have a "intercept" option (like the fortify option and like naval units have a blockade option). If a unit (the intercepted) moves away from a tile the interceptor can move into (ignoring enemy units), which wasn't his tile during the beginning of this turn, into a tile the interceptor can attack into, the interceptor moves and attacks him, trying to get into better offensive (not across a river) tiles first, zeroing both combatants' movements after the attack. If there is more then 1 legal interceptor, they move in "best attacker order", and attack 1 enemy/turn.
 
If I am sure they will invade i would do 2 things:

1) if can recruit some AI to attack them first (not sure about reaction)
2) attack fleet with air units and reinforce possible target with some defensive units from interior cities and most important some artillery units so when they land unleash artillery on them and then annihilate them slowly.

I play on noble so guess invading force is never big. Sometimes I lose city, but they suffer much damage so I retake it fast. I try to have in border towns and coastal cities most likely to be attacked to have on noble at least 5 defending units.
 
1) if can recruit some AI to attack them first (not sure about reaction)

Not consistently possible

2) attack fleet with air units

Consistently impossible pre-war

reinforce possible target with some defensive units from interior cities and most important some artillery units so when they land unleash artillery on them and then annihilate them slowly.

It's the best solution right now (other than losing the city; you don't have to), but it's still trashy. Why can't one defend with a NAVY if the navy is vastly superior? Because firaxis, that's why :p.
 
biggest problem is the way the combat is handled in rounds. And to be honest human players exploit this more then AI's.

just remember all the times where you place your invasion force directly at the outer culture border of AI civ to annihilate in 1st strike like half the enemy cities on T0 of war.
or even in land combat with move 2 units (popular cavalry rush), where you place your troops around enemy culture so you get immediate advantage of reducing enemy production base (and strip enemy off strategic resources!).

Obvious problem being there is no amount of "war mood buildup" to anticipate such attack.

And I think the game could really help me with knowing about trivial things like "nation A is building up for war and it's you because their leaders build hate against your nation in their empire"...
Hitler didn't build his army unnoticed...
The same way even Stalin and later Chruschov didn't build/move important military things around unnoticed.
 
Good point from Vranasm. What allows it to happen is that once a land or sea based invasion is launched there is no need to think about logistics - your army is cut off in enemy territory? Don't worry, just press on and take the nearest enemy city! No need to worry about bullets and shells and food and boots and tents and bandages and nails, or even morale amongst your troops when they realise they're cut off. With no need to worry about carrying these kind of items across the sea in shuttling transports (or on land, in wagon trains or supply trucks) an army can be landed and need have no further contact with the navy.

As for the naval sneak attack... it could equally well happen on land, with perhaps the only real extra advantage at sea being that it is impossible to see whether a transport is loaded or empty.

Diplo is the key, really. There are only limited indications that a rival leader sees you as a tasty snack. And with some leaders (I'm looking at you Cathy), there may be no indications at all until it's too late.

The idea of Naval Intercept is nice. It would be interesting to see that on the High Seas as well as within cultural borders, i.e. your destroyer will automatically attack an enemy sub if it encounters it. The idea of a naval movement penalty within rivals' cultural borders also has merit - your captains need pilots in these areas.

However, as things stand at present the only surefire method of preventing a naval sneak attack is to do it to them before they do it to you.

And let's be honest - the human player uses these advantages way more than the computer.
 
You could always just impose a flat penalty for movement in opposing borders for naval units. It would even be somewhat justified, as that's not the safest place for ships to be and reinforcement lines are going to be shorter for the civ whose coast is threatened (they'll also know local terrain better IE more obvious landing points, avoiding hazardous waters, etc).
There is even a precedent in the game for this type of approach: Road and Railroad networks in enemy Cultural Borders. They work for the owner, their Vassals, their allies, and their peacemates, but not for their enemies.

A similar approach could certainly be implemented for enemy Cultural waters.

Still, it would take a bit of work to get the AI to properly recognise this change--i.e. it's not just a penalty that you could slap on without also updating the AI code, so I'm not sure that it would even be feasibly moddable (if a lot of the AI code is not updateable by modders).

You'd also potentially have the same issue of "corners having less Culture" just like for land-based attacks when you diagonally approach a City, so it would be nice if the AI could exploit a diagonal approach (to keep things fair).
 
I was just thinking that, given game mechanics, a Pearl Harbor style attack is actually impossible. You cannot attack naval units in a city (except with nukes) other than using ground units to walk in and scuttle them.

Anyhow, I think it would be a good idea to reduce movement to 1 tile/turn, for all vessels of any speed, when in an ENEMY'S waters. They should probably also push the borders out over the water a little more too, in that case.
 
There is even a precedent in the game for this type of approach: Road and Railroad networks in enemy Cultural Borders. They work for the owner, their Vassals, their allies, and their peacemates, but not for their enemies.

A similar approach could certainly be implemented for enemy Cultural waters.

Still, it would take a bit of work to get the AI to properly recognise this change--i.e. it's not just a penalty that you could slap on without also updating the AI code, so I'm not sure that it would even be feasibly moddable (if a lot of the AI code is not updateable by modders).

You'd also potentially have the same issue of "corners having less Culture" just like for land-based attacks when you diagonally approach a City, so it would be nice if the AI could exploit a diagonal approach (to keep things fair).

Bah, as if firaxis tweaked the AI for half the changes they make. Did they patch it to deal with barb galleys? The AP? Changes to unit strength? Golden age civic switch rules? Even if one modder made a half-hearted attempt to re-work AI code around this it would run circles around the "effort" firaxis put into tweaking the AI around a good deal of its changes.

It's true that right now this is abusable on the human side more, too. Not only can you attack an AI pre-emptively from sea, but in the modern era you can often kill an AI outright before they get their turn. How's THAT for a pre-emptive strike :lol:.
 
"pretty much ignored"...

...

Roads in this game are a pretty significant "supply line". The ability to use them or not use them (in the case of being in opposing territory) has a HUGE impact on the war. In competent wars cutting roads can often be decisive...and that's BEFORE getting into strategies such as denying strategic resources! You also have sheer travel distance...and protecting reinforcing armies. I guess those don't count? That would be odd considering they can decide wars.

While logistics in civ IV is certainly dumbed down when compared to reality, it is not materially more-so than many other aspects of real life that civ IV models. To say it's pretty much ignored when it can actually decide wars/games is a pretty big reach though.

@TMIT

You raise very good examples and my statement was overly broad. To clarify my earlier post (and limit its scope) I was addressing OP's problem, where a large fleet stack with troop transports loaded to the gills can remain at sea as a potential threat for, well, forever. I was trying to stay on topic and was not referring to all supply, but I can see now how my comment could be taken that way.
 
Top Bottom