Bigger role for navies in Civ5!

[Koning]

Reading this article http://www.insidegamer.nl/pc/civili...sprek-met-jon-shafer-over-civilization-v.htmlforum: (http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=357606

I can only conclude that navies will be more important in Civ5. Every ship will be able to transport units (not clear if it will be more than one, but I guess it will be one unit). According to Shafer, it will be more attractive to build a large fleet.

Spoiler :

Hiernaast krijgen schepen de mogelijkheid om ranged attacks uit te voeren, net als bijvoorbeeld boogschutters en katapulten. “Daarbij kan het zijn dat ze wel vijf of zes vakken ver kunnen schieten”, vertelt Shafer terwijl hij het met zijn handen uitbeeldt, “dat is echt een grote afstand.”

Also, all ships have the possibilty for ranged attacks, just like archers and catapults. "They could shoot no less than 5 or 6 tiles far", Shafer says while using his hands to clarify,"that's really a great distance".

 

[Ahriman]

The 5-6 tile bombardment range sends shivers up my spine... particularly if they can bombard 5-6 tiles inland!!

 

[V. Soma]

The 5-6 tile bombardment range sends shivers up my spine... particularly if they can bombard 5-6 tiles inland!!

uhh, that sounds ugly, in every sense

I hope that longer range is valid for sea tiles only, otherwise: just coastal tiles...

 

[xcrissxcrossx]

Navies are probably one of the worst parts of Civ IV. Glad to see this.

 

[Dark_Jedi06]

Maybe such a long range would make sense for a battleship, but certainly not for a galleon or an earlier type of ship.

 

[Ahriman]

I'm hoping its not even a battleship, but more a modern warship with missiles, not shells.

 

[deanej]

It doesn't make sense for any ship. A battleship cannot strike Chicago from the mouth of the Hudson River!

 

[Ahriman]

Well, it can with cruise missiles. A Tomahawk eg has an operational range of 2,500 km.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BGM-109_Tomahawk

[I think the picture on the page is hilarious; the defense contractors put their logos on the side....]

 

[moscaverde]

This is the same things as the archer. It's game mechanics.

It's interesting to finally give more importance to navies.

 

[thungrim]

I'm cautiously optimistic. This makes having a fleet of ships patrolling your coasts a much more frightening prospect.

 

[Loppan Torkel]

Sounds perfectly good to me and fits with my prediction of going back to larger maps and less compact gameplay...

 

[Ahriman]

This is the same things as the archer. It's game mechanics.

I disagree. Archers are support weapons, as opposed to melee units or cavalry.
Carriers are the naval support weapons, as opposed to destroyers or cruisers or frigates. The latter aren't support weapons, and can work fine in a melee based combat system.

The right way to make naval units more important is to try to mimic history by making naval trade important (and needing a navy to protect them), and to make amphibious invasions more difficult without a large navy (and easier to prevent using a large navy).

Making naval units into big floating artillery platforms that can bomb the heck out of ground units (even far inland) is precisely the wrong way to go about making naval units more important.