Naval generation gap

[HerrDoktor]

So, yesterday I was playing with Good Ol' England, continents, King, trying to get the most from their abilities. I conquered the annoying poles, who refused to stop spamming prophets on my cities, became a juggernaut. By the late 1800s, there was only one obstacle left: the Arabs, who were paired with me on tech and giving me unhappiness from a different ideology.

So I've sent my 10-strong navy to his coastal capital. Which had about 120 in health. Those men-of-war couldn't put a dent in it - each attack was in the range of 4 to 6. Privateers with double anti-city promotions would get instakilled during the attack for doing about the same damage. The city would kill one ship per turn, without even needing the cannon inside of it.

While I know this was the result of efficient turtling (he had Himeji Castle), I feel there could be something for me to do in that situation other than waiting another 30 turns to attack with battleships and airplanes. I had artillery, after all, I could feasibly attack him by the same age if it was by land.

So, don't you guys think there's too big of a gap between Frigates and Battleships? Historically, first-generation Ironclads were sea-going, as this famous example: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HMS_Warrior_(1860). Military vessels didn't just suddenly jump from something that could be commanded by Jack Sparrow to steel juggernauts moved by steam turbines (yeah, battleships should - or could - use coal, not oil).

 

[Sequm]

Escort land units with ships, land, attack. Or if you can access it by land the long way, do that.

 

[HerrDoktor]

Escort land units with ships, land, attack. Or if you can access it by land the long way, do that.

I didn't even know what he had on land. Could be a massacre. I was expecting to take one coastal city on a big amphibious attack, deploy a general, kill everything he threw at me, maybe then keep the offensive on land, maybe accept peace as we would be wrecked enough without his capital.

Still, the point is about the gap between Frigates and Battleships. What do you guys think?

 

[kaspergm]

While I guess in that situation you should accept that yes, Frigates were very much outdated and couldn't do a thing, I do agree that naval upgrade paths in Civ5 is a complete mess. Triremes are there forever and are completely useles most of the time, and then comes Caravals and Privateers back-to-back (although I am aware Caravels don't upgrade into Privateers). The gap between Frigates and Battleships is very long, which means Frigates are obsolete in at least one tech level before Battleships come. Destroyers don't upgrade into Missile Cruisers, although these two units are essentially the same apart from the fact that MC is ranged; in fact Destroyers never upgrade, which means that in the end, they are also completely outdated.

I don't know enough about naval military history to propose a solution right away, but I do think the current situation is a complete mess.

 

[Heart Break Kid]

Yeah, the naval units don't seem very fleshed out or optimal. I have noticed that the past few games I've played as well. Always have to wait forever in order to upgrade your Frigates which is kinda silly.

 

[Byzantine Bomb]

Perhaps pre dreadnoughts or dreadnoughts could be added to facilitate the transition from frigates to battleships?

 

[KmDubya]

What you need to do is get frigates with 3 promotions, with the third one being range. Then you can set your fleet three tiles away from the city and bomb away. As long as you can cause more than the city can heal in a turn you will eventually get it to redline and then take it with a privateer.

You can get the level three promo from an earlier war or from building in a city with a military academy. Autocracy can also get you the third promo at creation.

To me getting frigates with the range promo is one of the biggest goals on any map with water. When they promote to battleships with four range they once again will be impervious to any counter attack except for planes.

 

[Quineloe]

I don't know enough about naval military history to propose a solution right away, but I do think the current situation is a complete mess.

The thing is that there is a huge difference between a tall ship of the 1600s and a tall ship at the end of the Age of Sail, before the US civil war.

The frigate is a renaissance era unit, but these ships were used until the 1850s, a hundred years into the industrial revolution, and they were constantly improved.

The solution is not that easy, because there tech tree is pretty stacked with no room in that area.

What I'd suggest is add another technology after Navigation into the Industrial Era, put the Frigate / Ship of the line there and boost its strength a bit and add another ranged unit (the Galleon) to Navigation. Galleons were developed very shortly after Caravel expeditions proved the need for a large, seagoing vessel for the conquest of the Americas and were used by all naval nations of the 16th century until they were replaced by Frigates in the late 17th century.


Alternatively, keep the frigate where its at, give England a new UU (because Ships of the line were used by many nations, they're not really unique to England and England also extensively made use of solo Frigates all across the globe) and make the SOTL the industrial era unit.

 

[NukeAJS]

Some kind of ranged ship inbetween frigates and battleships would be nice. I find that the low damage is just frustrating, but the upgrade cost from frigates to battleships is insane.

And yes, I understand that battleships are phenomenally better than frigates, but 430? gold to upgrade? Holy *%# batman! Even a prudent spender couldn't afford to upgrade more than a couple of ships once they become available. And it doesn't even take that long to make them from scratch.

 

[Quineloe]

on the other hand, your frigates might be around for some time now and have those nice experience bonuses while your battleships will come out with 30 or 45 exp, which doesn't buy that much.

So high exp units are always worth upgrading.

unless it's a chariot archer with +3 accuracy and +range

 

[wigwam]

The thing is that there is a huge difference between a tall ship of the 1600s and a tall ship at the end of the Age of Sail, before the US civil war.

The frigate is a renaissance era unit, but these ships were used until the 1850s, a hundred years into the industrial revolution, and they were constantly improved.

In fact, they were used even after the US Civil War—there were Spanish ships at the Battle of Manila Bay (1898) that, apart from the steel hulls and smokestacks, basically looked like the frigates of the previous century. And that was like five years before the introduction of the first modern battleships.

I think adding an intermediate unit is the right move, ultimately. If I were in charge, I'd actually add an entire era to the game, in between the Renaissance and Industrial. It'd go a long way towards representing land combat correctly, with pikemen and musketmen giving way to flintlock muskets and field artillery, but it'd also smooth out the naval progression. Start with Galleons and Privateers in the Renaissance, upgrade to Ships of the Line (you could just rename the British UU "Man-of-War") and Frigates in the next era (the Enlightenment?).

That's not going to happen, of course. It'd be a huge ordeal to mod in and balance and everything. A much simpler and still fairly effective solution: after you research Steam Power, new Privateers and Frigates (or Privateers and Frigates that return to friendly territory for a refit, à la land units getting embarkation post-Optics) get an "Ironclad" promotion: +40% combat strength.

 

[Quineloe]

the whole concept of naval warfare for that era is pretty poor anyways

Frigates and ships of the line were NOT ranged units. They engaged in close brawls and boarding combat, especially in larger battles. There was no way you could fire at an enemy without receiving return fire in normal combat. The bombard mechanic works for land, it certainly doesn't work for sea combat and given how due to turn based gameplay you have an entire fleet being able to destroy another fleet assuming it has enough firepower while taking zero damage sea combat always feels tacked on...

 

[kaspergm]

If I were in charge, I'd actually add an entire era to the game, in between the Renaissance and Industrial.

Colonial Era, yes please, that's exactly what I've been asking for also, that would also work well with Corporations and resource fights beginning around this time. Anyway, back to topic.

In fact, they were used even after the US Civil War—there were Spanish ships at the Battle of Manila Bay (1898) that, apart from the steel hulls and smokestacks, basically looked like the frigates of the previous century. And that was like five years before the introduction of the first modern battleships.

Question would also be, what kind of guns/cannons were these ships equipped with? Because even if they were essentially the same ship design as the old Frigates, one would suppose the guns had followed the evolution of contemporary weaponry - or what?

 

[wigwam]

Question would also be, what kind of guns/cannons were these ships equipped with? Because even if they were essentially the same ship design as the old Frigates, one would suppose the guns had followed the evolution of contemporary weaponry - or what?

Some had old-school casemate batteries, some had sponson-mounted guns. I don't think many rigged warships had proper turrets—maybe offset to either side of the masts, with limited fields of fire?

The Danish ship Jylland was one of the last active frigates—decommissioned in 1908. The Wikipedia article isn't very descriptive, but from the little sidebar description, I'd guess that she was launched with pure broadside armament and later converted to use a mix of old-school casemate-mounted cannon and maybe some swivel mounts on the deck? Seems like things were pretty haphazard in the late 19th century, people tried all kinds of things.

Poking around Wikipedia, I also found the HMS Devastation, apparently the world's first oceangoing, purely steam-powered warship (incidentally also decommissioned in 1908). I think in Civ 5 terms, this would be the first ship that supersedes both the Frigate and the Ironclad. And there were steam frigates in service for almost thirty years after she was launched.

 

[Quineloe]

Yes, these ships also make a strong point to add Dreadnaughts that require coal instead of iron / oil to the Steam Engine tech or the first row of the modern era.

The ironic part about the Cannons that was asked by kaspergm is that the Ironclads used the better guns compared to frigates, yet they can't perform ranged attacks with them.

 

[danieladler]

Strange. I always use my ship of the line on immortal to pound down a citys defenses and then grap the city with an ironclad or a caravel, and then use the ships to wipe out any threat against the taken city...unless the enemy has flight. In almost every game i play there is always one civ that does a record super jump in research ahead of everyone else. To get the one tile extra ranged attack helps ofc.

 

[kaspergm]

the whole concept of naval warfare for that era is pretty poor anyways

Frigates and ships of the line were NOT ranged units. They engaged in close brawls and boarding combat, especially in larger battles. There was no way you could fire at an enemy without receiving return fire in normal combat. The bombard mechanic works for land, it certainly doesn't work for sea combat and given how due to turn based gameplay you have an entire fleet being able to destroy another fleet assuming it has enough firepower while taking zero damage sea combat always feels tacked on...

The ironic part about the Cannons that was asked by kaspergm is that the Ironclads used the better guns compared to frigates, yet they can't perform ranged attacks with them.

Yes, these are actualy also the conclusions I come to after having done some - arguably only a bit - reading on the subject now. It does seem that the whole concept of ranged vs. melee combat doesn't really make much sense in terms of how ships actually worked. A better solution would probably have been to make all naval units work the same, in that they melee attack each other on the sea (symbolizing how you can't be in cannon fire with a ship without getting some cannon fire back) but that they additionally had an ability to bombard land targets, working as a ranged attack.

Not sure whether they should melee or bombard cities, but I guess bombard would make most sense, although I have always felt it would be nice if coastal cities had a separate defense structure towards naval attacks - naval forts etc. Melee attacks against cities (symbolizing return fire) could also work, but problem is the very high high health of cities would make it hard to take them with melee only. Otherwise, one should have some sort of intermediary (range attack down to a certain level, and after that only melee attack).

 

[wigwam]

A system allowing certain units to return fire when hit with ranged attacks would actually clear up a lot of the game's combat problems. Off the top of my head, it would: penalize ranged units the same as melee when attacking cities (siege could get a special promotion to take less or no damage when attacking cities), better represent the supremacy of guns vs. bows (gunpowder units would be able to return fire against archery attacks), and make naval combat more realistic without sacrificing the nuance of positioning (or making coastal cities with only one adjacent water hex nearly invulnerable to naval attack). You could even leave naval melee attacks in for some ships (triremes, ironclads) that historically used ramming as a primary weapon.

 

[Furycrab]

Ironclads?

 

[wigwam]

Sure: http://www.cityofart.net/bship/rambow.html