Naval Warfare changes

[Atillla2001]

I was having SERIOUS problems with the fact that ironclads were wiping out my battleships; and submarines were also being wiped out by frigates. I addressed the problem in Civ Editor. Its works great now. Here are my changes:


Privateer -- 3 attack (from a 2)
Battleship -- 20 attack (from an 18)
Submarine -- 9 attack (from an 8) 6 defense (from a 4). Slight increase in cost to build
Iron Clad -- 3 defense (from a 4)

I also changed the Cruise missile. This isnt a cruise missile since it cant be placed on subs or ships so I will rename it to Scud or something.

On the 'cruise missile' I increased the movement to 20 and the bombardment attack to 40. I increased the bombardment range to the max...I think its 8 squares. I also increased the cost of making it. This missile rocks now!!! It still may take two missiles to completely take down an Iron Clad but its lethality is far better and can deal with an enemy's navy quite effectively. Im comtemplating upping the bombardment attack to 45 or 50.

The Nuclear submarine needs to be better than just an average uboat sub. I plan to increase the attack and defense from the regular sub.

Try these out and tell me how it works for you.

 

[BillChin]

Fiddle with the values does not address the fundamental problem of naval irrelevance. Even when doing a large scale D-day style invasion, naval superiority is not a top priority.

In my opinion, the naval combat system needs a major overhaul. I would like missions like combat aircraft have. Missions such as blockade movement, pirate trade, disrupt fishing, explore coast, explore ocean.

Maybe something like silent running or lie in wait for subs so they get a surprise combat factor if a ship stumbles across their position. To counter this, a mission like look for subs or scan area is needed for aircraft and destroyers.

I doubt any of this will come to pass, so maybe you have the better approach with changing what you can change.

 

[NY Hoya]

Atilla, try increasing movement rates as well. I found the movement rates to be too low, making navies completely irrelevant, as BillChin stated. I've been playing with the rates doubled for my past couple of games and it seems to make the game more balanced between sea and land.

 

[Zouave]

Originally posted by BillChin
Fiddle with the values does not address the fundamental problem of naval irrelevance. Even when doing a large scale D-day style invasion, naval superiority is not a top priority.

In my opinion, the naval combat system needs a major overhaul. I would like missions like combat aircraft have. Missions such as blockade movement, pirate trade, disrupt fishing, explore coast, explore ocean.

Maybe something like silent running or lie in wait for subs so they get a surprise combat factor if a ship stumbles across their position. To counter this, a mission like look for subs or scan area is needed for aircraft and destroyers.

I doubt any of this will come to pass, so maybe you have the better approach with changing what you can change.

Yes. Naval Warfare is a dismal failure in Civ III.

Bombers cannot sink warships!

All unit values are too low, especially the early units.

Movement values are too low.

Nuclear submarines are much faster and harder to see than regular subs as they travel under water all the time.

Destroyers should be able to see subs (the regular kind).

Privateers and submarines were historically designed to attack TRADE ROUTES and merchant shipping - NOT to attack warships. I could have dozens of privateers in the ocean between two rivals' harbors but it would NOT damage their trade! Absurd.

There is no provision for great NAVAL leaders, such as Nelson, Dewey, Farragut, Nimitz, etc.

So much more. Naval Warfare in Civ III STINKS.

Oh yes. The AI cheats giving its galleys ocean-going capability.