Naval warfare

[jarcher]

There really is no effecient way to use naval power in civ4 ... 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).

I played on a continents map the other day, and i found the navy very useful indeed. Japan had lots of large coastal cities, including the capital, and my armies were too busy attacking other cities to the south. I used my large navy to pillage their sea resources and to take down the city defences. By the time my army was able to reach the capital, the navy had already done much of the groundwork, speeding my progress throughout the Japanese Empire.

I only wish the navy had more of a role; for example, attacking trade routes (a.k.a Call to Power). This would add a very interesting game dynamic; perhaps incorporating convoys somehow. You don't necessarily have to see the convoy ships, you could just attack a trade route line, and steal commerce/resources every turn until the enemy is obliged to do something about it; building their own navy, perhaps even a deicated submarine force.

 

[M37]

I always thought cruisers were verry important.

Back in the day I used cruisers a lot and then upgraded some to AGIS.
I know this sounds nuts but I think any expansion should have both normal -pre Agis cruisers and Agis Crusisers.
Thie diference being Agis could bombard from a far out and have a defence aginst fighters , bomber ect...

old crisers would essently be somewhat between destroyers and battleships. Les powerfull then Battleships but faster and able to act as a raider vs transports, destroyers but still vunrable to fighters/ bombers.
ship/cost/speed
Battleship 225 4
AGIS cruiser 195 5
Cruisers 165 5
sub 150 5
Destroyers 145 - 200 units for a destroyer is rediclious 6
Transports 125 5
Carrier 225 -170? so a carrier is cheaper than a destroyer? 5

These proposed changes would essently re-establish civ 2's ballence on the waves.

 

[Thalassicus]

The changes I would like to see:

- Aircraft can target ships hiding in port. Fireships for earlier eras.

- When a ship is in an enemy city radius, it negates the Harbor (+50% trade)

- Submarines recieve a Torpedo Strike ability, similar to Air Strike for aircraft, allowing one attack on any unit in a stack.

- The equivilant of Battleships and Subs in earlier eras: perhaps Ships of the Line and Privateers.

- Fighters on board carriers recieve a counterattack ability similar to archers in Civ III, allowing them to Air Strike one a ship that attacks their stack in Intercept mode. Three fighters would allow for three intercepts, two carriers would allow for six intercepts, and so on. This would make the carrier superior to battleships in almost all respects.

- Naval vessels recieve a terrain-bombardment ability. One tile radius, about a 50% chance of success for modern ships, less in earlier eras.

- Similarly, ships recieve a collateral bombardment ability, down to 75% health for modern ships.

- Canals up to 2 tiles long.

- Shipyard, the equivilant of a Drydocks for earlier eras, to get more ships out - now that they're more useful. +50% production bonus on naval vessals (without the experience bonus Drydocks provide).

This would make ships highly desirable, especially for blockading Harbors. -50% trade and being unable to work the water tiles would be seriously damaging to a coastal city.

 

[777]

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.

When I played with continents I found naval ships very crucial at late war mongering. Naval power is that you can bring forces from continent to other safely and for opposite naval power is to eliminate possibily fo transport units. Like at WW2 when germans disturbed US ships with submarines at atlantic ocean.

Sometimes ships are only way to wage war i.e. if you are so hated that you can't cross neighbour terriotory so you have to circle it with ships.

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.

Ok, I don't know what you're up to now 'cos I think ships are crucial at arhipelago. If you play war mongering style you find that good ship combination is really crucial and having a good ship army. If AI doesn't give expression that ship are crusial because it can't give you hard opponent at sea, well it doesn't fix with adding more tens of units.

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.

It just isn't cool that ships takes out unit inside of city, it would be bit of goofy and I don't even know how cIV bends for that. If you think the game engine a bit. I think that it would be enough or even good if certain ships would have same ability like bomber so it could harm land units but not complitely destroy them.

 

[Kissamies]

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!!!!

IMO, if you have canals, you also have to have navigable rivers. However, the rivers run on the edges of tiles these days and that's a problem. Of course, you can always simulate 1 tile canal by building a city on a narrow spot.

 

[flytyer]

I have yet to build a substantial navy in any regards. I have won several games without building the first naval unit (even a work boat!). I mean what's the point??? The only time you would really need a strong navy is if you are a warmonger and trying to win by conquest. But if you are going space race, cultural, time, diplomatic...a navy is not needed. And that is on any map type except islands.

 

[jerry247]

I always need a navy. some damn barb ship is always circling my continent and destroying my resources. late game I roll up in 2 battleships, 2 destroyers, a carrier and a transport or two of marines. once I get a bomber over there (take a city usually) I can't be stopped! completly necassary, plus I have nothing else to build. I gotta stop that, I have a huge military budget (US anyone?)

 

[Khift]

-- There should be a good, vital reason to not allow your opponent to have command over the seas. Examples are:
---- Water tiles in blockaded cities cannot be worked
---- Coastal bombardment
---- Potential of cutting off overseas trade if all ports are blocked (I.E. no workable trade routes -- same effect as if all roads to another civ have been cut.)

-- Ships resting in harbor should be sitting ducks. Sending a fireship into a crowded harbor ends up with a lot of sunken ships.

-- Ships need to move faster! Imagine an army marching along the coast on a series of roads and a ship traveling along the same coast. Which should arrive first? The ship, of course. However, in every age of this game, the ship is slower than the army! (Along roads.)

-- Carriers MUST become important. Battleships should NOT rule the waves all the way til 2050. To do this...
---- Lethal Sea Bombardment. While I completely agree that bombardment should not be able to completely eradicate a land unit, it is not just feasible or logical that bombardment could sink a ship, it is more common for bombardment to sink a ship than for the ship to sink in combat! In order for naval combat to be either important or interesting, you just need lethal sea bombardment!
---- A half-bomber / half-fighter plane that can fit on a carrier. It's not quite a slick and agile jet fighter, and it's not a massive B-52 either. It shouldn't have the range bomber / stealth bomber nor the firepower, but it should be better at bombardment and worse at combat than a fighter -- and it should fit on a carrier.

-- More units, not just for their own sake, but for a better combat system. The upgrade tree should look like this:


Galley -- Galleon -- Transport
Caravel -- Galleon

These are your transports. Their use is self explanatory. Slightly slower movement, pitiful strength, low cost.

Galley -- Frigate -- Destroyer -- Modern Destroyer

These are the fast and agile ships that harass and maraud unprotected ports, resources, and transports. They serve as good escorts, as well. The final two forms also serve as anti-submarine screens and can be very dangerous with torpedoes. Fast movement, low strength, low cost.


Galleass -- Ship Of The Line -- Ironclad -- Cruiser -- AEgis Cruiser

These are the beef, the backbone of the navy. The final two forms also serve as excellent anti-aircraft defense, and the final form can launch cruise missiles. Good at coastal bombardment, important escort missions, and naval superiority. Medium to high strength, medium movement, medium cost.


Dreadnought -- Battleship

The queens of the seas, at least for a significant time. Lesser ships simply fold to their guns. Second to none at naval superiority and coastal bombardment. Very high strength, low movement, very high cost.


Carrier
Fighter -- Jet Fighter
Bomber -- Jet Bomber?
Heavy Bomber -- Stealth Bomber

The current queen of the seas. Versatile as all get-out, capable of winning just about any match where they get in the first hit. Fragile, though -- they must be escorted. Low strength, medium movement, medium cost. (Note: Just because I say medium cost does not mean they'll be cheap. Just the carrier has medium cost; you still have to supply the planes.)


Privateer -- Submarine -- Atomic Submarine

Annoying little PITA's. Dishonorable, aggravating, and very effective. Hard to see coming, and pack a vicious bite with their torpedoes. Can sink any ship caught unawares. How to capture the power of the submarine is difficult to do without making them overpowered. Quite simply, they should have medium movement rate, medium strength, high withdrawal rate, low to medium cost, and destroyers should get +100% vs. submarines.






Some notes: Galleasses are the first ships to use naval guns. They were large, floating fortresses bristling with as many guns as their owners could afford to stuff into them. They weren't very mobile and, like the ironclads after them, had to be towed to the battlefield. (Well, some of the ironclads.) Also, while we're on the subject of ironclads, THEY DON'T HAVE TO LOOK LIKE THE FRIGGIN' MONITOR! Yes, the monitor was the first successful ironclad and easily the most famous, but no, that wasn't the most used nor the best design for an ironclad -- it was actually pretty impractical, as it wasn't sea worthy at all! Even if it practically couldn't be dented, it doesn't work well if you have to tow it to the battlefield. Picture of the monitor. Pictures of other ironclads

 

[papatodd]

I like the idea. I've only completed one game so far, but I did notice a few of those things. Did you post this in the ideas and suggestions board? Maybe the devs will get a hold of it and implement some changes.

 

[SPQR300]

Khift's ideas are great. I mean making naval units move a lot faster is good idea.
I like these too:
- When a ship is in an enemy city radius, it negates the Harbor (+50% trade)
-Submarines should have some 4-5 first strikes imho
- Naval vessels recieve terrain-bombardment ability.
- Similarly, ships recieve a collateral bombardment ability, down to 75% health for modern ships.

BTW blocking sea cities is an enormous advatage. You block the city's sea trade routes, you make it shrink, and eventually the enemy lose a lot of gold. BTW the AI should build bigger navy...

 

[Seven05]

For the record placing your navy around enemy cities already prevents them from working the tile the ship is in and all adjacent tiles. Two ships can starve most any city that depends on the sea. This includes resources so you don't even need to pillage them if you plan on taking the city, just park on them and they can't use them while you're there.

Controlling the sea is only useless to you if you don't ever do it. I enjoy having a definate advantage with my navy completly controlling the sea. I do not have to worry about defending individual improvements and I don't worry about invasion forces slipping around behind the front line. The earlier you command the ocean the better off you'll be, it means you don't need hundreds of ships patrolling open sea, you only need a few outside each enemy city. If you decide you don't need a navy then you can worry about protecting your individual transports and improvements and maintaining a strong defensive force on your soil because the risk, no matter how slim, is still there and it will bite you in the a** when you can afford it the least.

Of course if Civ4 is a puzzle game to you and you view each game as a puzzle to be solved by the rapid execution of pre-determined events in a specific order then you're probably right, the navy may be useless for you just like many of the other aspects in the game. I enjoy naval battles, I enjoy using early and late navies both.

Want to see how fun the navy can be? try a large amphibious assult in an MP game on a Pangea map with galleys and watch how shocked your opponent will be when you simply bypass his well-defended border towns. It may not be the sole determining factor in whether you win or lose the game but that certainly doesn't make it worthless.

 

[Exavier]

Want some evil naval battles? Install my Mod, play on an island map with Aggressive AI at Noble or higher dificulty... my changes to submarines and the addition of a Privateer, Ship of the Line, Nuclear Submarine, Aegis cruisers are evil (and used by the AIs).

Actually the next version of my mod i am going to release is going to have a WW2 era of naval combat (which is what era the vanilla submarine seems to be designed for dispite comming in after modern day warships). I had to add 6 techs to pull it off

 

[Artanis]

Also, while we're on the subject of ironclads, THEY DON'T HAVE TO LOOK LIKE THE FRIGGIN' MONITOR! Yes, the monitor was the first successful ironclad and easily the most famous, but no, that wasn't the most used nor the best design for an ironclad

Just for the record, the ingame model is actually the Merrimac (aka CSS Virginia)...the Monitor is the "tin can on a shingle" one


...and yeah, it really was a POS as far as Ironclads went

 

[Exavier]

Just for the record, the ingame model is actually the Merrimack (aka CSS Virginia)...the Monitor is the "tin can on a shingle" one


...and yeah, it really was a POS as far as Ironclads went

LMAO I noticed this too... granted i have only ever built an ironclad once

 

[Ogrelord]

i want my sea colony pod.

the only use i have for naval units are transports mass drop into the "back" of a enemy civ.
And denying a coastal city sea tiles with a few ships is pretty effective.

 

[Artanis]

i want my sea colony pod.

I always liked Needlejet ones myself

...but then, I was so lazy when it came to movement rate that all my Formers would be Gravships

 

[Thalassicus]

Gravship colony pods...

Automated gravship formers had some serious pathing issues...they wouldn't pass over the international date line.

 

[Proteus]

I have yet to build a substantial navy in any regards. I have won several games without building the first naval unit (even a work boat!). I mean what's the point??? The only time you would really need a strong navy is if you are a warmonger and trying to win by conquest. But if you are going space race, cultural, time, diplomatic...a navy is not needed. And that is on any map type except islands.

Only as long as the AI doesn´t declare war on you.
If an AI on another continent declares war on you you will definitely benefit from a strong navy, no matter if you are a warmonger or a rather peaceful builder
(at least if you want to keep the enemy from pillaging your sea resources, bombard your cities and land its troops on your continent )

 

[troytheface]

I think the navy progression is done fairly well and i like the Merrimac instead of the monitor for a difference. Keeping it simple may not be a bad idea.
Simple "promotions" added to the units icon list could make like a sub a "Nuke" sub and a destroy a "Aegis" destroyer.
In so far as new units ..the real breaks in the chain of progression are Triremes - first war ships
Bi-planes (sea planes navy wise)
(And i liked the fighter/bomber in carriers idea someone wrote above)


And please do something about the complete non air assault- no air calvary, no paratroops. (my imagination pictures choppers dropping troops and shooting things up - but a graphic would go a long way - or the ability to actually carry troops)

 

[Aussie_Lurker]

Well, wish I had more time to read other people's posts, as I find the subject of naval combat in Civ very fascinating. My view, however, is that though I cannot agree that naval warfare in Civ4 is worse than in previous Civ games (to my mind, it has many elements which make the naval combat far more important than in Civ3) I will agree that they still have a way to go before I will be truly happy with naval combat in Civ (always the 'poor cousin' of land combat in this series IMO). Restoring some of the 'lost naval units'-as suggested by the OP-is a good place to begin, but other possibilities come to mind-such as:

1) Trade routes and resource-trades which clearly have to travel overseas should be blockable by enemy naval units within the city's radius (along with being unable to harvest adjacent tiles).

2) Their should be a 'naval base' tile improvement buildable by workers, with perhaps an option for naval units to 'rebase' between naval bases.

3) Increase MP of all naval units by around +1 to +3, and make coastal movement the equivalent of travelling by road (i.e. double movement)-this would help to make naval troop movements more viable than land-based movement before the advent of the RR.

Those are just a few thoughts, and I sincerely hope that issues like naval combat will be addressed-as a matter of priority-in the first expansion pack!

Yours,
Aussie_Lurker.