Navy in Civ7: Pirates and Torpedoes

[pineappledan]

This argument is only valid if we assume 1UPT is now fixed in Civ Forever. That system is as grossly out of time and distance scale for naval as it is for land units. Consequently I think 1UPT has no place at all in a Grand Strategy game at the time and distance scale of Civilization, and I sincerely hope they abandon it. If it is still in Civ VII, as I've said before, I will neither buy nor play the game. I'm in my late 70s and I don't have the time left to waste any of it on egregiously bad design decisions.

I’d be willing to bet money that the corps/armies system is here to stay in some capacity, and the franchise is never going back to full doom stacks.

And as a result, the early naval game is where the sliding tile puzzle is most egregious. The lack of mobility in that era means any combat that does exist happens on a 1-2 tile band of navigable terrain with fire support from ranged/siege units on land. The inclusion of a ranged unit class in that era of restricted mobility is just a noob trap, because the only real function of boats in that era is to cover embarked land units or blockade a city’s water tiles. So naval units exist in that era to soak damage for your land units.

I have found the only valuable use for ranged units in that era is clearing barbarian camps on islands. That’s just too narrow of a niche to be worth preserving.

 

[pineappledan]

I'm not sure if Civ6 Privateer unit is actually Brigantine ship?

Technically the civ 6 privateer is a schooner brig. It is missing the square topsail on the second mast in order to be a brigantine rig. This is too minor of a nitpick for a casual discussion though.

 

[Phrozen]

Technically the civ 6 privateer is a schooner brig. It is missing the square topsail on the second mast in order to be a brigantine rig. This is too minor of a nitpick for a casual discussion though.

Maybe a bit too naval-gazing.....

 

[Evie]

Going back to "coastal units must end their turn on coast" might be part of the answer here.

That and possibly and expanded coastal strip to a depth of two (which should also make for more sheltered seas over open oceans) may help.

 

[Lonecat Nekophrodite]

Technically the civ 6 privateer is a schooner brig. It is missing the square topsail on the second mast in order to be a brigantine rig. This is too minor of a nitpick for a casual discussion though.

Because i'm not sure what ship Civ6 privateers are using. and this refers to unit lists I propose for either Civ6 modding or Civ7. if Naval Raider will split further into 'Naval Recon' (littoral only, and it uses Pirate half of Naval Raider promotion tree) and 'Submarines' (Uses Submarine half of Naval Raider promotion tree) . alternatively @Boris Gudenuf even proposed alternate class name 'Light Melee' to refer to their primary combat mode (A pirate vessel has to close in with target ship so pirates on board can begin pundering. no pirate can grab loot at ranges. no harpax nor harpoon guns can do that.
And this is enough reason why Privateers and Subs should be in separate promo class entirely.
But to justify this split. more units had to fill in rosters. the problem however is in the very late game 'Modern era' over unit choice to add in this class.

Going back to "coastal units must end their turn on coast" might be part of the answer here.

That and possibly and expanded coastal strip to a depth of two (which should also make for more sheltered seas over open oceans) may help.

I like the idea that coastal units of any kind can move 'ACROSS' deep sea tiles but must end his turn on coastal tiles. not totally refrain from entering deep seas entirely until a tech is researched (and it applies to every vessels.. new and old). But if a said coastal unit fails to do so. waht shall be penalty in this rule? unit incurs attrition (loss of HP) or is destroyed once a move is confirmed and a turn is concluded ?

 

[Boris Gudenuf]

I’d be willing to bet money that the corps/armies system is here to stay in some capacity, and the franchise is never going back to full doom stacks.

I agree that SoD disagreed with a lot of players - but so does 1UPT, and it has the added disadvantage that Firaxis doesn't seem to be able to build an AI that can handle it. I agree that the Corps/Army system should stay, but I also think it could become the basis of the combat system. I posted a concept idea on this already at Combat System for Civ VII. NOT saying it's the answer to all combat problems, but it shows an alternative to the old 1UPT/SoD argument that doesn't involve dropping down to an entirely new tactical game like Humankind does, or adding in ridiculously high movement rates to avoid any hint of pathing problems as in OW.

Meanwhile, clearing Barbarian camps on isolated islands/other shores could be handled by ordinary landed melee/anti-cav/ranged units if we include a 'water crossing' capability coming with a Tech at about 3000 - 2500 BCE. You couldn't fight them directly from or with the canoe/raft/galley, because nothing on those craft can reach more than a few meters from the waterline (fire an arrow from a galley to the shore, you probably won't even reach the land edge of the beach, let alone the 'barbarian camp' - prior to gunpowder, no naval ranged versus land units mechanic makes much sense - storming ashore with troops carried on the boat was the actual system used by both pirates and 'regular' forces)

And to add variety, adding in the "end move on coastal tile" gives us 4 possible movement mechanisms/definitions for naval units:

Coastal Tiles Only (almost everybody before late Medieval)
End Move on Coastal Tiles (UUs and very few other people before Medieval)
Move 1/2 on Ocean Tiles (The "ironclad coal-guzzler Rule", also Zheng He's Treasure Ships for a Chinese UU?)
Full move on Ocean Tiles (a few UUs until the Industrial Era, after that almost everything that floats)

Not counting 'specialty' movement like the Submarine's invisible undersea movement (which could also be used as Invisible Stealth Tech For Surface Ships or earlier Invisible Because You Cannot Tell Who They Are for privateers/pirates/commerce raiders) that gives just enough differentiation to keep naval developments pertinent without overwhelming the gamer with multitudes of movement rules

 

[Evie]

I think, for gameplay reason, I would merge coastal only and end on coastal as a single movement kind. One less category to remember, and "no leaving coast" is extremely restrictive to movement in a way that would make blocking off movement too easy,

 

[pineappledan]

You want to have both movement types available as options. Early embarked land units and ancient canoes should be restricted to coast and unable to enter deep ocean. You can then give Galleys "cannot end turn in ocean" as a way to allow them to island-hop and have more flexibility than the others. You can later open that up further to half movement in deep ocean if you choose to continue the line into later eras. The problem with traffic jams along coastlines isn't solved by giving them access to "cannot end turn in ocean" unless you also give them access to ZOC ignoring or you make coasts at least 3 tiles deep.

You could conceivably have a separate 3rd Galley/Littoral line and have ocean melee and ocean ranged lines unlock later:
Early Ancient - Canoe
Late Classical - Galley
Early Renaissance - Galleass
Late Industrial - Monitor
Early Atomic - Cutter
Once the deep ocean boats unlock in Medieval, these Galleys would be relegated to be specialized coastal harbor defense craft. If they were a separate line you would be able to keep the coastal penalty without having to remove the ZOC ability later. I don't think I like this though, because giving a purpose-built defensive boat likely means favouring defense over offense.

 

[Evie]

Late Classical for Galley I still strongly object to. It keeps the canoe into the game far beyond their point of utility. A late ancient-early classical switch is where galleys should take over.

I realize the point of your order is to not need a coastal defense medieval unit, but I don't think it really works.

And I agree with the defensive problem. We could conceivably alleviate that by ending the coastal defense line at Monitor or even earlier at Ironclad - coast guard ships are really a separate beast. Then that line merges with the main naval line (so Ironclad and SOTL both upgrade to battleship). Then there would only be a shorter lived defence-favoring period.

 

[pineappledan]

I would only approve of ending/merging unit lines if they have an identical promotion tree as another unit they are merging into.

So if Ironclads can be merged into the naval melee line seemlessly then fine. Otherwise you will have a situation where you just have to delete a unit line after industrial and that sucks.

 

[Evie]

That's essentially necessary, yes, but I think doable for the coastal only variation of Renaissance and later units.

But on second thought, I think they should merge into the melee line (with the monitor possibly renamed since that one definitely existed in a ranged role).

 

[Boris Gudenuf]

Just a note: Monitors never really went away until after World War Two (Atomic Era). They always meant a coastal defense or relatively shallow-draft ship mounting much larger guns than its tonnage would suggest. As examples, the Royal Navy monitors, some of which bombarded Normandy beaches in 1944, mounted an older Battleship turret with a pair of 15" guns on a shallow-draft hull that displaced about the same as a Light Cruiser (8000 tons or less). Similar vessels were built as "Coast Defense Ships/Cruisers/Monitors" for many smaller navies like the Dutch and Greek who couldn't really afford anything bigger in the 1920s and 1930s.
Unfortunately, in Game Terms expense doesn't matter that much and tactically they were a Dead End compared to coastal fortifications or railroad guns and aircraft.
Wild Idea: they might be a City State Only Unique Naval Unit?!

I think we have to be flexible on Naval Upgrades. Let's face it, upgrading an Ironclad or Ship-of-the-Line to anything later is a myth: the Upgrade would have to start with building an entirely new hull, engines, main guns, secondary armament and all internal systems: the only thing Upgraded from the previous ship would be the Admiral's pennant (and maybe the Admiral, but not that many sailing ship admirals upgraded willingly to the smokey and smelly new iron/steel/steam vessels).

So, by their Role Ironclads and Ships of the Line upgrade to Battleships - Capital ships that nothing smaller can stand up to in a toe-to-toe battle. Frigates or Steam Frigates upgrade to Cruisers, or Destroyers, or whatever lighter ship takes over the scouting and screening roles.

 

[Evie]

I'm aware, and even with the vanishment of the monitor, ship designed almost exclusively for litoral operations still remain a thing with many short-legged corvettes and fast attack craft designs.

But the key matter is how to work their role within the game.

 

[Lonecat Nekophrodite]

Just a note: Monitors never really went away until after World War Two (Atomic Era). They always meant a coastal defense or relatively shallow-draft ship mounting much larger guns than its tonnage would suggest. As examples, the Royal Navy monitors, some of which bombarded Normandy beaches in 1944, mounted an older Battleship turret with a pair of 15" guns on a shallow-draft hull that displaced about the same as a Light Cruiser (8000 tons or less). Similar vessels were built as "Coast Defense Ships/Cruisers/Monitors" for many smaller navies like the Dutch and Greek who couldn't really afford anything bigger in the 1920s and 1930s.
Unfortunately, in Game Terms expense doesn't matter that much and tactically they were a Dead End compared to coastal fortifications or railroad guns and aircraft.
Wild Idea: they might be a City State Only Unique Naval Unit?!

I think we have to be flexible on Naval Upgrades. Let's face it, upgrading an Ironclad or Ship-of-the-Line to anything later is a myth: the Upgrade would have to start with building an entirely new hull, engines, main guns, secondary armament and all internal systems: the only thing Upgraded from the previous ship would be the Admiral's pennant (and maybe the Admiral, but not that many sailing ship admirals upgraded willingly to the smokey and smelly new iron/steel/steam vessels).

So, by their Role Ironclads and Ships of the Line upgrade to Battleships - Capital ships that nothing smaller can stand up to in a toe-to-toe battle. Frigates or Steam Frigates upgrade to Cruisers, or Destroyers, or whatever lighter ship takes over the scouting and screening roles.

1. Do you agree or disagree with Naval Raider splits both as tag class and promo class into Naval Recon (Where privateer belongs) and Submarines? or did the last paragraph mentioned that you disagree with separate 'Naval Recon' class regardless that it could be split from Naval Raider (and thus Privateer Schooner Brig is later upgraded to. which more logical than becoming subs).
2. And 'Ironclads' in this context refers to Coastal Ironclads only? Oceangoing Ironclads only or both?
For coastal ironclads (Which are smaller. and Civ6 Ironclad is EXACTLY Coastal in graphics). upgrade path will still be BB as well as Oceanic ones?
3. In addition to Greece. Sweden. and The Netherlands (The latter even considered fullsize Dreadnoughts by 1910s but in the end didn't join Dreadnought race). Siam was one such countries to buy Coastal Defense Ships (Original Sukhothai class with 6 inch guns. made by Vickers, and later Thonburi class, made by Kawasaki, armed with 8 inch guns). Are you still view these Coastal Defense Ships as not worth any place in Civ games and Dreadnougths can still be their 'stand ins' despite the fact that these ships are much cheaper. or did 'Cruisers' still fitting to represent them?

It turns out that HTMS Thonburi is smaller than modern Missile Frigates including the most recent HTMS Bhumibhol Adulyadej (Korean made, original Korean iteration also named after their kings).

 

[BuchiTaton]

Canoe: Maori and Carib chiefdoms were capable of arrange fleets of >12 sea going war canoes, each of these double rowed canoes accomodate from 30 to 50 crew members, a menacing sight for some european ships even by 19th century. This is the kind of canoe that could fit perfectly as the very first naval unit, there is not point to think on the small riverine version when the objetive for gameplay is clear. But what I think is wrong is to use the Canoe as an Ancient era unit, these canoes would make more sense for a "Neolithic" Era.

Penteconter: Ancient era should be designed after the Bronze Age using Sea People's warship as the visual model, a kind of ship sometimes named as an early for of Penteconter (one of the earliest a simpler Greek galleys).

Lembos & Quinquereme: Classical era saw the development of massive multi decks war ships deserving their own line, so the extremes could be covered by the Lembos as the evolution of the original "Light Ship" line and the Quinquereme as the first of the new "Heavy Ship" line.

Galley & Carrack: The use of Galley is medieval used in restrocpective for a broad kind of ships, making a proper use to save this name for Medieval time while earliest forms of "galleys" could use other specific names. The Carrack as an exclusively sailing ship would contrast nicely with the oared Galley.

Xebec & Galleon: In "Early Modern" era the Xebec is an ideal option for the light highly maneuverable ship, also favorite of the barbarian pirates and reminiscent of medieval Galley with their triangular sails. The huge and decorated spanish Galleons are also ideal as the heavy ship of this period.

Brigantine & Frigate: Industrial units would better represent different scenarios if are visually designed after an intermediate point, so the Brigantine fit for the light ship while the Frigate could be either a "Super Heavy Frigate" of the late 18th century or a "Steam Frigate" from early 19th century.

Destroyer & Battleship: The period from 1900 to 1960 could be well represented by the torpedo user Destroyer and the super massive Battleship, while the Hunter Submarine and Escort Carrier would have their own line. About the use of "Escort", I know Fleet Carriers were already on this period but again here is a visual and name reason, since the smaller and plain form of these carriers would add to the feeling of evolution in their line. Also USA the top historical carrier power could have the "Super Carrier" as UU.

Corvette & Crusier: For the range of 1960 to 2020 the pattern is to tends to prioritize mobility, so the smaller but advanced Corvettes and the powerfull missile Crusiers improved from the bulkier previous forms. In the case of the Nuclear Submarine, the design focus is more on the source of power than their missiles, this mostly for gameplay role clarity of Crusier as capable of land bombarding and subs as marauders.

 

[Boris Gudenuf]

Some comments:

Canoe - would definitely make sense as a 'Neolithic' Unit or graphic indicator of activity (shallow-water crossing for Scouts, civilian units) and I sincerely hope that Civ VII at least explores doing Neolithic Right. On the other hand, we have very, very little evidence for mass military actions this early, so the possibilities for how they can be used should be very limited. I would leave the War Fleets for Ancient Era at least - perhaps a required Civic or Social Policy allowing the organization of largest purposeful groups than simple hunting bands on land or (coastal) sea.

Pentekonter/Galley - Yes, the Galley as a word applied to oared ships is no earlier than about 1000 CE, Medieval Era. But between 1300 and 1500 it was in general use all over Europe to refer to oared ships of all sizes and hull construction, including Scandinavian 'clinker-built' and 'caravel hulls' in the Mediterranean. More importantly, it has been understood in that general context ever since - not always completely accurately, I will grant, but the proposed Pentekonter/Penteconter is just as bad in the opposite direction: it is Too Specific, refering to the Pentekontoroi, or '50-oared ships', the largest of the single-banked oared ships in Greek only. Since the Egyptians were using similar single-banked oared ships almost 2000 years earlier, this is pretty Helleno-centric nomenclature. Especially since the more common oared ship even in Greek was the earlier Triconter - '30-oared ship' that appears very similar to Homer's 'Hollow Ships' that may date back another 500 years. Also, the Penteconter is rather like the super-battleships designed and built in the early 1940s when the fleet aircraft carrier was already in use: too little, too late: in the Penteconter's case compared to the Phoenician bireres or Bireme that concentrated more motive power by double-stacking the oarsmen.
I would keep the Galley as an easily-identified term for the oared ship from the start. The alternative is to ring in terms like the Egyptian wiA or wjA or Mycenean Greek Naus or slightly later Triconter and whatever the Phoenician, Chinese, Indian, etc terms were. I foresee a real problem selling all that to the average gamer.

 

[Evie]

Besides which if trireme turns into a mediteraneano-centric bloodbath everythime it comes up I doubt triconter will be more popular...

 

[pineappledan]

It’s not so much trireme. It’s trireme And Polyreme And Lembus And Dromon etc etc. The default units should try to be less parochial.

Plus, as several people have already mentioned, ranged combat on boats was little more than a curiosity until the late medieval in any part of the world. There isn’t a good reason to have a ranged naval boat until medieval, even if you were only concerned with a Mediterranean context.

 

[Boris Gudenuf]

The Trireme has the obvious advantage that as a ship name it is instantly identifiable and thoroughly associated with the Classical Era. Also because we know more about how they were built, operated and what their capabilities were because we have a carefully-constructed modern full-size replica, the Greek navy's Olympia, which was designed and built according to everything known about the Athenian Triremes with input from a professional military naval architect. The Trireme has the obvious disadvantage that it is thoroughly associated with the Greek/eastern Mediterranean Classical Era, and was the primary warship for that one region for all of - 200 years. After 400 BCE it was quickly superseded by the larger Polyremes and became a lighter auxiliary, not the primary combat craft.
It's a game design decision that can be argued either way: the Trireme is probably the most thoroughly Melee Warship ever, since it was built around a ram and its primary combat role was to violently contact the enemy ship. IF Civ VII defines combat units as Melee, Ranged, Recon, etc. the Trireme is the undeniable King of the Melee Warships. On the other hand, the later and larger Polyremes primarily relied on boarding actions with troops to seize enemy ships, so they engaged in, basically, Melee Combat on slippery decks. This also appears to have been the primary Oriental (Chinese, Southeast Asia, possibly India) naval combat technique, so if we can collect the information on native nomenclature for the ships, a more 'general' melee Classical warship with less specific and relatively narrow aspect is a valid alternative.

 

[Evie]

If we can use trireme and just trireme, then going war canoe (game start) - trireme (start of classical) - galley (medieval, representing the later European galleys, to which the name was first applied) - galleon (early renaissance) - frigate (early industrial) - cruiser (early modern) - destroyer (early atomic) - AEGIS ship

Alternatively if we go with a littoral combat line, then galleass replace galleon, ironclad (mod industrial) replace frigate, monitor replace cruiser, corvette over destroyer and missile corvette over AEGIS ship. But likely better not, and keep the ironclad as a one-off unit for civil war nerds.

Then as you said we start ranged in late medieval with
Carrack (late medieval) - ship of the line (late renaissance) - dreadnought (late industrial) - battleship (late modern) - Missile Cruiser (late atomic, representing more cruise missile armed ship, notably the russian Kirov. I know in practice they're often the same ships as AEGIS vessels, but the game requires us to keep the ranged and melee lines apart)

This...could work. Imperfectly and with many approximations, but it could work.