Do you find Sea and Air combat in civ 4 lacking? If yes how would you improve it?

[Xanikk999]

As it is right now... It plain sucks.

Galleys and caravels are the only thing representing the ancient age and middle ages respectively.

Not only that but navel combat doesnt require much strategy and the AI sucks at it.

And Air combat is horrible as well. There arent even any SAM battery city improvements in the game, however SAM infantry fulfill that role but it is highly unrealistic.

Firstly i would diversify Navel and Air units a lot lot more. Add more ancient and middle age units. And that would fix some things. But i dont know about Air combat yet.

 

[smjjames]

also, in Civ2 and Civ3 I think, if you attacked a city with all the land combat units dead, but there are a few air units still there, they should 'scramble to the defense' even if they are on intercept mode, but right now they are simply destroyed when you enter the city. I think they should be given a chance to defend.

and give later units (frigates and up) the ability to at least target specific city structures/units within a city and perhaps target improvements on land, however only battleships should be able to target up to two tiles inland because some of those WWI and WWII battleships and destroyers on both sides had incredible range for bombardment.

Also, I think that the tech tree should have flight before bombers because to me it doesn't really make sense to have radio be for bombers and then flight for fighters. either that or move the bombers over to flight.

 

[Boomer ang]

Surprinsingly Civ IV air and naval stuff is fake and useless.

They deliberately assigned them a very ridicul role,they are cosmetic bitmaps that don't play their strategic role but instead seem to be a total loss of time and patience forcing the player to vomit on them.

Civ V must be a completely different game otherwise it will be the end of Civ series for sure.

Boomer ang

 

[smjjames]

the air units are useful for surveillance and destroying improvements and city defenses in the later game. the Naval units have somewhat less use than that.

 

[marioflag]

Naval combat is not simply bad it's awful.
There are so a few units that always naval combat is a battleship vs battleship or a frigate vs frigate game.It was bad conceptualized becuase there isn't any rock-paper-scissor concept so also if you have in modern era submarines,destroyer and battleship you will use always the battleships.The game needs at least 5-6 new naval units to become a bit more enjoyable because i repeat naval warfare is BORING and AWFUL.
Air warfare is reduced to the minimum intercept or bombard nothing else but is more functional than naval warfare.The game needs paratroopers and air transport so you have more choices for land and air warfare.SAM sites or AAA gun would be also needed because bombers are really powerful (and AI never uses it).I would also like the introduction of the f-117 as in civ3 but only if smart weapons will be reintroduced to allow you to do surgical attack on cities with the effect to destroy an improvement.Surgical attack should be allowed also with the b-2.For the rest i hope the xp will not be focused only on land warfare which is already good but will fix all the weaknesses in air and naval warfare

 

[JoeBlade]

Hmm, well, I think air units are nice once you can accept they're not really units in the classic sense... they add a special touch to the game IMO.
The one thing that really bothers me about air units though is that they arrive so incredible late-game. By the time I discover flight I rarely have need for those planes anymore (I virtually never aim for spaceship victory) They're probably good for specific scenarios, marathon speed or custom games - e.g. Conquest as only victory condition - but otherwise I for one can't seem to get around to putting them to use.

Sea's a different matter. The lack of diversity, that I can live with. However, them being so slooooow (except, again, the end-game units) and having such incredibly limited cargo space really removes half their usefulness to me. In those map types/victory conditions where I abolutely need them - Domination on a Continents map, say - they simply seem to artificially slow the game down. Loading up and ferrying over Galleon after Galleon is plain tedious and takes ages.
Another fact I really don't like is the lack of true sea blockades. Sure, one can prevent enemies from reaching their lands with sea units in theory; in practice it takes far too many units to build up an effective blockade for an even moderately-sized shoreline. Building sufficient quick units to intercept any landings when they do arrive on my shore is simply far more effective.
Inversely, they can only harass enemies a bit by themselves, but that's it.
All in all I rarely find them worth the investment... too rarely to my tastes.

 

[Commander Bello]

Naval units are a true misconception.
Playing on bigger maps, you need ages to transport your units over to the other continent.
Due to the fact that rivers now count as connections, it is literally impossible to impose a blockade on your enemy, since coastal connections are almost always available.

Air warfare is even worse. The AI completely lacks any understanding of air warfare, by that making the construction of bombers some sort of exploit. With bomber you may pin any enemy SoD to its place, until you have gathered your forces and take the wounded units to your liking.

Fighters still cannot fight. All they can do is to perform as interceptors, but they can not actively engage enemy fighter. Again a completely crude conception, as the siege weapons.

One really could assume that developers and testers conspiratively tried to make the game as unrealistic as ever possible.

Conception-wise, this seems to be almost the most wrotten iteration of the Civ series.

 

[einherjar_LC]

Air combat is ok by me but the naval could use some improvement.

I'd like to see:

Battleships be able to barrage improvements and/or units 2 or 3 tiles inland.

A better way to protect my coasts. As it stands now I have to build an absurd amount of ships to effectively protect even the smallest bit of coast.

Those are two of the biggies for me off the top of my head.

As I said, I am ok with the air combat.

There is nothing more devastating than having your artillery reduce city defences to zero then unleashing your bombers to wreak collateral damage havoc on your enemy so your troops can just waltz in without any problems.

One thing I would improve would be the ability for airplanes to destroy ground units. Keep the damage working as it does now, only add in the ability for airplanes to completely destroy the unit. Bombers should not get this ability IMO though as the collateral damage they do more than offsets any inability to completely destroy a unit.

 

[Truronian]

I find the problem is that in the early eras ships carry too little to warrant intercepting ships, just build a land unit to take out the units when they land; whereas in the modern age the transports have already entered your view and landed before you can even register, so destroyers are pointless.

 

[ulsterman88]

It is safe to say that naval and air combat are the worst aspects of the game and need greatly improved. heres my ideas:

1) Battleships can bombard 2 tiles inland, and destroyeers/cruisers 1 tile.

2) New units , including- naval bomber (think torpedo bombeWW2 style), heavy cruiser, air transport (someting lik a hercules or C-5 transport), ship of the line, monitor and fire ship. maybe even

3) 2 different classes of fighter to replace current rubbish fighter: attack fighter would have weaker combat value but higher bombardment. The other would be a figther interceptor with high interception and combat strength values e.g. mosquito and P-51 mustang. Same applies to Jet fighter.

4) new concept of air units having kill ability against armour and ships

5) new missions such as fighter escort, and attack infastructure

6) increased chance of interception but fighter escort abilty to help beat back attackers

7) flak unit available with assembly line

8) new tech called radar increasing ships LoS and defence against aircraft

9) seperate promotion trees for air and naval units

10) 1 word paras. if they arent in Warlords i will be very angry.

Tell me what you think of these ideas please!!

 

[ulsterman88]

Oh and Paras are a must to make the game a bit more tactically interesting!!

 

[Xanikk999]

It is safe to say that naval and air combat are the worst aspects of the game and need greatly improved. heres my ideas:

1) Battleships can bombard 2 tiles inland, and destroyeers/cruisers 1 tile.

2) New units , including- naval bomber (think torpedo bombeWW2 style), heavy cruiser, air transport (someting lik a hercules or C-5 transport), ship of the line, monitor and fire ship. maybe even

3) 2 different classes of fighter to replace current rubbish fighter: attack fighter would have weaker combat value but higher bombardment. The other would be a figther interceptor with high interception and combat strength values e.g. mosquito and P-51 mustang. Same applies to Jet fighter.

4) new concept of air units having kill ability against armour and ships

5) new missions such as fighter escort, and attack infastructure

6) increased chance of interception but fighter escort abilty to help beat back attackers

7) flak unit available with assembly line

8) new tech called radar increasing ships LoS and defence against aircraft

9) seperate promotion trees for air and naval units

10) 1 word paras. if they arent in Warlords i will be very angry.

Tell me what you think of these ideas please!!

I think those are all very good ideas. And i think flak cannons were in civ3 Conquest though i could be wrong.

I especially agree with the one on paratroopers and radar.

 

[smjjames]

the LoS is already pretty good for ships though, plus add some scouts (fighters employed as recon) from a carrier and you have a much larger potential LOS.

and yes there need to be paratroopers! they make things tactically MUCH more interesting. They can appear with the radio tech.

also give the fighters (probably the fighter jets) some kind of ability to directly target a specific improvement in cities, what it targets would be random, as it was in Civ2 and I think Civ3. Bombers should have this too, but have a higher chance of hitting and damaging than fighters.

the air combat isn't quite as bad though as naval, because those bombers and fighters are useful for reconnisance, especially fighters on a carrier which is guarded by a ship or two. Although I do use them to harrass the units in a city by doing the air strikes, after some number of strikes I can't do it anymore for some reason, same thing with a single unit or two outside of a city whether land or naval units. I wish I could keep striking at a naval or land unit because for example with a stack of 3 on a carrier, I could airstrike an unit with one, but then I can't do it anymore and simply destroy my target.

 

[ulsterman88]

I think those are all very good ideas. And i think flak cannons were in civ3 Conquest though i could be wrong.

I especially agree with the one on paratroopers and radar.

Flak cannons wee in C3C but i think they would be a great addition and possibly replace the unrealistic SAM infantry. I also liked the mobile SAM from C3C, for me it was a very useful addition too the game!!

A unit called nuclear bomber would be good twoas it would make nuclear war a bit more interesting than just point-click-bang!!!1

 

[ulsterman88]

Air warfare is reduced to the minimum intercept or bombard nothing else but is more functional than naval warfare.The game needs paratroopers and air transport so you have more choices for land and air warfare.SAM sites or AAA gun would be also needed because bombers are really powerful (and AI never uses it).I would also like the introduction of the f-117 as in civ3 but only if smart weapons will be reintroduced to allow you to do surgical attack on cities with the effect to destroy an improvement.Surgical attack should be allowed also with the b-2.For the rest i hope the xp will not be focused only on land warfare which is already good but will fix all the weaknesses in air and naval warfare

i dont think the F-117 should be included in the game and if it is only as a American UU as they are the only nation to possess them, unless they have sold the tech to another nation but this is higly unlikely.

 

[lord_graywolfe]

i dont have to many issues with the air system since they have a choice of bombarding defenses,units or improvments. i would like them to add a couple of promos for them though even if its only to increase strength, iproved visability or medic. as to the before mentioned F-117 i could see that being added. it wouldnt be the first unit to made avalible to nations that never really had it. take the war elephants for example. they should have an early fighter and bomber and then upgrade to jet fighter, jet bomber and then to stelth on both.

the naval warfare totaly sucks. to few choices, at least put the cruiser for air defence back in. very few promos and i think they should have the same attack options as the aircraft do, to hit units, defenses or improvments. at least the battleship should be able to and the crusier if they put it back in. i also think the sub should be able to take free shots at enemy ships with out an all out attack. i mean the hit and run tactic is pretty standard for subs they dont want to stand there and slug it out with line ships. also untill sonar is discovered i dont think you should see the nationality of the sub.

 

[smjjames]

If the air warfare was fixed up, there could be room for some promotions which would be for air units only such as extra bombardment (yes this is with siege units too) power, extra attack power vs aircraft (dogfighting skills). right now promotions would be of no point because we hardly do anything with them.

 

[troytheface]

lol, the "both are bad" is leading there....
What is lacking is the strategic/point (?) benefit of a sea or air power civ.
England ruled the seas and its miniscule size became where ...what ..."the sun never sets..." or something like that.
Same for Phonecia, the Vikings., Portugal, The Dutch ect.
..and in modern times the air was dominated by Isreal and the U.S.
I guess what i am trying to get at is that there could be alot more fun with more units ect. but the real point is that a sea or air power civ needs a game play benefit.

I suggest that the designers do not consider this area a major concern because civ3 suffered the same problem.(but even civ3 had a seafaring trait)
They added a cruiser and made bombers have lethal bombardment in Conquests but that was about it.

 

[Yarmoss]

Here are some of my rambling thoughts. Hope it sort of makes sence.

1, New Ship units: Fireships (Ancient age), Bombards (Medieval age), Sloop, Ship of the Line (Rennasence sp?), Monitor, Drednaught (Industrial Age), Heavy Cruiser (early Modern Age), Aegis Cruiser, Aegis Destroyer (Late Modern Age), Nuclear Attack Submarine, Nuclear Ballistic Missile Submarine

The Fireships are a fighting rowing ship that has a bonus vs Brimes, but cant transport units. Likewise, the Bombards have a bonus vs Caravels/Brimes but cant transport.

When you get up to the Rennasence age (sorry, I really cant spell that word) you have 4 Types of ships which then carry through the rest of the game...
a, Light Warship (Sloop-->Destroyer-->Aegis Destroyer)
b, Medium Warship (Frigate-->Heavy Cruiser--->Aegis Cruiser)
c, Heavy Warship (Ship of the Line--> Drednaught-->Battleship)
d, Troop Transporter (Galleon--> Transporter)

In the Late Industrial Age add in Monitors which are ships that get a penalty fighting other ships but a huge bonus bombarding shore positions.
Submarines upgrade like this:
Submarine--> Nuclear Attack Sub
" --> Nuclear BM Sub
Then you add in your aircraft carrier in the Early Modern Age, and that completes the ship classes.

Light Warships are used for scouting and escorting bigger warships. Destroyers get a bonus vs Subs and aircraft. Medium Warships are basically cheaper "heavy warships". Use them when you need naval power in a hurry but obviously they cant go toe to toe with real heavy Warships. Aegis cruisers should get a bonus vs aircraft. Heavy Warships are there to rule the seas and to bombard the shore with. They should get a penaly vs subs and naval aircraft. Submerines should get a bonus vs all other ships except destoyers. Nuclear Attack subs are just an upgraded sub, but can carry cruise missiles. NBM subs are subs with a very low detection chance (make them invisible to everything except nuclear subs, and then only a small chance of detection?) and are used with cruise missiles or SLBMs (see below) and are used with the much improved dipomacy screen in Warlords (yeah right!) to threaten AIs (or be threatened by the AI) ("If you don't give us 100gold tribute/robotics/dyes we may have to use our nuclear weapons located off your coast!").

2, New Air Units: Biplanes, Dive Bombers, Torpedo Bombers, Light Bombers, (rename current civ bombers as Heavy Bombers), Interceptors (piston engined and later jet engined), (rename Current civ "fighters" as Air Supperiority Fighters), Cruise missiles, Sub Launched Ballistic Missiles

These could upgrade something like this:

Biplane-->Dive Bomber -->Jet Naval strikecraft (e.g A6 Intruder)
" -->Torpedo Bomber --> " " "
" -->Air Supperiority Fighter --> Interceptor
" -->Light Bomber --> SuperSonic Jet Bomber (e.g. B1)
" -->Heavy Bomber --> Superheavy Jet bomber (e.g. B52)

Dive Bombers and Torpedo bombers (and later naval strikecraft) should get big bonus' vs ships but penalties vs Air supperiority fighters/interceptors. Dive bombers should also get a bonus when attacking ground targets. Light Bombers/supersonic bombers should have improved chances to evade interception. Heavy/superheavy bombers are more vulnerable to interception but are stonger and do more damage.

Cruise missiles and sub launched ballistic missiles are loaded onboard nuclear submarines. Cruise missiles are like a one shot bombing run which destoyes the missile but does loads of damage and cant be intercepted. SLBMs are like ICBMs but have a limited range (maybe twice that of a superheavy bomber?) and do less damage then an ICMB.

While Im on the subject, there should be a diplomatic penalty for using nuclear weapons from everyone, not just the person you nuked. AND THE AIs HAVE TO LEARN HOW TO USE THEM! ICBMs should need a building called a nuclear silo that they are based in (maybe a terrain improvement) that can be destroyed by enemy forces. This way you could launch a preemptive strike (either conventional or nuclear) to destroy another nations missile silos before they can be used... and this would make nuclear ballistic missile submerines useful as usually you dont know where they are until they fire their missiles.

3, New Wonders! As per Sevomod 2.9... Fairchild Republic Wonder lets the nation who builds it first build A10 Warthog unique Unit (A Strength 20 "fighter" with a 200% bonus vs tanks).
Lockheed Martin Wonder lets the nation who builds it first build F117 Nighthawks (almost impossibe to intercept against).

4, General gameplay improvements:

Planes can sink ships. Ships can bombard land units along the coast and destroy land terrain imrovements. The AI builds ICBMs and SLBMs and actually knows how to use them. Bringback those things from Civ 3 which defended cities from naval attack (shore forts or something). Get rid of sam infantry and replace with AAA unit (anti aircraft artillery). Air Supperiority Fighters and interceptors can perform an "escort mission" to protect bombers. All aircraft should be able to scramble to protect a city under attack (in otherwords they get to fight as defenders).

 

[boneys26]

I think civ4 team fell asleep while doing sea and air units/programming as we can research rocketry but have nothing untill ICBM to show for it.. and as for sea they have almost no use in the game apart from transports, carriers are ok but dont hold enough planes, subs are no good they used to be when you could load the with tactical nukes/cruise missiles, destroyers and battleships have almost no use at all unless by chance you get to see a transport heading your way..

While Im on the subject, there should be a diplomatic penalty for using nuclear weapons from everyone, not just the person you nuked. AND THE AIs HAVE TO LEARN HOW TO USE THEM! ICBMs should need a building called a nuclear silo that they are based in (maybe a terrain improvement) that can be destroyed by enemy forces. This way you could launch a preemptive strike (either conventional or nuclear) to destroy another nations missile silos before they can be used... and this would make nuclear ballistic missile submerines useful as usually you dont know where they are until they fire their missiles

I love this Idea