Wait, ships can take cities now?!?!

[NotSure]

Originally Posted by hardcore_gamer

Seing that destroyer in the video capture a city made no sense to me. How does a destroyer capture a city? Anyone?

Ugh.

This just strikes me as a lame way to make the bad naval AI more dangerous by forcing the player to constantly watch his cities so that they aren't suddenly taken over from the sea.

Thoughts?

Originally Posted by Duke Maynard

The Destroyer as a melee ship is fairly nonsensical though.
And by fairly I mean completely.

Almost everything in G&K sounds like an improvement, but I have to admit these have pretty much been my sentiments about the whole city-capturing ship thing. Seems absurd.

[DemonMaster]

You need a whole bunch of units to capture a city, even more so with G&K so unless your enemy is hopelessly behind your destroyer will most of the time just be one part of the whole when taking a city.

So, I have no problem with

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anglo-Zanzibar_War

This makes me who don't just play to maximize (I play to have fun) something to do with my navy that I build (even when playing on a Pangea).

[gozpel]

This game is just turning worse than when Schafer stuffed up the game.

My goodness, I found the delete button, my 2000hrs of play means little anyways.

[The Pilgrim]

Originally Posted by NotSure

Almost everything in G&K sounds like an improvement, but I have to admit these have pretty much been my sentiments about the whole city-capturing ship thing. Seems absurd.

Yeah, capturing 100 defense/30 population city by 1HP scout on weird boat makes much more sense.
Have to admire how creative rants became lately though.

[headcase]

Originally Posted by Duke Maynard

The Destroyer as a melee ship is fairly nonsensical though.
And by fairly I mean completely.

Why not a Marine MEU Assault Ship?
Or a large amphibious assault craft?
LCAC Hovercraft?
Tank Landing Ship?

Destroyers are more well-known and that's basically it. Probably the same reason they call it "tundra" instead of taiga, "plains" instead of prairies etc which was argued in a post a few weeks ago.

[fenwayb]

Originally Posted by headcase

Destroyers are more well-known and that's basically it. Probably the same reason they call it "tundra" instead of taiga, "plains" instead of prairies etc which was argued in a post a few weeks ago.

sure, they're well known, but that really doesn't have anything to do with them being melee ships...I wonder if the Marine should have been made a "melee ship" instead of a land unit (obviously renamed to something else). To me, that would make a lot more sense as a late game melee ship.

[Eagle Pursuit]

Wasn't Manila, Philipines captured by the US Navy during the Spanish-American War with barely any fighting taking place on land?

[nokmirt]

Originally Posted by DemonMaster

You need a whole bunch of units to capture a city, even more so with G&K so unless your enemy is hopelessly behind your destroyer will most of the time just be one part of the whole when taking a city.

So, I have no problem with

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anglo-Zanzibar_War

This makes me who don't just play to maximize (I play to have fun) something to do with my navy that I build (even when playing on a Pangea).

Sure, but they had cruisers with some decent firepower. Bring back the cruiser!

[nokmirt]

Originally Posted by Eagle Pursuit

Wasn't Manila, Philipines captured by the US Navy during the Spanish-American War with barely any fighting taking place on land?

Actually, the harbor was captured after the Battle of Manila Bay, but the city was beseiged and not taken for two and a half months. During this time the German fleet help supply the Spanish defenders. The US decided to take control of the city from the Spanish instead of handing independence over to the Filipinos. Simply put, one tyrant was replaced with another, leading to the Philippine–American War.

Here is a link about the siege of Manila.

http://thespanishamericanwar.devhub....ege-of-manila/

[bcaiko]

Originally Posted by AriochIV

I don't really think it changes that much. It's not like you can send a single destroyer and grab a city while the other guy isn't looking; you still have to bombard the city down to almost zero, in which case you could have just as easily captured it with an embarked unit.

Though, as fast as Destroyers are in CivVanilla, they really could come in and take a damaged city from out of NOWHERE. Whereas an embarked unit would be easily visible to a city under attack.

[Duke Maynard]

Originally Posted by Lyoncet

As was mentioned a few posts back, it's likely that the unit "Destroyer," being heavily abstracted as all units in Civ are, actually represents a destroyer squadron. Meaning it's not representing a destroyer actually pulling into port and firing its turrets at point-blank, but rather moving in and supporting landings when attacking cities.

Uh, a Destroyer squadron in the USN is 3 destroyers. Nothing amphibious attached at all. No destroyer unit would have them attached. So if they are 'supporting' something, whatever they support would certainly have to be a separate unit!

So seriously. Why not an amphibious assault ship?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tarawa_...s_assault_ship

@ whoever said "They're less well known" well what does that have anything to do with anything?

They'll know about it if it was a unit!

[Johnny Bash]

The Germans used destroyers (carrying mountain infantry) to occupy Narvik in 1940.

[DemonMaster]

US is not the only country with a navy. I did a search and well the new British destroyer (Type -45) can carry 60 marines for such missions.

Now 60 is not a lot but they also have the weapons (and helicopters) of the ship as support with them.

The reason I did the search is that I had vague (It was a long time since I studies this) memory that this tactics and usage of destroyers has been used from time to time in both the wars.

[nokmirt]

Originally Posted by Duke Maynard

Uh, a Destroyer squadron in the USN is 3 destroyers. Nothing amphibious attached at all. No destroyer unit would have them attached. So if they are 'supporting' something, whatever they support would certainly have to be a separate unit!

So seriously. Why not an amphibious assault ship?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tarawa_...s_assault_ship

@ whoever said "They're less well known" well what does that have anything to do with anything?

They'll know about it if it was a unit!

Usually amphib landing operations have a whole naval task force involved, not just a few destroyers. You would have CVs, BBs, DDs, cruisers depending on era, WW2 CAs, modern, CGNs and CGs, as well as Aegis cruisers and frigates, FFs, and subs as well. Each ship had its own part to play. So I agree, there has to be some way to land troops. They do not just jump off a tiny destroyer onto the dock, like Captain Jack Sparrow would from his sinking boat!

You need LST-class Landing Ships, which were used to get troops and heavy vehicles and supplies to shore.

Originally Posted by DemonMaster

US is not the only country with a navy. I did a search and well the new British destroyer (Type -45) can carry 60 marines for such missions.

Now 60 is not a lot but they also have the weapons (and helicopters) of the ship as support with them.

The reason I did the search is that I had vague (It was a long time since I studies this) memory that this tactics and usage of destroyers has been used from time to time in both the wars.

Sixty men to take an entire city? Maybe to kill Bin Laden! Or some Somali pirates, hey Sly? There is no way your going to capture a city with that token force. Even if you were the Expendables. Jet Li would be in the hospital saying over and over, "I would have won!"

[The_J]

...because units in Civ games are always exactly 1 type of this troop. You also take cities with exactly 1 tank, nothing more...
-> That's sure not 1 destroyer, but a whole fleet.

[Duke Maynard]

Originally Posted by The_J

...because units in Civ games are always exactly 1 type of this troop. You also take cities with exactly 1 tank, nothing more...
-> That's sure not 1 destroyer, but a whole fleet.

Fleet of what? Those 3 tanks could be understood to be an Armored Division or whatever, but what destroyer unit has amphibious assault capabilities attached to it?

Also, if the 1 destroyer represents a whole fleet, then what does a fleet of ships in game represent? The armada that assaulted Normandy consisted of over 5000 ships. 5000. In game that would be represented by many, many, many different units. Landing craft should be separate units. A destroyer unit should act as a support unit for your fleet, providing a little extra mobility to hunt down enemy stragglers and provide anti-submarine and anti-air defense for the fleet.

All naval invasions in history, if represented in Civ V, would most definitely have large amounts of amphibious craft which were attached specifically for the attack. Nimitz, Yamamato, and Donitz didn't go sailing around with their amphibious assault craft during fleet actions, yet having the destroyer having amphibious capabilities would mean that they did!

The destroyer has enough roles in game already. Why give it such a nonsensical one that really should be represented by its own unit?

[DemonMaster]

Originally Posted by nokmirt

Usually amphib landing operations have a whole naval task force involved, not just a few destroyers. You would have CVs, BBs, DDs, cruisers depending on era, WW2 CAs, modern, CGNs and CGs, as well as Aegis cruisers and frigates, FFs, and subs as well. Each ship had its own part to play. So I agree, there has to be some way to land troops. They do not just jump off a tiny destroyer onto the dock, like Captain Jack Sparrow would from his sinking boat!

You need LST-class Landing Ships, which were used to get troops and heavy vehicles and supplies to shore.

Sixty men to take an entire city? Maybe to kill Bin Laden! Or some Somali pirates, hey Sly? There is no way your going to capture a city with that token force. Even if you were the Expendables. Jet Li would be in the hospital saying over and over, "I would have won!"

First, what The_J said above

Second, if you attack a city in melee both the city and the unit will be damaged and that means that you don't take a city with just ONE Destroyer in CiV either.
I may have been in constant bad luck, but I have never taken a city with ONE Swordsman, ONE Infantry, or ONE Musketman, etc. I have always had to use multiple of units to take a city. But perhaps that just me

Sure someone mentioned above, that if a city with almost no health and next to be taken, can be taken with a Destroyers coming from afar, but is just that, a city with almost no health, representing a city with nearly no defence left.

Perhaps you could take a city if you are way more advanced, but hey didn't the British do that once. Wasn't there a link earlier in this thread.

And as I said in my previous posts. Many countries have used this tactics for minor amphibious assaults. And in CiV you don't do an Operation Overlord with just a Destroyer either, they can help attack in the attack perhaps. Edit: ... help all the infantry, marines and so on that you also have in the sea just outside Normandy, units that are probably better to take a city with than the Destroyer.

[Shadow717]

Originally Posted by nokmirt

Sixty men to take an entire city? Maybe to kill Bin Laden! Or some Somali pirates, hey Sly? There is no way your going to capture a city with that token force. Even if you were the Expendables. Jet Li would be in the hospital saying over and over, "I would have won!"

Right but being that it takes multiple units to take a city, it isn't just those ~60 men and their naval support taking the city. They are only a part of the entire operation

[fenwayb]

Originally Posted by Duke Maynard

Nimitz, Yamamato, and Donitz didn't go sailing around with their amphibious assault craft during fleet actions, yet having the destroyer having amphibious capabilities would mean that they did!

that's a really good point that nobody has mentioned...not only is it nonsensical to have the destroyer filling this role, but it gives a fleet an ability it really shouldn't have. You should have to "spec" your fleet to be able to do this (I.E. bring amphibious assault craft).

[nokmirt]

I love this conversation. As for myself and Duke Maynard, we are speaking from a realistic POV.

So, I get back to my original question. What does a unit represent in CiV in terms of men and capability. Is a tank unit a representative of an entire tank division? Does an infrantry unit represent 10,000-15,000 soldiers? How many men in a unit of warriors? Does anyone know? Is it 10 warriors? 50? 100? 1000? What? Enlighten me.

How about a city defense strength point, how many defenders does that represent? If a destroyer unit can take a city, after it has been brought down to 1 or 2 strength points. How many defenders are left in the garrison at that point? 10? 30? 50? 500? Can the 60 British marines from my Carthaginian destroyer take out 500 demorialized, starving garrison troops? Please let me know. Also, is it possible to trade my British marines for American marines on board my Carthaginian destroyer? HOOAH!