Landing operations - realistic or not?

[deanej]

Have you never wound up in a situation where your transports were too far away to get to the unit you want to transport in one turn in civ4? Guess not.

I never found managing transports to be tedious, especially in the modern era when they carry 4 units each. If you're going to launch an inter-continental invasion, you need to invest in transports, and civ should reflect this. It could easily be done by allowing units to use their full movement when unloading and/or restricting transports to 2 units (so that the units could unload onto different tiles). You're not going to have as many units in civ5, so this shouldn't be a problem. As they implemented it, it's going to be very hard to defend the coast from invasion given the lack of sight relative to movement range of ships (you can only see two tiles ahead but can move 9 - very easy to maneuver around enemy so that their navy is useless, especially since their are no transports to destroy so you can't send reinforcements).

 

[imperialman]

Have you never wound up in a situation where your transports were too far away to get to the unit you want to transport in one turn in civ4? Guess not.

I never found managing transports to be tedious, especially in the modern era when they carry 4 units each. If you're going to launch an inter-continental invasion, you need to invest in transports, and civ should reflect this.

Obviously I have, what player of Civ hasn't? It's perfectly possible to think of this in the abstract though. It should reflect this, I agree, but it doesn't and won't. I'm just trying to rationalise the situation.

 

[CyberChrist]

@Elenhil and imperialman:

I already addressed your arguments in this post.


Btw, I disagree that debating functionality beyond what is included in the vanilla game is without relevance - in a game that is proclaimed to be "more moddable than ever".

 

[sköldpadda]

On the subject of weather affecting land engagements, I do also recall learning about a hurricane that hit the Washington, D.C. area during the Revolutionary War, and which, along with a tornado or two, actually scattered the British army all around, overturned and threw their cannon and whatnot.

And yes, Cyber, marching (particularly in retreat) through a Russian winter actually did have disastrous effects on the German military in WWII.

 

[imperialman]

@Elenhil and imperialman:

I already addressed your arguments in this post.


Btw, I disagree that debating functionality beyond what is included in the vanilla game is without relevance - in a game that is proclaimed to be "more moddable than ever".

It's not supposed to be ultra-realistic you know.

 

[CyberChrist]

It's not supposed to be ultra-realistic you know.

Then you are in luck, because it will be nowhere near that in ciV.

But personally I prefer civilization to have at least a minimum of suspension of disbelief.

 

[PeterWimsey]

Eliminating the need for transports is one of the absolute best changes in CiV and will make the game more realistic.

It's is a waste of time to look at whether a particular mechanism of Civ is realistic or not. They are all unrealistic. Without exception. If you want to look at unrealistic gameplay mechanisms, transports are very far down on the list - at the top of the list would be issues like why it takes a military unit 5-50 *years* to move 300 miles.

What it's important to look at in all civ versions (in all games with a realism component, actually) is whether the unrealistic mechanism leads to a *result* that is more or less realistic. And the transport mechanism of previous civs lead to clearly unrealistic results because it made crossing bodies of water with units much more difficult than it was in reality. In reality, it was much easier to travel by water than by land until the invention of the railroad. A clipper ship in 1850 could travel from NY to San Francisco (sailing around the bottom of S. America) in about 100 days; traveling on foot from Missouri to Oregon, by contrast, took 4-6 months.

Even though requiring transports to be built may be a realistic mechanism, the effect of this mechanism is to make ocean travel for land units unrealistically difficult; the result of *this* is to make navies much less important than they were historically. This makes the game overall much less realistic than it should be.

One of the reasons that this is unrealistic is because navies used civilian ships to transport ships and supplies - they were never faced with the choice of having to decide between manufacturing destroyers or manufacturing transports. You could convert a civilian freighter or liner to carry troops or supplies in a few weeks by simply adding lots of bunk beds, and maybe bolting an anti-aircraft gun or two to the deck (and sometimes doing things like scraping off the interior paint to reduce the risk of fire). Even in the Falkland war, there were almost as many requisitioned civilian ships as there were naval ships (including the QEII and two other luxury liners).

And this was even more pronounced historically - the polynesians explored and settled millions of square miles by using sea-going canoes; requiring them to build "transports" or even something like triremes would be completely historically inaccurate.

With the transport requirement eliminated, navies will be much more important; it will really matter who rules the waves. Likewise, you won't be able to use the ocean to secure the flank of your empire from invasion, as an underdefended coastline will, on the contrary, be an invitation to invasion.

So, yes, in the real world, units actually did use ships to travel on the ocean. But requiring these ships to be build and transported in game ends up making the game as a whole less realistic than it would otherwise be. And that's where the focus needs to lie.

 

[PawelS]

In reality, it was much easier to travel by water than by sea until the invention of the railroad.

Hmm... (emphasis mine)

 

[CyberChrist]

On the subject of weather affecting land engagements, I do also recall learning about a hurricane that hit the Washington, D.C. area during the Revolutionary War, and which, along with a tornado or two, actually scattered the British army all around, overturned and threw their cannon and whatnot.

The hurricane hit the entire east coast - Tory and Patriot alike. Most of the people killed in that hurricane were sailors btw.

The tornado at Washington did indeed cause the advancing British army to turn back, but it also laid waste to large parts of Washington itself.

And yes, Cyber, marching (particularly in retreat) through a Russian winter actually did have disastrous effects on the German military in WWII.

No doubt the russian winter caused massive attrition to the Nazi troops, but it was mainly due to the facts that they were ill equipped for such harsh condition and had their supply lines cut off - it had nothing to do with marching since they weren't going anywhere.


I think people are thinking a little too much in black or white here. There are of course weather conditions that can cause trouble or even cause losses to an army marching on land, but the risk of anyone dying from them on land is just insignificant (rare exceptions aside) compared to the risk of someone dying from the same conditions on sea. An entire ship, crew, cargo and passengers can be lost during a storm at sea that at worst would hold back an army from advancing on land.

 

[PeterWimsey]

Hmm... (emphasis mine)

Ooops! Fixed...

 

[CyberChrist]

Eliminating the need for transports is one of the absolute best changes in CiV and will make the game more realistic.

It's is a waste of time to look at whether a particular mechanism of Civ is realistic or not. They are all unrealistic. Without exception. If you want to look at unrealistic gameplay mechanisms, transports are very far down on the list - at the top of the list would be issues like why it takes a military unit 5-50 *years* to move 300 miles.

I disagree completely. Some mechanisms (or lack of the same) are more unrealistic than others.

What matters is that the level of realism(or lack of it if you wish) are on the same level for as many different aspects of the game as possible. Otherwise you start loosing suspension of disbelief.

What it's important to look at in all civ versions (in all games with a realism component, actually) is whether the unrealistic mechanism leads to a *result* that is more or less realistic. And the transport mechanism of previous civs lead to clearly unrealistic results because it made crossing bodies of water with units much more difficult than it was in reality. In reality, it was much easier to travel by water than by land until the invention of the railroad. A clipper ship in 1850 could travel from NY to San Francisco (sailing around the bottom of S. America) in about 100 days; traveling on foot from Missouri to Oregon, by contrast, took 4-6 months.

Only true as far as it was much easier to travel by sea ... once you actually HAD any ship to travel on the sea with. And we are back at the ability to conjure ships out of thin air.

Even though requiring transports to be built may be a realistic mechanism, the effect of this mechanism is to make ocean travel for land units unrealistically difficult; the result of *this* is to make navies much less important than they were historically. This makes the game overall much less realistic than it should be.

I am at a loss to see how you can possibly come to that conclusion.

How can the need to protect transports that you invested resources in obtaining - or the ability to deny you enemies the ability to attack across water - make navies less important?!

One of the reasons that this is unrealistic is because navies used civilian ships to transport ships and supplies - they were never faced with the choice of having to decide between manufacturing destroyers or manufacturing transports. You could convert a civilian freighter or liner to carry troops or supplies in a few weeks by simply adding lots of bunk beds, and maybe bolting an anti-aircraft gun or two to the deck (and sometimes doing things like scraping off the interior paint to reduce the risk of fire). Even in the Falkland war, there were almost as many requisitioned civilian ships as there were naval ships (including the QEII and two other luxury liners).

This would be better emulated by making use of a Mobilization type state (player triggered) that would also increase the capacity of of existing Transports.

And this was even more pronounced historically - the polynesians explored and settled millions of square miles by using sea-going canoes; requiring them to build "transports" or even something like triremes would be completely historically inaccurate.

I suppose allowing civilian units and scouts to 'carry' their own ships would be acceptable. Problem lies with military units doing the same.

With the transport requirement eliminated, navies will be much more important; it will really matter who rules the waves. Likewise, you won't be able to use the ocean to secure the flank of your empire from invasion, as an underdefended coastline will, on the contrary, be an invitation to invasion.

How so? Before your navy could sink any nearby transport ships preventing units that escaped to land from leaving fast again.

So, yes, in the real world, units actually did use ships to travel on the ocean. But requiring these ships to be build and transported in game ends up making the game as a whole less realistic than it would otherwise be. And that's where the focus needs to lie.

Once again I must disagree and admit that I completely fail to see how you can possibly come to such a conclusion.


The only way I could be convinced that the "Summon Ship" ability could be acceptable for all land unit types, would be if the ability required a revealed and unblocked sea passage to one of the unit owners own harbor cities and that using the ability had an immediate gold cost depending on distance to the nearest such habor city.

 

[Drawmeus]

The only way I could be convinced that the "Summon Ship" ability could be acceptable for all land unit types, would be if the ability required a revealed and unblocked sea passage to one of the unit owners own harbor cities and that using the ability had an immediate gold cost depending on distance to the nearest such habor city.

I will consider myself fortunate that the devs already disagree with you, then, because that solution would still make for absolutely agonizing gameplay.

 

[imperialman]

I will consider myself fortunate that the devs already disagree with you, then, because that solution would still make for absolutely agonizing gameplay.

Quite right.

 

[CyberChrist]

I will consider myself fortunate that the devs already disagree with you, then, because that solution would still make for absolutely agonizing gameplay.

And here I thought you were all arguing that you liked the Summon Ship ability because it required you to make proper use of a navy ...

 

[Elenhil]

@Elenhil and imperialman:

I already addressed your arguments in this post.

No you didn't. Not a word about Alexander's march, and an irrelevant statement concerning Napoleon.

 

[imperialman]

And here I thought you were all arguing that you liked the Summon Ship ability because it required you to make proper use of a navy ...

It certainly makes them more useful. I like having dedicated transports but I can see the value in this despite what ever illogical situations may arise, it's still something I want to try.

 

[imperialman]

Sorry chaps, double post.

 

[SalmonSoil]

PeterWimsey is correct, realism of the result is far more important than realism of the method.

 

[CyberChrist]

No you didn't. Not a word about Alexander's march, and an irrelevant statement concerning Napoleon.

In that case I guess I didn't understand what you were trying to say in your post.

 

[CyberChrist]

PeterWimsey is correct, realism of the result is far more important than realism of the method.

Actually then Coherency of Realism in a game is far more important than either methods or results of individual actions/events, but otherwise I'd agree. The problem here though is that the result is not more realisitic than the method - and I am having trouble seeing how anyone could come to the conclusion that it is.