Are there seriously no land-unit transports in CiV?
- Thread starter OTAKUjbski
- Start date
His point is.. are you sure its a bug and not a design choice?
My point is that they were clearly aware that it was in the build they used (they explicitly demonstrated naval actions) and didn't mention "this is a bug, will be fixed in retail" -- no stacking IS and WAS clearly the way it was intended to be shipped, even if some preview materials from six months ago said otherwise.
It was said in many places that embarked units are civilian units. Civilian units are allowed to share a tile with a military unit. This is actually why they are instantly killed as soon as a military unit moves on them (just like workers).
The manual even specifically says "Work Boats and any 'Embarked' land units are non-military units" My work boats have no trouble sharing a tile with my warships, it seems pretty obvious that embarked units not being able to is a bug.
If it was a design decision it is a pretty stupid one and counter to the design of the rest of the game.
sleepingbear
Warlord
- Joined
- Aug 18, 2008
- Messages
- 104
Another annoying feature of embarkation is that you don't get it till optics. It should be granted with sailing, makes playing archipelago maps a snooze fest.
Just because they didn't fix a bug before launch (even if they were aware of it) doesn't mean it was intended design. Saying that is just a sign of not knowing anything about software development. It could simply be a very low priority bug (rightly so IMO) and might not ever be fixed.
Edit: Just to be clear, I'm not talking about being able to stack 10 embarked spearmen on top of each other. I'm talking about 1 spearman and 1 trireme being in the same hex.
That may be so, but I'm pretty sure at this point that it was indeed a deliberate design decision.
They made a big deal about the "feature" that you had to protect land units with naval ones, and had the units spread across several sea tiles. They then conducted an amphibious invasion. If it was a bug they would simply have not showed that off.
You would still have to protect land units with naval units and spread them out across several sea tiles. I think we are talking about 2 different things here. Like I edited in my previous post, I'm not talking about putting all your embarked units onto the same tile. That is obviously not intended (and was actually why I posted in the first place, they were saying they thought they read that embarked units could stack with each other, I was saying that what was really said was an embarked unit could stack with a warship, but it can't atm because of a bug). I'm talking about putting an (1 and only 1) embarked unit on the same tile as a (1 and only 1) warship.
I also recall hearing that you could put an embarked military unit under a warship. Dunno where that went, but it's hardly a critical issue.
That's bad military AI, not an issue with the embarking mechanic. If the AI made/used navies, you'd see situations where maritime power was a requirement for any transcontinental operations. If it knew what it was doing, your Caravel would've been eaten by a Destroyer many turns ago.
Seriously, 95% of the "myriad issues" with fundamental Civ5 mechanics are the bad military AI.
Are you playing with barbarians disabled? Every game I've played where I needed to sail across ocean, I always sent out a military ship first, because Galleys/Caravels would eat my Settlers otherwise. If you're sailing across mare incognita, you're going to have to deal with the possibility of barbs sinking your undefended vessels.
And defend your entire embarked navy with one ship?
That's beyond silly.
That's bad military AI, not an issue with the embarking mechanic. If the AI made/used navies, you'd see situations where maritime power was a requirement for any transcontinental operations. If it knew what it was doing, your Caravel would've been eaten by a Destroyer many turns ago.
Seriously, 95% of the "myriad issues" with fundamental Civ5 mechanics are the bad military AI.
Are you playing with barbarians disabled? Every game I've played where I needed to sail across ocean, I always sent out a military ship first, because Galleys/Caravels would eat my Settlers otherwise. If you're sailing across mare incognita, you're going to have to deal with the possibility of barbs sinking your undefended vessels.
And defend your entire embarked navy with one ship?
That's beyond silly.
MadRat
Cheese Raider
non-stacking is such a pita for embark, especially late/modern games where things like cruise missiles and tons of long range ships make depending embarked units hell - what gets wors eis some random barbarian suddenly appears off your coast from hell knows where and sinks your embarked unit well outside of a war zone.
Rat
Rat
Doctor Phibes
Prince
While I haven't tested this, (because I always escort embarked units outside safe waters just to be sure), I'm note sure that barb naval vessels in this game are much of a worry. They certainly don't even pillage as far as I've seen. But I could be wrong, must test this one.
I'm very worried that a barbarian destroyer will come from nowhere and eat up some embarked units. They move so far that it's impossible to scout for them. I've no idea why barbarians have destroyers at all as that size of ship requires government funding.
So I'm sitting here in the Modern Era with Fighters, Tanks & Infantry.
I get bored with the happy family I have going on with my neighbours and decide I want to crack some skulls overseas.
So, I change the production in my 'shipyard' city and ... um ... I can build Destroyers, Submarines, and Carriers but no Transport.
Figuring I missed a tech somewhere along the way, I begin scouring the Tech Tree, but there is no transport!
Am I missing something here?
Does Firaxis really expect us to move 5k+worth of defenseless embarked troops at a paltry rate of 4 movement with only 1UpT?
If this is true, I feel like it makes Pre-Industrial overseas warfare a bit.
Wow, people really WILL find anything to complain about in this game!
This particular change of the game mechanics is one of the best ones in my opinion (and many other players'). Naval transportation was tedious and messy in other Civ's.
Doctor Phibes
Prince
As it happens, Jaroth, although on overall balance I'm getting less keen on Civ5 with every game I play, I agree with you here, I think naval transport is an improvement. BUT - several people have made good points to the contrary, for example the loss of land/water choke points on the map. So is it really necessary to do the 'you're a fanboi' vs 'you're a whiner' thing when people are being genuinely analytical?
Teodosio
Warlord
- Joined
- Mar 3, 2002
- Messages
- 292
Embarking is one of the best features of Civ5. At last we don't have to micromanage those transports any more.
I like that embarked units can't stack with warships too: if you want lo launc a naval invasion you should have naval supremacy, else it's normal that you suffer some casualties.
I like that embarked units can't stack with warships too: if you want lo launc a naval invasion you should have naval supremacy, else it's normal that you suffer some casualties.
Indeed, you would think your infantry were swimming across the ocean for them to be so vulnerable. It is just absurd for ancient, arrow-firing triremes to be able to OHKO modern troop transports.
Instead of embarked units being completely defenceless, they should just suffer a huge combat penalty (like -80%) and be unable to initiate attacks.
Doctor Phibes
Prince
Yes, but then they've become low-value naval units. Blockade ships basically - I can see how I could use that idea as a human. But it's yet another one the AI won't get.
[Oh, wait, no, that's exactly what it's trying to do with them in the naval games I've played - set up blockades. Maybe this could be a suggestion that would benefit the AI for a change. Expensive use of units tho.]
Doctor Phibes
Prince
Yeah, I agree, and one of the reasons I like the new way of doing it. If you're the human player you have absolutely no excuse for not having naval supremacy - apart from having no seacoast, of course - so tough luck if you're negligent.
