Hopes for Increased Naval Importance

[Victus]

Bare with me, I only have Civ 3 and haven't been playing too too long, but I think this idea could work.

So as it is now, building more than a few ships is meaningless. They can come in handy when an enemy transport is getting close to your land, but beyond that they're almost useless in a military capacity.

I would personally like to have some epic naval battles that decide the outcome of the game, wars or even lesser things. Right now it's almost impossible to so much as find other Civ's on the high seas.

One of the issues already mentioned in the thread has been that in the vast seas (especially on continental or archipeligo maps), bumping in to another Civ's ship is quite a rare event (for me at least).

So to fix this it was suggested that that water tiles be diversified, to offer more tactical options to players.

My idea for new tiles would be tiles that could go on top of the exsisting tiles. These 'current' tiles would provide a significant movement bonus. They would be monodirectional (ex: bonus only when going west to east, not east to west for a single current, north to south for anotehr, etc). These tiles would be found in generally narrow lines. usually leading between land masses and occasianlly dissappating into the open sea. These would create optional sea lanes for faster travel. The AI, of course, would favor these more efficient Currents much of the time, greatly increasing the odds of encountering enemy ships.

Another possible use for Currents would be to change the trading system so that trade can only cross Current tiles (currents would have to be moderatly common for this to create a global trade network (personally I would prefer if not all Currents were interconnected, rather they should as a rule all be connected via coastal or ocean tiles in my opinion). Blockades would be much easier to enforce (blocking off all Currents leading a Civ would be far easier than blocking off entire Seas).


Anyways that's the jist of it. Questions, comments?

 

[Meleager]

Victus, You currnets idea would not work in the early game because ships cannot travel off coast squares. Appart from that it sounds like it could be interesting. I am not sure about the trade only going through currents thought as it would still require alot of ships to completely embargo a nation.

 

[Victus]

Victus, You currnets idea would not work in the early game because ships cannot travel off coast squares. Appart from that it sounds like it could be interesting. I am not sure about the trade only going through currents thought as it would still require alot of ships to completely embargo a nation.

I almost feel like makind a creud diagram because I'm not sure if I can explain it in words alone.

I'm not sure I understand your first point regarding ship movements in the early game. The Current tiles would be 'on top of' other water tiles. Like the tiles immediatly around land are still Coastal tiles, the Current-Coastal tiles simply have the Current movement bonus added on. In Ancient times ships can only move on coastal tiles, including coastal-current tiles. They're basically the same tiles but with a movement bonus (maybe indicated by an arrow or something?)

As for the difficulty of enforcing a blockade, I was thinking that Currents would be fairly common place close to land, but become a bit larger, but far fewer as you move out into the Sea. So blocking off sea trade might be hard for very large Civ's, but on the whole better than the CivIII method.

I'll probably make a crappy digram in paint and post it in an edit to this post soon.

 

[Aussie_Lurker]

I think the point, Meleager, is that in the early game (especially now that we have coastal terrain improvements) the coast-locked nature of early vessels will ensure a greater number of naval battles in the earliest parts of the game.
Later on, though, having special sea and ocean tiles which represent the major sea-lanes of a world will be of VITAL importance for battles during the Colonial age and beyond. Such tiles could represent the Gulf Stream of the Atlantic, or the Trade Winds of the Pacific. Essentially, controlling these vital sea lanes would be VERY important in terms of both economic and military dominance of the High Seas-and will make naval combat over them (or just within them) much more likely!!

Yours,
Aussie_Lurker.

 

[Meleager]

I get the point of the idea. All I said was that it woudn't work (make any difference) to the early game since players are already ristriced to certian sea lanes (i.e coast squares). I also said that you would still need to seal off a large area to hold an effective embargo.

I understand the idea. Why are you trying to explain the idea. I get it, I am just commenting on it. I even like the idea. I was just making some points.

 

[Aussie_Lurker]

No need to get tetchy, Meleager-we're all friends here . If you like the idea, then thats fine-I just misread what you were saying in your last post (it sounded like you HATED the idea, but that was just how it appeared!)

Yours,
Aussie_Lurker.

 

[Victus]

It's true, this probably won't have an enormous impact on Ancient Times naval combat. To be honest the limitation to the 1-2 tiles surrounding land will just kill any tactics or thinking behind ancient naval battles IMO.

Anyways here's a basic diagram to help any readers visualize.

I don't think much of a description is needed. Hopefully all landmasses of all sizes would be connected tothe world by a Current.

 

[seveb33]

I think that is a great idea, Victus. Especially because it would make the high seas "smaller" by causing more maritime congestion. I wonder if that could be modded in. It seems like that concept would need to be implemented by someone far more skilled than me.

 

[Victus]

Indeed. It would be nice if they could put it in for Civ IV, but I'm biased since it's my idea. It would make the world smaller, but limit the possibilities (you can have your fleet crawl across the seas if you want to, perhaps to keep them hidden.

 

[Ramalhão]

I'm with Meleager. The currents idea is good, but to implemente this idea may be hard, and the playability may be not good.

I prefer the idea of having ships going faster at ocean squares. On coastal tiles, there is a risk of ships hitting a reef or a rock. So ships should go slower at coastal tiles and go faster in sea and ocean tiles, no matter the currents.

Someone may say something about icebergs. Then there must be "polar sea" tiles where ships go as slow as in coastal tiles.

What do you think?

 

[Vilati Timmadar]

Incorrect- The navy has been the vital factor where ever it has been used. Because the navy can cut off the flow of resources, they can control what resources can come in or leave. Resources are the key to survivial in any nation that is not self suffient in any long term war.

Right. BUT - that means that you need water supply lines. If you have none to protect or attack - your navy is pretty useless. And there are many wars where the navy is not important.

Don't get me wrong - naval power is one deciding factor in a war - but it is not the deciding factor. This will always be the Army. You can kill off all enemy ships and blow the **** out of there coast defenses. But unless you conquer it with troops that's pretty much useless.

Look at Pearl Harbor on dec 7th, 1941: A big strike of the Japanese fleet against the American. Lots of battleships destroyed. But Hawaii was not captured. Imagine an invasion force had taken Hawaii after the attack - now, THAT would've made a MAJOR difference in the war.

They (the soviets) were really a only a local superpower until they developed naval power which allowed them to project force.

Depends on how you define "local". I'd say that Europe and Asia and much influence in middle-/south-america (like Cuba) and Africa (like Angola) are not "local"...and with their ICBMs they were able to strike anywhere...that's not a local power...

Both of the Axis Powers had control of the water in the beginning.

Wrong. Germany never controlled any waters. With an average of 10-20 subs in the whole Atlantic and two rogue battleships harrassing allied supply ships they were never near "control"...the superiority of Germany from 1939-1941 was caused by tanks and aircrafts.
With Japan, you're of course right - my mistake.


All I want to say is - don't outbalance the game because of the Navy. Nowadays, the Navy is really important. Missile subs and aircraft carriers are very powerful weapons platforms. But go 100 years back, or 1000. A lone dreadnought or a frigate can't turn the tide of a war in a continental conflict like France vs. Prussia (1806) or in the 30-year-war (1618-1648).

 

[searcheagle]

Right. BUT - that means that you need water supply lines. If you have none to protect or attack - your navy is pretty useless.

That's why I'm for such a system.

And there are many wars where the navy is not important.

I never said it was important in EVERY war. I said for short wars, it is usually not a factor- such as the wars Israel was involved in the 60s-70s.

Don't get me wrong - naval power is one deciding factor in a war - but it is not the deciding factor. This will always be the Army. You can kill off all enemy ships and blow the **** out of there coast defenses. But unless you conquer it with troops that's pretty much useless.

Look at Pearl Harbor on dec 7th, 1941: A big strike of the Japanese fleet against the American. Lots of battleships destroyed. But Hawaii was not captured. Imagine an invasion force had taken Hawaii after the attack - now, THAT would've made a MAJOR difference in the war.

Agreed. The Army provides a quick death, however, it requires ability to get the power to site.
The navy provides a slow death, as they slowly use up their resources and requires more resources.
The Air Force is a temporary Trump card.

Depends on how you define "local". I'd say that Europe and Asia and much influence in middle-/south-america (like Cuba) and Africa (like Angola) are not "local"...and with their ICBMs they were able to strike anywhere...that's not a local power...

Many of the locations that you mentioned illustrated espionage missons, where a they supported other governments, not outright declared war and captured them. Intelligence missions are quite different from military ones. Any intelligence agent can book a flight anywhere, and the likelihood is, they will reach their destination and be able to cause a little bit of turmoil before the authorities realize it.

Virtual prescence, the type that ICBMs and Long Range Bombers have is not a true prescence. Sure, you can attack anywhere but its not the same. Do you really want to Nuke a fishing boat? or use a Multi Million Dollar missile on it? Especially, when you arent sure if it is even breaking the embargo you are setting up?

Wrong. Germany never controlled any waters. With an average of 10-20 subs in the whole Atlantic and two rogue battleships harrassing allied supply ships they were never near "control"...the superiority of Germany from 1939-1941 was caused by tanks and aircrafts.
With Japan, you're of course right - my mistake.

I think you are understanding the importance subs had for the German Navy. They were highly successful in the early days at destroying Allied-especially American Shipping. Without Allied shipping, there would have been no American Assistance. Without American Assistance, there would have been no British supplies and woudl have caused their surrender.

All I want to say is - don't outbalance the game because of the Navy. Nowadays, the Navy is really important. Missile subs and aircraft carriers are very powerful weapons platforms. But go 100 years back, or 1000. A lone dreadnought or a frigate can't turn the tide of a war in a continental conflict like France vs. Prussia (1806) or in the 30-year-war (1618-1648).

Well, thats not a fair comparison. Very few units work well in isolation. Tank groups arent made up of a single units, as are Fighters, as are even a single infantry man.

I agree that the navy is usually less of a factor in Continental disputes. However, this is not even always the case. The American Civil War, a continental dispute, was a big factor. THe south was resource poor and depended on Resources and material from Britian. The North cut that off, making the South unable to get their resources.

 

[HoCkster]

Bear with me, Civ III has 3 map modes, a percentage ocean multiplier and land formation catharthis when forming maps. I think the major problem here is that probably 7-10% of civ players actually *play* Earthly maps on which the such the British empire could flourish.... ,the way Civ generates mid-large continent or any pangea map is *so* in dire oposition to anything like the current planetary continental makeup that of *course* it's going to produce different results....

Personally, I've always found the battleship bombard value quite handy. BTW, it's a **** of a lot more than a stealth bomber, ever noticed?

If you quantified naval vessels per head of population in WWII you would just find that Britain had 200 ships to every hundred of everyone elses from every other country.. it's no *mystery* why she ruled the sea. If you want to replicate britain on an archipilaego (Earth) map then simply build the battleships/destroyers up to a level where you have more than every other civilisation combined.

Otherwise, stop complaining!

 

[Meleager]

Wrong. Germany never controlled any waters. With an average of 10-20 subs in the whole Atlantic and two rogue battleships harrassing allied supply ships they were never near "control"...the superiority of Germany from 1939-1941 was caused by tanks and aircrafts.

Do you have any idea how effective the german naval power was in ww2!??

Thousands of ships were sunk in the atlantic and most where only a few hunderd miles of of the eastern sea board! (Edit: if you want proof of germany's naval power look at some of the statistics earlier in this thread)

And pearl harbor DID have a huge effect on the war. It just wasn't huge enought. (I would also like to add that it was the US naval power that won that war, not its armies).

While it is true that wars cannot be won by Navies or Air Forces alone, it is getting to the point where they cannot be won by Armies alone either.

 

[Vilati Timmadar]

Guys, I know how effective the german subs were.

But there was NEVER a chance, that they could control the oceans. They were able to destroy a lot of cargo ships, but that was mainly due to the lack of defense by the allies. It took some time until they got it right. When the British ended the close-formation-defense and patrolled in wide circles around the convoys, the allied losses sank...

When the Americans entered the war, it was a "Golden Age" for the german subs (in 1942), because the Americans had no experience. After that changed, the "Golden Age" stopped. Technology ended the chances of the subs in 1943.

They sank a lot of ships, but they were never able to control the seas. In a duel between a destroyer and a sub, the destroyer was always superior. The sub can't outfight the destroyer, it can't outrun it, it can just hide. You should watch "Das Boot"...

Also, Germany was no match for the Allies in case of aircraft carriers (many to none), battleships (many to few) and Naval Aircrafts (many to few). There were just the subs - but with subs alone you can't control oceans. You can just disrupt supply lines for a while...

 

[Harbringer]

increase the movement of ships to, often in histroy it was much faster to have troops move in transports alongthe coast than have them march on land.Also when a ship is destroyed it should have a fifty percent chance of abandoningship,youlget like sailor units or something for doing it.

 

[searcheagle]

Guys, I know how effective the german subs were.

But there was NEVER a chance, that they could control the oceans. They were able to destroy a lot of cargo ships, but that was mainly due to the lack of defense by the allies. It took some time until they got it right. When the British ended the close-formation-defense and patrolled in wide circles around the convoys, the allied losses sank...

Submarine, in RL, not like in civ were the biggest threat to cargo. I think submarines should be able to work in Wolf packs like what the Germans did with their U-boats in WW II.

I am surprised at how much you are underestimating the effectiveness of submarines that were operated by the Germans. Until the allies developed countermeasures for the Subs, the German subs were the biggest threat to allied cargo.

They sank a lot of ships, but they were never able to control the seas. In a duel between a destroyer and a sub, the destroyer was always superior. The sub can't outfight the destroyer, it can't outrun it, it can just hide. You should watch "Das Boot"...

You are misunderstanding the definition of control. By the Germans mantaining the submarines ability to strike anywhere at anytime, they had control of the water. When the allies took the ability of Germans to strike, they gained control. This striking ability, this freedom of movement, is what determines control, not superiority of firepower.

Your analysis of combat with the destroyer is also incorrect. The advantage of a submarine is that it gets the first shot. It attacks before anyone else knows it is there. A submarine can chose to attack the destroyer or the cargo ship or Carrier. The reason the submarines do bad defensively is they have worked themselves into a situation where they are outnumbered. If they went in and had even numbers, the battle would turn out quite differently.

Also, Germany was no match for the Allies in case of aircraft carriers (many to none), battleships (many to few) and Naval Aircrafts (many to few). There were just the subs - but with subs alone you can't control oceans. You can just disrupt supply lines for a while...

You can disrupt supply lines forever. That's an important part of the US victory in the Pacific. The subs, similar in fashion to what the Germans tried to do in the Atlantic, disrupted Japan's supply of resources from China and with that forced Japan into a strategy of suicide attacks.

 

[Superkrest]

to conclude that navies arent important by citing that germany didnt have a huge one is nuts...who lost that war. if germany had been holding large amounts of off shore resources..it would have ended quicker..also the fail in north africa with far superior troops and leadership because there supplies couldnt get there....as i said before...regional superpower...a navy may not be need..but to be a domanating super power....you for sure need one...if china with is massivly superior numbers wanted to war with the us....where would it be fought? the battle for the ocean would end quick and the war would fought(even if lost. no american civilians would be invaded) in china leading to way more troubles for them