'Maritime' as a new Civ trait?

[wanderer6552]

As a result of various discussions with others (you know who you are) on subject of Armies, I'm starting a new thread on the subject of the desirability of having 'Maritime' as one of the proposed new civ traits for future Civ versions. Any & all contributions are welcome.

Here's a summary of my recently posted thoughts ...

wanderer6552

NEW CIV TRAITS - 'MARITIME'

Jul 25, 2002 08:30 PM
Re discussions about extra civ qualities, I've thought for a while that 'maritime/sea-faring/piratical' (somrthing like that) could be a goer. Similar to militaristic, but on sea. 'Sea-faring' civs could maybe start with map-making; build cheaper ships, harbours, etc.; maybe have UU ships or their ships could maybe have increased movement, A/D/HP, visibility range, etc. And they could generate maritime GLs if they win combat - GLs could appear on victorious ship or on nearby land, etc. Any thoughts, people?


Jul 26, 2002 09:40 PM

Historical maritime civs included:-

* Greeks/Minoans (founded colonies at Syracuse in Sicily, Marseilles at the mouth of the Rhone in S.France, & around edges of Black Sea - Minoans in Crete were superb seaman & traders from the earliest times);

* Phoenicians/Carthaginians (originally colony of Phoenicia - pioneered many trade routes throughout Mediterranean & as far as British Isles, esp. for tin from Cornwall which is essential for turning soft copper into harder bronze, Carthage's control of most of [esp. western] Mediterranean trade routes via her trade network & strategic position opposite Sicily was largely responsible for wars with Rome leading to her destruction);

* Vikings (explored from east coast of N.America all the way to the rivers of eastern Russia, founded Kiev & the early Russian state, Viking traders & settlers portaged their smaller river longboats between Russian rivers to reach as far as Constantinople, for several centuries Viking pirate fleets were the terror of any European coastal town & any inland river town as far as their shallow-draught longboats could reach - best case I know to have NAVIGABLE RIVERS in Civ3);

* English - 'nuff said;

* Arabs & Indians - controlled or involved in much of trade from China thru Indian Ocean to Middle East & thence Europe;

* Polynesians - some of the greatest if unrecognized seafarers of all time - colonized much of the (HUGE!) Pacific Ocean as far as Easter Island, New Zealand (can't you just see it ... "Greetings, I am King Raratonga of the Polynesians, would you like to trade or can I offer you a nice hungi?" - ;

* Later, obviously Spanish, Portugese, Dutch, French, etc.

* That's one of the reasons I liked the Caravan unit in Civs 1&2 - you were tempted to load a ship full of caravans & go exploring to see who you could trade with;

* Interesting to see the nexus between techs - seafaring, fishing, trade & piracy often went hand-in-hand (even today in S.E.Asian waters part-time fisherman are often also part-time pirates), astronomy & navigation stimulated needs of trade, both seaman & caravans (the original camel-in-the-desert variety) used astronomy to navigate across trackless sand & sea wastes, needs of navigation stimulated development of chronometers, clocks & other finely-crafted precision instruments as well as optics, ... I could go on but you get the idea.

* Bonuses? Mmmm.... how about some combination of :-

- MARITIME civs start with map-making;

- MARITIME civs could start with free trireme ... mmmm ... could be tricky trying to start a trireme on dry land before your first city is built, esp. if you started in Switzerland or Outer Mongolia, eh? ... OK, scrub that idea;

- MARITIME civs could build ships (All ships? Only sailing/wooden ships? Dunno) for, say, 1/2 or 3/4 shield cost;

- MARITIME civs could build maritime improvements e.g. harbours, coastal fortresses, shipyards for reduced cost;

- MARITIME civs' should definitely have 1 extra movement pt. (to reflect superior seamanship), & possibly 1 extra A/D/HP, or perhaps 1 HP bonus, or some combination (to reflect better training, practice, leadership, experience, etc.)

- Really think we need some city improvement similar to but different from the Civ2 Port Facility in order to build anything from Ironclads on up ... eg 'OK, you've discovered how to build Battleships/Carriers but first City X needs to build a Shipyard improvement in order to build Battleship' ... after all, you might be able to build a wooden trireme on the beach in a harbour, but you can't build a Battleship like that, can you? ... just trying to add more realism to game ... for city to be able to build a Shipyard, maybe it would have to be connected by railroad to iron & coal trade ... after all, you can't really shift all those 1000's of tons of metal plate, steam engines, guns, armour plate, etc. in horse-drawn wagons down dirt roads, can you?

Acknowledgements to bobgote & Ozy & anyone else who sparked my brainbox



Cheers

 

[hzm]

* Phoenicians/Carthaginians (originally colony of Phoenicia - pioneered many trade routes throughout Mediterranean & as far as British Isles, esp. for tin from Cornwall which is essential for turning soft copper into harder bronze, Carthage's control of most of [esp. western] Mediterranean trade routes via her trade network & strategic position opposite Sicily was largely responsible for wars with Rome leading to her destruction);

Not to meantion they circumnavigated Africa. This is a great idea but it seems to encompass an awful lot of civilizations.

 

[bobgote]

Not all of the civs have to be in there, maybe if we just kept it to the more obviously maritime civs, eg England, Vikings, Spain. Portugal if they ever get included. Just a few there. England can only be called expansionist in a seafaring manner, so i think it's a completely different trait.

Also, everyone bring forward ideas for civs that have come to dominance due to their maritime traditions.

 

[Barker]

(circumnavigated) Hmm...I like that word. I am going to use it as many times as I can today.

But seriously, this sounds like it would be a great civ specific ability. There are obviously many civs that have maritime ability, but there are a few that stand out as being above the rest. The Vikings and Spanish stand out to me as being the most influential/notorious.

I would suggest that their advantage would not be unit specific, but should maybe do the following:

- MARITIME civs start with map-making;

I like it.

- MARITIME civs could build maritime improvements e.g. harbours, coastal fortresses, shipyards for reduced cost;

Yep.

I also think that harbours would be able to connect earlier when techs are discovered. Start off connecting sea squares with map making, and then over ocean squares with Navigation. The civ could be given the effect of the Great Lighthouse for free.

Bottom line, I think this is a great idea. Maybe in an expansion pack?

 

[alexander dumas]

I think it would be too powerful to start out with mapmaking. You'd get like 20-50 turns of free exploring. Maybe one tech away from mapmaking, or make a change to the order in the tech tree, or give two extra movement points to maritime ships.

Also, I would say no part-time fisherman in SE Asia is also a part time pirate. Pirates use speed boats, full-time fishermen use SLOW diesel junks or even skiffs, and part-time fishermen usually can't afford a boat. A walk through a SE Asian harbor/marina confirms this. Poacher or smuggler, but not pirate.

 

[alexander dumas]

The Piracy Centre

http://www.iccwbo.org/ccs/menu_imb_piracy.asp

 

[wanderer6552]

Hi folks,
Thanx for the prompt feedback.

To Barker:

Quote:
"I also think that harbours would be able to connect earlier when techs are discovered. Start off connecting sea squares with map making, and then over ocean squares with Navigation. The civ could be given the effect of the Great Lighthouse for free."

Good idea - I find it seems to take forever to reach useful maritime techs (ALMOST as long as it seems to take to get to monarchy!)

To hzm:
Quote:
"This is a great idea but it seems to encompass an awful lot of civilizations."
AND bobgote:
Quote:
"Not all of the civs have to be in there, maybe if we just kept it to the more obviously maritime civs, eg England, Vikings, Spain. Portugal if they ever get included. Just a few there. England can only be called expansionist in a seafaring manner, so i think it's a completely different trait."

Yes, there are a lot of potential sea-faring candidates but I think we NEED more civs. After all, in Civ2 we had the following:-

CIV2 tribes - Romans, Babylonians, Germans, Egyptians, Americans, Greeks, Indians, Russians, Zulus, French, Aztecs, Chinese, English, Mongols, Celts, Japanese, Vikings, Spanish, Persians, Carthaginians & Sioux.

I'm really only looking at earth-type worlds that try to reflect actual world history here - trying to make it as realistic as possible while still trying to keep it simple & fun. I know it's a difficult ask - especially when everyone starts off in 4000BC whereas some started much later (e.g. Americans, English, etc.) - but there must be a way of striking a reasonable balance.

Someone in one of the posts in this forum suggested additional civ traits - not ones to use INSTEAD of the existing ones, but AS WELL AS them - I.E. each civ would have 3 (or 4) traits, rather than the present 2. This would, I think, make things just that much more interesting & should be do-able in the overall structure of the game.

Cheers

 

[cracker]

Fairly good idea wanderer.

I also posted this suggestion back on June 11th in the creation forum thread as:

http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?postid=322655#post322655

I am not sure Firaxis will give us another trait to work with but from an informed point of view this is a much higher priority the more civs that are just graphic retreads of existing traits.

Other trait groups that were included in the original post were:

• Self-actualized (extra happy)
• Maritime
• Agricultural
• Hunter-Gatherer

We can only hope that Firaxis will surprise us with an extra trait to choose from as part of our Christmas present or perhaps the first patch for PTW/CIV3 when it is released in January.

 

[bobgote]

Originally posted by cracker

• Self-actualized (extra happy)
• Maritime
• Agricultural
• Hunter-Gatherer

Only the maritime and agricultural are decent in that list. Hunter Gatherer would only be used in the ancient age for a start.

I don't like the idea about the sea-tile connected from the start. The Great Lighthouse should enhance the trait, not be useless for it.

Originally posted by alexander dumas

I think it would be too powerful to start out with mapmaking. You'd get like 20-50 turns of free exploring. Maybe one tech away from mapmaking, or make a change to the order in the tech tree, or give two extra movement points to maritime ships.

Maritime in the ancient age would mean better sea exploration, just as expansionist gives land exploration. Just think of how much the vikings explored in comparison to other civs.

Anyway, Map Making is the tech you need to have. Maybe just have that one instead of 2 techs. If you had 2, what would the other be? Pottery? Alphabet? If neither of these really fit, maybe just the one would be ok.

And I know you've heard this before, but naval warfare and sea trade need to be fixed.

Lastly, to modders out there, are the civ traits hard-coded?

 

[Zouave]

You can't have Maritime when Naval Warfare and Sea-going trade are simplistic, inaccurate abstractions.

There is no way in Civ 3 to even attack merchant shipping on trade routes using privateers and subs - their true purpose.

The more overseas towns you have the more corruption you have. With Settler Diarrhea flooding the territory there is very little left to explore anyway by the time you get real vessels. The Greeks and Carthaginians established colonies all over the Mediterranean, but colonies can be overrun by a nearby town, which is wrong.

Also, galleys DID travel over sea tiles regularly and when they did only a small number sank. In Civ 3 it is likely a galley will sink in sea.

So before we have Maritime changes are needed; massive corruption in distant towns is unacceptable if there is no remedy for it. And the same goes for Settler Diarrhea.

 

[JazzMan]

I think it's at least a decent idea. You can't just give a civ Map-Making to start out with, though. It's too far along in the tech tree.

And for maritime civs, you could talk about the Greeks, or the English...but what about the Americans? We did, after all, win the only modern naval-based war. Sure, we had to drop a nuke or two to do it, but hey...

I say the ideas of making sea-based improvements cost less, or even the idea that all naval units built are automatically veteran or would receive an extra MP are all good ways to implement the trait.

 

[cracker]

Originally posted by bobgote

Only the maritime and agricultural are decent in that list. Hunter Gatherer would only be used in the ancient age for a start.

A fairly extreme review there BoB the Goat.

Did you read and understand H&G carefully. The intent of the proposal was to provide modders with a trait that would let them define a group of civs that would fille the niche between Barbs and Classic Civs.

H&G was intended to be paired with a cheap and early UU so that you would get some really aggressive but technically a bit incompetent civs to mix into the games to provide better differentiation of the opponents, H&G might be hard to win a game with, but it would add depth of play to the game that is currently lacking.

As a note, the suggestion of map making as a starting tech is not demonstrating a great deal of familiarity of understanding of the game. This would require 3 pre-requisite techs as well. I think the concept here is to give the Maritime civs an early jump on some sort of water transport and that can easily done with a special unit that is only available to these civs just like scouts are for expansionist. The maritime civs could just begin the game with the ability to build something like a reed boat of a canoe that doesn't require a prerequisite tech and that could be built for the same cost as a warrior.

A limiting factor in the succes of these suggestions is that firaxis has not given us a special unit ability called "restrict to coastal areas" and this would permanently keep units from moving out of squares that are not adjacent to coastal terrain. If you had canoes in the current game, they would get an extra movement point with the great lighthouse and with magnetism they could sail around the world. This "restrict to coastal areas" flag should work for all units (both land and sea) and would really provide a special niche dimension to the game that could translate into early and late game advantages (ie. canoes, SEALS, hovercraft, true amphibs, etc.)

Think beyond the limits of just the real world examples from past history to better appreciate how good these suggestions really are.

The same applies to the Self Actualized civs, these would just be extreme examples that could exploit levels of happiness and productivity that are not tied hand in hand to cultural domination.

 

[Sirp]

Firstly, navies aren't important enough to really make this ability powerful. Control of the seas would have to become more important for this to be a good ability. Also, maritime civs would tend to be great on archipelago but very poor on pangea.

Further, the "maritime" ability is largely covered by the "commercial" ability. Historically, the majority of commerce has been carried out on the sea, and thus commercial civs are inevitably maritime.

 

[bobgote]

cracker: I didn't read the thread, just the list you posted on this one. Hunter Gatherer (just from the sounds of it) would not really be a useful trait in say the modern age.

The canoe idea sounds good. i don't know if it can be done, but a canoe-man thing, as a canoe can be carried on land. 1 movement on land, 3 in water? So he's like an amphibious scout.

And no, america wouldn't be classified as a maritime civ. That's not where their center of power lies. Britain relied on its fleet for protection from invaders. Spain/Portugal used it to generate wealth, vikings to raid. See what I mean? It's inherent to the civ, not just something they can do.

Maybe maritime civs could get an extra food/production from coastal tiles?

 

[Venger]

Maritime is an interesting trait, however I think it too obtuse to be a really powerful trait. And frankly, maritime is more a geocentric trait than anything else - a landlocked maritime power is useless.

However, if you still want to do it, I think the best ideas are to give a special trireme that can travel ocean, and reduced cost harbor. MAYBE an extra trade arrow for sea squares (on other words, sea squares give as much trade as coast squares).

Venger

 

[cracker]

So Bobgote, we can now see that you evealueted the suggesttions without reading the information and that could have lead to your narrow response.

Venger,

You seem to have suffered this same fate. Not reading the suggestions might result in getting less benefit from these discussions. In the post that I linked to, a land locked maritime civ would benefit from the early ability to cross rivers quickly, SInce all the people of this civ are friendly to water, they would all either be able to swim or carry/build a simple boat that would get them across rivers quickly.

You have to think about these suggestions in terms of what Firaxis might be able to do within the narrow limits of the game code that they already have designed.

DON'T wander off into a bashing of culture of the relative worthlessness of thing like naval and air combat or artillery, because these are designed in to work the way they do. These things hat we may not like or understand how to play with, should be discussed seperately in one of the 53 threads that already exist on the subjects.

This thread is about Civ traits and specifically the MARITIME suggestion.

MARITIME is porbably the most glaringly obvious missing trait in the whole CIV3 game. Wanderer's post of this topic is correct to reflect this oversight by Firaxis. If you focus is only on the narrow confines of land squares and land combat then that will lead you to a similar mistake where, naval units are only though of as ways to get from one pile of dirt to another.

In the upcoming XP it is almost a crime to continue this same path of omitting Maritime from the traits options. The Vikings will be released in the XP as Commerical + Expansionist when they should be Commercial + Maritime so that they will be different from the existing English civ by something more than just having a crazy man with an ax as there UU and also having a higher eggressiveness setting.

The MARITIME trait in some form would also facilitate all sorts of fantasy mod civs that most people have not even though of. It also directly allows things like the Phoenicians, Atlantis, and Polynesia (lots of great civs combined). All of this discounts, the fact that some of the existing civs like England and Greece that could have been been created original as Maritime if that option had existed.

The history of China makes a great example of where two early civs could be included in the game to reflect major changes in hsitory. An early Chinese civ named selectively after one of the dynasties could be in the game at the same time the existin chinese civ contineud to be included as Military+Industrious. This early Chinese dynasty could be Maritime+(Religious or Expansionist or Commercial) and would reflect that the Chinese civ was actually so advanced that it built a fleet of over 300 giant ocean going junks (galleon type ships) and sailed the fleets to India., The Phillipines, New Guinea, and Africa nearly 200 years before Columbus ever set sail for the new world. If two Chinas were in the game then one would come to dominate each scenario and then we would either get the isolationist Mao type civ or some other version that is truly a world economic power by some other means other than shear force of human population. Had the Chinese continued their open expansionist and maritime policies, we would all be dressing differently and speaking a different language today (even our existing CHinese friends would be different people).

 

[Venger]

Originally posted by cracker

Venger,

You seem to have suffered this same fate. Not reading the suggestions might result in getting less benefit from these discussions. In the post that I linked to, a land locked maritime civ would benefit from the early ability to cross rivers quickly, SInce all the people of this civ are friendly to water, they would all either be able to swim or carry/build a simple boat that would get them across rivers quickly.

Funny, the original post said 'any and all contributions welcome'. I gave mine. Canoeing across a river is weak anyways - why would they move across land faster than water? Since there are no 'river' squares anymore, there is no movement issue.

You have to think about these suggestions in terms of what Firaxis might be able to do within the narrow limits of the game code that they already have designed.

I did, which is why I proposed cheaper harbors, a special ocean going trireme, and a bonus in sea squares, two of which can be accomplished now and a third which can be accomplished with only the most minor work.

DON'T wander off into a bashing of culture of the relative worthlessness of thing like naval and air combat or artillery, because these are designed in to work the way they do. These things hat we may not like or understand how to play with, should be discussed seperately in one of the 53 threads that already exist on the subjects.

Are you still talking to me? Why bring up culture or naval bombardment? I think maritime is a misguided trait, gave what I think decent bonuses for it would be, and left it at that. If you're trying to pick a fight, I'll give you all you want.

This thread is about Civ traits and specifically the MARITIME suggestion.

What post did you read? It surely wasn't mine.

MARITIME is porbably the most glaringly obvious missing trait in the whole CIV3 game.

?!?!?! Hardly! Maritime is a function of geography, not of any native trait. It is not a 'trait' in my opinion worthy of the level of others.

Wanderer's post of this topic is correct to reflect this oversight by Firaxis. If you focus is only on the narrow confines of land squares and land combat then that will lead you to a similar mistake where, naval units are only though of as ways to get from one pile of dirt to another.

Ignoring the rest of this because you clearly have a pet peeve on the topic and didn't bother reading what I wrote, which was SPECIFIC to the topic as posted by the original author. Blather on...

Venger

 

[cracker]

.... reads part of the last diatribe post by Venger

and then presses the

"bookmark as 15 to 21 year old male" hotkey.

 

[Venger]

Originally posted by cracker
.... reads part of the last diatribe post by Venger

and then presses the

"bookmark as 15 to 21 year old male" hotkey.

Married to a gorgeous lady, 4 kids, drives a 2002 Corvette, has his own business pulling in a healthy six figures, buying a $300k house. Got a button for that? Didn't think so jerkweed.

Why you decided to pick a fight in this thread is simply undecipherable...

Venger

Moderator Action: I missed this one before. This is your 3rd flame today. You are gone fore 3 days. If you think someone is picking a fight, instead of calling names, ignore them or report them.

Gonzo
Please read the forum rules: http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=422889

 

[bobgote]

Originally posted by cracker
So Bobgote, we can now see that you evealueted the suggesttions without reading the information and that could have lead to your narrow response.

Yes, I think that can be safely assumed .

In the upcoming XP it is almost a crime to continue this same path of omitting Maritime from the traits options. The Vikings will be released in the XP as Commerical + Expansionist when they should be Commercial + Maritime so that they will be different from the existing English civ by something more than just having a crazy man with an ax as there UU and also having a higher eggressiveness setting.

Ah, but if maritime were included, would not the english also be commercial and maritime?

also lol@venger . I hate it when people go off like that.