What is the point of marines if ships can take cities?

hardcore_gamer · Jun 19, 2012

What is the point of marines if ships can take cities? According to the GandK manual the marine gets a bonus while on the sea, but what is the point in attacking cities with him if melee ships can just take them anyways?

I know he can probably attack units located on the beach or something, but it doesn't seem worth it to make them just for that.

Thoughts?

cakes · Jun 19, 2012

they can continue inland or garrison i assume

Gamewizard · Jun 19, 2012

If you were playing a water heavy map and beelined the top half of the tech tree I could see them being very useful.

Invalice · Jun 19, 2012

Keep in mind that marines can stack on ships now. You can use both when assaulting small geographical area. Once a foothold is established the marines can continue inland or assault over rivers.

mlund · Jun 19, 2012

Marines can attack enemy units on coastal hexes that aren't cities. All Melee Ships can do is offer a friendly wave while getting shot to pieces.

- Marty Lund

smallfish · Jun 19, 2012

mlund said:
Marines can attack enemy units on coastal hexes that aren't cities. All Melee Ships can do is offer a friendly wave while getting shot to pieces.

- Marty Lund

They would've been extremely useful if you want to assault positions that will chop the rest of your fleet/embarked units.

Like this gatling gun here.

Spoiler :

Gamewizard · Jun 19, 2012

Thats actually a machine gun, so the mowing would be even worse.

Halcyan2 · Jun 20, 2012

hardcore_gamer said:
What is the point of marines if ships can take cities? According to the GandK manual the marine gets a bonus while on the sea, but what is the point in attacking cities with him if melee ships can just take them anyways?

I know he can probably attack units located on the beach or something, but it doesn't seem worth it to make them just for that.

Since the Marines can also move on land, they can access areas of water that your melee ships cannot. For example, if attacking Constantinople from the South, you probably don't have access to the Black Sea so that is a front that your melee ships cannot access, but you could have Marines attacking from that direction. Similarly, you can have Marines attacking from lakes as well!

jjkrause84 · Jun 20, 2012

Destroyers can capture a city and (presumably) raze it to the ground....but they can't kill an archer on the coast with 1 health? Bizarre.....

fat_tonle · Jun 20, 2012

jjkrause84 said:
Destroyers can capture a city and (presumably) raze it to the ground....but they can't kill an archer on the coast with 1 health? Bizarre.....

Well... there is no actual port on the archer tile to take right? You would figure plus one range for all ships, even melee, but that would still defeat the purpose of melee and ranged.

Atwork · Jun 20, 2012

Destroyers can capture a city and (presumably) raze it to the ground....but they can't kill an archer on the coast with 1 health? Bizarre.....

Agree.

I love nearly every change in the game, but I don't like this one. I can understand ancient ships melee attacking eachother, but the idea of destroyers melee attacking cities is silly.

I think that marines should be their own line--from ancient marines to modern marines. And marines and marines alone should fulfill that unique role of being able to melee attack cities from the sea, and serve as ground troops when disembarked.

From Wikipedia:

"...hoplites began appearing on Greek ships specifically for the boarding of enemy ships.[2][3] The Roman Navy's two legions, I Adiutrix and II Adiutrix, were among the first distinct naval infantry units."[4][5]

Or, if marines are not to be their own line, then melee troops should be able to be customized in a new upgrade path, the "mariner" line. 1) no penalty for attacking across rivers, 2) no penalty for attacking from the sea, 3) defense bonuses while embarked, 4) attack bonuses while embarked, etc....

On the other hand, it does make historical sense for melee ships in the ancient/classical era. And I sort of like the idea of melee v. ranged naval fighting during the ancient/classical eras. But, past that--only ranged ships. And only ranged ships should be able to attack inland units on coastal tiles, but the ranged attack strength should be significantly reduced, with the exception of ranged attacking city (coastal) defenses.

IMO

jjkrause84 · Jun 20, 2012

fat_tonle said:
Well... there is no actual port on the archer tile to take right? You would figure plus one range for all ships, even melee, but that would still defeat the purpose of melee and ranged.

OK, how does the destroyer raze down an entire city from the port?

jjkrause84 · Jun 20, 2012

I agree with everything Atwork (what a name!) said.

fat_tonle · Jun 20, 2012

jjkrause84 said:
OK, how does the destroyer raze down an entire city from the port?

By stashing enough guys on board to storm the city? I mean when a cities port falls, it is pretty much done. Unless both sides are mobilizing armies in the city itself.

I agree though Destroyers should be ranged.

jjkrause84 · Jun 20, 2012

fat_tonle said:
By stashing enough guys on board to storm the city? I mean when a cities port falls, it is pretty much done. Unless both sides are mobilizing armies in the city itself.

I agree though Destroyers should be ranged.

So, they have enough people aboard to burn down cities the size of New York, Amsterdam, etc. but they can't take out limping stone age units?

I know you agree with what I'm saying, I'm not "having a go at you", I'm just trying to point out as clearly as possible how silly it is that ships can now take cities.

Scarpa · Jun 20, 2012

The way I see it:
- Cities have a port, a large ship can dock and unload troops, take a city
- Normal coastal tiles don't have a port, require some form of amphibious technology (which melee ships aren't) to take a unit on a coastal tile

jjkrause84 · Jun 20, 2012

Scarpa said:
The way I see it:
- Cities have a port, a large ship can dock and unload troops, take a city
- Normal coastal tiles don't have a port, require some form of amphibious technology (which melee ships aren't) to take a unit on a coastal tile

What 'troops' do destroyers carry around with them? If destroyers do just carry around troops do they not have life boats or other smaller vessels which their infantry can take to shore? The argument one normally gets is, "Ah, well, they aren't just one ship, the unit represents a whole group of ships". That's fair enough, and logical, if unnecessary (a 'unit' represents many swordsmen, but I think you really can have one ship count as....one ship....and have a pretty good 'scale'). Even if one accepts that argument, however, you have to start asking questions about stacking, and land units (aka Transformers). If Destroyers are little battle groups with infantry, why do we have Transformers? Surely several Destroyers could off-load their men and have at least enough for one infantry unit, etc. etc.

Allowing navies to take cities without the support of land units was a very poor decision. It is jarringly ahistorical, and far worse....completely unnecessary.

Anyways, I know I'm ranting and should just get over it....it's not like the devs are gonna change it for me. The whole thing just sits really poorly with me.

Harthhal · Jun 20, 2012

Melee ships (IMO) besides the privateer were pretty uh....bad for lack of a better word. it's not the melee ship tree line themselves, I mean yeah the destroyer is pretty cool as a melee ship but the caravel and the trieme compared to their ranged counter-parts, the frigate and the galleass, seem underpowered.

Atwork · Jun 20, 2012

....it's not like the devs are gonna change it for me.

Maybe not JUST for you. But, if enough people think a change is needed, then we'll get one. And if not the devs, then the modders.

There should be at least two classes of ship at every era--one thunder, one lightning. As for hybrid amphibious units that attack from the sea and occupy land, well--that sounds like a Mariner! They existed way back in ancient times and they still exist today.

When I first heard of ships attacking cities back in the rumors stage of this game, I really thought that's what people were hinting at...mariners. I never expected melee destroyers.

The devs should turn the melee ships into slow heavy hitters (turn ends after attack); turn the ranged units into fast scouting light-attack ships (can move after attack); and create a dedicated Mariner line, or at least a mariner upgrade path for melee land units.

If they must maintain melee navy units, they should be limited to triremes, ironclads, and submarines. But, they should only melee attack other naval vessels (and embarked marines), and certainly not cities.

ahawk · Jun 20, 2012

This is an interesting one for me, since my Dad was on a destroyer during Vietnam.

To be fair, a destroyer isn't very effective at ranged attacks, even in real life (though they are being upgraded and made relevant again in the last ~ 10 years with various missile and stealth tech). The goal of a destroyer is anti-air, anti-sub, and escort duty. They don't have quite the ability to bombard like a battleship had in the World Wars, and they aren't carriers, so they have no aircraft (for the most part).

Assuming that the destroyers in Civ are meant to represent the destroyers of the World Wars and on up until the 1970's (and not the more recent developments with destroyers), it isn't unreasonable that they have fairly limited bombardment abilities. However, I would argue, like a couple have, that a 1-range would be appropriate (they weren't battleships, like I said, but they could still bombard, and a few escort destroyers at Omaha during Op Overlord did, in fact, start bombarding German positions on the beachhead that airpower had missed).

What is the point of marines if ships can take cities?

King

Prince

Emperor

Chieftain

Warlord

Immortal

Emperor

Emperor

King

Prince

Immortal

King

King

Prince

King

Prince

King

Chieftain

Immortal

King

Similar threads