Do you like the new embarkation?

[Sonereal]

i can thought out a little more.
1. number of simultaneously ebarked units is limited to number of harbors. say harbors*4.
2. to embark a unit, that is, to move it to a sea plot, that plot has to have a connection by sea with any city with harbor.

Wait, at what tech does Harbor become available again? Harbor*2 sounds reasonable if cities*2 is implemented with it. Less restrictive but having a harbor or two can help things greatly.

 

[Jediron]

The whole "unit" approach is flawed to begin with. Not only with CIV 5, but with all CIV's!
In CIv 5 it does get worse, with the 1upt approach.

Why?
Did Alexander conquered his neighbours with a few pike units ? O a few horses ?
Did Julius Caesar conquered Gaul with solely footsolders, aka Legion (cohorts would be the better word, Legions DID muster sword/spear/archer and cavalry). Etc.etc.etc.

So what do you have ?"I say: "just a bunch of Units", which, if you imagine it, looks like a "army" when you put some of those units side by side. A crippled army, where everybody have to wait for that one unit to do "it's turn. How tactical is that ?

No, the best approach, for micromanening AND 1upt = Armees & Fleets!
Units were used to scout and explore, Army's for waging war. This has been true for ages...
So, they should have enhance the Army's used in CIVIII (iv?) and expanded that to fleets too.
F"lexible army's and fleets, sort of you see in TW, with a General afcource, what is a army without it ? (or Admiral, for sea fleets).

 

[Sox]

Big point about embarkation was in a talk someone posted here by Soren Johnson, embarkation makes AI naval invasions somewhat feasible. With game AI, it's really hard to coordinate how many transports to bring, how many ships to keep around them, etc... But embarkation, it doesn't change the pathing algorithms too much. Really, even if it's a bit worse for us players, if it makes the AI more competent, it's worth it.

This.

And I how is it that not this thread is about that?

Even if I personally hate the new style I can get used to it and it´s not a make or break for me.

However...

With the state of the AI today they would probably need some kind of stargate or portal to make a real naval invasion, well any invasion really...

 

[Generals3]

Ok, first I was kind of excited to learn that Civ5 would have "automatic" embarkation for units that have the necessary tech, but now I'm not sure if I like it.

It's maybe simpler that you don't need to build the galleys/transports yourself, but in a way I feel it takes away some epicness of the navy.

(I'm currently playing Civ IV archipelago map with Vikings, and I had a crazy invasion into zululand where I pillaged the lands and disappeared into the night with half of my invaders left dead.)

Now I'm building an even larger terror fleet, and now when I really need to build the galleys myself, it gives me the feeling that there's a grand invasion coming and I need to take time and effort to build my fleet, so when it's ready it feels more epic/important in a way.

I kinda understand that some people don't want the trouble to build the transports themselves, but for me it actually adds to the atmosphere of the game and when the coastal cities are pumping out transports they can't be building other stuff, so there's a bit more consequences too.

Personally i dislike it . It's ok for an RTS like Rise of Nations but it doesn't fit a civ game to my opinion. It merely makes over-seas operations more tedious and i just liked transport ships overall . Nothing more epic as the feeling you have when unloading your transport ships .

 

[Bad Brett]

This is so fascinating... Civ 5 lovers praise the SP system because now you need to "think ahead" and cannot switch back and forth. Yet the biggest complaint against the transports was that it was so tedious to plan a naval assault.

Building transports were another tactical aspect of the game that they removed. Should I hurry and build only two transports, land my units on a forrested hill and wait for re-inforcements? In that cases, which units should I bring first? Or should I spend time on building ten transports that probably only will be used once?

 

[Sonereal]

Building transports were another tactical aspect of the game that they removed. Should I hurry and build only two transports, land my units on a forrested hill and wait for re-inforcements? In that cases, which units should I bring first? Or should I spend time on building ten transports that probably only will be used once?

Building transports isn't a tactical decision. It's a strategic decision.

 

[Bad Brett]

Building transports isn't a tactical decision. It's a strategic decision.

Oops. Sorry my mistake.

 

[Toulouse]

For now there is no way to protect the land troops even by escorting them.

This is an enormously stupid gameplay decision. Classic example of a predetermined design feature (1upt) trumping common sense and the interests of good game play.

 

[Sonereal]

This is an enormously stupid gameplay decision. Classic example of a predetermined design feature (1upt) trumping common sense and the interests of good game play.

It's scarily easy to protect troop transports though. If you're doing your job right, your navy should've wiped out 99% of the opposing navy by now and should be blockading the ports of nearby cities.

 

[TheHarshax]

I kinda wish there was some kind of unit that could go in your naval vessel just for the purpose of taking encampments and ruins. Hell, being able to carry a scout in naval units would be kind of awesome... just to get them there faster and to help explore...

Send in the Marines


Semper Fidelis!

 

[Rohili]

This is an enormously stupid gameplay decision. Classic example of a predetermined design feature (1upt) trumping common sense and the interests of good game play.

It's hardly "impossible" to protect embarked troops. Just send a couple of naval units to pierce the fog ahead and at the flanks of your fleet. If you see a clear stretch of water for 8 tiles, then it would be impossible for an enemy destroyer to reach your units during the next turn.

In fact, in practice you probably need to scout fewer tiles than that, since the line of sight of enemy destroyers is more limited than their movement - meaning to say that they can't know that your units are passing through an area unless they are in the close vicinity.

The embarking system simply requires a different approach to protecting your land units. Instead of using naval units to surround your fleet (a highly stupid and inefficient method), you use naval units to scout ahead and eliminate potential threats along the route.

 

[Sir Sir]

I want the embarked units to be something you do when your out of transports (or in the case of the AI - don´t know how to use transports )

Embarked units should be vulnerable (as they have been made correctly) but I would be fine with a movement of just 1.

But I want transports back in the game also! And looking at the tech tree we are missing atleast 2-3 ocean unit types. Specially the gap with "Caravel-Frigate-Destroyer" (Ironclad my ass).

In the modern era there are plenty boat types for my taste. But I really wish it wouldnt just be Frigates shooting at eachother for 500 years :/

 

[Sonereal]

Apparently, the designers of Civ don't realized that there were coal-fired navies between the Civil War-era ironclads and WW2-era Destroyers.

If people are truly gungho about transports, why not do what they did in Hearts of Iron and make transports a build-able resource? That way you actually have to put some production into the making of transports that still forces you to think about it strategically since even once the unit disembarks, the transport resource is "gone".

 

[Bandit17]

Apparently, the designers of Civ don't realized that there were coal-fired navies between the Civil War-era ironclads and WW2-era Destroyers.

If people are truly gungho about transports, why not do what they did in Hearts of Iron and make transports a build-able resource? That way you actually have to put some production into the making of transports that still forces you to think about it strategically since even once the unit disembarks, the transport resource is "gone".

Exactly. If you want games based on realism go to Paradox. The civ series has never been so much about realism as it is about fun gameplay. ciV just moved a little more towards a streamlining aproach than cIV.

Micro-management is also very subjective and depends on the maps and personal play styles employed. I found loading transports in cIV to be cumbersome and I also find moving large amounts of troops in ciV to be cumbersome. At least in ciV the game itself has much less micro-management so maybe when it does crop up we notice it a little more.

Yes, the ai needs to be improved significantly in the area of naval matters among others. But I still like the new and different approach taken.

 

[bovinespy]

i can thought out a little more.
1. number of simultaneously ebarked units is limited to number of harbors. say harbors*4.
2. to embark a unit, that is, to move it to a sea plot, that plot has to have a connection by sea with any city with harbor.

Apparently, the designers of Civ don't realized that there were coal-fired navies between the Civil War-era ironclads and WW2-era Destroyers.

If people are truly gungho about transports, why not do what they did in Hearts of Iron and make transports a build-able resource? That way you actually have to put some production into the making of transports that still forces you to think about it strategically since even once the unit disembarks, the transport resource is "gone".

I think there's some merit to these suggestions. I would somewhat modify them by going back to the system that Panzer General had.

In PG, as I recall, you could disembark into any empty hex (except mountains, I think), but you could only embark in port hexes. Plus there was a fixed capacity in each map/scenario of the number of units you could have embarked at any one time. After a unit disembarks on land, the transport capacity is freed up and another unit can then embark.

I would suggest in CiV that the ability to build transports be brought back - sort of. I would keep embarkation as it is now, except that: 1) units can only embark from coastal cities (or perhaps adjacent "suburban" coastal tiles, to relieve congestion), and 2) there is a limit to how many units you can have embarked at any one time - a transport capacity. You could expand this capacity by building "transports" that aren't actual separate units, but rather expand your transport capacity for each one built. In addition, if an embarked unit was sunk at sea, you would also lose a point of capacity.

Overall, as to the OP, I dislike it for the haphazardness & lack of immersion factors, but not strongly. However, I think with a few tweaks, I could end up liking it better than the "old school" transports.

 

[gingerbill]

I like it alot .

I like your units are vulnerable , you should have too control the sea to launch an amphibous assault . I think when your units land they shouldnt be able to move for 2 turns , or they are far weaker to attack the turn they land .

 

[Sonereal]

I would suggest in CiV that the ability to build transports be brought back - sort of. I would keep embarkation as it is now, except that: 1) units can only embark from coastal cities (or perhaps adjacent "suburban" coastal tiles, to relieve congestion), and 2) there is a limit to how many units you can have embarked at any one time - a transport capacity. You could expand this capacity by building "transports" that aren't actual separate units, but rather expand your transport capacity for each one built. In addition, if an embarked unit was sunk at sea, you would also lose a point of capacity.

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.

 

[Snapp]

Its good and bad IMO, its great when you want to get your unit across a small area of water and go explore on the other side, but Its really tedious to defend a large army transport with your navy.

 

[bovinespy]

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.

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.

 

[CaptainKapow]

I love the new embarkation system. It's not perfect yet, but I believe the concept is well done.

It reduces the logistics of over-water invasions a lot.

I disagree with it being less epic. Imo, I find it more epic when I have a mass transport fleet that moves in and embarks along a large section of coastline in the course of an invasion.