Do you like the new embarkation?

[JLoZeppeli]

You know, this probably would work out pretty well. The transport capacity could be the buildable transport resource that determined how many you can have afloat at a time and having one sunk means you lose that resource forever so that way, you don't have to micromanage a ton of specialized transport units, you can harm your opponent by destroying their transport because you hurt their capacity to carry units later, and so on.

You have a lt of good ideas... And a lot of them are quite similar to mine... We need to build up a mod, recruti some good modder adn design it... Yet we need the modding tools, if they will be delivered one day or another..

 

[Sonereal]

You have a lt of good ideas... And a lot of them are quite similar to mine... We need to build up a mod, recruti some good modder adn design it... Yet we need the modding tools, if they will be delivered one day or another..

Totally should be I'm pretty much terrible at anything beyond XML at the moment.

 

[mmmfloorpie]

I hate the idea of embarkation. Using transports to tranport units across the sea is entirely logical. Just telling your unit to build a boat and jump into the water is ridiculous.

If this is an accepted piece of gameplay, why didn't they allow naval units like destroyers and caravels and etc to disembark and then they could travel across a continent on foot, then plop back down into a destroyer on the other side.

This makes sense right???

 

[ezwip]

I don't like the embarkation. It's just another one of the dumbed down features.

 

[eric_]

I mean, it's not like troops have ever crossed the sea in transport ships, no? Don't they typically embark on larger warships and then use transports to get from those to the shore? If so, then the most "realistic" solution would be to have troops embark on large warships and then disembark at their destination.

But, I like what they have done in ciV. It puts greater emphasis on naval warfare in its own right, rather than just a means for getting troops from a to b.

 

[Sonereal]

I hate the idea of embarkation. Using transports to tranport units across the sea is entirely logical. Just telling your unit to build a boat and jump into the water is ridiculous.

Complaining about logic in a game where theocracy gives happiness, forests don't grow, and leaders live for 6000 years is silly.

 

[AriochIV]

I don't like embarkation, but given 1upt, I don't know of any alternative. Being able to conduct a massive amphibious operation should require significant planning and investment in infrastructure.

 

[zimmah]

i think it's totaly unrealistic and also makes the game involve les strategy.

if you want to invade by sea, make sure you have a navy.

if you don't want a navy, play pangea.

 

[Sonereal]

I don't like embarkation, but given 1upt, I don't know of any alternative. Being able to conduct a massive amphibious operation should require significant planning and investment in infrastructure.

I thought the transportation capacity idea was pretty nice.

 

[mmmfloorpie]

Complaining about logic in a game where theocracy gives happiness, forests don't grow, and leaders live for 6000 years is silly.

Thanks for bringing up some more of the games weaknesses...

Remember when forests actually grew in previous Civ games?

You can't play a game if you die after 60 years of rule. You can play a game without embarkation.

 

[Bandit17]

Quick - let's call Jon Shafer!

But seriously, I doubt a system like this would come from Firaxis, in either a patch or expansion pack. It just seems to fly in the face of the new "streamlined" approach they're going with now, and would probably alienate casual gamers. I'd love to see it in a mod, though, if possible.

I agree. I too would love more per turn planning and strategy that would add more complexity to the game but ciV was not originally made to be complex with a 100 page manual. There are also way to many other features missing or broken to think that tweaking embarkation will come from Firaxis. I'm all for a strong mod community though!

 

[Sonereal]

You can't play a game if you die after 60 years of rule. You can play a game without embarkation.

You can play if your leader dies after 60 years of rule. Just set up a form of succession.

But that would mean that you would have to change leaders every 4 turns on marathon in the beginning....

Well, can't be that bad.

 

[Mad Hab]

I like the original 'transport vessels' system much more than 'embarkation'. But they said the AI would be better at managing sea invasions with embarkation, so I thought it could do the game more good than bad.

Until I managed to protect an island from Elizabeth using only one (latter, two) trireme all game long on deity level. If the AI continues to be unable to use the sea to move troops, I'd rather have the old system...

Cheers,

Mad Hab

 

[Vordeo]

I like embarkation, only change I'd make is counting all embarked units as civilian units, so warships can occupy the same hex (in effect escorting them).

 

[killmeplease]

combined ideas of mine and Sonereal

TRANSPORT CAPACITY
* cities, harbors and seaports provide transport capacity (+2 per coastal city, +4 per harbor, +4 per seaport).
* "Build transport vessels" option appears in coastal cities. Player can create no more transport vessels than transport capacity cap value.
* -1 transport vessel when embarked unit gets destroyed
* shore tile has to be connected by sea to any coastal city to perform embarkation on it.

 

[Teodosio]

i think it's totaly unrealistic and also makes the game involve les strategy.

I believe this is a common misconception that is biasing many people judgment on embarkment.
The historical truth is that more often than not troop carriers were not specifically-built ships but were makeshit vessels or private ships taken by the military.
I will provide just two examples in very different ages.

1. If you read Caesar's books you will see that his legions built makeshift troop carriers themselves and took some private ships too in order to cross both the Rhine and the English Channel.
2. During World War 2 the biggest and fastest troop carriers were civilian ocean liners taken by the military, example:
   http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RMS_Queen_Mary

So I would say 'realism' is actually an argument for embarkment

 

[Old Dood]

I like embarkation, only change I'd make is counting all embarked units as civilian units, so warships can occupy the same hex (in effect escorting them).

OR...At the very least:
They could be added to a group.
A Convoy with Naval Units (Destroyers & Subs mostly because the Battleships are way to SLOW) and you can set Zig-Zag Patterns.
That to me would be more realistic. Great Generals especially need some kind of protection.
For a Trireme to sink a modern day embarked unit is silly.
Automatic weapons of a Modern Day Unit could fend off an ancient wooden ship in my opinion.

Other then that I do like the Embarkation Units because it is far easier to 'Set Sail' then waiting around for a Transport type ship all the time.

 

[mmmfloorpie]

If one of your units ever gets in trouble, you can always just embark and melee units can't touch you. Then you sail down the coast and you are fine. Kinda lame IMO.

 

[eric_]

I believe this is a common misconception that is biasing many people judgment on embarkment.
The historical truth is that more often than not troop carriers were not specifically-built ships but were makeshit vessels or private ships taken by the military.
I will provide just two examples in very different ages.

1. If you read Caesar's books you will see that his legions built makeshift troop carriers themselves and took some private ships too in order to cross both the Rhine and the English Channel.
2. During World War 2 the biggest and fastest troop carriers were civilian ocean liners taken by the military, example:
   http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RMS_Queen_Mary

So I would say 'realism' is actually an argument for embarkment

That's the sound of logic flying in the face of civfanatics fundamentalism

 

[Wombleburger]

1. If you read Caesar's books you will see that his legions built makeshift troop carriers themselves and took some private ships too in order to cross both the Rhine and the English Channel.
2. During World War 2 the biggest and fastest troop carriers were civilian ocean liners taken by the military, example:
   http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RMS_Queen_Mary

So I would say 'realism' is actually an argument for embarkment

Okay, fair enough. Maybe makeshift troop carriers are fine in the earlier eras of the game, where warriors can lash together a raft to get them across a small bay.
But in later eras, should infantry and tanks be able to build themselves an ocean liner like the Queen Mary out of thin air to cross the ocean!?
Those civilian ocean liners had to be built in cities first.