Navies need more power.

[SemperFi2382]

You know what, you either aren't reading or comprehending any of my posts.

How are you stopping the ships? Politely asking them to turn around? That's Blockading. Raiding is pew pew. Therefore, it's combat. One sided combat.

Escorts are not "real" warships. Many escorts were transports with guns just jimmy rigged to it. So, because it's not represented on the map you don't like they are shooting back? Okay, we'll use your one sided combat model.

You say it's too complex? Fine. I didn't know that if Tech A obsoletes Tech B that is too complex, which therefore makes a Destroyer superior to a Ship of the Line. Which if I have destroyers and you have wooden ships, that has nothing to do with my effectiveness in raiding or defending. I guess Civilization doesn't have ANY numbers going on in the background. I didn't know we were playing a shooter and not a strategy game.

I've seen and played on your model (it's in another game already EXACTLY as you describe) and you know what? I spend more time wandering my Trade Route looking for the offender and less time fighting with real Naval Battles or using my Navy for other things, like attacking enemy positions.

So what did it entail? Basically, subs in the Pacific and Atlantic raiding ocean routes and smaller surface ships raiding in channels and seas. What were the big fleets doing? Hunting raiders and other fleets. One sided really on the anti raider searches. A couple of destroyers traveling along the trade route, stumble on the submarine, kill it and move on. As for the attacker? Raid and move on. No risk, the only reward is damage. I mean, if you know where the enemy is searching, you simply hunt elsewhere. Zero repercussions. None.

I'm not getting into an internet pissing match over a game, so I'm gonna just drop it.

 

[Ahriman]

You know what, you either aren't reading or comprehending any of my posts.

Ditto.

How are you stopping the ships? Politely asking them to turn around? That's Blockading. Raiding is pew pew. Therefore, it's combat. One sided combat.

Its NOT combat in the sense of using any in-game combat mechanic where there are actual units being damaged or destroyed. Its respresenting something that involves ships being sunk, but since I dont' have to ever build those, calling it combat is weird.

Okay, we'll use your one sided combat model.

Great! Now though, all escorts do is reduce the effectiveness of raiding. Which is not a valuable design goal. We want raiding to be a valuable strategy.
So lets remove the escorts, and just have increasing amounts of trade damage done (in terms of % reduction of trade benefits) the more warships I have raiding your trade route.

Fine. I didn't know that if Tech A obsoletes Tech B that is too complex, which therefore makes a Destroyer superior to a Ship of the Line. Which if I have destroyers and you have wooden ships, that has nothing to do with my effectiveness in raiding or defending. I guess Civilization doesn't have ANY numbers going on in the background. I didn't know we were playing a shooter and not a strategy game.

Its complex and non-transparent when you can't *see* any of those numbers.

Its one thing to have two on-map warships where the player can clearly see what the units are, where one can attack another, and where you can mouseover when considering the attack to see what the outcomes will be.
Its another if all this is going on in the background.
Raiding becomes a complex black-box formula if it depends on all kinds of things of who has what tech, but the player doesn't observe those impacts.

I spend more time wandering my Trade Route looking for the offender

So have any unit raiding your trade route highlighted (or have an event locator icon).
You should know what tile is causing your trade route degradation, I agree that otherwise it would be frustrating. There's no need to hide this from the player or AI.
Ta da! Any effort spent wandering looking for the offender is instantly gone.

What were the big fleets doing? Hunting raiders and other fleets

This sounds like a pretty accurate depiction of real naval warfare.

Raid and move on. No risk, the only reward is damage

If you move on, then you don't do any damage. These aren't pillageable trade routes where a single pillage destroys the route. In order to keep doing damage, you have to keep raiding.
You could even make it so that you had a raiding mode, and no trade damage was done unless you spent the entire turn raiding.

 

[Balderstrom]

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.

No, all land-units (can) become defenseless transports -- which is fine, but it will be a real shame IMHO if you cannot board units onto ships as well. Since then the only way to send Civilian units over water will be as defenseless individual transports.

As well, Impaler[WrG]'s idea on limited range for ships will break down (to a degree) if there is no habitable (or free) land to occupy -- you wont be able to circumnavigate until you have an unlimited range vessel. And if there is habitable (or free) land to occupy, then the only way you'll be able to build there will be to send over defenseless Settlers... I doubt many would be very inclined to do that either.

One way Impaler[WrG]'s idea might work is to consider Range to be how far the ship can travel before it stops into port of a non-enemies (neutral or friendly) land -- where supplies can be purchased. The cost of said supplies would be affected by how good your relations are with that nation, or "free" if it is unoccupied territory.

 

[Ahriman]

but it will be a real shame IMHO if you cannot board units onto ships as well.

How so? You are still able to stack a single transport with a warship.

 

[Balderstrom]

How so? You are still able to stack a single transport with a warship.

Units converting to Transports is cool, it was one of the features of Rise of Nations that worked well. But in the past we had actual Transports that could carry 3-4+ units. Which, to me, made sense. Allowing one converted land unit (transport) to stack with one WarShip feels like a broken mechanic to me.

 

[Ahriman]

Allowing one converted land unit (transport) to stack with one WarShip feels like a broken mechanic to me.

Why? You can't stack any other units in Civ5.

If you want to send out transports, then bring a navy to defend them and attack the enemy navy, and clear out the enemy naval units before you bring up the transports.

 

[trickofthehand]

I'm pretty sure Balderstorm is still thinking in terms of the large amount of units in Civ 4. Remember, Civ 5 has promised a great deal less units.

 

[Ddude97]

Not to mention that amphibious invasions are supposed to be difficult.

 

[trickofthehand]

Not to mention that amphibious invasions are supposed to be difficult.

Lies, you just stack 10 transports and load them all with tanks and artillery and right click on the enemy's beach. Ta-Da! Instant army ready to pulverize anything that stands before it.

THIS IS REALISM!!!

 

[Ddude97]

But an ampibous invasion should be hard to do, I didn't say it is currently.

 

[gingerbill]

would definetly like the navy to be more important in Civ 5 , apart from transport it wasnt really important at all in Civ 4 , dont get me wrong you could still use it and get results but really it should be a top priority on certain maps.

 

[plasmacannon]

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 like this idea for river movement
Unit is a land unit when loading, land unit when unloading.
So, I have a land unit, turn 1 move it onto the river tile, it becomes transported, end first movement.
Movement 2, move it across some river.
Movement 3, move it some more, unload it, it becomes a land unit with no moves left, end turn.
The entire time it looks like the same unit, as it will always be considered a land unit.
The difference is it could gain 1 extra movement by using the river, and could continue down a long river this way.

Weaknesses: my land units can flee other land units by instantly becoming a boat. I can sail past an enemy land unit and unload further down the river without them being able to stop me. Yes, and this would be fun, and encourage its use.

"I don't see an issue with sea units being able to attack a land unit adjacent to a coast tile."
I agree completely!

If an archer can fire 2 hexes away, which might be 1000 feet?
And a Battleship can fire 14-20 miles away, how many hexes inland should that be?

FACTS:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scharnhorst_class_battleship
can Fire 14.29 miles! German WW2 Battleship.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Armament_of_the_Iowa_class_battleship
Nearly 20 miles! Current American Battleship.
http://www.janes.com/articles/Janes-Fighting-Ships/IOWA-CLASS-United-States.html

At least 1 more than the land unit . A Battleship should ALWAYS be able to fire further than a longbowmen, cannon, whatever, even howitzers don't fire farther.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M198_howitzer
Can fire upto 14 miles, like the WW2 Battleship, but, not the Modern one.
Check the above links, if you even consider disputing this Fact.

 

[Ddude97]

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.

Might be ok, but how would this work in civ? (or at all never played Master of Orion)

I like this idea for river movement
Unit is a land unit when loading, land unit when unloading.
So, I have a land unit, turn 1 move it onto the river tile, it becomes transported, end first movement.
Movement 2, move it across some river.
Movement 3, move it some more, unload it, it becomes a land unit with no moves left, end turn.
The entire time it looks like the same unit, as it will always be considered a land unit.
The difference is it could gain 1 extra movement by using the river, and could continue down a long river this way.

Weaknesses: my land units can flee other land units by instantly becoming a boat. I can sail past an enemy land unit and unload further down the river without them being able to stop me. Yes, and this would be fun, and encourage its use.

"I don't see an issue with sea units being able to attack a land unit adjacent to a coast tile."
I agree completely!

If an archer can fire 2 hexes away, which might be 1000 feet?
And a Battleship can fire 14-20 miles away, how many hexes inland should that be?

FACTS:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scharnhorst_class_battleship
can Fire 14.29 miles! German WW2 Battleship.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Armament_of_the_Iowa_class_battleship
Nearly 20 miles! Current American Battleship.
http://www.janes.com/articles/Janes-Fighting-Ships/IOWA-CLASS-United-States.html

At least 1 more than the land unit . A Battleship should ALWAYS be able to fire further than a longbowmen, cannon, whatever, even howitzers don't fire farther.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M198_howitzer
Can fire upto 14 miles, like the WW2 Battleship, but, not the Modern one.
Check the above links, if you even consider disputing this Fact

With the river thing, how does this connect to the navy? An this would be horrible, that minor weakness is very BIG.
Not sure about the land units being able to attack adjacent coastal tiles.
There is something called "scale problems" with civ like units being bigger than cities (NO I'm NOT complaining), and such; what you said is that a battleship should be able to fire ~105 tiles.... No.

offtopic: Go Iowa class battleships (Specially BB-62!)

 

[SomethingWitty]

The most fun I've ever had with Navies in my Civ experience was in Civ II, and with the RoM modpack for Civ IV. In the latter case, my ships were promoted with the Blitz option (not easy in Vanilla Civ IV, easier with RoM).

What is the connection? In both, the ships are able to engage with the enemy multiple times per turn. You can have large, advanced warships engaging in many weaker units in the same turn.

This, IMO, is the key to fun naval battles in Civ.

 

[Ddude97]

Maybe, what is RoM?

 

[Ahriman]

Rise of Mankind. http://forums.civfanatics.com/forumdisplay.php?f=269

One of the best big Civ4 mods.

 

[Ddude97]

Thanks again Ahriman!

 

[Le_Scientifique]

Navies have multiples usages in the real world.

1. Transport troops
i. Across the sea
ii. Drop behind the enemies lines
2. Prevent ennemies to transport troops
3. Transport goods for trading
4. Supply troops or cities oversea
5. Escort and protect trade routes
6. Fight against Pirates
7. Disrupt enemies trade routes
8. Explore the sea
9. Bombards cities, fortifications
10. Blocade
11. Raiding

Now, I'm a big fan of naval warfare and I joined this thread for this reason.
Naval power can totally change the outcome of a war, or even drastically change a country.

For instance, the Dutch created a huge colonial empire over the Portugal because of it's naval domination.
Spanish declined because it couldn't correctly defend itself and its empire against pirates and raiders
British empire successfully blockaded the French empire during the Napoleonic wars.
The 3rd Reich almost successfully choked British economy with the Atlantic War.

Now, the golden rule is this : You need naval power to maintain oversea commercial route.
During World War II, Germany couldn't trade oversea at all because of this. (except in the Baltic sea and some in Mediterranean sea )

Civilization 5 should definitely follow this golden route.
It wouldn't make any sense to maintain a huge international oversea trading network with no navy and end up unharmed.

One of you were mentioning that he didn't like the idea to defend trade routes as it imply too much micro-management. I guess a simple button "Auto-attack trade routes" and "Auto-defend trade routes" would do the job.

Now if your enemy can afford to put a large share of it's navy to disrupt your trade routes, then you should be able to afford to put as much or more than him to prevent him to do so. If you are against multiples enemies and cannot defend all your trade routes, that's too bad for you, but you are outmatched.

I'm also familiar with the Heart of Iron II mechanisms of escorting convoys.

I guess the escort idea could be implemented as a passive bonus, something like
" -50% plunder of trade routes ", with an upkeep cost. Maybe something like a civic of similar. That way it's kept simple.

Also, an increase of pirate activities would be good. That way the navy would have an occupation patrolling the trade routes even in peace time.

The trades routes should be manageable by the player as well. A simple windows showing all the potential routes and the incomes they generates. That way the player could focus on maybe less-profitable routes but easier to defend.

That's my 2 cents.

 

[Aussie_Lurker]

OK, so I'll add my 2 cents worth. For what its worth, I think Beyond the Sword did a pretty good job of increasing the importance of navies. By making overseas trade routes far more lucrative than local trade routes. Coupled with the pillaging of sea-based improvements, making those sea-trade routes attackable meant you suddenly had *another* couple of good reason to build a navy (to both attack & defend overseas trade routes).
So, if trade routes work in a similar fashion to Civ4 (& I've yet to hear evidence to the contrary yet), then I think this would be a good Starting Point for Civ5. Now, add in the fact that strategic resources (oil, iron, copper, aluminium etc etc) will be finite, then overseas sources of these resources might become much more important &-with that-an ability to disrupt/pillage the trade of these resources will make navies much more important. Now if the other resources (food & luxuries are equally "finite" (if only in that additional copies provide additional benefits to your civilization-a la Civ4's Corporations), then the ability to disrupt/blockade overseas sources of these goods makes navies very important.
Of course, the addition of an "Embarkation" ability for ground units is going to make the use of naval units much more common-which means the need to defend these extra transports-& the ability to defend *against* them-should significantly boost the importance of navies in the game.

So, as I see it a combination of:

1) very valuable overseas trade routes.
2) finite resources
3) the ability for all ground units to change into naval transports

is going to automatically see a rise in the importance of navies in the game-no matter what else they do that we haven't yet heard about it (though the most obvious one would be-make sure the AI knows how to USE navies properly )!

Aussie.

 

[Dachs]

10. Blocade

Colossally ineffective and a massive waste of time for most of human history.

Spanish declined because it couldn't correctly defend itself and its empire against pirates and raiders

No, it did not. The Spanish Empire ceased to exist because Spain could not effectively conciliate regional elites to its control and use them as a counterweight to rebellious elements, and because the Napoleonic occupation of Spain effectively destroyed Spain's ability to respond to the seizure of power by these rebels.

British empire successfully blockaded the French empire during the Napoleonic wars.

Define "successfully blockaded".

Now, the golden rule is this : You need naval power to maintain oversea commercial route.
During World War II, Germany couldn't trade oversea at all because of this. (except in the Baltic sea and some in Mediterranean sea )

Civilization 5 should definitely follow this golden route.
It wouldn't make any sense to maintain a huge international oversea trading network with no navy and end up unharmed.

One of you were mentioning that he didn't like the idea to defend trade routes as it imply too much micro-management. I guess a simple button "Auto-attack trade routes" and "Auto-defend trade routes" would do the job.

Now if your enemy can afford to put a large share of it's navy to disrupt your trade routes, then you should be able to afford to put as much or more than him to prevent him to do so. If you are against multiples enemies and cannot defend all your trade routes, that's too bad for you, but you are outmatched.

I'm also familiar with the Heart of Iron II mechanisms of escorting convoys.

I guess the escort idea could be implemented as a passive bonus, something like
" -50% plunder of trade routes ", with an upkeep cost. Maybe something like a civic of similar. That way it's kept simple.

Also, an increase of pirate activities would be good. That way the navy would have an occupation patrolling the trade routes even in peace time.

The trades routes should be manageable by the player as well. A simple windows showing all the potential routes and the incomes they generates. That way the player could focus on maybe less-profitable routes but easier to defend.

That's my 2 cents.

Most of this applies to the last few centuries of naval warfare, and mostly to the twentieth century at that. It's also extremely uneven. The French navy effectively controlled the seas during the Franco-Prussian/Franco-German War, and was able to penetrate the Heligoland Bight and raid German shipping. This did not have an effective outcome on the course of the war, and not because German shipping wasn't a significant share of regional trade (it was). Earlier, the Danish navy had achieved effective naval superiority over the allied Austro-Prussian fleets in the second Schleswig-Holstein War in 1864. Despite this, it was unable to prevent Prussian amphibious assaults on several Danish islands before the peace.

There are massive practical limitations to naval power in the real world.