Between Frigate and Destroyer

[Wolfshanze]

Sorry, I'm confused: by "moving back" do you mean "making available earlier" or "making available later"? And in comparison to what?

Moving back... clarification... by default, in Civ4, the Submarine becomes available with the "Radio" tech... in my own mod (and I might suggest to anyone thinking about changing a sub's availability on their own end) I changed Submarine availability to come with "Electricity + Combustion"... which becomes available before Radio... ie: sooner then Radio.

After all, the entire basis of early 20th century submarines was built around Diesel/Electric engines.... ie: Combustion + Electricity... so it makes perfect sense to have the sub available with these two techs, and you'll get to use subs sooner then Radio, which is the default starting point in Civ4 unmodified.

Or what did you mean by your post, Wolfshanze? That Strengths of 30 and 40 isn't representative of the power of oil-based capital ships (compared to the baselines of 8 for Sail and 12 for Coal?)

Never said that... I also haven't changed a Destroyers attack of 30... in my own mod destroyers are still Str-30, and still just as effective against Frigates and Ironclad Gunboats which also remain unchanged in strength (8/12). The ONLY thing I questioned in regards to the strength of a destroyer was it's effectiveness compared with WWI Dreadnoughts... WWII Destroyers are simply not as powerful as WWI Dreadnoughts... ergo, in my mod, Dreadnoughts are Str-38 (WWII Battleships are now Str-42).

My mod mostly focuses on adding naval units between Frigates and WWII Destroyers... all "Pre-Dreadnought" ships I added are in the teens or twenties in strength... in other words, they are stronger then frigates and weaker then WWII destroyers... as they should be.

To summarize... irregardless of what Firaxis may have put into the game, naval development did not take a massive siesta between the Frigate and/or Civil War riverboat Ironclads and the advent of WWII Destroyers... naval evolution continued rapidly... ocean-going Ironclads of various sizes and shapes were quickly built and quickly obsoleted from roughly 1855 to 1890... then a "standardization" of design took place around 1890 with the advent of the "Pre-Dreadnoughts" and the Protected Cruisers that accompanied them... about 1906 another naval evolution took place with the introduction of the Dreadnought which radically altered the course of naval warfare and made all previous warships obsolete. All of this is MISSING in Civ4... I added these steps in my own mod. If folks want to roll all of that naval evolution into one cruiser, more power to them... I just did the best I could to reflect the true evolution of naval warfare during those years in my mod... those who have actually played with the above changes all seem to think it works-out quite well in-game.

 

[Colossian]

We clearly need 2 things here:

A ship between Clad and Destroyer
A transport for more then the current number of units.

Or, decrease the cost of transport ships. Seriously.
I dont like increasing my army by 30% just to sail them 3 spaces away.

"A transport for more then the current number of units."

I think it's possible a new civilization will have UU. It'd be 6.
I hope one of new civilizations will have UU. Replace Ironclad, can enter Ocean.

 

[Wolfshanze]

"A transport for more then the current number of units."

I think it's possible a new civilization will have UU. It'd be 6.
I hope one of new civilizations will have UU. Replace Ironclad, can enter Ocean.

By default Galleon is 3 capacity and Transport is 4 capacity.

I added a coal-fired "Paddle Steamer" transport between Galleon and modern Transport that carries 4 units... I then upped the capacity of the modern transport to 5.

Something that simple is easy to do if folks just want to do that on their end.

 

[kristopherb]

On a slightly off topic question. Would a Unique naval unit be cool/useful/gimmick unit ?

I was thinking we could have a medieval battleship which can bombard cities, Paddle steamer slow and strong unit carrier (10,3) ,dreadnoughts (20,5), U boats (you could say that it would be a German unique unit) (15,5, invisible to dreadnoughts). Anti Sub (15,3,100%vs submarines).

 

[kazapp]

We clearly need 2 things here:

A ship between Clad and Destroyer
A transport for more then the current number of units.

Or, decrease the cost of transport ships. Seriously.
I dont like increasing my army by 30% just to sail them 3 spaces away.

Well, I think I disagree to your first point and I know I do for the second point.

Between Clad and Destroyer: I am happy with the jump from Str 12 to Str 30 as a representation of the power disparity between the Age of Coal and the Age of Oil. In this I take into account more than just raw offensive power. Any Civ unit represent more than a single ship in isolation, and oil-driven navies simply have superior characteristics overall.

That there is space for a ship with an intermediate Strength is beside the point: this ship should be a light ship only, that is, not introduced before the Str 30 ship is. This ensures that when the Age of Oil dawns, all previous navies become utterly obsolete. Both for historical and gameplay reasons.

Bigger transport: I disagree. Make it cheaper to ferry a unit across water (whether by bigger transports or cheaper transports) and you make the division between land and sea smaller and less relevant. If you read up on WWII history you will learn exactly how big an obstacle even a relatively small body of water can be.

Case in point: the English Channel. (In Civ this would be represented completely without any Ocean tiles, only Coastal ones). Without it, the British would have been conquered many times in history instead of just one(?).

If it is even possible to recognize history and how it would have played out at all! This geographical feature is by itself the deciding factor behind the English as a seafaring nation, and thus the very existence of the colonial British Empire, and the fact that George W Bush's first (and my second) language is English instead of, say, Spanish, German or French...

Best Regards,
kazapp

 

[say1988]

I was thinking we could have a medieval battleship which can bombard cities, Paddle steamer slow and strong unit carrier (10,3) ,dreadnoughts (20,5), U boats (you could say that it would be a German unique unit) (15,5, invisible to dreadnoughts). Anti Sub (15,3,100%vs submarines).

Japan: Yamato class battleship extra strong battleship
China: Junk (not sure what it would be though)
Germany: U-boat
Pocket Battleship, slightly weaker battleship, signifcant retreat chance, greater range.
England: Dreadnought, a battleship available a tech or 2 early
Man o' War more powerful ship of the line
Spain: Treasure Galleon, galleon with greater capacity
America: Liberty ship, a dirt cheap transport

These are units I fooled around with when I was playing around with modding the game (in the end I included the Yamato and Man o' War in my second UU mod, but I have since given up modding civ IV and deleted them, as it was mainly a test of my abilities), it is unfortunate as I had so much fun making little tweaks to civ II and a complete mod for a scenario of a modern US civil war (long ago deleted ).

I am happy with the jump from Str 12 to Str 30 as a representation of the power disparity between the Age of Coal and the Age of Oil. In this I take into account more than just raw offensive power. Any Civ unit represent more than a single ship in isolation, and oil-driven navies simply have superior characteristics overall

But what huge disparity between Coal- and Oil-fired navies. When I look at time periods when both where used, there doesn't seem to be a huge difference in combat abilities (unlike going from sail to steam). The biggest difference I see is the continual upgrading of weapons and armour during the change from coal to oil, which would have occurred if the navies still used coal. Sure there are advantages to oil, but not enough to immediately obsolete all coal-fired ships. As well, to this point, the game completely ignores the coal-fired blue-water navies that obsoleted sail vessels.

 

[Wolfshanze]

Well, I think I disagree to your first point and I know I do for the second point.

Between Clad and Destroyer: I am happy with the jump from Str 12 to Str 30 as a representation of the power disparity between the Age of Coal and the Age of Oil. In this I take into account more than just raw offensive power. Any Civ unit represent more than a single ship in isolation, and oil-driven navies simply have superior characteristics overall.

As much as you disagreed with Nay's point I'd have to disagree with your own point.

Why certainly a Str-30 WWII Destroyer is going to nerf a Str-8 Frigate or a Str-12 Ironclad Gunboat... just as much as a Str-28 WWII Tank is going to nerf a Str-8 Maceman or a Str-10 Knight. The jump from Str-10 Knight is just as wide (18-points) to a Str-28 Tank!

If you're going to go with that analogy, why-not just delete every single unit inbetween Knights and Tanks? No Grenadiers, no Riflemen, no Infantry, no Cuirassiers, no Cavalry or Artillery... it's the same 18-point gap that doesn't need to have any units in it because we want to emphasize the utter disparity between Medieval Knights and WWII Tanks... hey... justifiable 18-point gap is a justifiable 18-point gap, right? Just think, that's six-more unneccesary units in an 18-point gap!

Who needs to show the evolution of firepower and technology between Knights and Tanks anyways? I'm sure it's irrelevant. Just as irrelevant as the evolution in firepower and technology between Frigates and WWII Destroyers... nothing really developed between Frigates and Destroyers, anymore then nothing really developed between Knights and Tanks.

Of course such statements as I wrote above are silly and ludicrous.

Firaxis put six units inbetween knights and tanks for ground warfare, so why are so many people afraid to put EVEN ONE unit between frigates and destroyers? Is it an image problem? Everyone has heard of famous cavalry charges and WWII infantry making a stand... but in-comparison, not nearly as many folks have ever heard of the Battle of Lissa (huge ocean-going ironclad battle) or the Sino-Japanese War or Battle of Tsushima (major pre-dreadnought battles)... and while the Battle of Jutland may (or may not be) famous (the largest dreadnought battle in history), it's not represented in Civ4 either with units.

If you add one unit, six units or a dozen units in that 18 point gap, you're STILL going to have the 18-point gap between early Ironclad Gunboats and WWII Destroyers, so why are folks so adverse to the actual technology and firepower advancements that occured during the ironclad age, pre-dreadnought and dreadnought ages? All very distinct and measureable evolutions of technology that occured between frigates and WWII destroyers.

There's at least six units showing a progression of technology between Knights and Tanks on land... an 18-point gap. Why are folks so averse to showing the progression of technology between early Ironclad Gunboats and WWII Destroyers at sea... an 18-point gap. Surely nobody thinks there was no advancements in ship design. Major nations spent large amounts of money on research, design and standing fleets... battles and wars were fought, lives lost with ships that are not represented in default Civ4.

I'm sure folks would have a big problem with Civ4 if there wasn't a single unit inbetween the development of Knights and Tanks. I just can't fathom why folks are comfortable pretending this other 18-point gap at sea had no development or worthy units in it either.

Maybe it's just that there's too many land-lubbers around these parts and nobody appreciates the history of naval development?!?!?

 

[Wolfshanze]

a) Most of that post could be considered trolling

Actually what you just said is trolling... you're big on labeling. I'm here to discuss the subject, and you're here to say anyone with an opinion other then yours is a troll... nice one...

Folks... just because someone has a differant opinion does not make them a "troll"... it'd be nice that a differance of opinion could be discussed without being called a troll... enough is enough folks... I'm in my 40s and have a lot of knowledge on military history (retired military 20 years, degree in history). I have a wife and two children, and I don't have time to "go trolling". That's for juveniles and teenagers.

I'm discussing the evolution of naval warfare, and because I don't think Firaxis covered the subject and am fervent in the discussion of why it should be covered, it seems everyone without a proper counter just yells "he's a troll". I have better things to do with my time then try and start arguments with people... it would seem to me the very people calling others "trolls" are the ones looking to pick fights.

 

[6K Man]

Coal powered Dreadnaught please, stregth 20. that's all we need IMHO.

Call it a pre-dreadnought and it works for me.

 

[Molybdeus]

b) The thing is that people like having that big gap, whether its hitorically accurate or not. Racing to get combustion is fun. And so is realising with scientific method that you don't have oil having to declare war asap to get some

While I understand this point -and would even add that it is important to have a disparity to maintain game balance- there's no reason that the disparity can't be maintained with another unit.

If X hammers worth of ironclads loses to the same value of cruisers 2/3's of the time and X hammers worth of cruisers loses to the same value of destroyers 2/3's of the time, you still have a major advantage for the more advanced civ. Over the course of the war you will win due to combat efficiency, just like you would win against ironclads.

The difference is that it isn't automatic. You can't dominate the seas with a single destroyer. You might even -horror of horrors- lose a destroyer, just like you could when attacking axemen with pikemen.

 

[Wolfshanze]

Call it a pre-dreadnought and it works for me.

If someone wanted to make a one-unit fix... that would actually make sense.

 

[alpha wolf 64]

i wish that the ironclad was more a Warrior type vessel. plus they need a coal powered battleship and a dreadnought. destroyers are way too powerful. their purpose was to hunt down subs not to slug it out with the big ships of the era.

 

[Tlalynet]

Go wolf, sounds like a good and detailed mod.

 

[DrJambo]

It's just a shame the Ironclad's so completely useless. Properly implemented, it could have made a more fluid jump between sail and oil powered ships.

And yes, I agree with those who say destroyers are too powerful. Destroyers were certainly not as able to take on Battleships as they are in Civ 4.

 

[SLM]

The game already does that for grenadiers. They get a 50% bonus over riflemen, which don't appear until shortly afterwards.

Correct, but you can research MS before Rifling and vice versa.

Btw, wasn't the main difference between oil and coal powered ships that oil powered ships could go a longer distance without refueling and that other ships didn't see them coming so easily (from the smoke)? As far as I know there wasn't a direct difference in (fire)power. This would account for the speed of the ironclad in the game and probably also why they can't traverse oceans in the game, but the lack of a similar coal powered ship with more strength does not.

 

[Jtownsend]

IMO replacing monitor-style ironclads with ironclad ships of the line like La Gloire and the HMS Warrior is so obvious it could even be termed a "fix."

Ultra-restricted-movement ironclads were purely an American Civil War problem, resulting from the special circumstances of urgent wartime demand to fill a certain niche; oceangoing ironclads were already a reality when the Monitor fought the Virginia.

Also, and with respect, the argument that the naval gap is "fun" strikes me as a peculiar rationalization; sort of like saying all-stack-destruction ala Civ2 "added suspense" compared to one by one destruction in Civ4. As it stands the Ironclad is obviously supposed to be a gap filler but isn't.

If it were turned into a true generic ironclad (oceangoing) rather than a particular ACW ironclad, it would fill teh gap that it seems intended to adequately well. And it would be a lot easier for players to squint and pretend their Ironclad was a protected cruiser or pre-dreadnaught than it is now when they do so with frigates.

 

[DrJambo]

Maybe destroyers should have had a strength of 24 rather than 30?

 

[Jtownsend]

Either that or they need to be renamed battlecruisers or something. However, Civ is not meant to be TOAW or something; going from Frigate->WWII navy feels very much like musket->infantry or trebuchet->artillery. And with the ironclad just sitting there in more or less the right place, but with a senseless nerf that provides no gameplay or historical advantage.

In truth I think Frigate -> Ironclad -> Cruiser -> Battleship/Dreadnaught -> Destroyer would be the best way to combine a simple, minimalistic list of ships with some attempt to provide a balance of unit choices and historical accuracy.

Ironclads, as I said above, ought to be 'fixed,' as opposed to merely supplemented with new ships.

Cruisers I could live without (never used them much in Civ2) but they do feel like they should be there, to me, given that cruisers were such an overwhelmingly numerous 'standard warship' for the late 19th and early 20th centuries.

Destroyers should be fast and weak and late, to reflect their historical and functional roles, this makes them feel "destroyer-y," as they did in Civ2 eg.

And I think it is a reasonable sacrifice of historicity for elegance to merely have one battleship, even though that is a bit meh realismwise.

The way things are now though, is a problem for me. I mean Civ is a very abstract game and that's great. But as it is the Frigate-Destroyer gap (and the fact that destroyers are either mis-named or absurdly powerful) is a not merely an issue of abstraction, it feels like a mistake.

 

[Wolfshanze]

Btw, wasn't the main difference between oil and coal powered ships that oil powered ships could go a longer distance without refueling and that other ships didn't see them coming so easily (from the smoke)? As far as I know there wasn't a direct difference in (fire)power.

There's numerous advantages to oil-powered ships over coal-powered ships in reality... most (if not all) of which would NOT be transferable to Civ4 gameplay. Some of the main advantages revolve around safety and cleanliness. No stokers (coal-shovelers) are needed, coal-dust gets EVERYWHERE, and in the confined spaces of a ship's boiler room a high accumulation of coal dust becomes a flammable/explosive hazzard. More then one coal-fired ships were lost from coal-dust explosions. Oil is simpler on logistics, transportion, and safety... however, there's not really any combat advantages to oil over coal, and no... you can't spot a coal ship any easier then an oil ship... WWII oil-powered ships were spotted on the horizon quite easily from their smoke trails too.

Simply put, in Civ4 game-terms, there's no advantage to oil over coal... it's just a matter of sticking the right resource requirement with the right ship... and you're right... there's no firepower differance simply because a ship uses oil over coal or vice versa.

This would account for the speed of the ironclad in the game and probably also why they can't traverse oceans in the game, but the lack of a similar coal powered ship with more strength does not.

No, it doesn't account for the speed issue, and it most certainly does not ac**** for ocean traversing... engines are what account for speed issues, not the fuel they use. The reciprocating steam engines used by many coal-powered ships (double-expansion in ironclads and triple-expansion engines of the Pre-Dreadnought era) were quite powerful and capable of 16-18 knots on ocean journeys by the 1890s coal-powered fleets.

Firaxis chose to include Ironclad Gunboats of the American Civil War to represent all Ironclads... which is a bit silly, because they were only a small part of Ironclad navies... European powers fully embraced ocean going coal-powered Ironclad development by the mid-1800s, which in-turn lead to the standardized Pre-Dreadnought era in the 1890s.

Bottom line, the 2nd-half of the 19th century saw a rapid revolution in naval technology that was fast-paced and exciting with many important developments and exciting ship designs... that Firaxis missed this ENTIRE era of naval development is a shame, but thankfully it can (and has) been addressed in various mods. It would have been nice if Firaxis covered it themselves though.

 

[Jtownsend]

I think the single best tweak to the Civ4 naval system would be to make the Ironclad a real Ironclad, as opposed to a monitor. The lack of any other advanced surface combatants beyond the Battleship and "Destroyer" (Battlecruiser?) can be overlooked.

EDIT: The worst of the drama is over, this is all just people's opinions and noone is being that dramatic about it. No need to discuss past altercations.