[R&F] Improve naval warfare in Civilization VI

[MP | Moongazer]

*I know there are mods out there adding naval units, but they are just mods, I want it to be in the base game.

1. I see that naval warfare is an important aspect in a Civ game, due to the nature of the map (Earth is mostly covered by water). However I see that naval forces are not as diverse as land combat units in Civilization VI, so I want to adrdess some small adjustment to naval units ingame. In my opinion, the navy strongly resembles the power of a nation; a nation with a good navy is usually a nation with a sustainable growth in terms of economy, diplomacy, military and the happiness of its citizens.

2. My suggestion includes units mostly from the Industrial Era onward. The Reinassance Era and Medieval Era units seems sufficent enough (although I think that the game should add Carracks as an upgrade for Quadrireme in the Medieval Era and Corvette as an upgrade from Caravel in the Reinassance Era; Caravel is an Medieval Era's unit instead of Renaissance Era; the upgrade should be like Galley => Caravel => Corvette; Quadrireme => Carrack => Frigate).

- In the Industrial Era, the most important unit is the Dreadnought. This revolutionize the design of warships in late 19th and early 20th century, but Civ 6 does not mention it, which is a drawback for a "Historical" game. Every major naval power in this time period has dreadnoughts as their capital ship of the fleet. The model for this unit should be the HMS Dreadnought of the Royal Navy, which is the first dreadnought in the world. This unit would be a good addition to play along side the Ironclad.

- In the Modern Era:

+ Cruiser is the most important unit that the game does not have. Cruisers are the type of ship can be able to feel in the gap between a Battleship and a Destroyer. It can perform multiple tasks at the same time because it has the speed that the Battleship doesn't have and the armor that the Destroyer doesn't have. It can appear as a Naval Range unit ingame with a range of 2; Bombard strength is weaker that the Battleship and Melee strength is stronger than the Destroyer. It also has more movement than the Battleship, and it's strength is anti-aircraft defense. The model of the ship should be a US cruiser class such as Baltimore, which mostly represent the capability of all nation's cruisers in general.

+ Battlecruiser can be added as a Naval range unit also. In the game it will has the same bombard strength as the Battleship but it has more movement. However, it will have a weaker Melee strength than the Battleship. Battlecruiser concept revolves around a ship which has the speed of a cruiser and the powerful guns of a Battleship. Several nations use this concept for their fleet such as the Royal Navy with HMS Hood, US Navy with its Alaska-class "Large" cruiser, Imperial Japanese Navy with the Kongo, German Navy with the Scharnhorst... The appearance in game should be the HMS Hood of the British, which is the largest battlecruiser ever built.

+ I think the Battleship in the game represent the Yamato of Japan's navy, but I think may be each nation should have their unqiue skin...? (probaly a mod idea).

- In the Atomic Era:

+ Advance Battleship: a Battleship that can carry missiles and move fast. I miss this feature that a ship can carry a missile back in Civ V. Wish that Civ VI can bring it back. However the Advance Battleship will has more maintenance costs than the Battleship. Just like in real life where the WWII Iowa-class Battleship of the US Navy got refitted with missiles and engaged in operations in the 1990s.

- In the information Era:

+ Missile Cruiser: a unit upgraded from the Cruiser (not from the Battleship in the game). A fast moving ship can carry missile. The missile should have a range of 4 or 5. This unit will cost less gold to maintain than the Advance Battleship (which represent real life, Battleships get "retired" because of its high cost of maintenance). The model is various, ranging from the Ticondera-class of the US Navy to the Kirov-class of the Soviet Navy.

+ Missle Destroyer: a unit upgraded from the Destroyer. The model can be the current Missile Cruiser in the game. This unit has the same range as the Missile Cruiser and it costs less to maintain. However the Missile Destroyer will have weaker Melee strength than the Missile Cruiser.

+ Advance Battleship will stay as a seperate unit. Player can choose to produce it if they want, but its maintenance will cost more than the Missile Cruiser and the Missile Destroyer. This to serve the desire to keep the mighty battleship in one of my fleet )

+ Nuclear-powered carrier: a unit upgraded from the Carrier. It requires Uranium to produce. Stronger and can carry more planes than the Carrier. The model can be the Nimitz-class carrier of the US Navy (the only navy operates nuclear-powered carrier).

*Some after thought: I want the Submarine in the game to actually dive when I enter Ocean tiles and only stay afloat in Coast tiles.
I am sorry for any grammar mistakes. I am not a native English speaker.

 

[Glowzmanz]

Fair play, in the main Naval warfare is a side story. I think the movement rates should be significantly increased for ship units, especially in the modern eras. Tanks shouldn't be able to go similar distances to a nuclear submarine.

 

[MP | Moongazer]

Fair play, in the main Naval warfare is a side story. I think the movement rates should be significantly increased for ship units, especially in the modern eras. Tanks shouldn't be able to go similar distances to a nuclear submarine.

Well that's true, because tanks rely heavily on terrain in order to move fast or slow. Ships move on ocean, which provides no obstacles. But I think it is fine as it is now, because the nature of civ VI map.

 

[Phrozen]

Battleships didn't get retired due to cost, they got retired due to their role being filled by aircraft carriers and the missile carrying cruisers, subs, and destroyers. Battleships can do over the horizon firing now due to GPS but even then their range is nothing compared to a cruise missile or a aircraft launched from an aircraft carrier.

Artillery has some advantages over missiles but that is much more for land based combat than sea where a battleship is a very big target.

 

[MP | Moongazer]

Nowadays CIWS and other anti-missile system may become more and more effective, which bring back the strength of artillery: there are no weapon or system to counter it, or at least something that I haven't heard of.
Battleships did get refitted with missiles and can performing duty along side with cruisers and destroyers, but IMO BBs are just expensive, big and slow target, and it costs a lot to maintain its presence in the fleet, even in the Reserve, and it is not effective as others smaller type of ships. Even big warship like cruisers and battlecruisers are rarely in active duty in navies around the world, because destroyers (small, fast, cheap and effective ship) can outperform them. Besides aircraft carriers rule the sea nowadays, so pretty much I agree.

 

[Equilin]

On the Dreadnought: Ironclad represents Dreadnought in Civ afaik. So no need to add it. As for why not call it Dreadnought it's obviously because Firaxis will choose the most neutral name possible.
On (WW era) cruisers and battlecruisers: I don't think cruisers are actually that important. Yes they are the middle ground between BBs and DDs but so what? Japan used them as destroyer leaders and US used them mainly for CV escorts. And after the war they have greatly reduced role since no one is island-hopping anymore (bombarding continental land requires huge firepower which goes to BBs), plus destroyers have more stuff fit in (while getting bigger) and cruisers got kicked out because DDs do everything they did. Battlecruisers are WW1 stuff and by WW2 only Britain has them (dunno about France, dont think Italy have one, Japan refitted theirs into BBs).

The only thing from the OP post that i think can be implemented is the nuclear carrier since you'd just increase its strength and give more plane slots, not too hard.

IMHO the only way to make a good naval warfare is to let the player customize their ship's weaponry, which is something i don't really expect from Civ. Let's just play World of Warships.

Btw what about supply ships/repair ships/floating dry dock? Naval support unit lolz.

 

[MP | Moongazer]

On the Dreadnought: Ironclad represents Dreadnought in Civ afaik. So no need to add it. As for why not call it Dreadnought it's obviously because Firaxis will choose the most neutral name possible.
On (WW era) cruisers and battlecruisers: I don't think cruisers are actually that important. Yes they are the middle ground between BBs and DDs but so what? Japan used them as destroyer leaders and US used them mainly for CV escorts. And after the war they have greatly reduced role since no one is island-hopping anymore (bombarding continental land requires huge firepower which goes to BBs), plus destroyers have more stuff fit in (while getting bigger) and cruisers got kicked out because DDs do everything they did. Battlecruisers are WW1 stuff and by WW2 only Britain has them (dunno about France, dont think Italy have one, Japan refitted theirs into BBs).

The only thing from the OP post that i think can be implemented is the nuclear carrier since you'd just increase its strength and give more plane slots, not too hard.

IMHO the only way to make a good naval warfare is to let the player customize their ship's weaponry, which is something i don't really expect from Civ. Let's just play World of Warships.

Btw what about supply ships/repair ships/floating dry dock? Naval support unit lolz.

You play WOWs too? I am also a fan lol.
Anyway ironclad I think they refer to armored steam ship in 19th century, not WWI Dreadnought which is a more revolutionary design.
Cruisers have strong AA and most BBs don't. (except for some late WWII BBs). Cruisers are at best when they were escorting, providing fire support or "cruising" alone like patrol boat. They have enough fire power and speed.
In modern time when BBs were too expensive, cruisers became a replacement and were fitted with missile. I agree with you that there a nearly no differences between DDs and CGs and DDs are way cheaper. But in the Cold War cruisers play a large role in anti-submarine warfare.
What about frigate, and corvette? Also I just personally think that battlecruiser was a cool concept. US and USSR both have their own battlecruiser design, which only US actually made one with the Alaska class.
We can have naval support unit, that would be great!

 

[Equilin]

You play WOWs too? I am also a fan lol.
Anyway ironclad I think they refer to armored steam ship in 19th century, not WWI Dreadnought which is a more revolutionary design.
Cruisers have strong AA and most BBs don't. (except for some late WWII BBs). Cruisers are at best when they were escorting, providing fire support or "cruising" alone like patrol boat. They have enough fire power and speed.
In modern time when BBs were too expensive, cruisers became a replacement and were fitted with missile. I agree with you that there a nearly no differences between DDs and CGs and DDs are way cheaper. But in the Cold War cruisers play a large role in anti-submarine warfare.
What about frigate, and corvette? Also I just personally think that battlecruiser was a cool concept. US and USSR both have their own battlecruiser design, which only US actually made one with the Alaska class.
We can have naval support unit, that would be great!

The main problem on Civ combat is there aren't enough space and everything have to be abstracted, which means semi-support ships like (heavy/light) cruisers, minelayers/minesweepers (incl. all war traps in general) unfortunately have to be left out.
Missile cruiser is already in the game so i dont really see a problem.
Alaska is no battlecruiser btw, according to USN, they're "large cruiser". Yes battlecruisers were cool, but when fast BBs became a thing they just no longer have their place.

 

[MP | Moongazer]

"large cruiser" lol. 12 inch guns and 30000 tons of displacement. Seems like the US hated the word "battlecruiser"

 

[Equilin]

"large cruiser" lol. 12 inch guns and 30000 tons of displacement. Seems like the US hated the word "battlecruiser"

It's like the JMSDF's DDH designation. The Izumo (newest class DDH) is as large as WW2 standard carrier Kaga.

I think their "reason" for not classifying them as battlecruisers was that battlecruisers should have the same firepower as battleships (14 inch+ guns). Well, it's not like anyone cares about it anyway right lol.

 

[Morningcalm]

Not enough water on most maps, and the necessity for land troops to take most cities anyway = naval combat is underused. That's the biggest problem. Adding more ships wouldn't fix it, though it might make existing naval combat more diverse I suppose.