Have a Navy that meens something...

Come on now lets face it...you could have the biggest navy in your CIV3 games and it doesn’t mean squaaaaattttt. 4 transports 10 battleships and maybe 2 carriers and I’m good for the rest of the game (and I play Emperor.) The British Empire ruled the world for a good Century and a half by the cannons of a Frigate or Battleship. How do you think the US Military is so successful? Air Power is what brings the bad guys down but Air Power is nothing unless you got a Navy.

What I suggest is simple. Have shipping routes were ship pass through (thus giving the navy a reason to be invested in a la Civ CTP I think). Have trade Items on an ocean (oil, pearls) that can only be secured buy having a ship fortified over it or having something like an offshore oilrig. Show the dominance of a Navy Early buy increasing its movement points dramatically. Have it be Able to attack 2 squares away (thus making it harder for sea units to slip by when trying to invade a certain point) and able to have lethal bombard. But Make them expensive as a way to promote investment in a navy that can rule the seas. I’m guessing you can do most of this with the editor and if someone really wanted to try the stuff that’s feasible now it would probably yield an enjoyable experience (call me lazy or incompetent but no way I’m nearing that editor).


NEW
===========================
I was also thinking that the Carrier cost more but could house 10 ships, and have modern day light cruisers be like floating cruise missles (but dont die when you use them) but be very low in defense.

Navies should be redone, I agree. Perhaps an admiral should also appear like a great leader and can be used for Wonders or a "Fleet" or "Task Force". Also, a longer age of sail to say the least and many many more ships, which goes hand in hand with my hope for many, many more units.

The navy should get a more important role, but that role should become less important in the Modern Age. The last great naval battles proofed that battle ships were becoming redondend. They were a too easy target.
Before modern times; ships were the only way to build up an empire that stretched beyond your continent/Island. To bring that element in the game, you sould introduce "Marine workers", merchant marine ships.
What do you think?

Actually Verowin, ships (and by extension the navies) have not become "less important" today out of nowhere - they are equally important as ever. It's just that battleships faded off the scene and the key to naval projection moved from big guns to carriers and missiles-carryign ships (cruisers and subs).

The only reason there haven't been any major naval battle since the end of the Battleships age is simply the lack of war between two major naval powers since then. The use of carriers for power projection has been demonstrated by the US all the way to today - carriers were heavily involved in Iraq (and that was with friendly nations next door), Afghanistan before that, the various "peacekeeping raids" on Iraq in the nineties and so forth, all the way back to Vietnam and Korea. Naval supremacy was also instrumental to the brit victory in the Falklands.

So I wouldn't say navies become less important with the modern age. They change focus, yes, but they remain as important as ever, especially when it comes to power projection.

Not counting the early exploration ships I often find myself just not building any until I
have researched the tech for destroyers.
Frigates? Just wait a few turns longer and you got Ironclads.
Ironclads? Maybe a few because you get annoyed by seeing other nations ships at your
beaches but other then that...
Destroyers? Aah finally something decent to build, get the ironclads you have
into the ports and disband them.

Ok, so it's obvious I do little wars but I'm not in it to play deity
Or early navy needs to play a more important role, or you should be
able to upgrade the vessels up till destroyer.
I'm playing PTW so they might have adjusted this in C&C allready.

I’m guessing you can do most of this with the editor and if someone really wanted to try the stuff that’s feasible now it would probably yield an enjoyable experience (call me lazy or incompetent but no way I’m nearing that editor).

Click to expand...

Nobody is going to call you names(....not me anyway). It took me three years to get over my Editorophobia, and but for the help I found in the C&C forum http://forums.civfanatics.com/forumdisplay.php?f=46 ,I would have never made anything decent with it. I messed things up badly quite a few times but in the end I realized that the level of enjoyment resulting from a game modded acording to my taste was worth the trouble many times over...
and I wouldn't have to wait 5 years for changes that Firaxis may or may not implement...
cross your fingers and give it a try...

The last great naval battles proofed that battle ships were becoming redondend

Click to expand...

IMHO Jutland
http://www.firstworldwar.com/battles/jutland.htm,
and the loss of Bismarck http://www.kbismarck.com/operheini.html
resulted in the British Domination of the seas in two world wars,
Tsushima http://www.neva.ru/EXPO96/book/chap10-4.html
proved that he who controls the sea controls the war,
and Midway http://www.history.navy.mil/photos/events/wwii-pac/midway/midway.htm
that combined sea and air power can be devastating...
And recently the Falklands war
http://www.yendor.com/vanished/falklands-war.html
proved how the sea makes the distance from the objective a very relative issue...
Oda Nobunaga said the rest...

Yep, navies should really be redone, but not too many new ships should be added, unless you intend to slow down the tech tree or make it FAR bigger, otherwise you wind up with navies like in Call To Power 2, where you discover new ones all the time but none are worth building.

I like the idea or resourses in ocean tiles, but I also liked buidling ocean cities in SMAC

yea but unfortunatly the CIV series seems to be turning away from future advances...so I guess offshore platforms and oilrigs should be good enough to secure reasources

I think the fact that navies mean nothing is not as much to do with the type of naval units available but the fact that the Ai is so poor at coordinating attacks, why waste resources on a navy when u know the AI's never gonna turn up with more than what- 4 transports at the very most.

The navy is too weak in the game. In Civ 3 there is a mention of a blockade but this seems but i've never used it and it has to be used with other nation (or am i thinking of the embargo?) trade routes should exist in some form. I read somewhere that there are more pirates today then existed during the 17th and 18th centuries becuase the shipping routes are know. What about seeing "units" not that we could see that would carry resources? This way an opposing civ could intercept the flow for resources or luxiuries (even if it may fall under a different catergory as well).

-Off shore platforms- good idea (i assume you are talkking about more then the city improvement) Not sure how it would be done, but I know it can be and would make a nice addition.

-Cruise missile on ships- In favor of that as well. These ships can (in real life) hit far inside a country's borders and they can't do that in the game, an ability that should be added.

-Admiral- Good idea

Tell me what you think of that new idea

Oda Nobunaga, you are right, the navy plays a different role now. You worded it much better than I did. But the role the navy use to play before the first WOI, was far greater than is relfected in the game.
I do think civ4 can improve on that part of the game.
The Brittish did not rule the oceans in the WOII, the allied did. The american just build more ships (Victory and Liberty)than the germans could sink with their u-boots.
I think the introduction of a merchant marine in the game, would bring an extra dimension to the game.
Without a merchant marine, you can not have any luxuries or gold coming in from other continents/islands. Your communication with civ's on other continents was done by ships. We have workers on land, but we don't have workers at sea.

The american just build more ships (Victory and Liberty)than the germans could sink with their u-boots.

Click to expand...

IMHO U-Boat warfare failed because:
Detection systems improved, that made sub-hunting easier.
Convoys gradually got better protection.
Allies dominated the air.51% of U-boats were sunk by airplanes.
The British decrypted the Enigma code. Twice.
http://uboat.net/

It was an allied effort, not just a brittish.

Reintroduce The Caravan And Increase Their Commercial Output

NO, reintroducing caravans would be a MASSIVE step backwards IMHO! Instead the CtP Trade-Route system would be a very good starting point, but perhaps with piracy or embargoes on said trade routes NOT being automatic! Instead it should be based on both the unit TYPE and the unit STRENGTH!

Yours,
Aussie_Lurker.

I agree with Aussie_Lurker. SAY NO TO CARAVANS. They were a disaster IMO. They had too many floors and things like that. It made trade crap IMO the one in civ 3 is better but still needs improving. The admiral idea is very good as is the offshore platform could be a kinda colony type thing in the sea. IT would have to be defended or it would be destroyed. maybe it could be loaded onto a certain type of ship and then deposited. It couldn't be moved once put down?

I say we need sea caravans I dont really care about land (beacuse trade on the same contenent doesnt really have trade routes) sea caravans would be a nice way to have a navy cut off reasources which is realistic and challanging. You have troops to invade nations and protect your own. Whats a navy do in CIV3? Nothing except transport your troops to another continent for invasion...By having Oil platforms and trade routes it at least forces you to develop in a navy that can protect your shores from invasion protect your trade routes and reasources abroad and disrupt another empires if need be.

Trade should be something that comes about automatically as well, except in the case of special resources like Iron, Coal, Silks, Dyes, etc. But for cattle, gold, and fish, there should be an automatic trade as there should be in items created locally. Trade routes should depend on how the ocean is at different places (currents such as the Gulf Stream, etc.). Caravans are a bad idea as they force micromanangement of something history has shown to be rather hard to micromanange (Opium War, Boston Tea Party, etc.).

Also, there is a problem with balance. A carrier with just two airplanes should be able to tear apart a battleship. We need to have our ages for the sake of naval combat more spaced out. There should be a good stretch of time when battleships are useful, giving one reason to build them. By the advent of the carrier, they will be easy kills for airplanes before they can even get within range of the carrier. The submarine will always remain useful but what I hate is how if one attacks a battleship, even though it isn't seen, it can still lose. It should have a "torpedo" option that either horribly cripples the battleship or sinks it. That would teach people like myself and many of you I suppose not to simply build tons and tons of battleships. Furthermore, later on, missile boats and such would become useful.

Also, on the subject of naval bases like Gibraltar, Diego Garcia, and other places, there should be little little islands here or there that the AI doesn't simply colonize like they always do but can treat as a naval base. The base can support itself with fishing for food from the sea or coast tiles and also can be used as a shipbuilding center if one can secure a trade route of iron and oil or iron and coal too it. Also, that reminds me of another thing. Any sea units should have to stop at naval bases or used seized enemy supplies for oil and such. It would make things a lot more complicated but also a lot more real. Who knows though.

Anyhow, that's all I have to say for now.

Verowin said:

It was an allied effort, not just a brittish.

Click to expand...

Actualy the War in the Atlantic was fought in two phases - first against the Commonwealth of Britain and Canada. The Germans were sinking much of the merchant fleet at first (the first "happy time" of the U-Boats) but then losses feel as the British introduced the convoys and better tactics (plus technological factors).

Then when the Americans entered the war the Germans got a second "happy time" and were sinking many American vessels as they were on their way to England.

The defeat of the U-Boats may have involved the Americans as well as the Royal Navy but England was already safe from the U-Boats before America entered the war - America was fighting what was in effect a seperate battle.

The ideas for trade routes is a great one (also should use in on land for the resupply of your troops in the field), but it must be possible for them to shift slightly (ie 1 boat in the middle of a trade route across a massive ocean cannot blockade it on its own).

If the idea for each resource representing a certain value is implemented (ie 1 source of oil doesn't allow a civ to have infinate supplies of oil for its needs) then each hostile ship in your trade route could reduce the amount of resources across that route by a certain amount - if 100 oil got across normaly, then with 1 hostile ship 95 might get across and with 5 hostile ships only 75 would reach the other side. And each ship could deduct different amounts from the route depending on the technology level of the defending civ - a friget would not reduce the amount at all if the civ who owns the route is in the modern era, etc.