Under 1UpT, having transport units just doesn't work, they had to put in stacking for Air units to allow the Carriers and Nuclear Subs and Missile Cruisers into the game, which fair enough, thats a good idea. But for gameplay reasons any transport units or Port limitations would ruin the game from a naval point of view, do you really want the Navy to be unimportant again like in Civ4, I don't, I like the way they've done it very much, it will be much better now.
Landing operations - realistic or not?
- Thread starter Kriku
- Start date
Ahriman
Tyrant
Personally I don't care about cavalry upgrading to helicopters. But its not like there is anything at all in common between the skills needed to ride a horse and the skills needed to pilot and operate and maintain a helicoptor.
And some people are complaining about this: YOU are. Most of the rest of us think its probably good for gameplay, in particular at improving the ability of the AI to actually pose a decent trans-oceanic threat, which they've never done well before.
And some people are complaining about this: YOU are. Most of the rest of us think its probably good for gameplay, in particular at improving the ability of the AI to actually pose a decent trans-oceanic threat, which they've never done well before.
imperialman
Admiral
The only real barrier to movement over water is a reasonable navy, granted in real life the English Channel is regarded as a barrier (arguable according to some historians but that's besides the point) but in more recent centuries the only major barrier to foreign invasion of the British isles from the continent by a well equipped enemy was the Royal Navy. I think it's quite nice CiV reflects this.
Ahriman
Tyrant
Precisely. Its not like the Channel stopped the Romans, Angles, Saxons, Vikings or Normans.
Britain's walls were made of wood, not water.
Just like people can complain about self-embarking units, but never gave a second thought to how a tank could use a railroad without a train unit.
BeastofStrength
Chieftain
- Joined
- Jun 27, 2010
- Messages
- 34
Then work on a mod that takes into account your points of view and other ppl with the same point of view will play your mod.
THat's why they are making this the "most" modable game out there ( new game that is).
CyberChrist
You caught my attention
Tell that to the Mongols trying to invade Japan or the Spanish trying to invade England - and someone should travel back in time and tell Xerxes there is no real need for him to order the Hellespont flogged.
Conjuring transport ships big enough to carry entire armies out of thin air is a feat worthy of Merlin - for the standard Civilization game though it is just too far away from realism to be justifiable by even the standard "Gameplay is bigger than all!" cop out argument.
Ahriman
Tyrant
Go tell the Greeks and Romans and Portugese and Spanish and English and Dutch that water was a barrier to movement, and that they should stick to much easier land travel, when it took less time and cost to sail between two distant points than it did to travel between two nearby points by land.
Someone should travel back in time and tell Rome that it just doesn't make sense for them to ship grain in from Carthage and Egypt, and that its futile for England to establish a tea trade with China.
Sure, you needed ships, but so what? You need ships to operate naval trade routes, and you need trains to travel on railways, but we don't make you build those explicitly.
Someone should travel back in time and tell Rome that it just doesn't make sense for them to ship grain in from Carthage and Egypt, and that its futile for England to establish a tea trade with China.
Sure, you needed ships, but so what? You need ships to operate naval trade routes, and you need trains to travel on railways, but we don't make you build those explicitly.
Yes, though then the advantages of this are countered ten-fold by one-unit-per-tile limitations.
So in the end we should expect the AI to be far less competent at naval invasions and warfare.
Ahriman
Tyrant
So, given that they're using 1upt, you agree that its better to not have an explicit transport mechanic?
CyberChrist
You caught my attention
Even with the speed benefits from making use of the 'searoads' then there are many inherit dangers to travelling on ships that just isn't present on land - bad weather, treacherous seabed terrains and faulty navigation among others.
The statement that "Water is no obstacle" is only true as far as that the benefits from crossing the sea normally outweigh the risks.
However, the potential benefits from travelling across water (when you actually HAVE a ship to travel in at all) is not the question at issue here though.
Whether land units should be able to conjure ships out of thin air is.
We have to build the railroad tracks manually first - so yes, we kind of do have to build the trains.
Um... did you really mean to say that part I highlighted? If so, do you really mean to say that weather, terrain and navigation aren't issues when travelling on land? Really?
By the same token, we have to build the units manually first - so yes, we kind of do have to build the ships that carry them.
I think that the new transport mechanic is far stronger than it was in Civ IV for a variety of reasons...
The navy becomes VASTLY more important. It is been historically that a strong navy can pretty much rule the world. It was unfortunate that in Civ IV on an Earth map, a strong Naval Focus was usually a waste of time, even on in Europe; a continent that spent a huge chunk of it's history being fought over in the sea. Even beyond Europe, England managed to control much of Africa, India, Hong Kong and North America because of their navy. In CiV, if you have no ships, then it stands to logic that the sea wouldn't be much of a deterrent for your opponent. While I think ideas like the Mongols attempted invasions of Japan and the failed Persian invasions show that is not the case, I believe that is pretty well illustrated by the idea that not all units are able to embark right out of the door, requiring an upgrade. Once naval tactics and capabilities were more well defined by civilizations, the dangers of the natural sea were largely diminished.
I like that a civilization on a peninsula no longer needs to defend only a single side. In CivIV, if there was a landroute to your civilization it was extremely rare that your opponents would ever use the sea route. This essentially turned a coast into a wall. Sure your fishing boats could be pillaged, and they could knock down your defenses, but really the effects of those are pretty lame. If you are playing a defensive, turtle civilization it only makes sense that you should protect your coast as well...
A single Galley will prevent an embarked force from bypassing your choke point.
Any movement penalties that occur as a result of embarking or landing are yet to be seen. I imagine that land units must spend at least 1 turn in the water, making them extremely vulnerable. Also we don't know how much damage Archers and other ranged units typically do to embarked units attempting to bypass a choke.
The balance and full effects of this can't be known till we try it out... SO SOON!!!!
The navy becomes VASTLY more important. It is been historically that a strong navy can pretty much rule the world. It was unfortunate that in Civ IV on an Earth map, a strong Naval Focus was usually a waste of time, even on in Europe; a continent that spent a huge chunk of it's history being fought over in the sea. Even beyond Europe, England managed to control much of Africa, India, Hong Kong and North America because of their navy. In CiV, if you have no ships, then it stands to logic that the sea wouldn't be much of a deterrent for your opponent. While I think ideas like the Mongols attempted invasions of Japan and the failed Persian invasions show that is not the case, I believe that is pretty well illustrated by the idea that not all units are able to embark right out of the door, requiring an upgrade. Once naval tactics and capabilities were more well defined by civilizations, the dangers of the natural sea were largely diminished.
I like that a civilization on a peninsula no longer needs to defend only a single side. In CivIV, if there was a landroute to your civilization it was extremely rare that your opponents would ever use the sea route. This essentially turned a coast into a wall. Sure your fishing boats could be pillaged, and they could knock down your defenses, but really the effects of those are pretty lame. If you are playing a defensive, turtle civilization it only makes sense that you should protect your coast as well...
A single Galley will prevent an embarked force from bypassing your choke point.
Any movement penalties that occur as a result of embarking or landing are yet to be seen. I imagine that land units must spend at least 1 turn in the water, making them extremely vulnerable. Also we don't know how much damage Archers and other ranged units typically do to embarked units attempting to bypass a choke.
The balance and full effects of this can't be known till we try it out... SO SOON!!!!
CyberChrist
You caught my attention
Yes really. The threats are much more lethal on sea than they are on land - and that is not even assuming the land travel takes place along roads (which reduce any such risks on land to an almost nonexistant level).
I am sorry, but that is absolute nonsense.
deanej
Deity
I agree. You don't build a railroad without trains. But every time you build a unit, you're also building a boat capable of holding the unit that can teleport to any coast tile whenever needed when empty? Sounds like a waste of production, as well as generally impossible.
I'd still say no, in the sense that there should be some requirement - a port, city, or other effort necessary to create a seagoing transport for a unit, particularly for crossing "ocean" - they could distinguish between coast still if they wanted. I could agree with not building transport ships explicitly in city queues, but just turning into a water transport anywhere is silly.
Still, it's obvious the logic goes one way and not the other. They never ever implemented this to try and actually make naval combat more interesting or improved - if that was the case, they would not have had 1upt in the first place. As a correction/necessary thing now that have 1upt it'll have to do.
Ahriman
Tyrant
There are many inherent dangers to travelling on land that just aren't present on ships - desertion, ambush, partisans, blizzards/snow among others.
Attrition is much worse for land army movement than naval movement.
They don't conjure them out of thin air. The ships are there, invisible in the background, just like trade ships. Or the wagons being used to supply your land armies. Or all kinds of other abstractions.
And how does building railway tracks count as building trains, or making sure that they are at the right place at the right time when you need them?
So you would be fine with units landing on an island never being able to leave again without somehow constructing a port or city?
How could you possibly make it so that different tiles were needed to move from land to coast depending on whether you were going to stay on coast or move onto ocean next turn?
Incredibly confusing.
Yeah, you keep beating that drum.
Very few people agree with you, and they're not going to change the system.
Oh and the idea that the sea units are able to "conjure ships from thin air" is an argument I don't buy. This is like saying that Archers conjure unlimited arrows and tanks conjure shells, or that Settlers conjure cities out of thin air. Where do the workers get their mining picks, hos and materials for working the land? Well it is magic?
Well, simple answer is that just because we can't see it, doesn't mean it isn't there. A contingent of troops is likely to be carrying more than what we just see there on their avatars. Food, water, supply and communication lines, equipment for salvaging available materials (axes etc.) would most likely be used on every unit. Well why don't we see it? Because it is a representation. No one wants to be forced to manage all your units' supply lines nor do we want to be responsible for equipping every unit of soldiers with a hundred and fifty little boats. We assume the boats are representations.
Here let me help you...
I have a unit of Spearmen that I want to ferry over the choke point my opponent has set up. I plan on landing on my opponents source of Iron, pillage it, and fortifying on top of it so he can't retake it. Never mind how I knock down an iron mine and fortify myself in trenches and makeshift walls when I have nothing but the armor on my back and spears, holding off for years with no supply line or food...
First, my Spearmen need boats. Do the Spearmen assemble their own boats from the surrounding trees, settlements or commandeered trade vessels passing by? This is indeed possible. While I am crossing the channel do the Spearmen hitch a ride in the decks and lifeboats of my Galley unit that I am using to protect it while they are embarked? Also possible.
Try to use your imagination here. This is a game for fun and to represent your own history. I have made up multitudes of stories to accompany my games of Civilization and they are never anything so boring as "I had three units of spearmen and he had 3 axemen and through some miracle, my spearmen survived his assault and i kept the city." They are awesome stories like "I was vastly outnumbered and my ramshackle group of Spearmen managed to sneak through a secret passage around the back of the Axemen, surrounding them and with special forked spears, were able to abuse the Terrain and vanquish them."
Now in the game of Civ, I built no underground passage, I was on the defense, and I certainly had no special spears... But that is what representation and imagination are for.
My stories in Civ5 are going to be things like:
"A Hoplite Unit, who's homes and families had been burned by the Romans in the capture of Corinth, defied all orders from their commanders. Seeking revenge for their loss, they ransacked a town of locals and built a small fleet of boats to cross the channel. Weathering tier way through a terrible storm that protected them from the Roman Ships, they made their way to the Roman Coast, where they disembarked, stealing large amounts of food and slaves from a local settlement. They worked their way into a small mountain pass, where they found an Iron Mining town that was responsible for equipping the majority of the Roman Legion Forces. Ransacking the town, the soldiers were able to build improvised walls out of the walls of pillaged houses and raw iron ore, fortifying their position. They sent raids out at night to gain food from surrounding farmlands. A single man was sent back on a little ship to send word to Athens to send reinforcements and aid, and soon enough, a unit of Galleys arrived with food, fresh water and supplies that allowed them to defend themselves against the never ending hail of roman Arrows. Without their main source of Iron, the Roman Legions on the front lines began to ran out of reinforcements and supplies and eventually crumbled to the might of Greece... all because a small group of Corinthian Spearman took matters into their own hands."
How did this go in game?
I embarked a Hoplite over the channel. It was not intercepted by the Roman Galley. It landed on the Iron, pillaged and fortified on position. Archers began to fire on it from 2 tiles away, so I sent a Galley to bombard the Archer from the sea and eventually reinforced it with an additional Hoplite. Without that iron, Rome could no longer build Legions and I was able to Rome back and retake Corinth.
I know what I prefer... although maybe I am just odd...
Well, simple answer is that just because we can't see it, doesn't mean it isn't there. A contingent of troops is likely to be carrying more than what we just see there on their avatars. Food, water, supply and communication lines, equipment for salvaging available materials (axes etc.) would most likely be used on every unit. Well why don't we see it? Because it is a representation. No one wants to be forced to manage all your units' supply lines nor do we want to be responsible for equipping every unit of soldiers with a hundred and fifty little boats. We assume the boats are representations.
Here let me help you...
I have a unit of Spearmen that I want to ferry over the choke point my opponent has set up. I plan on landing on my opponents source of Iron, pillage it, and fortifying on top of it so he can't retake it. Never mind how I knock down an iron mine and fortify myself in trenches and makeshift walls when I have nothing but the armor on my back and spears, holding off for years with no supply line or food...
First, my Spearmen need boats. Do the Spearmen assemble their own boats from the surrounding trees, settlements or commandeered trade vessels passing by? This is indeed possible. While I am crossing the channel do the Spearmen hitch a ride in the decks and lifeboats of my Galley unit that I am using to protect it while they are embarked? Also possible.
Try to use your imagination here. This is a game for fun and to represent your own history. I have made up multitudes of stories to accompany my games of Civilization and they are never anything so boring as "I had three units of spearmen and he had 3 axemen and through some miracle, my spearmen survived his assault and i kept the city." They are awesome stories like "I was vastly outnumbered and my ramshackle group of Spearmen managed to sneak through a secret passage around the back of the Axemen, surrounding them and with special forked spears, were able to abuse the Terrain and vanquish them."
Now in the game of Civ, I built no underground passage, I was on the defense, and I certainly had no special spears... But that is what representation and imagination are for.
My stories in Civ5 are going to be things like:
"A Hoplite Unit, who's homes and families had been burned by the Romans in the capture of Corinth, defied all orders from their commanders. Seeking revenge for their loss, they ransacked a town of locals and built a small fleet of boats to cross the channel. Weathering tier way through a terrible storm that protected them from the Roman Ships, they made their way to the Roman Coast, where they disembarked, stealing large amounts of food and slaves from a local settlement. They worked their way into a small mountain pass, where they found an Iron Mining town that was responsible for equipping the majority of the Roman Legion Forces. Ransacking the town, the soldiers were able to build improvised walls out of the walls of pillaged houses and raw iron ore, fortifying their position. They sent raids out at night to gain food from surrounding farmlands. A single man was sent back on a little ship to send word to Athens to send reinforcements and aid, and soon enough, a unit of Galleys arrived with food, fresh water and supplies that allowed them to defend themselves against the never ending hail of roman Arrows. Without their main source of Iron, the Roman Legions on the front lines began to ran out of reinforcements and supplies and eventually crumbled to the might of Greece... all because a small group of Corinthian Spearman took matters into their own hands."
How did this go in game?
I embarked a Hoplite over the channel. It was not intercepted by the Roman Galley. It landed on the Iron, pillaged and fortified on position. Archers began to fire on it from 2 tiles away, so I sent a Galley to bombard the Archer from the sea and eventually reinforced it with an additional Hoplite. Without that iron, Rome could no longer build Legions and I was able to Rome back and retake Corinth.
I know what I prefer... although maybe I am just odd...
You make two versions of an embarked unit. One can only go in coast or perhaps sea or something if they have more types of water tiles, and units can do that anytime, eg the typical "unit waltzes up and sets out to sea in the middle of nowhere" The other can go in ocean and perhaps has greater movement or something but requires a city or port (and probably unlocks with later tech) to set up. Trivially easy.
I'm not saying they are going to change the system, just pointing out what we will be expecting otherwise.
Yes, and it's probably better this way. Won't matter for unexplored and unclaimed territory, should be expected it's a one-way road since you're going to explore anyway until you found cities. Or with the right tech/whatever an "explorer" type unit could be an exception to this anyway. If it's allied land you could use their ports, same with city-states or whatever.
And if you invade an enemy and fail (don't take any cities or hold any ground or ports or anything), makes sense that you can't just randomly flee out to sea but are instead trapped and have to fight your enemy. You could maybe give combat ships some way to facilitate evacuating a few units or something with modern/industrial tech like airplanes, but overall this would strongly add to naval invasions and not hurt non-warfare parts of the game very much.
imperialman
Admiral
Sorry to be this guy but...
England =/= Britain. British Empire =/= English Empire. You probably did mean Britain, but to call it that ignores the huge contributions of the other parts of Britain. [/politicalrant]
Similar threads
