Navies need more power.

[Ahriman]

The trade point you bring up seemed less of an issue. Mostly because you never had to MM trade on land either.

This is kinda the point. You don't miss having to MM trade units, and we mostly accept this abstraction without any problems.
We won't miss transport ships once they're gone either

You can assign escorts to your shipping

Yeah, I personally don't like taking warships offstage. Frekk suggested a model like this for trade, we discussed it here:http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=360683

I don't mind having a similar mechanic for military transports. Transports are invisible and "appear" whenever you move a land unit onto water, but you have to build a transport capacity to do this first. If your land unit dies while in the ocean, your pool of transports drops by 1.
It seems a reasonable way to use the low-MM system while still adding a resource cost.

Similarly what's wrong with a land unit getting some reeds together and attacking a ship during the night - that too regularly happens even to this day.

Only when ships are in port or a harbor and at rest of moving slowly. You can't do it when ships are actually at sea, because they just sail away from you.

 

[Never]

Well I'm not advocating the use of land units that will actually sail into the ocean after a ship, what I'm saying is I don't see an issue with land units being able to attack a ship adjacent to a coast tile.

Edit: And the thing is ships should be able to defend against a land unit. I hate it when you capture a city and all enemy ships are destroyed instantly. For a start they would be able to defend themselves or alternatively sail to safety, but also if ships in port were that easy to destroy surely they would be captured and not destroyed?

Similarly it would make sense if a ship was able to attack a city directly.

 

[Ahriman]

what I'm saying is I don't see an issue with land units being able to attack a ship adjacent to a coast tile.

I do. How are swordsmen or musketmen or riflemen going to attack a ship sailing along the coast?
A cannon with a bombardment attack could bombard it, sure. But normal attacks don't make much sense.

I hate it when you capture a city and all enemy ships are destroyed instantly. For a start they would be able to defend themselves or alternatively sail to safety

This is a nonissue with 1upt, because you can't keep your fleet in the city anymore.

Similarly it would make sense if a ship was able to attack a city directly.

Why? This hardly ever happened for any city of decent size. Most naval attacks on cities are unloading land units who then attack it. Ships want to stay away from cities, because the cities have much bigger and more guns than the ships.

 

[jahg84]

A problem with 1 turn to unload transport is that it gives the defender time to move ground forces to oppose the landing. If your opponent has railroads this would make landings impossible or costly.

So, another fix would be needed for 1 turn unloading. Perhaps make it illegal to move defending troops onto the beachhead until unloading is completed?
Alternatively, in the unloading turn the unit can be attacked as a transport on the sea as well as on the land. This wouldn't work for 'hot' landings though.

 

[Disgustipated]

but is it so far fetched that the defender knows an amphib. attack is incoming? I don't think so. How many "surprise" amphib. attacks have happened in recent memory? Japan could have done it during pearl harbor, but that's only because there was no declaration of war at the time. If we'd been at war, we'd know they were preparing for an amphib. attack.

Are there really any "surprise" amphib attacks? Even Hitler knew we were going to land in France. He just didn't know exactly where.

The defender should be able to respond to amphib. attacks. I think almost everyone hates how they are now where an ai declares, and launches 5 tranports directly at your city overwhelming it. Or they land those 5 to 10 transports and attack the next turn. I hate not being able to respond to that.

You should be able to respond. With 1 upt you can only put so many troops to respond anyways. And they wont' have fortification bonus. I feel this is realistic enough.

I agree with 1 turn to unload troops. Or at the very least. Restrict enemy land/transport movement in your cultural boundaries similar to how land units in civ4 are restricted in your cultural boundaries. Maybe 2 squares max for enemy units in your cultural boundaries on the coast/sea.

 

[SemperFi2382]

Yeah, I personally don't like taking warships offstage. Frekk suggested a model like this for trade, we discussed it here:http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=360683[/QUOTE]

Well, you aren't taking warships offstage at all. In the Model I was referring to, escorts were considered separate entities. You could still build a destroyer as part of your regular navy. However, an escort is not shown on the map.

Essentially, we are talking about Escort Carriers, Liberty Ships, armed soldiers or any number of things that you could consider as "escorts". Ships that have little use being represented as a standalone unit, yet still were very real threats to an attacker. It could even very well be a "warship" that is relegated to babysitting.

However, using that model means that if you don't have a real navy (like the destroyer for example) patrolling, you can only do so much. Even with greater tech giving you better escorts, it's not infallible as a defense.

 

[Ahriman]

Well, you aren't taking warships offstage at all. In the Model I was referring to, escorts were considered separate entities.

So what is it escorting against? There's no point in having escorts unless there is some kind of commerce raider attacking them. I don't see how an offstage escort makes sense defending against on-stage warships.

 

[SemperFi2382]

So what is it escorting against? There's no point in having escorts unless there is some kind of commerce raider attacking them. I don't see how an offstage escort makes sense defending against on-stage warships.

Toggle your escorts based on need perhaps? I was just thinking in time of war. Kind of like how mobilization worked in Civ3.

 

[Ahriman]

Toggle your escorts based on need perhaps? I was just thinking in time of war. Kind of like how mobilization worked in Civ3

I don't understand what you mean.

My question is: if you have off-screen escorts, what are they escorting against? There has to be something attacking the trade ships or escorting them is meaningless. It weird to have off-screen escorts defending against on-screen warships, so I don't understand how your system would work without having offscreen warships.
Which I don't like.

 

[SemperFi2382]

I don't understand what you mean.

My question is: if you have off-screen escorts, what are they escorting against? There has to be something attacking the trade ships or escorting them is meaningless. It weird to have off-screen escorts defending against on-screen warships, so I don't understand how your system would work without having offscreen warships.
Which I don't like.

You're escorting your ships regardless if they are being attacked or not. The point of assigning escorts (say in wartime) is your "just in case measure". Obviously, this will have to have some detriment to your income as you are allocating resources for said escorts.

Now, the on screen ships (your warships) get a button to "conduct sea raids" which would be a %chance to find a convoy and a then a chance to lose to the escorts (if present) who could get a set strength.

It's actually not weird at all, based on the model I'm referring to (Hearts of Iron II), warships are on the map. You move them as you would move any other ship. The difference is, you can disrupt shipping (as convoys are not on the map) like any other order.

It would be like the blockade order. You're not really seeing the effects of the blockade per se. However, instead of simply stopping the invisible trade ships, you are actually killing them. The difference being a blockade is more effective, but again you are going to have to post on screen ships to do that action and use on screen ships to clear said blockade.

You figure you already are performing an action against invisible trade ships anyhow. The blockade is stopping trade ships from entering/exiting the harbor as it is. Using the model I described, you are adding the additional option to attack that shipping in hostile boundaries.

So, as a counter to that, you have an option to add invisible escorts to your invisible trade ships which basically give a lower chance of success to the attacker.

For example:
You are at war with the English. You know they have trade ships going between two landmasses. You have submarines and wish to disrupt their shipping. You move your subs into their waters and click "raid shipping".

The English know they are losing ships (via notifications) and get an idea where (not exact until maybe satellites). They can respond in one of two ways. They can send a surface fleet to hunt you down (better have destroyers or airships).

However, let's say that is not an option. Both of your navies are engaged elsewhere and so in order to try to stem the loss of ships, England turns on Escorts

You attack next turn again, but find less success and you lose a sub. You still have some success, but there is a decrease in the damage done.

At first, you would think the attacker has the advantage because escorts are not really a completely fail safe method. You are right because it is not. The attacker is using on screen ships to do damage. The off screen escort mission is like wearing a helmet and body armor. Sure, it saves you some of the time, but not all of the time.

The attacker is risking on screen ships (made at a city, using resources) to do damage to your enemy economy (which it's killing resources). Now, while the defender hopes to kill you without risk to his own fleet, it surely is not effective enough to stop you. No, the defender has to build a warship to kill you.

What the model is doing is adding more use for subs and in turn ASW, such as destroyers. Sure, you could technically sea raid with surface ships (like a privateer) but make "sea raiding" a special ability.

It's not as complex as it sounds, as the model worked well.

 

[Ice_Tyrant]

I must agree with OP. In my latest game of Civ4, I was playing as China, and I went to war agaoinst the Khmer Empire, the only other civ that had land on the continent we were on. (a neat little coincidence there I guess.) They had me completly out... navied, but that didn't matter at all. Maybe it was because it was a land war, maybe it's 'cause I was on an easy difficulty setting, I dunno. It just seemed like their navy should've hurt me more then it did. Maybe I just hurt them more since I was taking city after city from them.

 

[Ahriman]

Now, the on screen ships (your warships) get a button to "conduct sea raids" which would be a %chance to find a convoy and a then a chance to lose to the escorts (if present) who could get a set strength.

So, you have on-screen warships with normal stats fighting against off-screen escorts using a combat mechanism that goes completely outside the normal combat mechanics.

I don't think thats a good idea.

So, as a counter to that, you have an option to add invisible escorts to your invisible trade ships which basically give a lower chance of success to the attacker.

Why is that a good design goal?
If someone uses warships to raid your trade-routes, that *should* be effective. To stop it, you should have to chase them down with your own warships.

You attack next turn again, but find less success and you lose a sub.

Units are going to be lower in number than in Civ4, and harder to kill completely. Losing an entire units from a bad die-roll when attacking trade routes would totally throw off the risk-reward calculations. You wouldn't want to even bother trying to raid trade routes if it would cost you units.

Trade raiding has been a low-value tactic, we want to make it more valuable, not less.

 

[SemperFi2382]

So, you have on-screen warships with normal stats fighting against off-screen escorts using a combat mechanism that goes completely outside the normal combat mechanics.

I don't think thats a good idea.

I'm suggesting a mechanic I have seen that works. However, I'm just putting that out there because I think it would expand at least the some of the naval units purpose.

Why is that a good design goal?
If someone uses warships to raid your trade-routes, that *should* be effective. To stop it, you should have to chase them down with your own warships.

Re-read what I posted. The convoy system IS NOT fail safe. You need real warships to deal with it.

Units are going to be lower in number than in Civ4, and harder to kill completely. Losing an entire units from a bad die-roll when attacking trade routes would totally throw off the risk-reward calculations. You wouldn't want to even bother trying to raid trade routes if it would cost you units.

Trade raiding has been a low-value tactic, we want to make it more valuable, not less.

You're not losing units in Civ5, because they said units won't die (something I am not sure I agree with). So, in essence you're not losing anything save for whatever mechanic they are using to "heal" your now inoperable unit.

 

[Never]

Hang on a minute. They said units don't ever die?

 

[Ahriman]

However, I'm just putting that out there because I think it would expand at least the some of the naval units purpose.

I do not think that reducing the effectiveness of trade-route raiding (because you have to deal with escorts) increases the purpose of warships.

Re-read what I posted. The convoy system IS NOT fail safe. You need real warships to deal with it.

I don't understand what you're saying here.
In Civ4, or in the trade system I proposed, trade routes have no protection except for on-map warships. This means that me raiding your trade routes with my warships is valuable and is a high-return strategy, and it means that you respond to that by using your warships to attack my raiders. I can see your warships, and I interact with them through the normal combat mechanics.

In your system, if I raid your trade routes with my warships, then I get lower returns from doing this because of escorts, and "combat" happens through some offscreen die-rolls that don't use the normal combat mechanics. So its non-transparent, and its very unclear how for example higher strength units, or combat promotions and experience will affect the warship/escort interaction.
And you don't have to actively defend your trade routes at all, you just use passive escorts - which are totally useless at all times that your trade routes are not being raided.

Its much simpler to just keep all the warships onstage in a single layer, and not have any warfare that doesn't use the normal combat mechanics.

You're not losing units in Civ5, because they said units won't die (something I am not sure I agree with)

They have never said that units won't die. They've said that, in general, units won't die from a single battle.
For example, hypothetically they might just lose some hit points - but still die when their hit points reach zero.

 

[SemperFi2382]

I don't understand what you're saying here.
In Civ4, or in the trade system I proposed, trade routes have no protection except for on-map warships. This means that me raiding your trade routes with my warships is valuable and is a high-return strategy, and it means that you respond to that by using your warships to attack my raiders. I can see your warships, and I interact with them through the normal combat mechanics.

Yes, and I'm not talking about your system. I'm talking about a system in a completely different game.

Also, warships never left the screen. So, you can see them and they can see you.

In your system, if I raid your trade routes with my warships, then I get lower returns from doing this because of escorts, and "combat" happens through some offscreen die-rolls that don't use the normal combat mechanics. So its non-transparent, and its very unclear how for example higher strength units, or combat promotions and experience will affect the warship/escort interaction.

Actually, I said higher tech could change the balance for or against you.

And you don't have to actively defend your trade routes at all, you just use passive escorts - which are totally useless at all times that your trade routes are not being raided.

Eh, no. That's is not what I am saying. They are still being raided. Why wouldn't you deal with the threat?

Also, I said you could toggle escorts on and off.

Its much simpler to just keep all the warships onstage in a single layer, and not have any warfare that doesn't use the normal combat mechanics.

"Warships" are on a single layer. I never said they weren't.

They have never said that units won't die. They've said that, in general, units won't die from a single battle.
For example, hypothetically they might just lose some hit points - but still die when their hit points reach zero.

Ah okay. That still doesn't sound much better. However, that's not what were talking about so I'll leave it at that.

Okay, obviously this is sounding so complex that it's not making any sense even though this is an almost stupidly simple mechanic. Everything you don't get I've explained so I guess I'm going to have to break it down to even simpler terms. So, let's go Sesame Street on this.

Your Model
Trade Ships Invisible
Warships Visible
Warship Attack Invisible Trade Ship
Invisible Ship Dies
(THIS IS STILL OFF SCREEN COMBAT JUST LIKE YOU'RE COMPLAINING ABOUT!)

My Model
Trade Ships Invisble
Warships Visible
Warship Attack Invisible Trade Ship w/o Escort
Invisible Ship dies
Escorts turned on
Escorts Invisible
Warship Attack Invisible Ships
Warship less effective

WHERE IS THE CONFUSION?

FFS, it's almost the same model. Both Models REQUIRE VISIBLE WARSHIPS to kill the other. Forget losing ships at all. Your Model is 100% effective against trade ships. There is no mechanic to take your VISIBLE WARSHIPS to protect your INVISIBLE TRADE SHIPS so you could simply ignore it anyhow. In Civ4 your ships sat around in a blockade doing nothing against INVISIBLE SHIPS, but somehow stopping them.

Sorry for the rant, but the reality of it is that it's not that complex. You're making it sound way harder than it is. All my model adds is some sort of defense that lowers the effectiveness. Sure you could run escorts all the time, but why? Hence the toggle. It will cost resources to use escorts, but it will be less resources than doing nothing. Even less damage if you actually moved warships to go kill the raider.

Doing Nothing = x = resources lost
Toggling Escorts = x + tech%boost = Resources Lost
Killing Raider = Zero Loss of Resources

These off screen calculations you seem so hung up on are not a big deal. If you're using a Submarine to raid a Civ that is using Galleys, you're going to be effective. If you're using a Submarine vs a Civ that has submarines, you're not going to be AS EFFECTIVE. You're still doing damage, but not as much as if there were no escorts.

You start with a base %, then certain techs make you more effective or conversely less effective depending on what side of the coin you are on.

Sure, this doesn't make your Navy the omgwtfbbqpwnmobile you want them to be. Heck even take out losing any units or even losing any strength if that bothers you so much. Now you have an invincible ship doing off screen damage to and INVISIBLE SHIP once again without any sort of repercussions.

I'd rather see some risk to your units, hence the escorts.

 

[Ahriman]

Eh, no. That's is not what I am saying. They are still being raided. Why wouldn't you deal with the threat?

How are your trade routes being raided when you're not at war and there aren't warships raiding your trade routes?

Yes, and I'm not talking about your system

Its useful to contrast a new version to alternatives and do existing Civ4.

"Warships" are on a single layer. I never said they weren't.

"Escorts" purpose is to fight warships. That makes them warships.

Invisible Ship Dies
(THIS IS STILL OFF SCREEN COMBAT JUST LIKE YOU'RE COMPLAINING ABOUT!)

No. There are no ships that die. There is merely a reduction in trade route yield.
No combat.

Both Models REQUIRE VISIBLE WARSHIPS to kill the other

Your model specifically said that visible warships could be killed by invisible escorts.

There is no mechanic to take your VISIBLE WARSHIPS to protect your INVISIBLE TRADE SHIPS

Sure there is. You attack their visible warships with your visible warships.
Protection through attacking.
Why is there a need for specific protection through escorting?

In Civ4 your ships sat around in a blockade doing nothing against INVISIBLE SHIPS, but somehow stopping them.

So what's wrong with that? This is simple.
The main problem in Civ4 is that trade route yield isn't high enough for blockading to be meaningful (and therefore naval units aren't powerful enough), and that you can only reduce trade from one city at a time.

Sure you could run escorts all the time, but why? Hence the toggle.

I don't quite understand this. If escorts are something you build with hammers, how can you just toggle them on and off?

You start with a base %, then certain techs make you more effective or conversely less effective depending on what side of the coin you are on.

You don't think this seems pretty complex?

Heck even take out losing any units or even losing any strength if that bothers you so much. Now you have an invincible ship doing off screen damage to and INVISIBLE SHIP once again without any sort of repercussions.

Then what's the point of escorts?

I'd rather see some risk to your units

Why should my warships face risk when raiding trade ships?
If you want to stop me from raiding, then attack my warships.

 

[The_J]

I think this system needs some invisible attacking warships, and maybe also some invisible boarding troops and invisible helicopters for the boarding.

 

[Balderstrom]

While trade-route interactions with Navy's is a good idea I think Strategic resources rather then mere 'gold' will have to flow along said routes before they are really vital enough for a Navy to be entirely justified on trade protection alone. Imperialism is the best example of this, Navel power is important and it's importance rests on the protection and disruption of economically imperative trade.
...

But I feel the biggest change that Navel units need is a huge increase in speed,
...

With this system it should be possible to eliminate the clunky 'coastal only' restriction on early vessels. It was never historically accurate as Greek galleys did indeed cross the open Mediterranean ocean for a week or more. In it's place I would add some interesting 'terrain' like features to the ocean. To start the Coastal waters should have higher movement cost much like forests on land as well a a few patches of 'reef' which have extra high movement costs. Deep water would feature transient or randomly moving 'storms' or even larger 'hurricanes' that have high movement costs and can do damage to earlier ships. Some techs could provide 'immunity' to these hazards on a civ wide basis, Sonar for reefs, Meteorology? for the storms. Most interesting (and probably challenging to implement) would be to do 'Prevailing winds' which actually add or subtract movement cost to a tile depending on the direction of travel, naturally these apply only to sailing ships. Features like these could really spice up the rather featureless oceans traditionally found in Civ and add an element of 'favorable water' say for example a ship can get a promotion giving it a defensive bonus in reefs or a Trireme can get a +1 attack bonus if it has the wind at its back.

If all ships can transport units - this could work well: so you needn't send civillian units across as
defenseless transports. It always annoyed me in that none of the ships could carry units *except for* transports.

 

[Never]

That's essentially what they're doing now isn't it though Balderstone. They have come up with the best method: units automatically turn into transports. Impaler does give some good suggestions I must say.