Landing operations - realistic or not?

[Seven05]

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).

So military history isn't a strong point of yours? And that's even assuming not only roads, but modern military logistics involving motorized vehicles. (technology has reduced any such risks on water to an almost nonexistant level)

I am sorry, but that is absolute nonsense.

I am sorry, but it is no more 'absolute nonsense' than the statement it was made in response to. Or have you neve seen the logistics involved in moving troops and their equipment by rail?

 

[Scramble]

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]

Yeah I know, sorry. Using it in Civilization game terms where there is no British Empire, and it is referred to as England.

 

[CyberChrist]

So military history isn't a strong point of yours? And that's even assuming not only roads, but modern military logistics involving motorized vehicles. (technology has reduced any such risks on water to an almost nonexistant level)

Really? Could you point me to a couple of historical events where weather, terrain or poor navigation alone caused large parts of an army to be wiped out while travelling across land?

EDIT: Anyway, ships still sink occasional due to these causes - even in our day and age.

I am sorry, but it is no more 'absolute nonsense' than the statement it was made in response to. Or have you neve seen the logistics involved in moving troops and their equipment by rail?

What does logistics have to do with being able to conjure up a ship at will - or even worse lugging one around at all times?

EDIT: Actually I would agree that it WOULD have to require quite a lot of logistics work to actually carry your transport ships around, but apart from smaller units like Marines I am not aware of that being done on a regular basis.

Besides, isn't roads and railroads supposed to cost upkeep in ciV anyway?

 

[CyberChrist]

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.

Ever hear of mutiny? And any kind of storm are even worse for ships than it is for land units. Ambush and partisans would fall under the category of combat and doesn't count for non-combat hazards (but did you ever hear of pirates?).

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.

So Cavalry and Artillery etc. is carrying around their own transport ships as well - at all times? Ooook.

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?

First off then building a train requires far less work than building a ship and second you are taking turns off to build each track and then on pay for them to be in active service - or is that not how it is going to work in ciV?

But I agree to the extent that this is symbolic at best. Personally I'd prefer that railroads only worked if connected to a city with a Train Station building, but that is another debate entirely.


Once again we seem to be drifting from the OP "Landing operations - realistic or not?" and to that I can only say that for the most part it is not realistic at all, but I know that Ahriman and others care little for realism and is apparently willing to accept any level of dumbification as long as it makes the game less "confusing" for them.

 

[Scramble]

Once again we seem to be drifting from the OP "Landing operations - realistic or not?" and to that I can only say that for the most part it is not realistic at all, but I know that Ahriman and others care little for realism and is apparently willing to accept any level of dumbification as long as it makes the game less "confusing" for them.

I disagree with this entirely. I find it plenty realistic.

The problem with realism is that for every mechanic one person can find two examples of real life where it is realistic, and another person can find two examples of real life where it is not realistic. It is pointless to argue such a thing.

 

[Ahriman]

Really? Could you point me to a couple of historical events where weather, terrain or poor navigation alone caused large parts of an army to be wiped out while travelling across land?

*Many* invasions of Russia. Napoleon's, just to name the most obvious.
Hannibal lost huge chunks of his army crossing the alps (up to half).

Attrition was always a larger part of losses than combat losses until the 20th century, and attrition on land marches was very high.

EDIT: Anyway, ships still sink occasional due to these causes - even in our day and age.

True, but attrition on land marches was on average a much higher proportion than from (coastal) sea travel. Sailing armies around the Mediterranean was very safe.

What does logistics have to do with being able to conjure up a ship at will - or even worse lugging one around at all times?

They're not "conjuring ships up". They're meeting transport ships that have been dispatched to move them, and show up at the right time.

Ever hear of mutiny?

In the middle of a large fleet? Hell no. Doing so would be suicidal. Mutiny only happens on lone vessels. Whereas desertion from large land armies is very common.

Ambush and partisans would fall under the category of combat

Casualties from civilians or partisans isn't part of a big battle, and can happen on land but not on sea.

(but did you ever hear of pirates?).

Attacking fleets with large numbers of soldiers on them? Nope. Did you?

but I know that Ahriman and others care little for realism

Yes.

apparently willing to accept any level of dumbification as long as it makes the game less "confusing" for them.

Man, you're such an ass. You really can't think of any less insulting alternative?
Its not about the game being "confusing", its about it being fun to play.
I don't find building and moving transports around to be entertainment, and explicit transports in a 1upt system just make no sense. I have to build a separate naval unit for every land unit I want to move?

You seem perfectly willing to accept the "dumbification" of not having to explicitly build the carts or ships that transport your trade goods around, or building the trains that move your armies.
So horribly unrealistic that you don't have to worry about coordinating railway timetables, and making sure that the trains don't get too congested on the track....

 

[CyberChrist]

@Scramble:
I am sure you would be able to come up with some highly detailed, innovative and entertaining scenarios for how an army of Cavalry and Artillery was able to create transports to take them across the vast oceans - while being located at a barren desert coastline ... but they would also have to be highly improbable and thus not realistic on a general scale.

 

[Scramble]

Guys, I come to these forums to get away from the flaming, insulting and whining that exists on SC2 forums. There is no need to bring it here.
There are more views to the game than just yours guys.

 

[Scramble]

@Scramble:
I am sure you would be able to come up with some highly detailed, innovative and entertaining scenarios for how an army of Cavalry and Artillery was able to create transports to take them across the vast oceans - while being located at a barren desert coastline ... but they would also have to be highly improbable and thus not realistic on a general scale.

and yeah I would... because if I could make it out of that barren desert by sea, then there was most likely no one attempting to stop me... If there was a single enemy destroyer in that there ocean, I most likely wouldn't make it away on my flimsy trade boats that I commandeered from the locals...
But hey that's how it would work in game!

 

[CyberChrist]

*Many* invasions of Russia. Napoleon's, just to name the most obvious.

The massive non-combat losses that the various invaders have historically sustained in Russia has mainly been due to laying siege/fortifying in enemy territory under the stern gaze of "General Winter" - and not because they marched through a snow filled landscape.

Hannibal lost huge chunks of his army crossing the alps (up to half).

Pretty good example actually, but also the exception that proves the rule as well as being irrelevant for this debate since you can't even move through mountains in ciV (another unrealistic aspect where you yourself have argued hard against it being made possible to differentiate between uncrossable Peaks and crossable Mountains).

Attrition was always a larger part of losses than combat losses until the 20th century, and attrition on land marches was very high.
... attrition on land marches was on average a much higher proportion than from (coastal) sea travel. Sailing armies around the Mediterranean was very safe.

Attrition is about loosing forces while in enemy territory (mostly during sieges) due to reasons that are not directly related to battlefield combat. It has nothing to do with marching in general.

Sailing armies around the Mediterranean was very safe.

The mediterranean was no more safe than any other large body of water. Plenty of shipwrecks reaching back to ancient times have been located there.

They're not "conjuring ships up". They're meeting transport ships that have been dispatched to move them, and show up at the right time.

And what if an army choose to embark in a coastal square to where no sea passage have been revealed yet - or maybe not even exist at all?

In the middle of a large fleet? Hell no. Doing so would be suicidal. Mutiny only happens on lone vessels. Whereas desertion from large land armies is very common.

You really should do your homework before posting. Try looking up the mutinies of Spithead and Nore.

(but did you ever hear of pirates?).

Attacking fleets with large numbers of soldiers on them? Nope. Did you?

Yes I have, Drake's Revenge single handedly took on 53 Spanish warships at the Azores (sinking 2 of them). As long as the Pirates/Privateers have the faster ship with longer reaching cannons then the amount of men onboard the target ship matters little - if the sole intent is to sink the ship that is.

Anyway, soon you will have an opportunity to generate plenty more examples of your own, since that is exactly what anyone posing as pirates will be able to do in ciV (sink more or less defenceless transports with large number of soldiers on them).

Casualties from civilians or partisans isn't part of a big battle, and can happen on land but not on sea.

I don't have any arguments against what you are saying as such, except that pirates could potentially do far more harm to an army onboard a ship than any number of partisans could do to them on land (especially in ciV).

Its not about the game being "confusing", its about it being fun to play.
I don't find building and moving transports around, and explicit transports in a 1upt system just make no sense. I have to build a separate naval unit for every land unit I want to move?

It seems that some of the far reaching limitations and annoyances of the 1upt system are finally starting to dawn on you, eh?

You seem perfectly willing to accept the "dumbification" of not having to explicitly build the carts or ships that transport your trade goods around, or building the trains that move your armies.
So horribly unrealistic that you don't have to worry about coordinating railway timetables, and making sure that the trains don't get too congested on the track....

You seem to be confused again. Dumbification means moving from something more advanced/complex/enlightened to something more primitive/simple/dumb and has no relevant meaning in relation to wanting to maintain an already existing formula (even less so if you actually want to improve on that formula).

 

[imperialman]

I just hope landing operations don't look ridiculous with too many transports but the screenshots make it seem fine, no need to worry I guess.

 

[Matches]

As I understand it worker units don't count as units in the 1UPT. Why not just make a transport a special unit in that vein? Give it a low hammer cost, such that it never takes longer than a turn to build, and give it the ability to transport several land units, like the carrier is able to transport air units?

 

[stealth_nsk]

As I understand it worker units don't count as units in the 1UPT.

Wrong, they are counted s civilian unit and you can't stack 2 workers or worker and a settler.

 

[generalwar]

Dear All

I have a strong stomach feeling that landing operations have always been over-simplified and unrealistic. The current approach that there is no need for special transport units does not make it better at all.

First, I believe that not all units are embarkable from landscape. Modern units most probably need ports. It might have been possible to embark a 19th century cavalry with makeshift rafts or boats (the horses swim, after all) but it will get rather complicated with tanks or other heavy weaponry of modern age. Do we need a flag to indicate if the unit is embarkable from shore and does not need a port?

Second, the very idea that an army does not need a fleet to get off a coast is ridiculous. For instance, Napoleonic army was trapped in Egypt because Nelson destroyed the transports.

Third, it is rather unrealistic that units can be disembarked on top of the hills to receive instant defense bonus.

Fourth, tanks can parachute. No version of Civ has featured this, has it?

Well, units like infatry are transported by transports but we don't see that. Seriously, you have to imagine that their are transported by transports and they battle withou them. What do you expect? If you want to practise modern warfare to become a general, civ isn't for you. It is to practise your leader skills as a president or dictator.
And it isn't unrealistic that boats show for units. Every turn is 1 year or 6 months in later game(maybe 2 if in 18th century) and people on cost are building transports for them and you have to build battleships and destroyers to protect your ships. I don't know what is so unrealistic here. And how long would it take to build so many transports for all of those 1UPT units btw?
Edit: I think that transforming units to boats should be able to happen only in your teritorial waters. And good point CyberChrist, you have answered good to Ahriman's statements. Mutiny happened in larger fleets often as in smaller. Mutinies happen when state is near it's end (losing war) and it happens in larger fleets more often than in small fleets because, soldiers feel safe because there is plenty of them, on a boat captain with few royal men lock weapons, kill the guy who is stimulating mutiny and restores order. It's easier to raise mutiny in big fleets even if that sounds irrational, but that's the way it is.

 

[Matches]

Well that's what I mean. You can stack a military unit on a worker, in order to protect him. I'm less interested in the nomenclature of worker units and more in that they are making exceptions to 1UPT. Carriers are the better example, anyway. Make a transport a super-cheap, super-weak, land-unit-carrying version of an aircraft carrier. Functionally, that's what they are, anyway.

I'm not seeing why it was necessary to pull transports out of the game (I have similar thoughts on religion). I don't really know if I buy the idea that they couldn't write an AI that could use transports well. Clearly, they never really DID, but I don't see why taking transports out of the equation will suddenly fix the problem.

 

[Scaramanga]

Wrong, they are counted s civilian unit and you can't stack 2 workers or worker and a settler.

On the topic of workers, I think embarked workers should become work boats and vice versa.

 

[stealth_nsk]

On the topic of workers, I think embarked workers should become work boats and vice versa.

This possibility was discussed, but they seem to be different units and workboats are also consumed with their job, in contrast to workers.

 

[Elenhil]

Really? Could you point me to a couple of historical events where weather, terrain or poor navigation alone caused large parts of an army to be wiped out while travelling across land?

Nothing to directly disprove in Napoleon's case, mind you. Add Alexander's disastrous return march from India to that.

However, the whole debate is hardly relevant to CIV as it includes no depiction of logistical problems either a land or a naval operation faces. No foraging in earlier ages, no supplies in more recent ones, thus no attrition. And problem-free no-plague sieges!

 

[Howard Mahler]

Micromanagement = a part of the gameplay that a particular player does not enjoy.

If we were to remove all aspects of the game that met some players definition of micromanagement, we would be left with a fairly simple game.

In CIV IV and prior versions:
1. The player had to split his production between buildings and units, etc., his military units between naval, land, and air, but also split his naval units between combat and transport.
Another strategic choice of how to use limited resources.
Part of what makes this a strategic game.
2. The player had to position and use his naval units to their best advantage, including transports.
3. The player could see a naval attack was possible if a potential enemy was massing transports. Think Napoleon or Hitler trying to invade across the English Channel.
In CIV V, it sounds like in some cases an enemy can attack across a moderately wide body of water with little or no warning or preparation.
In CIV V, it sounds like, unless one has enough units to block all possible water paths, bodies of water do not pose much of a barrier; even then, the enemy just needs to punch one hole through your attempted blockade (one unit per hex) in order to launch a massive invasion.
4. A player had to be very concerned about losing his transports, particularly if they were loaded.
5. A player who was about to be attacked or had just been attacked, could focus on destroying his enemy's transports, particularly if they were loaded.

Sounds to me like this change in CIV V is a huge step backwards.

Is it realistic? Don't care.
It removes not-fun micromanagement.

 

[imperialman]

So Cavalry and Artillery etc. is carrying around their own transport ships as well - at all times? Ooook.

I think it could easily represent a ship being sent to transport them rather than them carrying a ship...