Navies need more power.

[whats a navy]

In CIV 4 a navy was not necessary in any map that wasn't named archipelago except for transportation of your army between two continents. Now that transports have been added though the navy doesn't seem as high priority. Not having a Navy against an enemy who did led you to lose your seafood or lose some trade routes but it was not a huge problem.
In Civ 5 I would like to see the Navy have a more important role in a civilization. My ideas include having a war ship guard trade routes near your cities to make the trade routes more productive by. Having units in transports have to wait at the shorelines for a turn so you would have to go through the Navy to land on enemy land. Make water tiles a bit more productive so when you lose them for not having a Navy it hurts more.

 

[CossackProblem]

Agreed. Make actual water trade-routes. The need to protect valuable trade and commerce will be incentive enough, as it often was in history, to maintain a navy.

 

[qwerty25]

If you don't have a navy, you can't make sea invasions, since transports don't have any or little defense in Civ 5. In civ 4 you could block trade by using privateers (I'm not sure, since I don't have BTS). I don't think that navies need that big of a role.

 

[Lillefix]

And now that they have reintroduced bombardment, ships can hopefully threaten units, city improvements, and tile improvements. And since archers have a range of two, I doubt ships will have less.

 

[Aussie_Lurker]

Although I agree that navies were weak in Civ IV vanilla, they definitely got a big boost in BtS. The ability to pillage/blockade maritime trade routes-coupled with a greater AI emphasis on naval invasions, definitely helped boost the role of the navy. Lets just hope that CivV builds on all these improvements !

Aussie.

 

[Ahriman]

I would like to see Empire Total War style naval trade routes; actual routes on the map that you can move ships on to harass, and that are actually significantly profitable.

This was one of the mechanics that ETW got right (shame the AI couldn't protect its trade properly).

 

[Shurdus]

And again there is that horrible title that should not be named ever again...

I disliked that feature in that game that one must not mention because it allowed the AI to harass your trade routes on the other side of the world without the player being able to do anything about it. Your fleet can only be in one place at a time, yet the enemy fleet could harass your trade routes from anywhere on the globe. Actually defending your routes on the other side of the globe - that is, away from the home theatre - was actually quite difficult, and as you mention the AI could not do it properly either.

Another problem with the system was that it was absolutely impossible to protect your trade. In reality it is possible to send warships to accompany a trading fleet. You can then effectively protect specific ships, making it hard for the opposition to intercept those ships. In the game that must never be mentioned this could not be done, so even if your tried your best to protect your routes the AI could simply camp one ship somewhere on the map and plunder the routes. It was next to impossible to stop this.

Edit: for the people not familiar with the game that ariman mentions, in that game the trade routes over sea were represented by dotted lines. Your enemies could park a ship on the dotted line anywhere on the globe. This would mean that your enemies would then get a part of the money that the trade route generates while it diminished the value of the trade route for the player. Trade routes could be harassed in this way at any point on the map, so that an enemy could harass trade routes on the other side of the world because he knew your fleet was not even close to that point. It made for some annoying cat and mouse games with a fleet harassing your trade routes on the other side of the globe while you were unable to do anything about it. If you send a few ships out to stop the harassers, your main fleet would be attacked by the AI. Sending the main fleet away would cause the AI to harass the trade routes in the now vacant waters close to home... It was a never ending circle of annoyance.

 

[Ahriman]

because it allowed the AI to harass your trade routes on the other side of the world without the player being able to do anything about i

It only allowed the AI to harass your trade routes on the other side of the world if you were trading with the other side of the world.
If you wanted to trade with the other side of the world, you had to build a navy to protect that trade. That's realistic!

Its unrealistic to think that you should be able to trade with Africa and India while keeping a navy around only in Europe.

Your fleet can only be in one place at a time

Here's your problem then. You shouldn't have built only one big epic monster fleet. The system was specifically designed to encourage you to build multiple small regional fleets to use to guard your trade routes. This is a Good Thing!

This is what we should be aiming for: you can become rich from world trade, but you can do so only by building up a big fleet to protect that trade. Its a whole new style of play based around naval war.

and as you mention the AI could not do it properly either.

It wouldnt' be that hard to design an AI that could protect its trade routes.
The Empire AI was just really dumb. Its biggest problem was that it wouldn't lift blockages even of its main big trade hub. How many times would some French ships block off the main dutch port (by moving onto the tile), and the dutch wouldn't move any land units there to kick them out - and so you as Britain even with a huge fleet couldn't attack the French while they were in the Dutch port.
And thus the Dutch economy chokes and dies.

Another problem with the system was that it was absolutely impossible to protect your trade.

Disagree. Naval units get a big zone of control. You could patrol a large area passively with a fleet.

And more importantly, the damage to your economy happens only slowly over time. So if someone starts raiding your trade, then you send of some ships to chase them down. They have to either fight or flee.

If they're able to raid your trade routes all over the world simultaneously... then they have a bigger navy than you, and so they should be able to choke off your naval trade during war.

And it should be difficult to keep naval trade at full strength during wartime - and it should only be possible if you have total naval supremacy (a la Imperial Britain or modern US).

camp one ship somewhere on the map and plunder the routes

If they're camping one ship you can hunt it down.
Also, one unit wasn't enough to block the route entirely, it just took a small amount of trade off. You needed many ships in order to block the trade route off entirely, or you had to actually blockade the port.

It was next to impossible to stop this.

This was not my experience. In the politest and most respectful way possible; maybe you were doing it wrong?

*edit*
The one thing I should add; I am not advocating a system like the ETW trade ships, that had to sit around on the trade points and could be destroyed by raiding. I don't think that worked well. What I'm advocating is more the port-port trade system and on-map trade routes.

 

[Shurdus]

I did not know that the plundering got worse over time so maybe I had the wrong idea there. My experience however was that you absolutely needed to have a big - and I mean BIG - navy to protect home waters becuase the AI would get a decent fleet with a highly promoted admiral that could smack the bejeezus out of anything unless you brought a big fleet.

You could send a fleet to protect trade routes, but the fact remains that your trade routes could be picked on from anywhere amongst the trade route while it was very hard to keep your routes clean. At the same time you were forced to send out ships to keep your routes clean because the AI would really hurt trade income if you didn't. To me this was a part of micromanagement that was really annoying and not needed. I suspect that CA inserted this feature only so they could showcase the new naval battles - which did not work at all.

In the end I would very, very much like the system to remain as it is now, nice and passive unless the AI aggressively tries to sabotage you. The system with actively plundering routes may have been solid for that heap of feces of a game that I will not mention because that game was part about battles part about managing an empire. Civ is more about the empire management and less about battles, so I would like to see a system that does not require you to actively seek out units on the other side of the globe only to protect your trade routes.

 

[Ahriman]

I did not know that the plundering got worse over time so maybe I had the wrong idea there

No no, it didn't, but the damage you suffer only comes from the economic loss per turn. So as soon as they stop raiding, your economy goes 100% back to normal. [With the exception of if they kill your trade ships, which I woudln't want for Civ.]

My experience however was that you absolutely needed to have a big - and I mean BIG - navy to protect home waters becuase the AI would get a decent fleet with a highly promoted admiral that could smack the bejeezus out of anything unless you brought a big fleet.

Having a big home fleet does not mean you can't also have regional fleets. If you aren't willing to invest in navy like that, then you should accept that this means that you won't be a big global trade power.

The entire purpose of such a mechanic is to make naval power more important - which is the title of this thread.
ETW is the only game I've ever seen where ruling the seas really was a viable strategy, and where naval power really paid off economically.

If you don't like needing a big navy in order to maintain trade... then you don't really like the main goal of this thread.

You could send a fleet to protect trade routes, but the fact remains that your trade routes could be picked on from anywhere amongst the trade route while it was very hard to keep your routes clean. At the same time you were forced to send out ships to keep your routes clean because the AI would really hurt trade income if you didn't.

I think its great to have mechanics that encourage you to split your forces and raid all over, rather than just mass a big naval uberfleet. Anything that does this is fine by me. Civ has traditionally been poor at encouraging raiding and harassment tactics.

In the end I would very, very much like the system to remain as it is now

Does this mean you prefer a system where navies are relatively unimportant, and their only real purpose is to defend land forces crossing water tiles?

, nice and passive unless the AI aggressively tries to sabotage you.

Doesn't raiding your trade routes count as the AI aggressively trying to sabotage you?
Remember that this only happens when you're at war (or privateers).

 

[Shurdus]

Well it seems then that we are diametrically opposing each other, since I think that being forced to take action each and every turn in order to protect trade routes is very, very tedious and it should just not happen. That is the sort of micromanagement that I want to spend no time on. The current system works for not having to micro all that much while on occasion it could really pay off to have a strong navy.

The OP claims that you needed no navy whatsoever unless you played archipelago. This is just not true since having at least some navy is important on most maps. Of course there are exceptions like when you play your diplomatic cards right. If there is no threat of an invasion whatsoever then you needed no navy like you needed no city garisson. It is not really a problem to me, it is something that happens in some games. It typically requires a lot of sucking up in terms of giving in to demands - which is not free.

So all in all not needing a navy is like the problem of not needing units in some games. Some games you get away with it but not in others. Not needing to build units keeps maintenance down but is costs you tribute that the AI demands from you because not giving in to those demands can trigger war. So even those who do not need units do not get there for free.

All in all with military units now transporting themselves over water it seems that navy is becoming more important all by itself without the need for added game features like actual trade routes that you can raid. Anything to keep the late game from bogging down is a pre in my book, we need no features that make the late game more slow as it is.

 

[Ahriman]

since I think that being forced to take action each and every turn in order to protect trade routes is very, very tedious and it should just not happen

Who says it is each and every turn?

Its only each and every turn if they send a new raider out each turn. They can't do that when you attack and destroy their raiders.

Also, how is this any extra MM burden? It only happens during wartime, when you are already MMing your army.
Why is it ok to MM your land forces, but not your naval forces?

How is chasing down a naval raider any more work than chasing down cavalry who are pillaging your improvements?

I think you are land-biased

This is just not true since having at least some navy is important on most maps.

Having a navy is very unimportant in Civ4 on most mapscripts. Blockades have minimal economic impact and ocean tiles give low tile yields.
If the enemy has a big land army and you don't, then they can capture your cities and destroy your empire. If the enemy has a big navy and you don't, then they can inconvenience you in some relatively minor ways.

I think there is a general consensus among most Civ fans that Civ has never done navies very well, and navies have always been a relatatively unimportant part of the game. YMMV.
Most players would like to see navies as being valuable in their own right, rather than just support for land units.

Given that navies will never be able to take cities by themselves, then to make them important they need to have some kind of economic function.

Anything to keep the late game from bogging down

Why would trade raiding apply only in the late-game?

 

[SemperFi2382]

Has anyone played Call to Power? If I remember right, you could setup trade routes that were visibly represented on the map. You could, then "pillage" the route which in turn which it destroyed it if I remember right. Although, you'd be pissing off both parties if it was a foreign trade route. Of course, you could rebuild said trade route over again.

However, there is another Turn Based Strategy game that does plundering trade routes rather well. The name is escaping me at the moment as I am not at my main PC that has it. However, trade routes are represented with Red and Blue trade lines (Foe and Friend respectively). You could park say submarines on the red line and you ran a chance of plundering x number a turn. The amount was random, but it had an effect if you parked more ships along the line. Since you cannot stack units in this game (and now you cannot in Civ 5), this would be a similar effect.

Now, the counter to this is patrolling your sea lanes (marked in blue) with warships. This meant you could in theory patrol a given line and of course the enemy could only attack on the same given line. A really persistent enemy could simply return or add more warships, but you in turn could step up patrols with more warships of your own.

Of course, this would sound as if you wanted to put ships on every sea hex from here to the next port, but the costs of upkeep would be too high. Also, to have so many sea raiders would be counter productive.

It would be more cost effective to blockade the port to strangle trade than to raid sea lanes, but then you're on your enemies front door where they are more likely to strike back. I liked how it operated as it was a simple mechanic. You could see where the major commerce points were, and as a smaller civ fighting a bigger civ, raiding commerce to limit the money going to fight you over time would be another strategy. Yes, it could work both ways but isn't that how it works anyway?

 

[Ahriman]

People interested in this discussion may also be interested in this thread: http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=360683

Frekk's concept was to create a separate off-map trade system, where naval units would be redeployed from the main map into a separate parallel offmap trade system.

I didn't really like separating this off, and preferred more of an ETW style system.

 

[Disgustipated]

I definitely would like to see more navy, being a navy vet myself. And I like some of the ideas in the OP. Although since we don't have transports, I'd like to see enemy units "slow down" in your cultural sea areas or as you say wait one turn before being able to land. No more declare war, and land ground units without any chance to use your navy in defense and vice versa.

And I like that land-biased comment a few posts up. Nice job. The entire civ series is land biased. While I love civ, I hate how everything boils down to cavalry or tanks. Yes I realize there are more land units than that, you get my gist.

But you don't want to go too far. Because let's face it. In classic times, navy really wasn't that important. It was only needed to cross water. Once they got across, it was the huge army that got all the glory. I'm thinking Alexander the great, or Hannibal times here. They had large armies, and I don't recall hearing much about the boats they used to get across the water ways to their intended targets. Also you could argue navy is far less effective in the age of missiles than it was in the industrial times (like ww1 ww2 eras). Air power has also diminished the importance of a navy.

That said, see my naval unit recommendations in the last page of the units we'd like to see thread. I think my ideas are decent. I like my idea of beefing up carriers so they have a large visual range to enable them to take out battleships before battleships can take them out (I hate how powerful battleships are in civ games after flight). And I like my idea of subs plundering trade routes (to simulate sinking merchant shipping which is what many uboats did- they didn't take on warships, they sank merchant shipping). In fact, plundering one trade route sounds too restrictive for subs. Maybe go with 2. I really want to beef subs up. Subs are far too weak in civ games. Unless you like to lob around nukes, that is

 

[Shurdus]

Who says it is each and every turn?

Its only each and every turn if they send a new raider out each turn. They can't do that when you attack and destroy their raiders.

Also, how is this any extra MM burden? It only happens during wartime, when you are already MMing your army.
Why is it ok to MM your land forces, but not your naval forces?

How is chasing down a naval raider any more work than chasing down cavalry who are pillaging your improvements?

I think you are land-biased


Having a navy is very unimportant in Civ4 on most mapscripts. Blockades have minimal economic impact and ocean tiles give low tile yields.
If the enemy has a big land army and you don't, then they can capture your cities and destroy your empire. If the enemy has a big navy and you don't, then they can inconvenience you in some relatively minor ways.

I think there is a general consensus among most Civ fans that Civ has never done navies very well, and navies have always been a relatatively unimportant part of the game. YMMV.
Most players would like to see navies as being valuable in their own right, rather than just support for land units.

Given that navies will never be able to take cities by themselves, then to make them important they need to have some kind of economic function.


Why would trade raiding apply only in the late-game?

In BtS it can greatly impact your economy when the AI is blocking intercontinental trade. If you were never hurt by blockades then I wonder what game you are playing instead. A good navy is not important on all maps just like having units is not always important, but there are quite a few cases where you will want at least some frigates and later destroyers in order to keep your shores clean. Having the AI harass you all over the globe seems like a stretch since in reality it is next to impossible to track ships on open sea. there certainly are no trade routes like there are in that one heap of feces of a game. It just does not work that way.

Having trade routes pillaged like in that game would increase MM since you will be pretty much forced to act in a stage of the game where there already is plenty to do. Anything more to do - especially something as uninteresting as managing a navy - is a burden I do not want.

Maybe I am land biased, so what? On land there are plenty of units and strategic depth in terms of ways to use the terrain to your advantage, on sea there are a handful of units, so numbers are pretty much the way the be superior on the sea. I have no problem with a more important navy, but I very much dislike it if it becomes a game of spamming ships and completely uninteresting naval combat.

 

[Ahriman]

In classic times, navy really wasn't that important. It was only needed to cross water. Once they got across, it was the huge army that got all the glory. I'm thinking Alexander the great, or Hannibal times here.

Hannibal post-dates all the Greek and Persian galley warfare (Salamis anyone?). I don't think its fair to say that navies didn't matter in the ancient world.

In fact, plundering one trade route sounds too restrictive for subs. Maybe go with 2.

The cool thing about the Empire Total War trade system is that trade routes between continents get channeled together into a single thread across the oceans.

So, imagine that there are trade routes between Boston and London, Jamaica and London and Philadephia and London. These will have three separate trade routes that will merge together into a single path to cross the North Atlantic.
Trade routes between New York and Bristol will also merge onto the same route crossing the North Atlantic, and then will separate to go into Bristol rather than London.

So, every trade route crossing the North Atlantic to go to Europe passes through the same tiles - so there is a focal point for naval warfare. Any units on that trade route will degrade (not halt completely) the yield from all of the trade connections on that zone of anyone the owner of the unit is at war with.

Trade routes from Africa to Europe will similarly merge together to go to Europe, as will trade rouets from South America.

If you were never hurt by blockades then I wonder what game you are playing instead.

The economic damage was small relative to what woudl have been achieved by a similar hammer investment in land units.

Having the AI harass you all over the globe seems like a stretch since in reality it is next to impossible to track ships on open sea.

Hardly. They're operating in a zone raiding. This is absolutely what happened from the age of sail onwards. A single warship unit will only slightly degrade trade, because they can't stop every merchant ship - as you say, the ocean is big.
Look up commerce raiding, it was standard practice.

What is ridiculous is thinking that you can have global trade routes unmolested using only a brown water navy that hangs around your ports.

Having trade routes pillaged like in that game would increase MM

I agree that I don't like the idea of trade routes that are pillaged using a pillage type action and are then destroyed. I much prefer an idea that is much like the existing blockade action, but can be done on trade routes, not just on ports.

especially something as uninteresting as managing a navy

This is somewhat circular. Naval warfare is boring because there is nothing to do with a navy. We can't create something interestnig to do with a navy (harass trade routes, protect your own trade routes) because naval warfare is boring.

Maybe I am land biased, so what?

So, not everyone else is.

On land there are plenty of units and strategic depth in terms of ways to use the terrain to your advantage, on sea there are a handful of units

So isn't the answer to make naval units more interesting?

 

[Reiser]

I have a certain idea for navies (don't know if this has been suggested yet).

First, let's create a new navy unit, the Merchant Ship. Not very much strength, can't carry any troops, but can carry cargo. What I mean is, the "finite resource" idea is being implemented, right? Say, 5 iron makes 5 swordsmen, like that. The Merchant Ship can carry a number of this cargo, such as oil, (I'm thinking 5-15) to other countries to give to for war.

You may have noticed I am talking about the Battle of the Atlantic, where America tries to give materials for war to England and the USSR in preparation for the Second World War. Obviously submarines will be the "merchant-killer," probably having a range for its torpedoes. But, to counter that, if you have at least one Merchant Ship or Transport and a military unit in the same square, you can establish a convoy (new button). What this does is it makes a group of all the military units and non-military units together. This group moves at the same moves as its lowest-movement unit.

Submarines can sometimes pass through the military units to the merchants unnoticed, which is represented by "Chance of Undetection: %". As submarines get more modern, they get better undetection, but as military units get more modern, they will get better interception.

Also, maybe there could be a displaying of the popular convoy routes given to the enemy from epsionage. This is just an idea which popped into my head.

 

[Impaler[WrG]]

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.

The 'beach-head' system also helps too and that has been mentioned in this thread as well. Given the 1upt system its possible that people will put cheap units in every coastal tile as a means to block landings, navel units need to have some ability to destroy or at least push-back units along the coast so that transport units can unload.

But I feel the biggest change that Navel units need is a huge increase in speed, through all of human history until the establishment of transcontinental rail-road networks a boat was far and a way the fastest means of travel. During the westward migration in America it was faster to sail from New-York to San-Fransisco by going around the tip of South America then it was to go overland from the St. Louis rail-heads (also less likely to get the "YOU HAVE DIED OF DYSENTERY" ending).

Boats are about an order of magnitude faster then travel over even land with roads, but Civ has never even tried to reflected this in the unit movement speeds. Ships movement is on par with or even falls behind maximum possible land speed. If Civ5 is going to have basic ground movement of infantry be 2 then the earliest boats should have a speed of at least 6 with late game ships in the 20's or even 30's for Nuclear Submarines and Aircraft Carriers, this is roughly 1 movement per knot of cruising speed. Such speeds will be highly desirable even on a Pangaea map and sea power will take it's place as the key means of projecting power at distance and with speed.

Naturally such speed must come with some limitations, most people find the use of a fishing boat to explore the whole coast of a Pangaea map rather silly already and the speed increase could make it much worse. Thus a range limit mechanism should be included and I favor a simple maximum distance from port. Each type of ships would a specific range distinct from its speed. Early ships have modest ranges on par with their speed, WWII era ships would have ranges in the 40-60 range and a nuclear ships has unlimited range. This will mean that navel exploration of the world can proceed in discrete stages as technology makes newer longer range ships available and the player establishes remote outposts to extend their reach. Each individual ship can move freely within it's range limited zone and dose not take damage or need to return to ports for supplies or fuel. This can be though of as a hybrid system between land unit movement and Aircraft movement, it combines the range limit of air with the movement points and discrete tile-2-tile movement of land units.

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.

 

[Shurdus]

Hannibal post-dates all the Greek and Persian galley warfare (Salamis anyone?). I don't think its fair to say that navies didn't matter in the ancient world.


The cool thing about the Empire Total War trade system is that trade routes between continents get channeled together into a single thread across the oceans.

So, imagine that there are trade routes between Boston and London, Jamaica and London and Philadephia and London. These will have three separate trade routes that will merge together into a single path to cross the North Atlantic.
Trade routes between New York and Bristol will also merge onto the same route crossing the North Atlantic, and then will separate to go into Bristol rather than London.

So, every trade route crossing the North Atlantic to go to Europe passes through the same tiles - so there is a focal point for naval warfare. Any units on that trade route will degrade (not halt completely) the yield from all of the trade connections on that zone of anyone the owner of the unit is at war with.

Trade routes from Africa to Europe will similarly merge together to go to Europe, as will trade rouets from South America.


The economic damage was small relative to what woudl have been achieved by a similar hammer investment in land units.


Hardly. They're operating in a zone raiding. This is absolutely what happened from the age of sail onwards. A single warship unit will only slightly degrade trade, because they can't stop every merchant ship - as you say, the ocean is big.
Look up commerce raiding, it was standard practice.

What is ridiculous is thinking that you can have global trade routes unmolested using only a brown water navy that hangs around your ports.


I agree that I don't like the idea of trade routes that are pillaged using a pillage type action and are then destroyed. I much prefer an idea that is much like the existing blockade action, but can be done on trade routes, not just on ports.


This is somewhat circular. Naval warfare is boring because there is nothing to do with a navy. We can't create something interestnig to do with a navy (harass trade routes, protect your own trade routes) because naval warfare is boring.


So, not everyone else is.


So isn't the answer to make naval units more interesting?

Like I said, making it more interesting is good, more important... I am not too sure about that one. In my book it was already very much important to defend yourself properly. Letting the AI pillage seafood and then blocking your ports can be quite hurtful already. Just because players sometimes chose to let the AI do that does not mean that the navy was unimportant per se. One some difficulties you may very well get away with anything, on the higher difficulties you wanted to defend yourself. Defending yourself with good diplomacy is pretty much the best defense, and it requires no units whatsoever, land or naval. This is not biased either way.

I disagree with the statement that the same investment in land units would achieve more devastating results, especially since one single ship can block several 5+ commerce trade routes. Try to inflict that amount of damage with one land unit and that unit would get blown to smithereens. I think that it is you who here somewhat underestimates the naval units. Keep in mind that once the blockade is lifted you do not automatically get the old routes back. The receiving cities may very well have switched trading with other cities because they are more rewarding than opening trades with you again. You can miss a lot of commerce with a few blocks, even if those blocks last a turn or two each.

Also keep in mind that there was already the option to block trading on the other side of the world, because you could block your own coast with a privateer so that you could get intercontinental trade but the AI could not. The AI did not use this very much, but it can be done. It makes the navy important enough in my book, it is just the AI that does not use the full potential of the units.

In the end I think I can agree with more interesting options for naval units, but keeping the navy as it is would mean that making it more important means spamming ships. Making it so that navies could pillage anywhere seems annoying to me, since I think in order to reduce micro it is fine to keep the focus on your land and the coastal waters surrounding it. Having global trade routes that can be raided in the middle of the ocean seems annoying and not that fun to me.