Any new stuff with the Navy?

[lord42]

Well slavery is already part of the game and enslve seems to be a new ability.
Meaning it is not the same old land unit worker capturing.
This is something new and could involve ships.

 

[ChrTh]

Be careful here ... I've seen word that Slavery will be part of the Mesoamerican Conquest, but not that it's been added to the normal game.

 

[cerebus]

one of my pet peaves is an AI civ who gets the Great Lighthouse but never explores the oceans. I always seach ever nook and cranny with my ships to try and find new land masses. If the AI spends all that time and effort to get the Lighthouse, and denies it to me, then why should he waste it by never exploring. Change the code to make the AI with the Great Lighthouse explore more.

 

[Cheops]

Originally posted by Pembroke

What we need are jobs for our ships: controlling trade routes, pirating trade routes, protecting your own routes, projecting influence both cultural and political, capturing enemy vessels, raiding coasts for slaves and gold, guarding your coasts and keeping it free from foreign powers (and I mean _without_ having to build that ridiculous "Great Sea Wall Of China"), and all the other many things that ships were designed for in the first place...

Make navies useful in the game and the players will build and use them. Otherwise they are just "sugar coating". [/B]

Pembroke hit the nail on the head! It's about making necessary projects for naval units.

THE OCEAN IS A DANGEROUS PLACE...
Suppose you are trading luxuries or resources with cultures on different continents. Well, in the real world, particularly in ancient times, traversing the oceans was a treacherous and often deadly endeavor. Maybe trades via ocean are less secure than between neighbors on the same land mass, and supplies are occasionally "lost at sea."

PRIVATEERS!
Or maybe if you don't protect your trade routes then you may lose some of your trade resources to pirates or even, dare I say it, PRIVATEERS! Or maybe you could attack an opponent's trade route under your true identity, and STEAL his resources rather than just cutting them off? You could say that it takes four (4) ships to equal (20) turns of luxury or resource item, and if you capture one of them then you acquire that luxury or resource for (5) turns. There are many possibilities I can think of.

GREAT LEADERS
You should also be able to obtain Great Leaders through naval units, and not only for fighting, but bold exploring in ancient times by "suicide galleys." If you have to make 20 galleys to finally get one suicide galley across the ocean, that should at least provide you with a chance for a GL. Also, any successful suicide galley that "makes it" should have at least a 50/50 chance of making it back home so long as it follows the same route.

Cheops

 

[Sir Bugsy]

One thing I would change is the number of movement tiles a ship gets with each improvement. There is no way a frigate and an ironclad should have the same movement. Carriers should be able to move 12+ tiles per turn. A Nimitz class carrier can sail around the world in less than a year. They are certainly a lot quicker than a Battleship. I would have each improvement in sailing also give at least one extra tile movement.

Galley - 3
Caravels - 4
Frigates/Galleons - 5
Ironclads/Transports - 6
Destroyers/Battleships - 8
Carriers - 12

 

[lord42]

The privateer naval unit can also enslave units, turning enemy ships into willing conscripts.
From gamespy...
Well I was the closest guess on the privateers.. I think it will help them greatly.

 

[Michael York]

As far as ironclad movement, during what time period? The monitor & Merrimac were far slower than anything in either navy. (I don't know how HMS Warrior and the French ship compared)

 

[Mr Black]

Hi!

I just hope that injured ships will get deceased movement, like in civ2.

It's realistic and good for stategy. Nowadays, you can chase another injured Ironclad, with your own healthy Ironclad, and never be able to catch it.

Man, that just P- me OFF!!!

 

[Plug]

I think ships should have farther movement too. Also, the age of sailing, galleons and privateers and the other one should come a little earlier on the tech tree. I think they are followed too quickly by ironclad and become obsolete too quickly.

Maybe we could have another ancient or early medieval ship too. Maybe a Japanese ship, lots of those have been designed by modders.


Great leaders should be able to come from sea units. Admirals I suppose they would be called. I think they should be able to travel on any type of ship since the great leader represents 1 individual (and perhaps small entourage). King units in regicide games should also be able to travel on any ship for the same reason. And, maybe princesses too.

 

[Sir Bugsy]

Mr. Black,
Excellent point. If the Bismark hadn't had rudder problems, the Brits would have never sunk her. Losing movement points for injury is a great idea. Furthermore, I think that should apply on land as well. :ripper:

 

[steviejay]

dunno about the movement penalty on land. you'd be suprised how quickly an army can retreat, look at the BEF after the battle of the Mons in WW1

 

[The Lodian]

-Sir Bugsy- You'd be surprised. A WWII Battleship could probably steam as fast or faster than a Nimitz class Carrier. More likely as fast however. A WWII Battleship (atleast an Iowa class battleship) could reach speeds of 31 or so knots. The real advantage of nuclear power isn't speed in ships but the duration of voyages.

 

[Sir Bugsy]

If you go to Jane's Fighting Ships, it will tell you that most ships top out at 31 knots. It is just anything higher than that is classified. And it isn't just nuclear power. I was on the USS Independence (conventional powered carrier) and we busted through 31 knots as the need arose. I know the Foch (old french Clemenceau class) can go at least 41 knots.) and HMS Hermes can go 43 knots. Since I'm still under US law I can't tell you what the Indy and US carriers can do.

 

[NHJ BV]

I think the transport system should be changed. Currently a warrior takes up as much room in a transport ship as a modern armor. I like the way it was done in Red Alert 2; infantry took up much less room than a tank, therefor you could put like 14 infantry in a transport ship, but only 4 or so tanks.

 

[BomberEscort]

I'd like to see a new ability for planes called Automated Recon. This would be useful for putting a Carrier in the middle of the Ocean and having the four planes perform recon of the area around the Carrier without having to do a recon mission every single turn. It would work like auto-bombard except of course no bombs just recon.

 

[brianshapiro]

well there have been press releases that naval units in the WWII scenario can create craters and destroy resources

 

[wildWolverine]

One of the biggest problems they've been having w/ the Seawolf class subs is that exterior additions and bending and breaking after submerged travel, due to excessive speed. Obviously neither I nor anyone else not in the navy knows how fast they can go, but it'd have to be pretty fast to break off a periscope casing.

@Sir Bugsy: how was Beatrix able to take out so many Aurors???

 

[BomberEscort]

I'd like to see a new ability for planes called Bomber Escort. This would work as follows:

When the bomber is intercepted, instead of the Bomber-Fighter Animation the bomber (% chance) makes it to its target and drops it load of bombs while the Fighter-Fighter battle continues like a normal intercept.

Possible limitations would be that Bombers and Fighters on Escort Duty would have to be based in same City or Carrier

This would give the Carrier more versatility and make it the dominant Naval Unit it is supposed to be...

 

[wildWolverine]

Much as I'd like to see improvement in the naval portion of the game, we must keep in mind that there really haven't been a lot of naval vs. naval battles in the twentieth century. There are a few famous duels, i.e. HMS Hood and the Bismarck, and the Battle of the Surigao Strait. But overall, the ships just became to valuable to risk trading broadsides w/ eachother -- one of Germany's more powerful ships, the Deutschland, never saw serious action, because Hitler was too afraid of losing it. Also, the advent of naval aviation spelled the doom of the big ships... both the Mushashi and the Yamato were sunk by dive bombers; their 18" guns and extra mile of range proved useless... Only once in the history of naval warfare has one battleship actually sunk another battleship (using formal classifications) -- the USS Washington sank a Japanese battleship in the south Pacific. Even the battle at Jutland in WW1 was less than conclusive. If we are really craving a realistic scenario, then the aspect that most needs improvement is the air war. In my opinion, fighters are more useless than any sea vessel is...

 

[MarineCorps]

That would be impling that the Navy is useless along with the Marine Corp. Not something that I find a good thought