The Underappreciated Navy

It has been my considered opinion that the use of the Navy in all of the Civ games to date has been sadly pale in comparision to historical fact. I only bring it up now with the production of Civ4 because I feel that they are so close to getting it right that it drove me to put in a post discussing Naval shortcomings in the game.

First of all, let me submit that I have played and thoroughly enjoyed all the Civ games and I am especially pleased with the latest release. It is leaps-and-bounds better than Civ3 as Civ3 was leaps-and-bounds better than Civ2. It's nice to see the same consistent level of quality go into each game release.

Having said that, I must further submit that the function of a Civiliation's Navy is not just to fight other Navy ships and act as a ferry for ground troops! Historically speaking, fighting navies came about to fill a very specfic need, which is to protect overseas trading and to protect exploitation efforts of oceanic resources.

Later, as they became stronger and able to project force at a farther range, they started to bombard costal cities, and land amphious troops to stage attacks (this is represented in the game), but the reality in the game is that it only ever comes about if you need to project units across a water boundary. Indeed, a common strategy is to build a settler and a couple of city defenders and transport them to the overseas land mass, land them, build the city, and use the city to establish a presence in the overseas continent. The navy units are then fortified in the costal cities or discarded. I have played a dozen odd Civ4 games to completion and I never saw ships beyond the caravel floating around and I never saw them used in battle (by the AI or myself playing on Noble level). Furthermore, oceanic trade is represented in the game as simply turned on if two cities are costal (with a diplomatic agreement if it's with another Civ). Meaning there isn't really anything to protect there.

The fine point is this: There is no real game reason why anyone would build a Navy. And the reason is: because there is really nothing to protect.

I offer these suggestions:
1) Remove the Cultural Boundaries limitation for Oceanic resources. This limitation simply makes no sense. If a worker boat could exploit resources beyond the cultural boundary then suddenly you would need a Navy unit to protect that Resource in the onset of war with another naval civ! Furthermore, it would promote greater exploration of the seas to find those resources and set up competition between Civs to found a navy quickly to snap up those resources. Historically speaking, whaling and fishing boats ranged extrordinarly far and wide in search of thier prey.

2) Introduce an advanced worker boat to be found at a later tech that can travel on deep ocean squares. Then you could more realistically exploit deep water whale resources, fish resources, basically any water resource (which don't exist, but should). Those resources don't just hang around the coasts as they are represented in the game.

3) Introduce Pirates as barbarian sea units. Now, I don't like barbarians as much as the next person, but they most certainly existed in history and they were a major reason why fighting navies grew in the early seafaring days. I don't think it would be to difficult to believe that a costal barbarian city would produce ships to hassle other civs naval units. This would be yet another reason why you would need a navy: to protect those precious Oceanic resources. Instead of a full-blown barbarian city needed, free ranging barbarian ships can be lurking anywhere, especially in unexplored seas.

4) To offset some of the costs of building navy units, there should a capture percentage during an engagment, somewhat like the withdraw percentage of mounted units on land, but reversed. In other words, there should be a chance that a naval unit can be captured (damaged, of course) and repurposed as your own as an outcome of an engagment. There could even be a requirement that the captured ship needed to be returned to a City with a Drydock (or a harbor at the least) so that it could be refitted (healed) and made your own.

The whole purpose of these suggestions is to make it profitable for a Navy to exist; to give a Navy more meaning in the game. Simple city protection is insufficent because getting attacked from the sea is rare. Also, as troop carriers, they tend to get used once and then discarded.

I am not a mod-type player and I haven't looked into how flexible Civ4 can be with this. It may be possible for me simply to enact these changes (but I don't think so), but I would much prefer to see a future patch that perhaps addresses some of these concerns, because I do feel that the game is very close to giving real meaning to having a Navy.

I look forward to the discussion on this post. Thanks everyone for your time.

...C

They should add in a feature for port blockade, similar to they have in RTW. Imagine how a civ would be suffering if loses several of its sea based trade routes at once.

Mutax2003

Craniumgroup said:

The fine point is this: There is no real game reason why anyone would build a Navy. And the reason is: because there is really nothing to protect.

I look forward to the discussion on this post. Thanks everyone for your time.

...C

Click to expand...

First off, kudos to a well thoughtout and organized post.

I would, however, respectfully disagree. More times than I can count, I have countered a much much more powerful AI opponent from another continent with purely naval power. Why take on a massively superior ground force and invasion in your own territory when you can find his invasion fleet and sink it before it reaches your shores?

I've found two useful strategies:

1) This one works well when noone has declared war yet, but you've seen the signs coming (theocracy conversion and tribute demands, etc):
Naval units (with +vis promotions if possible) in a patrol line type configuration around my shore line. Thats not to say it is continuous vis (that would be a very large navy) but 2-3 ships that can "patrol" up and down each turn to see if there is an invasion force coming. Its a bit tedious to move them each turn (without a patrol button--which would be a nice add) but still very effective.

2) In a declared war, a sentry or two outside each enemy port, exactly one tile short of their max movement. They pop their heads out, and boom. Done. A city containing a dry dock churning out 5-6 submarines to cover enemy home ports can do this very effectively and in a short period of time if you can hurry the production and have the cash (two key assumptions I guess, but thats my play style)

Sea superiority is as much a factor fighting a cross-continent war as air superiority is in a same continent war.

I welcome thoughts and observations!
v/r
-TSteamer

And by the way, despite our differing views on naval power, I really like some of your suggestions, especially #3. I think barbarian pirates would not only add to gameplay, but are historically significant as well.

v/r
-TSteamer

1. They should never get rid of the cutural oceanic boundries. Because I see a resource thats not in a certain culture zone I will think its free. I would have no idea that it already belongs to someone and they have no way to prove it.

2. What they could do is make pirate workboats that can steal enemy resources for as long as they could stay on. Maybe it can work faster or slower and can travel in ocean tiles. Maybe it is not hidden nationality at all but it can exploit foreign resources.

3. Some nations have a unique unit that has an enslavement ability. It has a chance that after winning a battle it can enslave the opposing ship. England has the Man-o-War for instance.


Though I do agree that navy could be a bit more realistic. But there aren't much of pirates in the modern days. that was back in the wooden ship days. And they do already spawn barbarian ships and you can already set how frequent they are.

I like your suggestions, letting worker boats go beyond borders, pirates (yarrr!). I have to point out though, that I just quit a game where Tokugawa dropped a massive army onto a weakly defended coastal city when all my troops were on the borders between our empires, he got me good . He defended them with a frigate too which blew mine away...

That said, I think navies could play a bigger role, I for one think it would be a big improvement, I really enjoy it when the AI starts using navies. They got it right in CivIII Conquests with the Man o' War, I had a massive navy ploughing the seas in wolf packs taking on enemy navies, when all my ships were too damaged I returned them to several island cities I established with docks to repair them. I'd like to see a return to that, it would simply enhance my fun.

Thanks for the feedback TSteamer, I will reply point for point.

1) It is impractical to build enough naval vessels to continuously patrol a coastline, especially if it travels for quite a ways. It is also needlessly tedious because there is no patrol function like there was in Civ3 (where did that go?). There are many other city build priorities than this. Especially if its sole purpose is to stop an enemy invasion from sea (which can be avoided with good diplomacy), a prospect that can still fail, because the coast is vast and it is fairly easy to sneak in a boat with units on it (I have done it). Once that boat drops it load and the settler builds a city, it is now a matter for the army. I do agree that it is a good idea to have a couple of sea units in a city to protect local water resources (and later against bombardment), but that my friend, is not a navy. Those are merely water-based guard dogs.

2) I do agree that the navy becomes important with the advent of air power, and it may be currently the only real the only reason to build a navy, but it happens so late in the game, that it becomes impractible. From a defensive standpoint, I haven't had any trouble with air defense using city units and improvements and as such it still really isn't a decent reason to build one.

Strategic sea use/activity needs more emphasis in the game, and I currently don't see it. I appreciate your post, but it doesn't convince me that I have erred in my opinion.

...C

To reply to Korab: your first point doesn't make sense. If there is a resource without a worker boat using it (fishing, whaling, etc), then of course it is free and available. If it has one on it, then it isn't and the civ who owns the boat owns the resource (and may have to defend it to keep it, which is the whole point of my suggestion).

...C

Pirates... sounds good to me... but also, I think their should be merchant vessels that in order to trade with your allies you should have to set a trade route with one of their coastal cities. Like in Rise of nations, little caravans would be cool and you would most certainly have to protect them... I also somewhat disagree with your non use of navies in the game. I've always tried to avoid building a navy but then I find the AI plundering my resources and I can do nothing it gets really frustrating so I always build ships to defend and later in the game I do what the other guy up a post or two does. I build destroyers with +1 visibility and place them along my coasts out to sea to watch for incoming transports and enemy ships. I then blast them out of the water with my battleships and/or destroyers; works like a charm.

But once you leave the resource then it no longer belongs to you. you maybe ging back to your city then you return to the resource and there is a guy on it who never knew you had it first

I am really surprised to hear you guys speak of building fleets and stringing them along your coastline to stop enemy AI navy units and I think your playing style is something of an exception rather than the rule. If am being harrassed by an AI and he lands an invasion force he will encounter my fast moving mounted units followed by melee (later gunpowder units) because I build plenty of them. They are cheaper than naval units, I can build more of them, cheaper to upgrade, and I will use them no matter what (because I may have a war coming up). I put units on my resource squares, and I always have a few loitering around my borders. I have never had any trouble with AI landings because I tend to mop them up quickly. If they build a city it is something of a bonus because I get to capture it!

Honestly, other than having a couple of "attack-dogs" in a costal city, I almost never build a serious navy.

...C

Craniumgroup said:

I am really surprised to hear you guys speak of building fleets and stringing them along your coastline to stop enemy AI navy units and I think your playing style is something of an exception rather than the rule. If am being harrassed by an AI and he lands an invasion force he will encounter my fast moving mounted units followed by melee (later gunpowder units) because I build plenty of them. They are cheaper than naval units, I can build more of them, cheaper to upgrade, and I will use them no matter what (because I may have a war coming up). I put units on my resource squares, and I always have a few loitering around my borders. I have never had any trouble with AI landings because I tend to mop them up quickly. If they build a city it is something of a bonus because I get to capture it!

Honestly, other than having a couple of "attack-dogs" in a costal city, I almost never build a serious navy.

...C

Click to expand...

That's obviously just your style of play... I honestly, hardly ever have troops deep in my border because I tend to focus on research, culture, wonders etc... I find winning diplomatically or culturally more challenging... So when the enemy lands on my shores, it can be quite a pain if they drop them off into my weakside.

The classic example of a superior navy saving a country from invasion is ofcourse the Royal Navy (with british weather on its side) versus the Spanish armada. The spanish army is generally considered to have been miles ahead of the brits at this point. Just wondering how you could soimulate this over the normal course of the game...

Ofcourse I could always design a scenario to show this, similar to the American revoultion one that came with the game.

So, I am in agreement with the OP.


About patrolling, I never played a Civ before #4 (which is why you don't find me in any of these 'this civ is the best/worst' discussions) but was rather puzzled by it's ommission.



And there are modern day pirates:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/africa/4424264.stm

JG99_Korab said:

But there aren't much of pirates in the modern days. that was back in the wooden ship days.

Click to expand...

From Wikipedia.org:

Pirate attacks tripled between 1993 and 2003. The first half of 2003 was the worst 6-month period on record, with 234 pirate attacks, 16 deaths, and 52 people injured worldwide. There were also 193 crew members held hostage during this period.

182 cases of piracy were reported worldwide in the first 6 months of 2004.

Click to expand...

Rince

I biuld a few ships early to explore then I build some offencive boats to escort transport ships. With out being able to bombard land units and improvements I find a navy rather useless. And what happened to coastal fortress. A batttleship can sit off one of your cities and just pound away.

MarkAntiny makes a good point with the merchant vessels. If I could expand on that, to trade a resource with another civ, you'd have to have a ship CONSTANTLY going back and forth (preferably automated), a special trading ship that you'd have to build and use. If it gets destroied, deal's off, gotta build another one. Could do the same thing with land trades with caravans. That would make a navy a big priority for sure, and it would be a lot more realistic.

One implementation that might work, without having to actually build merchant ships, would be to display sea trade routes on the map (say with dashed lines alternating between the colors of the 2 civs involved). You could disrupt a trade route by moving a ship next to the port city of the civ you are at war with. Not likely to be something someone could mod in, however.

It also might be interesting if ships had some sort of zone of control. As it is now, there is no way to prevent an amphibious assault across a few squares of sea without completely covering every sea square with a ship.

I also like the idea of eliminating the cultural borders when dealing with sea resources. To protect against someone taking 'your' resource you just need to bring along some combat ships to protect your interests...

Cranium,

Thanks for a very well thought out post. I agree that navies are perhaps less important than they could be because overseas commerce can't be intercepted in this game. As you point out, protecting commerce has been a powerful motivation for navies.

Unfortunately, I think it would be hard to put in a realistic commerce war with game mechanics. Your suggestions like the pirates make a lot of sense. To be more accurate, ships should have a 'patrol range'. Commerce ships would have to move around somewhat. Its hard to do this right in a turn-based game. (Nekom, I just saw that you pointed this out also!)

For instance, German and American submarines were primarily used as destroying merchant ships, unlike the Japanese. This role is hard to implement. I think people would object to moving commerce ships around the board, etc.


Given that doing it 'right' seems hard, your suggestions make a lot of sense to be practical and useful.


Best wishes,

Breunor

I've found that the need (or lack there of) of a good navy is entirely dependent on the map and the difficulty level you're playing on. If I have a decent coast line to my country I always invest in enough ships to defend it. Even on Noble AI are able to lauch pretty effective naval invasion forces, more than enough to deal with a small city with two defenders tops. In these cases it's just plain cost effective to have 5-6 ships rather than fortifying each of your costal cities with an extra 2 units. When you add in the fact that their ships will pillage your costal resources and their troops (if they don't think they can take your cities) will pillage everything else, you're talking about severe economic set backs even if you never lose a city.

To be honest it's rather rare for me not to invest in a strong navy, controlling the seas is a powerful advantage if you use it properly, and not controlling them can end up being a crippling disadvantage. Personally I find nothing sweeter than sinking a russian armada headed towards my capitol with enough troops to take it down twice over.

Some of your ideas would be nice, but I don't see navies as a particularly lacking aspect of the game.

To be honest it's rather rare for me not to invest in a strong navy, controlling the seas is a powerful advantage if you use it properly, and not controlling them can end up being a crippling disadvantage. Personally I find nothing sweeter than sinking a russian armada headed towards my capitol with enough troops to take it down twice over.

Click to expand...

I agree. I've found a strong Navy to be critical in most games I've played, especially if you're a little behind in military technology. It's much easier to control you're coasts than it is to deal with advanced military units which have landed on you're shores. A strong navy also means you don't need to have as many military units, which depending on you're civics, means you can save some gold and build more buildings rather than troops.

Also, drydocks can transform a low production city into a more useful one, which can contribute to you're navy rather than taking forever to produce other things.

Obviously there are lots of different ways to play the game, but in most games I find myself trying to develop a naval advantage. It allows me to prevent enemies from landing on my shores and it gives me the opportunity concentrate on other areas of the game rather than pumping out military units. I've really liked the new importance/value of naval units in Civ4.

That said, there are certainly many ways in which it can be improved. I really like the idea of having to protect trade routes with patrols/escorts.