Naval Improvements I'd Like to See

[Khan Quest]

1. Early exploring ship. At Compass, a new ship becomes available. It should get a Chinese name (since they invented the compass and explored in this era.) , say the Junk. A Nordic name would be my second choice. The Junk has STR = 2, MV = 3, COST = 60. The Junk can enter ocean tiles. If a Junk ends a turn in an ocean tile, it must end the following turn near shore, or the ship will be lost. I am picturing maybe a purplish glow (kinda like the blue promotion glow) to let you know it will sink if it does not make it to safety.

2. Steam-Warship. At Railroad, a new ship becomes available, Steam-Warship. It would have STR = 18, MV = 4, COST = 140. This would be a nice transition between wood and iron-clad ships, and diesel powered ships.

3. Submarine visibility. Submarines would be invisible until (a) a ship’s planned movement would put it in the sub’s tile, (b) the turn after it attacks, (c) as the game works now after discovery of Radio.

4. Extra movement. Like Refrigeration, an extra movement point would occur with discovery of Radio and again with Sattelites.

5. Torpedo Bomber. Carriers are weak in the game, but should not be. I tend to only build them (usually only one) to defend a stack of other ships. A torpedo bomber could be shore-based, or would take a slot on a carrier. The torpedo bomber would damage like a standard bomber, but only to ships. It could sink ships.

 

[jst666]

I definately love the idea of torpedo-bomber. Even thou carriers do have IMHO 3 good uses:
1) Protect your own fleet from air-raids
2) Strike at distant enemy oil-fields
3) Weaken the enemy fleet in order to lessen your own casualties in naval battles.

After typing the part three, I'm not sure if I love the torpedo-bomber so much anymore ...

You could anyway create a mod with that. (Increased naval attack ability, cannot intercept).

 

[Camikaze]

1. Early exploring ship. At Compass, a new ship becomes available. It should get a Chinese name (since they invented the compass and explored in this era.) , say the Junk. A Nordic name would be my second choice. The Junk has STR = 2, MV = 3, COST = 60. The Junk can enter ocean tiles. If a Junk ends a turn in an ocean tile, it must end the following turn near shore, or the ship will be lost. I am picturing maybe a purplish glow (kinda like the blue promotion glow) to let you know it will sink if it does not make it to safety.

Personally, I don't think there is a need for another boat in between Galley and Caravel. I would much prefer that Galley was allowed to explore in ocean, with a high possibility of sinking. As in this thread.

2. Steam-Warship. At Railroad, a new ship becomes available, Steam-Warship. It would have STR = 18, MV = 4, COST = 140. This would be a nice transition between wood and iron-clad ships, and diesel powered ships.

Yeah, if there is a void to be filled, it is this one.

3. Submarine visibility. Submarines would be invisible until (a) a ship’s planned movement would put it in the sub’s tile, (b) the turn after it attacks, (c) as the game works now after discovery of Radio.

I don't agree with these changes. I like the way it is currently.

4. Extra movement. Like Refrigeration, an extra movement point would occur with discovery of Radio and again with Sattelites.

Perhaps not two, although one would do no harm. You don't want sea units to be uber-powerful in the game, especially when you consider that other units have very limited movement. But one extra, on top of the extra movement point given by Refrigeration, I could deal with.

5. Torpedo Bomber. Carriers are weak in the game, but should not be. I tend to only build them (usually only one) to defend a stack of other ships. A torpedo bomber could be shore-based, or would take a slot on a carrier. The torpedo bomber would damage like a standard bomber, but only to ships. It could sink ships.

I agree with this, although I think it could be successfully accomplished (albeit perhaps unrealistically) with allowing normal Bombers onto Carriers, just with a reduced strength.

 

[Rusty Edge]

1)I don't see a hole in ship types there, but
I agree that some thing is lacking which might represent the accomplishmants of ancient navigators, be they Scandinavians, Polynisians, or Chinese.

The CivIII way worked, but it worked to the human advantage, because the human understood that sacrificing galleys was a numbers game with a big reward in a Terra-type map.

One alternative might be to build a World Wonder of sorts, which would provide you with the one and only sea-going galley.

Another option would be to have a dual random event approach by which you lost a galley at sea... (qualifier 4 galleys &/or triremes. Obsolete with optics. )
a) "Leave no flotsom or jetsom unturned!" Your entire navy auto-searches for three turns - 10% chance that ship and passengers are recovered / 50% chance your fleet recieves free visibilty promo/ 40% no results from search and recurrence of event.
b) "We must do everything we can to prevent this from happening again!" Spend gold, recieve beakers towards navigation. Prevents event from re-occurring.
c) "What's done is done. Offer my condolances" Do nothing. 65% chance of re-occurring.

There would be a 10% chance each disappearence of a once per game event that a lost galley would result in a lost colony beyond visibillity on the nearest land to the site of the disappearence. So you might be pleasantly surprised with a colony.

2)Yes, the game needs a steam warship. CIV I had battleships that required steel tech and coal resource. I love the way that the Wolfshanze Mod implemented PRe-Dreadnaught Battleships. Such vesssels were important in establishing the US and Japan as world powers, and deserving of a place in the game.

3)I like existing submarine game mechanics.

4)As for extra movement, something should be done. Sea movement is out of wack with larger maps.

5)I like the approach of a torpedo promotion for fighters only that would give them the abillity to sink ships.

 

[weekend_warrior]

1. Early exploring ship. At Compass, a new ship becomes available. It should get a Chinese name (since they invented the compass and explored in this era.) , say the Junk. A Nordic name would be my second choice. The Junk has STR = 2, MV = 3, COST = 60. The Junk can enter ocean tiles. If a Junk ends a turn in an ocean tile, it must end the following turn near shore, or the ship will be lost. I am picturing maybe a purplish glow (kinda like the blue promotion glow) to let you know it will sink if it does not make it to safety.

Well at optics, which is just 1 tech past compass, you can build caravels, which can enter ocean spaces. I do agree that galleys should be able to enter ocean spaces, with a 25% chance of sinking per turn.

2. Steam-Warship. At Railroad, a new ship becomes available, Steam-Warship. It would have STR = 18, MV = 4, COST = 140. This would be a nice transition between wood and iron-clad ships, and diesel powered ships.

New Units are always nice, but your cost needs adjustment since destroyers cost only 200 for 30str/8mov.

3. Submarine visibility. Submarines would be invisible until (a) a ship’s planned movement would put it in the sub’s tile, (b) the turn after it attacks, (c) as the game works now after discovery of Radio.

Don't like this idea. The way subs work now is good, invisible to all units except destroyers. Honestly though, by the time subs are rolling out, I'm wrapping the game up so I don't care too much about them.

4. Extra movement. Like Refrigeration, an extra movement point would occur with discovery of Radio and again with Sattelites.

makes sense.

5. Torpedo Bomber. Carriers are weak in the game, but should not be. I tend to only build them (usually only one) to defend a stack of other ships. A torpedo bomber could be shore-based, or would take a slot on a carrier. The torpedo bomber would damage like a standard bomber, but only to ships. It could sink ships.

Huh? Carriers are too weak so you want another unit to destroy them? Carriers are supposed to be a little weak anyway. Thats way in real life they are always flanked a squad of destroyers/ battleships.

 

[jst666]

Huh? Carriers are too weak so you want another unit to destroy them? Carriers are supposed to be a little weak anyway. Thats way in real life they are always flanked a squad of destroyers/ battleships.

The suggested upgrade would make the carriers a much stronger, a stand-alone naval force. In WWII pacific theatre it was mostly battle of carrier-groups, where destroyers and battleships played mostly support role, while the fighting was done between fighters/dive-bombers/torpedo-bombers.

The subs, however, are quite weak in my opinion. WWII wolfpacks would be neat as a strategic option.

 

[weekend_warrior]

The Carriers are easily the most expensive and important ships in a Naval fleet. Generals never send them in to fight, or send them out without a group of destroyers/ cruisers. They are never a stand-alone Naval force.

 

[bob rulz]

I didn't enjoy Civ IV nearly as much as Civ III so I don't have a lot of experience with it so I'm shocked to find out that normal bombers cannot be on carriers.

That's the whole POINT of aircraft carriers. To carry aircraft. The whole point of carriers in Civ III was to carry bombers deep into enemy territory without having to station them in cities. Without the ability to carry bombers, what is the point of a carrier? If they did it for balance purposes then I don't get it. Carriers are supposed to be the most powerful weapon in a Navy.

 

[jst666]

Without the ability to carry bombers, what is the point of a carrier?

The point is to carry fighters. They can bomb improvements too, and make air-strikes. Even they are far less powerful in it than bombers, thou. I use them to hit opposing navy, before my surface-vessels attack, in order to reduce my own casualties. In addition to resource-denial, of course.

 

[bob rulz]

I realize that they can carry fighters and that fighters have bombardment abilities as well, but I believe they should be able to carry bombers (and fighters too of course). Real aircraft carriers can carry bombers. Maybe make it so that bombers take up 2 "slots" so to speak? This would mean that you can only carry 2 bombers on a carrier, or 1 bomber and 2 fighters, or just 3 fighters.

 

[jst666]

The bombers in CIV look like B17's, which no carrier could carry. Anyway, they could carry bombers, and are slightly underpower as they are now.

 

[Rusty Edge]

Real aircraft carriers can carry dedicated bombers, but they are closer in size and payload to fighters.

The USA is converting from seperate bombers and fighters to FA-18s ( fighter-attack)- one model plane that can do both jobs makes more sense from a maintenance standpoint.

I just use multiple carriers in a task force, leaving one plane for fleet defense and the rest for strikes and repairs.

 

[Khan Quest]

1. Early exploring ship. At Compass, a new ship becomes available. It should get a Chinese name (since they invented the compass and explored in this era.) , say the Junk. A Nordic name would be my second choice. The Junk has STR = 2, MV = 3, COST = 60. The Junk can enter ocean tiles. If a Junk ends a turn in an ocean tile, it must end the following turn near shore, or the ship will be lost. I am picturing maybe a purplish glow (kinda like the blue promotion glow) to let you know it will sink if it does not make it to safety.

The idea here is to have ship, not capable of carrying units, being able to venure a little ways into the ocean (and bit further at high risk), some time after galleys are available.

2. Steam-Warship. At Railroad, a new ship becomes available, Steam-Warship. It would have STR = 18, MV = 4, COST = 140. This would be a nice transition between wood and iron-clad ships, and diesel powered ships.

Obviously a transition unit as many of you point out.

3. Submarine visibility. Submarines would be invisible until (a) a ship’s planned movement would put it in the sub’s tile, (b) the turn after it attacks, (c) as the game works now after discovery of Radio.

This is the wolf pack era where subs ruled the seas.

4. Extra movement. Like Refrigeration, an extra movement point would occur with discovery of Radio and again with Sattelites.

The range and speed of ships should increase over time. Kind of akin to movement increases with inf.->mech. inf., arlly. ->mbl. arlly.

5. Torpedo Bomber. Carriers are weak in the game, but should not be. I tend to only build them (usually only one) to defend a stack of other ships. A torpedo bomber could be shore-based, or would take a slot on a carrier. The torpedo bomber would damage like a standard bomber, but only to ships. It could sink ships.

Another reason to build more (and fear) carriers. This increases their signifigance, but the are just as vulnarable and still require support ships.

I would also give torpedo bombers the ability to damage only ships (and sink with enough damage) in cities and forts (pearl harbor).

 

[bob rulz]

The bombers in CIV look like B17's, which no carrier could carry. Anyway, they could carry bombers, and are slightly underpower as they are now.

Yes I suppose this is true.

However, B-17's are essentially obsolete now as are all "heavy bombers" of the type then. Modern bombers can be carried on carriers although as mentioned above they are closer in size to fighters.

I could see how this would present a problem for the late Industrial/early Modern ages. Early bombers were indeed too large to be carried on aircraft carriers. Perhaps they could introduce a "tactical bomber" later in the game that could be placed on aircraft carriers.

 

[weekend_warrior]

Yes I suppose this is true.

However, B-17's are essentially obsolete now as are all "heavy bombers" of the type then. Modern bombers can be carried on carriers although as mentioned above they are closer in size to fighters.

I could see how this would present a problem for the late Industrial/early Modern ages. Early bombers were indeed too large to be carried on aircraft carriers. Perhaps they could introduce a "tactical bomber" later in the game that could be placed on aircraft carriers.

The game just needs a new unit- something akin to modern day bomber/ fighter hybrids. Basically just a short range bomber that you can put on a C
arrier.

So you'll have your fighter jets and fighter bombers that can both be put on a Carrier. And you'll have your long range, super strong bombers that need to dock at an airfield.

That would make the Carriers a more versatile unit, while also making them more capable of defending themselves.

 

[bob rulz]

The game just needs a new unit- something akin to modern day bomber/ fighter hybrids. Basically just a short range bomber that you can put on a C
arrier.

So you'll have your fighter jets and fighter bombers that can both be put on a Carrier. And you'll have your long range, super strong bombers that need to dock at an airfield.

That would make the Carriers a more versatile unit, while also making them more capable of defending themselves.

That sounds like a good compromise.

 

[Camikaze]

Carriers do have uses currently, but they are limited, probably too much for the importance they command in the modern navy in reality. I agree that the creation of a smaller bomber as an additional unit would be a way of solving the problem, but I'd personally prefer the problem be fixed without the creation of another two types of air unit (one to go with fighter and bomber, and one to go with jet fighter and stealth bomber). Perhaps we could use the existing units, and allow one bomber on each carrier?

 

[hewhoknowsall]

Carriers should definitely be the dominant naval unit just like they are today. Battleships are also overpowered IMO; there's a reason why they are considered to be obsolete in real life.

 

[Terrance888]

Carriers should definitely be the dominant naval unit just like they are today. Battleships are also overpowered IMO; there's a reason why they are considered to be obsolete in real life.

Then maybe ships have a chance to dodge and counter an air attack? Battle ships, even when pwning, are extremely vurnurable due to their large size and heavy, not light guns.

I agree in the Fighter/Bomber hybraid. Today, most missions are done by slighty buffed up fighter-types with Air to Ground missiles.

Finally, just as a wish list, you should be able to build special bunkers and tell which units in the city or in the fort to be inside, and these are destroyable by air.

I also agree with the above. on the OP

EDIT: There should be sea Terran Features, like Reefs (+20 def) seatrench (sub unfindable) ect

 

[hewhoknowsall]

I also believe that they should give more options for long ranged naval warefare (doesn't the two expansions do this?) like cruise missiles and the like, as well as (like I stated before) an increased importance/power of carriers and aircraft, especially in the modern era, because that's how modern battles are fought out, not with two ships exchanging broadsides.

A little off topic: I heard that you can use your navy to block trade routes. How do you do this?