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 warfare

Discussion in 'Civ4 - General Discussions' started by Danielos, Jan 3, 2006.

  1. Danielos

    Danielos Emperor

    Joined:
    Dec 2, 2005
    Messages:
    1,034
    What the h*ll has happened to naval units?? The naval warfare in Civ 4 is pitiful compared to earlier games in the series! Here is what should be done about it:

    - Bring back the evil pirates, that roam the seas and launch invasions at your coastal cities
    - Bring back the privateer!
    - Barbarian coastal cities should be able to build naval units as advanced as frigates/galleons and privateers
    - Naval units should be able to bombard units/improvements on coast as in Civ 3
    - Bring back coastal fortress
    - Enemy naval units present around your coastal cities should disrupt trade routes over sea/ocean
    - New naval units:

    * Cruiser
    * AEGIS cruiser
    * Cruise missile
    * Modern carrier
    * Modern destroyer
    * Modern sub (nuclear)
     
  2. ZippyRiver

    ZippyRiver Prince

    Joined:
    Nov 27, 2005
    Messages:
    454
    I agree that naval options are quite limited in this version. I certainly would like to see the inclusion of Aegis Cruisers and the like. However, two things are gone that I am glad to see gone. One is costal fortresses. It would be nice if they worked, but I found them useless in civ3. Very easy to counter as well. Just avoid moving from one coastal city tile to another. Move in from out-sea, bombard, move back out to out-sea. No cf attack.

    The other is the privateer. Was never strong enough to do a lot of anything except mop up old and obsolete naval units from the map. They would not hold a candle to anything available in the same age.

    Taking one thing from the privateers, I would like to see subs have a sneak attack. Being able to sink that eternaly-off-your-cost caravel Musa put there 3,000 years ago and not start a war doing it would be a nice addition. You could even set it up along the fortify guidelines.
    Lurk: A promotion to allow the action of lurk mode (requires sentry? :D )
    Lurk Mode: A special unit action (like how the bombard button works)
    Sneak Attack: Special attack that does not trigger a war and requires a lurked sub.
    Sneak Attack sucess rates: For each turn a sub is in Lurk mode, the chance of a sucessfull attack increases by 10%. If it's in Lurk for 10 turns, you can strike with impunity. All Lurk percentages reset if the sub moves/attacks.

    If that would be too powerfull, you could tone it down in small steps. Like sneak attacks do not get experience points, or make it 5% per turn instead of 10%
     
  3. Proteus

    Proteus King

    Joined:
    Nov 25, 2001
    Messages:
    714
    Yep, Pirates (aside from the occasional barbarian galley that is aready present in the curerent game) would be something that should be reintroduced (but not with the same frequency like land units [and/or at least at a time where the barbarians on land are already destroyed])

    And yes, it would be nice to bombard land units with ships and also to bombard ships with more modern artillery pieces.
    But a privateer unit isn´t that useful in Civ IV anymore.

    I also agree with most of the units to be included into the game.
    But modern subs shouldn´t be necessarily nuclearm, but you should also be able to build them with oil (whereas you shouldn´t be able to build WW2-Subs with nuclear engines, but should require them to use oil). The sub type 212 of the german Bundesmarine for example has a hybrid engine of diesel and fuel cells, which gives the sub better stealth capabilities than atomic subs and therefore probably would give them the same strength in Civ IV terms like atomic subs.
     
  4. Smeg

    Smeg Chieftain

    Joined:
    Sep 11, 2005
    Messages:
    33
    Nice idea.

    Personally i think the following should be introduced.

    Bombardment from sea to land on any type of terrain.

    Submarines like you say, should be able to attack ships without causing a war, but if the sub has been found then it would trigger bad relations (Destroyer saw the sub when it attacked) - also a small percentage that it will be discovered.

    Cruise missles are hugely missed, a sub with a few cruise missles makes them 100% more effective, not to mention the fun factor..

    Always loved sinking huge amounts of naval units from hidden subs.
     
  5. Glayde

    Glayde Chieftain

    Joined:
    Dec 8, 2005
    Messages:
    3
    Yeah I do miss being able to really hurt land units with battleships and even destroyers. That fact is what really makes naval battles fairly inconsequential.

    Besides city bombarding, and transport, naval vessels are no threat.

    Someone has a battleship or two roaming your coastline? If they aren't in position to attack a city directly, who cares?

    An extension of this, is that naval airpower is pretty weak too, as all air to ground combat seems to be pretty weaksauce in itself. The fact you can't have bombers on a carrier doesn't help either.
     
  6. Mauritania

    Mauritania Warlord

    Joined:
    Jan 3, 2006
    Messages:
    239
    Location:
    T&W
    Submarines should have an advantage against battleships as well!
     
  7. 777

    777 King

    Joined:
    Feb 20, 2005
    Messages:
    905
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Fin
    I think naval battle is now better and interesting than in civ 3, IMO it was pitiful in civ 3. I don't know why that is, perhaps AI did'nt built so much naval units.

    I just had very nice and thrilling naval battle between two continents.

    Modern carrier? I don't know how modern it can get from present carrier? :D Unless if you mean that it would be cabable to carry bombers, then I agree with you. Perhaps.

    But that's true that one or two more modern naval units would be nice. But eventually now when it's simplified quite a lot and modern unit have been reduced to (transport, carrier, destroyer and battleship) it's perhaps now more swift and user friendly. Because I don't want to fool around with too many different naval units, it would be just too much tinkering.

    Gofy question, is there even submarine 'cos I haven't built yet a one :D ?

    edit: I'm the king, woot woot, I'm the king :dance:
     
  8. Tiger_Nation

    Tiger_Nation Warlord

    Joined:
    Nov 4, 2002
    Messages:
    286
    Location:
    'ull (hull)
    I don't think the navy has ever been good in the civ series. I never got civ 1 but i've never had a navy as an important part of my strategy
     
  9. Drahkkael

    Drahkkael Chieftain

    Joined:
    Dec 28, 2004
    Messages:
    99
    you can;t bombard land tiles from sea?!?

    that is the dumbest thing i've eber heard
     
  10. Bushface

    Bushface Deity

    Joined:
    Nov 28, 2005
    Messages:
    2,550
    Location:
    Torquay, England
    Subs in Civ IV must surely be the feeblest units in the game, usable only for sinking unescorted Transports and obsolete sailing vessels. It says somewhere that "battleships are vulnerable to submarines" - har, har, he laughed sardonically. I tried to attack an enemy battleship (which was damaged down to about 32%) with my nice new sub, fresh from Drydock with Combat 2, running in from beyond his visibility range (even if my sub had been visible) and got a victory chance of 0.9%
     
  11. Morten Blaabjerg

    Morten Blaabjerg Settler

    Joined:
    Apr 3, 2001
    Messages:
    1,664
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Odense, Denmark
    Naval supremacy in civ1 was crucial, sometimes, and very brutal. In civ1, a Battleship or a few in the right places could make all the difference, because of the powerful bombard attack. Very enjoyable!

    But naval history/strategy has never been one of the civ series' strongest points. In Civilization, the ocean is mostly a barrier to expansion, where as pre-road/highway societies totally depended on waterways, and the world was very much shaped by them and new ways to tame the waters.
     
  12. Proteus

    Proteus King

    Joined:
    Nov 25, 2001
    Messages:
    714
    They have their uses.
    They´re good at weakening enemy units, as they can have very high withdrawal ratios (if you promote them along withdrawal rather than combat)
    But yes, they will only rarely succeed in destroying a battleship on their own (therefore I often include them into my naval battlegroups, so that they might attack first and weaken enemy battleships or destroyers [and survive by withdrawing] and therefore increase the chances of my battleships and destroyers to take out enemy battleships and destroyers without sustaining too much damage)
     
  13. Bushface

    Bushface Deity

    Joined:
    Nov 28, 2005
    Messages:
    2,550
    Location:
    Torquay, England
    Proteus - I chose strength over withdrawal based on my experience with land units. I had some Knights up to Flanking 2 in the hope of getting Mobility, and just one or two chose to withdraw rather than fight to the death against Melee units. Nowhere near a 20% withdrawal rate.
     
  14. illram

    illram Deity

    Joined:
    Dec 25, 2005
    Messages:
    9,218
    Location:
    San Francisco
    I have to agree with most of the sentiments on here re: naval units. More would be nice, and not being able to bombard coastal tiles is silly and unrealistic. (Honestly, I actually miss the old civ 1 days of ships destroying units in cities like any other unit. Bombers too.)

    All together the focus of the game seems on the ancient era; there are far more units in the beginning than the end it seems to me. I liked all the civ 3 units and would like to see more options in the modern era.

    Oh and one more thing: CANALS!!!! Why has no civ game ever had canals? People, these were the building blocks of the industrial revolution as well as used by almost every civilization on the planet in the course of human history! They have shaped geopolitical politics for cryin out loud! GIVE ME CANALS SID!!!!
     
  15. 777

    777 King

    Joined:
    Feb 20, 2005
    Messages:
    905
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Fin
    I can't remember strenght of battleship in civ2 but wasn't it 40 or near it? It was bit of too powerful since you could empty really easy a coastal city. Way how it is now is just fine, I don't even like that you can deastroy units inside a city with naval ship.

    Edit: Hehe battleship wasn't anywhere near of 40, it was 12 but more than armor in civ 2 :) hitpoints 4 and firepower 2.
     
  16. Lorteungen

    Lorteungen Warlord

    Joined:
    May 19, 2005
    Messages:
    135
    Location:
    københavn
    Naval warfare has never been one of the strong sides of the civ series but I agree with morten that it was atleast useful in civ1. I can't remember how they worked in civ2 tbh but in civ3 they were pretty miserable. I had really expected that Firaxis would improve on naval warfare this time around since it has been a recurring complaint for so long. Yet somehow they managed to make it worse!

    Why didn't they include naval units in the rock-paper-scissor model that they implemented so well in the land units? Why would I ever build a destroyer? To sink submarines? Why would I care about submarines if I only have battleships that they can't sink. I think each era should have different classes of ships, just like land units do (mounted, melee etc) which had particular strengths against eachother. Subs could get a bonus against battleships, battleships against destroyers, destroyers against subs and aircraft and aircraft against battleships etc.

    I think naval units should also be able to attack coastal cities and kill (!) enemy units, not just injure them (although they shouldn't be able to take and occupy cities, you would still need landunits for that). This may not be realistic but it would make the navy crucial to succes which is how it should be. Gameplay > realism imho.
     
  17. Bushface

    Bushface Deity

    Joined:
    Nov 28, 2005
    Messages:
    2,550
    Location:
    Torquay, England
    Illram - have you seen how Aqueducts can turn out ? Have a look in the Funny Screenshots thread, which I recommend to all.
     
  18. 777

    777 King

    Joined:
    Feb 20, 2005
    Messages:
    905
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Fin
    This is because AI doesn't really kow how to use naval units efficiency. Smartest thing what I've seen was when AI sent carrier with fighters in it and couple of destroyers defending it to raid my land tiles.

    And in civ3 it was perhaps more efficiency than in cIV since it could bombard city units but naval battle sucked because of civ 3 idiotic combat system. It was damn horrible.

    Well perhaps they are bit of cloumsy now since they don't have any speacial abilities but if you really would want new ships at each era it would be nonsense. Too much naval units, no good.

    But perhaps it would be good to make naval units into classes like Transport, Escort, Battleships and underwater ships. That is good point you got.

    This would make conquering coastal cities wayy too easy. I don't like a bit. Think about how easily you could destroy even major stack units inside a city with Battleships.
     
  19. The Last Conformist

    The Last Conformist Irresistibly Attractive

    Joined:
    Aug 25, 2001
    Messages:
    27,779
    Location:
    Not on your side
    I must say I find ships more consequential here than in Civ3, since you have sea improvements to attack and defend. If your only access to oil is from an oil rig, you'll certainly want a navy to defend it!

    @Lorteungen: Destroyers are better against aircraft than battleships are already
     
  20. Lorteungen

    Lorteungen Warlord

    Joined:
    May 19, 2005
    Messages:
    135
    Location:
    københavn
    There really is no effecient way to use naval power in civ4, so it's no wonder the AI sucks in this regard. You can 1) destroy improvements but the AI do this already and you can 2) bombard cities which isn't really all that useful unless you have a lot of marines (and the AI doesn't have mech inf) or units with amphibious promotion (if that's what it's called). Even then it's usually better to just use a regular landarmy and use siege units instead. A navy is just an expensive an ineffecient way of achieving the same.

    Maybe there is some inherent weakness in the AI when dealing with navies although I can't imagine why it would be that much more difficult than dealing with land units.

    That's why you can't ignore your navy in that scenario. As it is, navies aren't the least bit important unless you're playing archipelago. I wan't them to be important even on pangea maps and crucial on archipelago. I wan't it to be nearly as important as your regular land army. It would add so much to gameplay I think.

    Strength values should be adjusted accordingly of course, a battleship should be strong but it should not be able to singlehandedly destroying a stack of land units. I would make it slightly stronger than the strongest landbased unit of the era, however, simply to make it an attractive option to make a navy for offensive purposes in the first place. You would still need a sizeable fleet to completely rid a city of units and you would still have to bombard the enemy defenses first.

    Too many naval units? Why is that no good? Maybe in the early eras you wouldn't have more than a few, perhaps just a transport and a warship in the ancient age. But later on I think you should have a more complete package.

    I know but it's not a complete combat system, some units like the sub seem practically useless.
     

Share This Page