Navies need more power.

[The_Reckoning]

Don't want to make a wallpost; here's my quick ideas:

Navies IRL are necessary because without them you can't trade or transport troops across water.

Sea trade is far more important than land trade for a long time in history, because boats are faster than walking/horses.

Civ4 and others fail to make navies important because you don't need a fighting-capable navy to e.g. cross the English Channel - you can send transports anywhere nearby.

The way to correct this is either:
1. have naval interception - like Empire: Total War, your boats can't go in range of the enemy's navy without being forced to fight.

or, my own idea:
2. landing takes extra time - troops disembarking from ships take 1 turn to actually get off the ships. This would give a player seeking to defend his coastline a guaranteed 1 turn of movement opportunity to destroy the invaders at sea. I personally think this would be a quite eloquent solution. It would give reason to keep navies between cities to maximize their interception potential.

Another feautre I think should be added is a simple 'Blockade docks' type. Completely shut down one city's naval trade and fishing.


IRL again there's a massive reason for navies being important in that food is transported by sea. If there was a Master Of Orion food surplus style system where a city can generate excess food and ship it to another city with a limited range based upon tech level [forcing long range transportation by boat until railroads] there would be real incentive to protect your cities' docks.

[I do think it was silly how farming extra food causes an increase in growth rate - that's not how it works, you don't feed a woman extra food so she pumps out babies faster - you either have enough food to live or starve to death. People don't stop having kids because they're not an abundant food supply - see Africa. What affects birth rates most is the feeling for security and health (disease, technology combating infant mortality]

 

[Ddude97]

Hmm, I pick option 2! I actually came up that idea, or something similar also
I agree, feeding women extra food does not make them pump out babies

 

[SemperFi2382]

I do think it was silly how farming extra food causes an increase in growth rate - that's not how it works, you don't feed a woman extra food so she pumps out babies faster - you either have enough food to live or starve to death. People don't stop having kids because they're not an abundant food supply - see Africa. What affects birth rates most is the feeling for security and health (disease, technology combating infant mortality

I slightly disagree here. If you have a surplus of food, you can have more babies. Not because feeding your women makes them have more, but rather because you know that another mouth to feed won't inadvertently force others to starve. Malnutrition also affects birth rates, so lack of food also will lessen the chances of having a "successful" birth. A surplus will allow you to eat better than "just enough to live". A good example of this is the early colonization of America. When food was no longer an issue and became abundant, the average household in some settlements were in the double digits!

In all reality, food is an expensive commodity. However, when food is abundant it is cheaper than when it is scarce. Take a look at your grocery when certain foods are out of season, limited because of bad crops (tomatoes spiked recently when frost ruined some crops) or simply in high demand.

Which, to come full circle is why an abundance of food would allow to have a bonus to population growth. You figure more food, means cheaper food or at least food that is more readily available for consumption. Civilization isn't rationing food (although that would be an interesting feature) so I would assume that the big picture is what I described.

On the topic of Africa, I think it's much more complex and there isn't one reason that sticks out over another. There's a whole Pandora's Box of things going on there, and while food is certainly one of them, I don't think "in this case" it's comparable to this topic.

I'm not trying to knock you here, I'm just bringing up what I think the game is representing.

 

[Ahriman]

Which, to come full circle is why an abundance of food would allow to have a bonus to population growth. You figure more food, means cheaper food or at least food that is more readily available for consumption. Civilization isn't rationing food (although that would be an interesting feature) so I would assume that the big picture is what I described.

I think its even more basic than this. For most of human history, Malthus was right. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Malthus
Populations expanded to the point where they were kept in check by food supply and famine, and basic labor wages were driven down to the point of subsistence (which is where food prices come in).

Things have changed a great deal over the last 2 centuries, but the Civ model is pretty accurate before then.

They aren't modeling the household birth rate, they're modeling the macro level population growth rate - which historically has been driven by deaths more than births.

So, think of your food income as modeling the number of people who *don't* die of famine or malnutrition.

 

[jahg84]

For ocean trade routes to work you'd need to be able to respond quickly (within 1-3 turns) to attacks on your trade route. Otherwise you are going to need small navies all along it which is going to require a lot of MM and units.
The problem with increasing the speed of your ships so that they can respond to piracy half the globe away (say from Amsterdam to the dutch indies) is that this makes it impossible for navies to prevent coastal attacks as fast transports can unload and return to port on one turn. Since these are the two functions of a navy: amphibious attack and piracy/blockade and their prevention any mechanism has to allow both. For civ purposes I think the amphibious attack/prevent mission is of greater importance if one has to choose.

I like fast naval units, visible vulnerable trade routes and allowing fleets to be assigned to intercept missions (or patrols) to prevent amphibious invasions. I think for the intercept mission idea to work you need to have some way of knowing 1. what fleets are massing in nearby harbors and 2. where interception is likely to take place. This could be implemented by making harbor contents and interception zones visible. Fast naval units does dictate a naval range limit. Hopefully with exceptions - wonders or civ traits (carthaginians?)

 

[jahg84]

It just occured to me that another possibility is that you can assign ships to a route and they can either defend it when it gets attacked or can appear at the point of attack to hunt down the perp. (The defense perhaps will only happen based on length of the route, number and speed of patrolling ships etc.)

This would also allow both types of naval missions, and perhaps be easier to implement?

Or one could do both and really give us salts some options.

 

[Ahriman]

The problem with increasing the speed of your ships so that they can respond to piracy half the globe away (say from Amsterdam to the dutch indies) is that this makes it impossible for navies to prevent coastal attacks as fast transports can unload and return to port on one turn.

Not necessarily. There's no reason why transports can't be much slower than warships (and remember, there are no formal transport units anymore; land units automatically turn into nearly defenseless transports when they enter water), or there could be zone of control type mechanisms.

Alternatively, ships could have a "rebase" command similar to aircraft, that allows them to rebase to a friendly port over an X turn period dependent on distance (eg <15 tiles = 1 turn, 15-30 tiles = 2 turns, 31+ tiles = 3 turns).

This could be implemented by making harbor contents

With 1 unit per tile, there is no longer such a thing as harbor contents. You can't hide your navy in port.

 

[Never]

I wonder the 1UPT concept will be the same for sea-faring units?

 

[jahg84]

Slow transports, fast warships would work but they have the disadvantage of making it difficult to conquer farflung colonies that I might want. I suppose one could do fast ocean movement, slow near coastlines but that makes it similar to the proposal of requiring one turn to off load transports.

I'm starting to see why there hasn't been an entirely satisfactory implementation of naval power in civ yet.

 

[Ahriman]

I wonder the 1UPT concept will be the same for sea-faring units?

Yes. You can have a warship and a "transport" on the same tile, but can't have more than one of either.

but they have the disadvantage of making it difficult to conquer farflung colonies that I might want

Is that so unreasonable, as long as the transports are still faster than land units?

but that makes it similar to the proposal of requiring one turn to off load transports

This seems pretty reasonable to me. It seems quite likely that they might implement 1 turn to load, 1 turn to unload for "transports".

I'm starting to see why there hasn't been an entirely satisfactory implementation of naval power in civ yet.

Yeah, its complicated.

 

[Never]

Well there will obviously be a 'One Turn OnLoad' thing because when a unit morphs into a transport by walking into the sea, surely that would be the end of its move. The unit will be vulnerable for at least one turn no matter how close the landmass is. Therefore there won't be the silly concept of Civ4 when you could load a unit into a transport, offload and move the transport back into safety in one turn.

 

[Ahriman]

The interesting question is; when loading and unloading, is the unit a sea unit or a land unit?

Scenario A:
Unit is a sea unit when loadnig, land unit when unloading.
So I have a land unit, turn 1 move it onto the sea tile, it becomes a transport, end turn.
Turn 2 turn, move it across some water.
Turn 3, move it some more, unload it, it becomes a land unit with no moves left, end turn.

Weaknesses: my land units can flee other land units by instantly becoming a boat. I can sail past an enemy ship and unload on their continent without them being able to stop me.

So a better system might be:

Scenario B
Unit is a land unit when loadnig, a sea unit when unloading.
Turn 1, order my unit into the water. It stays on the land tile "boarding", and becomes a naval unit at the start of my next turn.
Turn 2, sail across some water.
Turn 3, order my unit onto the land. It stays a naval unit "unloading" and becomes a land unit at the start of my next turn.

Weakness: as soon as my unit makes landfall, it has full moves left to advance inland. A naval unit can't stop me from boarding a transport next to it, being a land unit in betwween turns, and and then fleeing as a naval unit the next turn.

Scenario C
Unit is land and then sea unit when loading, and sea and then land unit when unloading (2 turns each end).

Weakness: Takes too damn long to move your stuff around.

 

[Ddude97]

Sorry can't think of any cures

 

[Never]

Scenario B
Unit is a land unit when loadnig, a sea unit when unloading.
Turn 1, order my unit into the water. It stays on the land tile "boarding", and becomes a naval unit at the start of my next turn.
Turn 2, sail across some water.
Turn 3, order my unit onto the land. It stays a naval unit "unloading" and becomes a land unit at the start of my next turn.

Weakness: as soon as my unit makes landfall, it has full moves left to advance inland. A naval unit can't stop me from boarding a transport next to it, being a land unit in betwween turns, and and then fleeing as a naval unit the next turn.

But why would you board a transport and then turn into a 'land unit in between turns'? Surely if 'you' were to board a transport next to 'it', 'you' would become a water unit, and therefore not a 'land unit in between turns'. Or am I missing something really witty and clever in my stoned stupidity?

Besides there is a simple solution. Ships can now attack one tile inland, similarly land units can now attack one tile seaward. I could be wrong here but isn't the above true in Civilization 2?

 

[Ddude97]

"Besides there is a simple solution. Ships can now attack one tile inland, similarly land units can now attack one tile seaward. I could be wrong here but isn't the above true in Civilization 2? " Is it true? That would be a solution, but I think that is even worse !

 

[Never]

I'm not 100% but i think so. I think it might have been only tiles adjacent to the sea. You could definitely 'liberate' cities with ships.

I think it would work well. It would make room for units to upgrade in their 'attack' while in transport mode come to think o it. Transport units have next to no defence apparently, but nothing has been mentioned on attack. You can imagine the Vikings having a bonus in this were the case.

Another thing I liked in Civilization 2 was how some ships could navigate up rivers.

 

[SemperFi2382]

Okay, let's put this into real life perspective.

Naval Landings:
The problem here is that "how" this is done changes with the times. All assuming you're not using a port.

1) Ancient/Medieval for example could set sail from shore, use the same ships to travel and land elsewhere. So, you figure you lose a turn going to sea to simulate building and launching the boats. Then use your turn beaching the ship and offloading. Operates much like fast units that hit hills, forests, etc.

2) Then the next progression is rowing to a ship, sail to destination and then rowing to shore to offload. Again, full turn to hit water, full turn to "land".

3) In more modern times, one uses landing ships to go to shore. One could assume that said landing ship will pickup as well.

Once you get past the Ancient/Medieval times, you're no longer assuming you build your ships on the shore. This is regardless of whether or not you're entering from a forest tile vs a desert tile which would not have the proper lumber to build said ships.

Now one will have to assume that the more modern eras just conveniently have ships waiting offshore? Sure you could assume they have zodiacs or something, but what normal ground force carries boats? Marines that have specialized equipment that follows them everywhere aside, they don't.

Also, Ancient/Medieval ships are also not ocean going vessels (Any exceptions aside). Does this mean that our ground forces are going to be able to cross oceans with materials on hand? Yes, we could assume there are conveniently placed transports off shore, but I kind of preferred having to build the transports to ship my infantry to a far off land to conduct war. It meant I had to devote resources to cross the ocean to make war. Which, with no transports at all means that on a will and a whim I could start sailing around a Pangea map and attack from the sea instead of coming over land? While a viable strategy, this further negates the navy in my opinion much to my dismay.

All that aside, if that's the way it's going to be. One turn to load (you're at sea) and one turn to land (you're on land). It would work as if you were walking onto or off of a Transport Ship that was sitting offshore. Loading/Unloading, you have negative defense modifiers (say 25%-50%). The only unit that would not have such a penalty (or a much lowered one) would be Marine units or the Amphibious promotion.

With the issue to sidestep combat in this manner, another solution is that units boarding/landing could be vulnerable to being attacked by land and sea. Meaning, if a unit is stepping off to the shore, you could attack them still with the land army and you could attack them with naval units. Coupled with the loss of defense, this would make that action require more thought.

 

[Ahriman]

But why would you board a transport and then turn into a 'land unit in between turns'? Surely if 'you' were to board a transport next to 'it', 'you' would become a water unit, and therefore not a 'land unit in between turns'. Or am I missing something really witty and clever in my stoned stupidity?

There is no such thing as a transport unit in Civ5. Land units become "transports" when they move into water tiles.
I didn't say you'd "become" a land unit, I said (in that Scenario) that you'd stay a land unit.
So, start as a land unit, right click on water tile. Your land unit changes to "boarding" status, but stays as a land unit on the land tile, and has used up all its movement points. During the enemy turn it is still a land unit. At the start of your next turn, it becomes a water unit on the water tile you clicked on - with full movement points so it can immediately move away.

Ships can now attack one tile inland, similarly land units can now attack one tile seaward. I could be wrong here but isn't the above true in Civilization 2?

Civ1 worked this way, not Civ2 IIRC? Not sure though.
It was pretty ridiculous.
Bombarding land tiles, sure, but not actual "melee" attack.
Having said that we don't know exactly how bombardment will work in Civ5 for modern ships.

Okay, let's put this into real life perspective.

Why? We need a solution that works best for gameplay, not realism. I don't think realism is a useful perspective here.

The problem here is that "how" this is done changes with the times.

So what? I'm happy to abstract away from that.

Once you get past the Ancient/Medieval times, you're no longer assuming you build your ships on the shore. This is regardless of whether or not you're entering from a forest tile vs a desert tile which would not have the proper lumber to build said ships.

We're not ever assuming that you're building your ships on the shore. We're assuming that they're being picked up by offscreen non-warship transport vessels, that we don't have to explicitly micromanage. Like how trade routes in Civ4 across water take place with boats that don't explicitly appear in the game.

Now one will have to assume that the more modern eras just conveniently have ships waiting offshore

Right. Works just fine.

Does this mean that our ground forces are going to be able to cross oceans with materials on hand?

No, why would it? It means that "transports" will have the same tile-entry issues that are governed by your technology level as do other units.

but I kind of preferred having to build the transports to ship my infantry to a far off land to conduct war.

It was annoying MM that many people disliked.
I can see that some people liked that, but that's not how it worked.

It meant I had to devote resources to cross the ocean to make war.

Now, hopefully, you will have to devote resources to building a warship, because it will hopefully be much harder to invade through the teeth of an enemy fleet, such as by stacking everything in a city, loading up transports, then moving them past an enemy fleet and unloading them on their continent.
I think its much more interesting to devote resources to warships than transports.

One turn to load (you're at sea) and one turn to land (you're on land). It would work as if you were walking onto or off of a Transport Ship that was sitting offshore.

This is my scenario A. Its workable, but it does have a couple of significant disadvantages.

ou could attack them still with the land army

It would be *really* weird if melee land soldiers could attack transport vessels in a coastal tile.

Scenario B would probably be an easier fix.

 

[SemperFi2382]

Ahriman, good points. I think the only issue I'd really have is that you would always have to assume there's ships basically shadowing you on the coast ready and willing to pick you up on a will and a whim. Which, yes it eliminates MM of the transports and all, but just seems out of place for me. Of course, in all these years of playing all sorts of Strategy games, I've never not had to manage transports.

The trade point you bring up seemed less of an issue. Mostly because you never had to MM trade on land either. All those roads and railroads and I've never seen a train or a big rig. Well, Caravan and Freight Trucks aside, but they weren't ever a part of trading on a regular basis.

Another idea is to mimic the Hearts of Iron II (not sure of 1 or 3 use the same system) trade/supply system. You can assign escorts to your shipping. You never see the units, but when raiding shipping your chance to be successful was dependent on how many escorts were there. So, to raid shipping, you go into another civ's waters and you get the option to "raid" shipping and it did some percent damage to your trade income. You get a message "our shipping is being attacked" or some such warning and a rough idea where.

Now, in non all out war, subs or privateers could still be an option and both run the risk of loss to the escorts. Different advances could in theory give you a better idea of where the shipping is being attacked (radio, satellites, etc). Not to mention better tech also means better ships. A ship of the line privateer vs say a WWII destroyer escort is not going to end well. Thus subs come into play, which would play up submarines more. You could also add a new option for subs to "recon" aka "patrol" a certain area (3x3 or so) so search for enemy subs/ships. This would be much like a sentry option, so you could "watch" the oceans much like many navies do anyhow.

A normal surface navy could raid shipping in war time as well, with obvious less chances to lose to escorts. This would mean if a hostile blue water navy is raiding your turf, now you had better have your own blue water navy to fight back.

Leave the MM of trade alone, with really just say beefing up escorts in wartime. Something you could do from say the trade adviser screen. All you really need to do is know whether or not your shipping is being raided and where. With the new info system coming up, that would work well. Then you just leave the player with the management of being the raider or being the raided.

Also, don't forget the awesome political ramifications of raiding shipping. You're pissing off more than one civ. "Cease your pirating actions NOW or you're going to get it" type responses. Or they simply war dec you then and there.

 

[Never]

I don't see any issue with ships being able to attack one tile inward and land units being able to attack one tile seaward. In fact it makes sense, I mean the Spanish/Portuguese colonies were regularly attacked by British and Dutch ships. 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.

Obviously to deter this getting annoying a land unit would have relatively low attack when up against a ship, and similarly a ship (unless they have some bonus) would be relatively weak attacking land units.