Naval Overhaul: A Long List

After SheaferDaDog posted in the Naval Warfare thread, I realized that there were a lot of good suggestions there, but they lacked a greater model of naval warfare in Civ4. So I wasted a few hours to come up with this Grand Naval Overhaul, which would change how ships operate quite a bit.

PLEASE NOTE: I think naval warfare is fine how it is. But I wouldn't want ideas to go to waste, so I made this. I had fun doing it, and if Leoreth doesn't use it, I'm glad to have done it anyway.

Each set of ships should have a set that fills the roles of Transport, Destroyer, and Capital Ship. Transports should move moderately fast, and carry units. Destroyers should move quickly and have bonuses against Transports, and have additional chances to withdraw. They are countered by Capital Ships. Capital Ships should move slowly, but hit hard. They should mainly be injured by withdrawing Destroyers, who can then retreat out of range.
Proposed changes and additions are underlined

Format: Ship hammers: Required, Technology required, Resources required) Strength, Movement, Carrying capacity. [Additional boni] {CEO=Cannot Enter Ocean or cape, EET= can Enter Enemy Territory, X%IA= X% chance to intercept aircraft, X%BC=Bombards cities for X%}


Ancient-Classical Era

• Transport: Galley (50, Sailing) 2 strength, 3 movement. Carries 2. [CEO]
• .
• Destroyer: Trireme (50, Metal Casting) 2 strength, 3 movement. [+50% against Galley, +20% withdraw chance, CEO]
• .
• Capital Ship: Hexareme (60, Construction, Copper or Iron) 3 Strength, 2 movement. [+25% against Triremes, CEO]

Medieval Era

• Transport: Cog (60, Compass) 3 strength, 4 movement. Carries 3. [CEO]
• .
• Destroyer: Galleass* (60, Optics) 3 Strength, 4 movement. Carries 1 non-military. [+20% against Cog, Galley, +25% withdraw chance, EET]
• .
• Capital Ship: Carrack** (80, Gunpowder) 5 Strength, 3 movement. [+50% against Galleass, Trireme]

*This is simply a renamed Caravel
**This is actually a new unit, this represents larger Caravels. The Portuguese UU can be renamed Nau and replace the Galleass, in addition to having an extra movement point.


Renaissance Era

• Transport: Galleon (80, Astronomy) 4 Strength, 3 movement. Carries 4.
• .
• Destroyer: Frigate (90, Chemistry, Iron) 8 Strength, 3 movement. [+30% withdraw chance] {8%BC}
  Privateer (80, Chemistry) 6 Strength, 4 movement. [+40% withdraw chance]
• .
• Capital Ship: Ship of the Line (120, Military Science, Iron) 8 Strength, 3 movement. [+50% against Frigate] {12%BC}
  Ironclad*** (100, Steel, Iron and Coal) 12 Strength, 3 movement. {12%BC}
  
  ***Note that this unit should now be able to enter oceans.

Industrial Era

• Transport: Transport (125, Combustion, Oil or Uranium) 16 Strength, 5 movement. Carries 5.
  Carrier (175, Industrialism, Oil or Uranium) 16 Strength, 5 movement. Carries 3 Fighters.
• .
• Destroyer: Destroyer (200, Combustion, Oil or Uranium) 30 Strength, 8 movement. [Can see submarines, +35% withdraw chance] {16%BC, 30%IA}
  Submarine (150, Radio, Oil or Uranium) 24 Strength, 6 movement. Carries 3 missiles Or Tactical Nukes[+30% withdraw chance, EET]
• .
• Capital Ship: Battleship (225, Industrialism, Oil or Uranium) 40 Strength, 6 movement. [Collateral Damage] {20%BC, 10%IA
  

Modern-Future Era

• Transport: Transport (as above)
  Supercarrier (220, Advanced Flight, Oil or Uranium) 20 strength, 5 movement. Carries 5 Fighters {20%IA}
• .
• Destroyer: Destroyer (as above)
  Stealth Destroyer (250, Steath+Robotics, Oil or Uranium.) 30 Strength, 8 movement. [EET, +40% withdraw chance, 2 First Strikes] {30%IA}
  Attack Submarine (180, Rocketry+Radio+Combustion, Uranium) 30 Strength, 7 movement. Carries 1 non-military[EET, +40% withdraw chance]
• .
• Capital Ship: Missile Cruiser. (260, Robotics, Oil or Uranium) 40 Strength, 7 movement. Carries 4 missiles. [Collateral Damage]{20%BC, 10%IA}

Welp, that's the list! Thanks for reading all of it, it is quite long. Once again, I'd like to reiterate: I think naval warfare is fine how it is. But I wouldn't want ideas to go to waste, so I made this. I had fun doing it, and if Leoreth doesn't use it, I'm glad to have done it anyway.. If there's anything you'd like to say about this, drop a reply, and I'd be happy to respond.

I like the ideas in general. Ancient era Naval Warfare in particular is in dire need of adjustment. Triremes are the only reliable way to kill triremes, which is poor design.

Just because its the right sort of thread:

great.taurus said:

A simple suggestion to remedy one of the more immersion breaking elements of the game:

I suggest the addition of a (relatively weak) modern era naval unit which does not require oil. There is invariably insufficient oil for every naval nation, and it is silly to see frigates and ships of the line during the 20th century.

In balance terms - this would mean oil would give nations an advantage in raw strength, and more flexibility in terms of unit choice, they would not be untouchable at sea. This brings oil into line with other strategic resources like Iron or Horses.

I know that there is art for a "Cruiser" unit in Road to War (although I'm not sure where it originally came from), which would be appropriate I think.

Click to expand...

Shouldn't Renaissance-era ships have more movement points than those of the Medieval-era?

trevor said:

Shouldn't Renaissance-era ships have more movement points than those of the Medieval-era?

Click to expand...

Good catch.

I also want to reinstate that the jump from age of sails to modern oil fueled navies might be a bit too sudden. Maybe a new tier of "industrial era" steamships requiring coal might smoothen the transition AND provide an alternative to oil-limited civs.

Thus, a "seaworthy ironclad", would need to be created to gap the bridge between sails to oil (naming suggestions are welcome).

For flavor, the current coastal-only ironclad could be refurbished into a "monitor": a slow, powerful capital ship with collateral damage+coastal bombardment capabilities on par with modern destroyers. It would be balanced by the fact that it is not seaworthy.

Steam Frigates? Its what the U.S. navy calls the ships they used in the 19th century.

Noodz said:

Good catch.

I also want to reinstate that the jump from age of sails to modern oil fueled navies might be a bit too sudden. Maybe a new tier of "industrial era" steamships requiring coal might smoothen the transition AND provide an alternative to oil-limited civs.

Thus, a "seaworthy ironclad", would need to be created to gap the bridge between sails to oil (naming suggestions are welcome).

For flavor, the current coastal-only ironclad could be refurbished into a "monitor": a slow, powerful capital ship with collateral damage+coastal bombardment capabilities on par with modern destroyers. It would be balanced by the fact that it is not seaworthy.

Click to expand...

Frankly I think there should be an increased number of Ship eras v. Technological Eras. ships changed fast.

But for the purposes of the game, having such a large number of ships would be counter-productive. I wanted to expand the roaster without being exhaustive. Maybe we could make the Ironclad come later with larger strength? This would solve many problems.

Locutus_Morti said:

But for the purposes of the game, having such a large number of ships would be counter-productive. I wanted to expand the roaster without being exhaustive. Maybe we could make the Ironclad come later with larger strength? This would solve many problems.

Click to expand...

Ironclad with artillery and steam power

Perhaps dreadnoughts.

Locutus_Morti said:

But for the purposes of the game, having such a large number of ships would be counter-productive. I wanted to expand the roaster without being exhaustive. Maybe we could make the Ironclad come later with larger strength? This would solve many problems.

Click to expand...

I agree that we should limit the number of naval units in the game. However, the age of steamships sounds way too important to me to be simply given a nod in the form of the current ironclad. And it may represent the inferior navy an oil-poor country might field.

Which is also the reason why i suggested a powerful "monitor", at least powerful enough to have a chance in battle against modern destroyers. It doessn't have much to do with history, only with providing an option for civs who have no oil to at least have some form of coastal-only sea units, at least until they develop fission.

Noodz said:

I agree that we should limit the number of naval units in the game. However, the age of steamships sounds way too important to me to be simply given a nod in the form of the current ironclad. And it may represent the inferior navy an oil-poor country might field.

Which is also the reason why i suggested a powerful "monitor", at least powerful enough to have a chance in battle against modern destroyers. It doessn't have much to do with history, only with providing an option for civs who have no oil to at least have some form of coastal-only sea units, at least until they develop fission.

Click to expand...

Dreadnought with a strength of 26

And a steam frigate with a strength of 18. Requires coal and iron.