Enhanced Naval Warfare for Vox Populi

[pineappledan]

The names are a bit repetitive with the Melee line of ships: Destroyer > Modern Destroyer > Missile Destroyer > Advanced Destroyer > Adjective Destroyer

Missile Destroyer is also contemporaneous with the Missile Cruiser. Using the same descriptor for two units at the same time like that isn't great for clarity or uniqueness.

I have some suggestions for how to change this up:

Destroyer - rename to Torpedo Boat and change the unit model

currently uses a Wickes-Class destroyer model (American - active from 1918-1946)
new model: A Schichau-class torpedo boat (Austrian - active from 1888-1940)
Benefits:

Torpedo boats predate destroyers as the small, agile combat ship to counterbalance the big gun cruisers and capital ships
In fact, Destroyers were invented to stop torpedo boats; the name "Destroyers" is a shortening of "Torpedo Boat Destroyer", or TPD.
Provides a more elegant transition to Destroyers, and it cuts down on the repetitive naming
side benefit is this also adds a bit of national diversity to the base units. There aren't any Austrian ships in the game yet, and the current Destroyer, modern destroyer, and missile destroyer are all American models.
​

Rename Modern Destroyer to just Destroyer

With the destroyer replaced with Torpedo boat, the Atomic-Era melee unit can just be called a Destroyer again
​

Rename the Missile Destroyer to Aegis Combat Ship

Current model is a Ticonderoga-class missile cruiser, it's technically a capital ship, and not a DDG (guided missile destroyer)
The Aegis Combat System (ACS) is an integrated naval weapons system that has been used on 113 ships of 13 different designs and designations from 1981 to the present day
The USS Ticonderoga is the first ship to have used this weapons system, and thus is synonymous with the ACS​

Remove the Advanced Destroyer

The Missile Destroyer/ACS is unlocked in information era, and the Advanced Destroyer (AD) is unlocked in the same era, so there are 2 units in this same line in a single era
the AD is really, really late, unlocking on the last tech line. It unlocks after the GDR; I can't imagine how this unit ever gets to be used
Since it's too late to be buildable or usable, and there is already another Naval Melee unit class unlocked in the same era, all the AD does is add clutter, both to the "Destroyer" naming scheme, and to the late era tech tree. I think this mod would be improved by simply trimming this bit of fat.
​

With those changes, ENW would go from 4 Destroyers to 1.

 

[balparmak]

I like them all, it's minor but I've always been bothered by x, y, z Destroyers. If I can suggest one thing, can we think another name instead of Aegis? Maybe something in the way of Computerized Combat Ship? There's also the Littoral Combat Ship. but that's a bit different. Aannd maybe instead of getting removed, advanced destroyer can be replaced with a sci-fi unit like GDR, but noone plays that far anyway.

 

[pineappledan]

I would disagree with putting 2 units in the same line into a single era, no matter what era that was. Maybe that's just me, but even ignoring the fact that the advanced destroyer will probably never be built, it's cramping the missile destroyer.

re: “aegis”, an IRL destroyer using the Aegis Combat System is called a DDG, but that’s not a great name. I like that Aegis Combat System and Aegis Combat Ship has the same initials (ACS) and, unless you’re looking at Soviet designs, any destroyer design from the last 50 years uses ACS or something similar. I think emphasizing that it’s an ACS ship helps de emphasize the destroyer part. It’s also just a cool name

i don’t like littoral combat ship, because it sort of implies the unit can’t fight in deep ocean. Also, the LCS program has been shuttered, the designs are largely considered a failure

 

[Tekamthi]

I prefer the naming suggested by PD -- if advanced destroyer is retained, consider "littoral combat ship"

edit: already suggested above, though seems to fit best at this late stage imo

 

[Rekk]

The Aegis Combat System (ACS) is an integrated naval weapons system that has been used on 113 ships of 13 different designs and designations from 1981 to the present day

A proprietary system used only by American allies. I too would rather a different name to avoid naming another Tercio.

Torpedo Boats were first made in the 1870s, in the era of ironclads. Torpedo Boat Destroyers started being built in the 1880s, and they effectively obsoleted the torpedo boats' function by ...1890. They were never equipped with anti-submarine or anti-air capabilities, both of which our naval melee are designed fulfill (and appear in the era; currently in VP, there is no submarine, and aircraft are uncontested, although ENW changes this).
Also, presenting the Schichau as if it was functional until 1944 is a little on the nose; they were all converted into minesweepers (lacking any torpedos) by 1913.

I assume renaming Cruiser or Missile Cruiser is next, along with the submarine and airplane lines.

 

[Tekamthi]

though i agree aegis cruiser is akin to another tercio, it has a well-established place in civ franchise (2 & 3 iirc).

 

[Rekk]

I prefer the naming suggested by PD -- if advanced destroyer is retained, consider "littoral combat ship"

edit: already suggested above, though seems to fit best at this late stage imo

I think these ships are going in the wrong direction in both power and range. These are
Corvettes meant to be fighting in coastal waters.

 

[phantomaxl1207]

@pineappledan
We need better compatibility between ENW and 3/4 UC. As it now, 3/4 UC UU Naval Units use the current naval unit lines for when they obsolete. This should be all the Naval UU's.
Armada obsolete at Combustion when it should be at Radio
Baochuan obsolete at Electronics when it should be at Radio
Amazonas and Monitor obsolete at Advanced Ballistics when it should be at Nuclear Fission
Yamatos obsolete at Lasers when they (probably) shouldn't

 

[balparmak]

There are Chinese ships with similar systems though, but there isn't a set term for them. They either go by "Chinese Aegis" informally, or sth like "guided missile destroyers with computerized weapon systems and phased radars". It's all fault of military pundits, they are getting lazy & unimaginative, so it's on us to find a proper term I suggested computerized but I know it isn't a great fit as computers have been used in the navy for a long time, but I don't know how to highlight the integrated nature of the ship's operation. Don't get me wrong though, I still think Aegis is an improvement and I'm totally fine with it.

I would disagree with putting 2 units in the same line into a single era, no matter what era that was. Maybe that's just me, but even ignoring the fact that the advanced destroyer will probably never be built, it's cramping the missile destroyer.

re: “aegis”, an IRL destroyer using the Aegis Combat System is called a DDG, but that’s not a great name. I like that Aegis Combat System and Aegis Combat Ship has the same initials (ACS) and, unless you’re looking at Soviet designs, any destroyer design from the last 50 years uses ACS or something similar. I think emphasizing that it’s an ACS ship helps de emphasize the destroyer part. It’s also just a cool name

i don’t like littoral combat ship, because it sort of implies the unit can’t fight in deep ocean. Also, the LCS program has been shuttered, the designs are largely considered a failure

 

[pineappledan]

It's used only by American allies. I too would rather a different name to avoid naming another Tercio.

Tough one, because there's only a handful of nations building modern warships. The Aegis system is at least used by several nations, and doesn't sound as silly or awkward as "computer boat". It was also the first really good integrated naval weapons system for this new era of missile warfare, it's been going strong for 40 years now, with multiple nations making their own ships and designs incorporating the system, and basically every non-ACS ship built by not-America's-friends is running an Aegis knockoff. (in the case of China, I give good odds they literally are just running ACS that they stole, because that's how China rolls)

Littoral combat ship is definitely the wrong direction though. Not only are they not covering the same fleet roll as destroyers, the whole program was shuttered in 20 years. The idea of LCS was a boondoggle.

Torpedo Boats were first made in the 1870s, in the era of ironclads. Torpedo Boat Destroyers started being built in the 1880s, and they effectively obsoleted the torpedo boats' function by ...1890. They were never equipped with anti-submarine or anti-air capabilities, both of which our naval melee are designed fulfill (and appear in the era; currently in VP, there is no submarine, and aircraft are uncontested, although ENW changes this).

You could kind of see torpedo boats as more a stage in the evolution of submarines, because their rolls are more continuous. This isn't really reflected in Civ 5, but torpedo boats and early fleet/patrol subs like in WWI and WWII are as close to "melee ships" as you're going to get in those eras. Torpedos were very hard to aim and slow, which is why fast, maneuverable ships that could get in close and "knife-fight" with a big capital ship was a tactic. The German Submarine doctine in both world wars was to find a convoy, sail in front of it, sit submerged in the convoy's path until the ships were all around you, and then surface in the midst of all the ships and let loose with deck guns. real in-your-face fighting. So while I don't think torpedo boats are a perfectly smooth progression into destroyers, torpedo boats are absolutely "melee" ships, and destroyers are what directly replaced them (and sort of took over some of the old TB's roles).

Modern Era is more than just WWI, as evidenced by the Dreadnought being the Modern Era ranged ship. Torpedo boats became more widespread with the advent of all-big-gun dreadnoughts, which necessitated smaller escort boats with smaller guns to pick off torpedo boats before they could get in range with their torpedoes to knock out a capital ship. I think that progression of naval warfare is kept well intact with this change, and actually shows the evolution in naval tactics better than the current line.

As you say, torpedo boats predate planes, and were pretty much obsolete before WWI, though they did see a bit of action. Not sure what to really do about this. Pretty much all naval combat technology, even going back all the way to classical/ancient, is marching by the beat of its own drum relative to the other techs going on in the rest of the game. Dromons are more of a medieval ship, caravels and galleasses are so thoroughly Renaissance era IRL that their places on the Civ 5 tech tree are both centuries off. Then Industrial and Modern Era hits and there is a span of about 30 years where naval military technology and gunnery develops so fast that the next 50 years is just incremental changes in tactics and slightly better engines, until aircraft carriers basically render all boats obsolete. There's not really an easy way to capture that state of affairs in game and still have a fun, era-to-era progression of military units. Torpedo Boats are demonstrative of a time in naval history that was so dynamic that entire combat roles could blink in and out of existence in a single decade.

I assume renaming Cruiser or Missile Cruiser is next.

Nah, I have no problem with that. It's just two, and Dreadnought/Battleship breaks them up at least. It's not as bad as 4 w/x/y/z destroyers in sequential order. Sub/attack sub/nuclear sub is way worse than cruiser, but still better than the destroyer situation, and I have no qualms about that one either.

 

[Rekk]

They either go by "Chinese Aegis" informally,

Don't believe everything you read on Wikipedia .

 

[Rekk]

I could see torpedo boat as an industrial era sub. That would keep the progression intact.

 

[pineappledan]

though i agree aegis cruiser is akin to another tercio, it has a well-established place in civ franchise (2 & 3 iirc).

I had to look this up, because I didn't even know that. Yup, they were in both civ 2 and in civ 3 (weirdly in all caps though? It's not an acronym). The Aegis cruiser is also in Red Alert 2; the in-game unit model is based off of a Soviet Nanuchka-class corvette, of all things

 

[MorphBer]

I love this mod, thanks to everyone involved.

I checked the upgrade cost, should it be the same, when you sum up the whole line? Otherwise it's a unintended buff to buffs regarding upgrade costs and bad for notoriously broke civs (eg Tradition)

 

[adan_eslavo]

Seems like recent VP updates broke the mod a bit:

[25406.478] columns Language, Tag are not unique
[25406.478] While executing - 'insert into Language_en_US('Tag', 'Text') values (?, ?);'
[25406.478] In XMLSerializer while inserting row into table insert into Language_en_US('Tag', 'Text') with  values (TXT_KEY_PROMOTION_ANTI_SUBMARINE_I_HELP, Attack vs Submarines +33% [ICON_STRENGTH][NEWLINE]Defense vs Submarines +25% [ICON_STRENGTH], ).
[25406.478] In XMLSerializer while updating table Language_en_US from file Shared/ENW_txt.xml.
[25406.478] columns Language, Tag are not unique
[25409.754] Validating Foreign Key Constraints...
[25416.868] Invalid Reference on UnitPromotions.PediaEntry - "TXT_KEY_PROMOTION_DIVE_I" does not exist in Language_en_US
[25416.868] Invalid Reference on UnitPromotions.PediaEntry - "TXT_KEY_PROMOTION_DIVE_II" does not exist in Language_en_US
[25417.024] Invalid Reference on UnitPromotions.Help - "TXT_KEY_PROMOTION_DIVE_I_HELP" does not exist in Language_en_US
[25417.024] Invalid Reference on UnitPromotions.Help - "TXT_KEY_PROMOTION_DIVE_II_HELP" does not exist in Language_en_US
[25417.164] Invalid Reference on UnitPromotions.Description - "TXT_KEY_PROMOTION_DIVE_I" does not exist in Language_en_US
[25417.164] Invalid Reference on UnitPromotions.Description - "TXT_KEY_PROMOTION_DIVE_II" does not exist in Language_en_US

 

[danymatrix]

It would be very important to update it for vp 2.6. thanks in advance.

 

[N.Core]

Here's the fix. Copy it to the Shared folder in ENW mod folder.
About updating this mod, the community is actually is in talks about integrating some of this mod components into VP in some way.

Seems like recent VP updates broke the mod a bit:

[25406.478] columns Language, Tag are not unique
[25406.478] While executing - 'insert into Language_en_US('Tag', 'Text') values (?, ?);'
[25406.478] In XMLSerializer while inserting row into table insert into Language_en_US('Tag', 'Text') with  values (TXT_KEY_PROMOTION_ANTI_SUBMARINE_I_HELP, Attack vs Submarines +33% [ICON_STRENGTH][NEWLINE]Defense vs Submarines +25% [ICON_STRENGTH], ).
[25406.478] In XMLSerializer while updating table Language_en_US from file Shared/ENW_txt.xml.
[25406.478] columns Language, Tag are not unique
[25409.754] Validating Foreign Key Constraints...
[25416.868] Invalid Reference on UnitPromotions.PediaEntry - "TXT_KEY_PROMOTION_DIVE_I" does not exist in Language_en_US
[25416.868] Invalid Reference on UnitPromotions.PediaEntry - "TXT_KEY_PROMOTION_DIVE_II" does not exist in Language_en_US
[25417.024] Invalid Reference on UnitPromotions.Help - "TXT_KEY_PROMOTION_DIVE_I_HELP" does not exist in Language_en_US
[25417.024] Invalid Reference on UnitPromotions.Help - "TXT_KEY_PROMOTION_DIVE_II_HELP" does not exist in Language_en_US
[25417.164] Invalid Reference on UnitPromotions.Description - "TXT_KEY_PROMOTION_DIVE_I" does not exist in Language_en_US
[25417.164] Invalid Reference on UnitPromotions.Description - "TXT_KEY_PROMOTION_DIVE_II" does not exist in Language_en_US

 

[adan_eslavo]

I hope they do it soon. I was present on the forum like two months ago and then it was also analysed Did it move further?
Thanks for update.

 

[Jdoug312]

Here's the fix. Copy it to the Shared folder in ENW mod folder.
About updating this mod, the community is actually is in talks about integrating some of this mod components into VP in some way.

Is this fix save-game compatible?

 

[adan_eslavo]

Is this fix save-game compatible?

Rather not. Database changes.