1. We have added a Gift Upgrades feature that allows you to gift an account upgrade to another member, just in time for the holiday season. You can see the gift option when going to the Account Upgrades screen, or on any user profile screen.
    Dismiss Notice

Naval Units, Naval Warfare is WRONG

Discussion in 'Civ3 - General Discussions' started by Kid Casco, May 29, 2003.

  1. MadScot

    MadScot Brandy's back!

    Joined:
    Jun 5, 2002
    Messages:
    1,443
    Location:
    La Belle Province
    I concur entirely, the cure would be worse than the disease


    The way destroyers work in the game is actually an almost perfect recreation of the capabilities of world war 1 and 2 destroyers on the operational-strategic scale that the game works on.

    Destroyers CANNOT hunt subs in the real world using WW2 technology. SONAR (nee ASDIC) has a useful detection range of 5-10nm in that era. The North Atlantic is some 10,000,000 sq miles in area. Allowing each DD to cover 100 sq miles would require 100,000 destroyers to search the ocean. I think with 100,000 civ3 DDs I could find any sub (in the game) by the simple - and effective in the game - mechanism of just sailing around until I bumped into them.

    That - blundering into subs - is how you search in civ3 for a sub, until you get current technology ships - AEGIS. IMO the anti-sub capability given to the AEGIS units is too great - a 2 tile radius is HUGE - but it's not too bad.

    Alternatively, do what worked throughout WW2. Escort your valuable ships. If the subs try to attack, you will probably kill them. If the subs just sail around, no great harm is done. If they try to block a port, then go and patrol the choke point and open up the tiles again.
     
  2. Ben E Gas

    Ben E Gas King

    Joined:
    Mar 8, 2003
    Messages:
    935
    Location:
    Boston, MA USA
    I always thought missles could be delivered via battleship to any coastline. I may be wrong though. If so, then it is a perfectly good strategy to bomb the coastline so you can land marines.
     
  3. John-LP

    John-LP Libertarian

    Joined:
    May 29, 2003
    Messages:
    413
    Location:
    DIVIDED STATES OF AMERICA
    Well I can understand B-2s and the regular Bombers (B-17s?) being load-able to a carrier. It`s too much to make seperate aircraft for carriers and cities, and I can hear some of you say, "well allow only fighters to land on the carrier". Well, then you still need an editor option to allow that. Personally, it`s not that big of a deal to me and does not affect the role of naval units in-game.
     
  4. BillChin

    BillChin Prince

    Joined:
    Jan 7, 2002
    Messages:
    494
    I agree that Naval warfare is perhaps the weakest part of Civ III. Naval superiority gains a nation no real advantage in Civ III. Historically, Spain, and then England gained huge advantages from ruling the seas.

    Modding the game is of little use, because it does not address the fundamental irrelevance of navies. Having a small stack of transports and a couple of escorts are all most players need, even on archipelago maps. A player with triple the navy of another can not prevent a D-Day style invasion.

    What I would like to see is missions for ships, much as aircraft have missions. I have suggested these before, but I'll repeat them here.

    1) Blockade movement, radius of one. A zone of control around the blockading ship, so it fires on any ship attempting to move through the zone. A successful hit stops movement for the enemy ship for that turn. This means a nation with clear naval superiority can prevent a landing by stationing a picket line of ships. The existing rules require a ship on every tile for a blockade. This rule would make it one ship for every three tiles. Subs would be especially nasty in this role.

    2) Pirate commerce, a pirating ship conducts this mission adjacent to an enemy port city. A successful mission moves some gold from the enemy nation to the pirating nation. Amount of gold would be 1 gp to 10 gp with each successful run, depending on type of ship and experience. Coastal fortresses get a free shot at pirates and a successful hit means the mission fails. Submarines can pirate, and are immune to coastal fortresses. This means that a navy actually can do something positive instead of the unrealistic bombardment of roads. In combo with the blockade mission above, piracy can become an interesting side war in peace time.

    3) Disrupt fishing, conduct adjacent to enemy port city. Successful mission disrupts fishing in all tiles adjacent to the ship. Again, chance of success depends on type of ship, and experience level. Maybe start at 20% chance with a galley and a 50% chance with a frigate. Again, Coastal Fortresses get a free shot on the enemy and a hit means the mission fails.

    These rules would make navies useful without unbalancing the game. Naval superiority would mean something. Privateers become useful for harassing fishing and pirating gold even in peace time. Coastal Fortresses have a role. Submarines become useful. Unfortunately, these suggestions can not be implemented through a mod.
    + Bill
     
  5. John-LP

    John-LP Libertarian

    Joined:
    May 29, 2003
    Messages:
    413
    Location:
    DIVIDED STATES OF AMERICA
    What we really need is some form of visible trading. I would say keep the process the same as it is now, but have merchant ships automatically set off to wherever for whatever and be able to be sunk. Then there could be a "Merchant Fleet" addition.

    Details:

    One possibility could be adding "Merchant Fleet" to the Research and Luxury funding bar, or improvement-like things where you can add merchant ships as you like and will increase trade amounts and efficiency, without actually having to control them. You could even expand on the idea by not only being able to build merchant ships, but destroyer escorts for them. This way you do not have to manually move your own destroyer units with the merchant fleet to protect it. Even another option could be to "attatch units" to a merchant fleet, like the "mission" Bill suggested, and they would protect it. However, before all this can happen, there needs some work be done to make sure that the ships don`t automatically travel through another Civ`s territory, or that it will at least NOT be kicked off or asked to leave. It is highly possible, in many ways, to accomplish this and is one of the more important issues concerning the Civ Series. Keep the ideas coming.
     
  6. Ivan the Kulak

    Ivan the Kulak King

    Joined:
    Nov 2, 2001
    Messages:
    906
    Location:
    USA
    John - I posted a similiar solution in the Better Privateering thread below - I think having merchant vessels would really add to the naval dimension. I wouldn't automate them though - I think it would be more fun to build the actual units (the merchant ships could be pretty cheap) and sail them into another country's ports to pick up luxuries. (This would require that you sign a trade pact with the other nation.) This wouldn't cause alot of micromanagement as you would never have more than 6-7 ships out at a time to pick up luxuries (one shipload would give the happiness boost for a set number of turns, plus a gold bonus), and losing a merchantman would have a significant happiness/gold penalty. Strategic resources could be handled as they are now if desired, but you could have visible trade routes for them that would have to be protected.
     
  7. protoTypical

    protoTypical Chieftain

    Joined:
    May 31, 2003
    Messages:
    4
    Location:
    South Florida
    Those are all great ideas! I would also like to see merchant ships or other trading ships actually move across the oceans while transporting the goods. What about drilling for oil over the ocean? I think that there should be more naval control in Civilization and that only fighters and smaller/lighter planes would be able to get onto carriers. What about being able to place mines in the water or even on land? Pirating is a great idea and there could even be barbarian pirates or similar groups.
     
  8. Moulton

    Moulton Monarch

    Joined:
    Nov 21, 2001
    Messages:
    810
    Location:
    Kentucky
    The movement of ships seems to take the most complaining -- it is the most obvious problem. I will undertake to study distances and travel times, and make suggestions.

    Thinking in terms of the real world maps -- my favorite, and the easiest to conceptialize, how does ship travel compare to land travel.

    It is 2500 nautical miles from US east coast to Europe. 3500 N. miles from west coast to Japan. 8000 N miles from New York to the tip of South America. Merchants and convoys make 200 - 400 nautical miles a day. Faster military fleets 500 - 600 Nautical miles a day
    At flank speed they could travel 750 miles a day, but the fuel cost would be prohibitive.
    By comparison, armies historically travelled 200 miles a day, before the modern era. Motorized unites can travel 500 miles a day. Rails can move massive numbers thousands of miles a day-- how fast will your train move? Air can transport small numbers around the world.

    If you greatly increase ship movement, then a ship could leave port, cross an ocean, attack and return to the safety of port. Not good. A fleet could load and leave New York, and land troops in Europe in one turn.
    With Rail and ROP you could also do tht with landunits... move from China to Europe, and attack in the same turn.
    Of course, in war, you cannot use your enemy's rails.. The equivalent would be to have a Sea Zoneof Control at least one square of sea/coast/ocean, maybe two, and then the attacking ship could only move 1 square in enemy waters.
    Ships could end their turn on an attack, as has been suggested --ala Civ2
    I like the merchant fleet, and the mission concept. Make merchant ships and put them on an automatic run to and from the trading port. effects of the imported mateiel lasts as long as a round trip normally takes. If that ship is sunk, you lose your trade benefit until another successful run. Assign a destroyer or three to that mission -- as escorts.
    Make a frigate unit as ASW hunter.
    Aircraft attacking ships subject to damage.

    Just throwing out ideas here, but have given some thought to it.
     
  9. John-LP

    John-LP Libertarian

    Joined:
    May 29, 2003
    Messages:
    413
    Location:
    DIVIDED STATES OF AMERICA
    Well an idea is to allow the unit to move a lot but make the cost of attacking, say 3 movement points maximum, but leaving at least 1 movement point.

    Also, I don`t want to have to coordinate a merchant fleet. I don`t mind it being automated, but I`m not moving it manually. Also, at this point, frigates are just a waste of space. The destroyer is the traditional anti-sub warship. A frigate would make the destroyer even more useless than it is now and begin to make Aegis Cruisers somewhat useless, as well. Also, before the frigate I would rather see an even more advanced transport. Preferably the Amphibious Vessel, like the U.S Navy uses. They carry nearly 1000 Marines and carry a decent compliment of support aircraft. The unit could be:

    Amphibious Assault Vessel:

    Movement - 5
    Attack - 0
    Defense - 6
    Transport Capacity - 2
    Aircraft Capacity - 2

    Of course this all hinges on making air power more powerful and the Marine unit more, uh, well, capable.
     
  10. Moulton

    Moulton Monarch

    Joined:
    Nov 21, 2001
    Messages:
    810
    Location:
    Kentucky
    Well, John, the current transport funtions as an Amphibious Lancing ship, if loaded with Marines.
    I see a modern frigate as simply a destroyer witih ASW capabilities : IE could see subs. The destroyer we have is really a WW II model, with very limited ASW.. Maybe just go back to having a Cruiser, since we already have an ancient Frigate, but make the Cruiser/Frigate ASW, and bombard, but not AntiMissile -- any more than any other shiop is anti-missile.

    BTW, you have to see the Phanalx Guns work to see what they can do... Of course, destroying a nuclear warhead just short of hitting the ship might not be much help... :)
     
  11. Ultraworld

    Ultraworld Emperor

    Joined:
    May 2, 2003
    Messages:
    1,156
    oh yes it is
     
  12. MadScot

    MadScot Brandy's back!

    Joined:
    Jun 5, 2002
    Messages:
    1,443
    Location:
    La Belle Province
    oh no it isn't :)

    (cue pantomime sound effects)

    Seriously. Civ3 is not, and never will be, a wargame. That would require a great deal more detail and far more rules. Dealing with, for instance, supply, morale, command and control,....

    Turning the naval adjunct to a grand strategy game into some kind of bastardised Harpoon4 is not a good idea, IMHO. If I want to play a 'real' naval warfare simulation I'll buy Harpoon4 (one day!)
     
  13. Vandervekken

    Vandervekken Chieftain

    Joined:
    May 21, 2003
    Messages:
    11
    Location:
    England
    I did see the Privateer/naval warfare thread the other day and started thinking.
    The problem is that there is nothing to do with a navy, as has been pointed out; everything that matters in the game - resources and cities essentially - is on the land. To make a navy useful we need to get some real benefit from control of the sea.
    I would suggest tying a trade benefit to the size or power of each nations navies. for example the English have a navy of 40 Frigates, the spanish have 20. This generates 4 extra gold in each English city with a harbour. Whereas the spaniards only gain a benefit of 2 gold per harbour.
    Doing this ensures that naval engagements have a real impact on the civilisations involved - say in the case the English navy attacked the Spanish and sank 4 Frigates for no loss - the Spaniards would now have only 16 and get a bonus of only 1 gold per harbour. So the English action would have badly damaged Spanish trade overall in the game.
    This is a clumsy example but you see the point. A better way would be to have the civ gain +1 trade for every naval unit and spread this around all the ports that civ owned.

    Regarding the 'reality' of naval units stats particularly, I recently made a scenario with just a few changes to the naval units, for example I redesignated cruise missiles as tactical missile weapons and gave AEGIS cruisers a tactical carry capability of 2. Submarines I made attack 12 - so a sub attack is very deadly, but only defence 4 - so they are hit and run weapons as in real life.
    IMHO naval units become obsolete too fast as well so they really need to be upgradeable. And why do their stats go up so fastsuddenly during the industrial age? in short order we go from attack 3 frigates through a4 ironclads and in no time we are using Battleships with attack 18 if memory serves me correctly. I would like to see the attack of some of these changed to reflect their armament better, frigates should be a8 - cos they are armed with cannon are they not (cannon are bombard 8) and this should be identical to their bambard value, since any attack from such a vessel is more or less a bombardment. Ironclads could then have a big boost to their defence over frigates, but roughly the same attack (still using cannons), then destroyers come in as being effectively, sea going versions of artillery, A/B 12. Battleships then rule the waves for a while, being more powerful than everything else, but would need to be protected from subarine attacks, and then modern vessels come along and put them to shame since they can carry guided missiles. This could either be shown by a very high attack/ defence or by giving them the ability to carry missiles as mentioned above, or even by giving them a very large (and lethal) bombardment ability.
     
  14. RegentMan

    RegentMan Deity

    Joined:
    May 7, 2003
    Messages:
    6,951
    Location:
    Washington State
    Some things in Civilization just aren't realistic, but the game's still a lot of fun :)!
     
  15. John-LP

    John-LP Libertarian

    Joined:
    May 29, 2003
    Messages:
    413
    Location:
    DIVIDED STATES OF AMERICA
    Right RegentMan.

    Cruisers are not very effective anti-submarine warfare ships. Never have, never will. I would rather see an upgrade option when new technology is discovered, so you can add sonar (detect invisible) to destroyers, or new weapons for your infantry, or better aircraft for your air force, or new tools to your workers, etc.

    EDIT - I would also like to add that it is really confusing, with the destroyer, because it is made up to look like a modern destroyer, but as said, has the ratings of a WWII class. So it makes you think it should be more advanced.
     
  16. Moulton

    Moulton Monarch

    Joined:
    Nov 21, 2001
    Messages:
    810
    Location:
    Kentucky
    IIRC, the picture supplied for Destroyer is the Fletcher class -- WW II. But modern destroyers LOOK much the same. The extyernal shape is pretty efficient. It's the insides that have changed.... new propulsion, new radar, new ASW, new missiles and anti-missiles.
    Rigiht, Cruisers were never ASW. They were primarily ship to ship, better armament than a destroyer, 6 and 8 " guns, plus AAA,. I was looking for a name of a class, since we already have a frigate, Perhaps have the sail frigate upgrade to a modern frigate, which still looks like a destroyer...

    quote:
    To make a navy useful we need to get some real benefit from control of the sea.

    Have you noticed that AI ususlly sends only 1 or 2 transports at a time? One of my defenses was to lay a string of subs and another string of destroyer/battleships down the middle of the Atlantic ocean. America had declared war on me, and I was not interested in her lands.... The subs gave me warning when she sent ships over, and the destroyers and battleships were in position to intercept and sink them.
    In another game, I harried the shores of Germany and Russia, destroying their roads, depriving them of coal, iron, and general mining/irrigation. I also was off shore, so was able to sink any ships -- including transports -- that left port. It was their war, and I had other fish to fry -- eventially they both sued for peace, but by that time teir economies had been crippled, and other nations had passed them by. On reflection, though, they did not sue for peace until I launched an invasion force and took out a few cities. When I asked for peace, they made return demands -- cash or tech or both --even though they were steadily losing their entire reachable infrastructure.
     
  17. Punkymonkey

    Punkymonkey Aspiring Archaeologist

    Joined:
    Oct 29, 2001
    Messages:
    385
    Location:
    NYC
    I think for the desstroyer issue, there should be an updated destroyer because in civ 2, the destroyer came before the submarine yet could still see them which you all must admit was most frustrating if you got a sub sunk. In civ 3 i usually build a humongous navy cause i get bored building land and air units and most of my fleet becomes inactive because the AI never focuses on sea power which is fun when they only got a few ships but boring once you sink everything. In a current game i'm playing, the aztecs got 10 or so battleships and this is the largest navy i've encountered and i still outnumber them but i'm just waiting to finish up with the Germans and then get down to business with the aztecs. :)
     
  18. Moulton

    Moulton Monarch

    Joined:
    Nov 21, 2001
    Messages:
    810
    Location:
    Kentucky
    Usually the AI doesn 't do much with ships, but I remember one game (as Greek, vanilla) where China and America were reported with stronger and stronger military near the end. Finally, curious, I sent spies and found both of them with over 300 battleships... They never used them, but maybe they heard the thing, "If you build them, they will come..." but I dissapointed them and never came....
     
  19. redhulkz

    redhulkz Prince

    Joined:
    Oct 31, 2002
    Messages:
    346
    Location:
    Singapore
    what.. each got 150 battleships?..... hard to believe..
     
  20. Punkymonkey

    Punkymonkey Aspiring Archaeologist

    Joined:
    Oct 29, 2001
    Messages:
    385
    Location:
    NYC
    redhulkz-you're from singapore?
    My mom's family is from there. Wow i guess it's quite a small world. By the way, how's the SARS situation, i haven't heard from my family in a while, is everything cool? Stay well!
     

Share This Page