PAX-E VideoInterview with Dennis Shirk

[SJSerio]

What I don't get is if they are showing the game in motion (whether through demo or video) at a fan convention, then why won't they show the rest of us that can't make it to these conventions due to travel, jobs, money, etc. All they need to do is give us a taste of what it will be like. I understand that it could change some by the release. I am just getting tired of all of the promises and hearsay about how great it is... I want to see proof!

 

[ShaqFu]

We know very little about the mechanics of naval invasion. I just worry a little that the designers removed a major part of the planning of these tough invasions, that they are too cheap now. It could be that the AI always quickly builds some military ships. But I doubt that these will be present during every single turn on every single coastal tile to block any and all transports which might arrive from any direction. If sailing into enemy lands (and thus declaring war) plus disembarkation can be done in a single turn (nobody claimed this to be untrue and it has been true in every previous version of civ), then the only way for military ships to stop transports is by sinking them before the declaration of war of the invader.
There are certainly ways to design civ5 so that military naval ships can easily protect a long coastline, but such designs were never chosen in previous versions of civilization. So I wonder what your guaranteed investment in military shipping is going to accomplish.

This won't be an issue, actually, thanks to the addition of interdiction. During the PAX demo, the presenters moved a unit past some enemy archers, and the archers attacked it during the player's turn. Since it was a military unit, it survived (but was weakened); I'm sure that a civilian unit would have been annihilated. I'm assuming that the same applies to naval units, where a battleship can interdict transports and sink them as they move past. In other words, even though a battleship only occupies one hex, it can interdict units 2-3 hexes away, so you don't need to have a solid wall of them to stop an unprotected invasion.

Just as an example: if I'm the US and I want to invade England, I could have my army turn into transports and sail across the North Atlantic. If I don't dominate the area, then I'll likely sail within English battleship interdiction range (even with only 4-5 patrolling the entire North Atlantic), and my entire army will end up on the ocean floor. Thus, if Liz has naval dominance, an invasion of Britain is totally out of the question; I'll need to punch through the Royal Navy if I want to take London.

 

[Aussie_Lurker]

The investment, Roland, is in the building of the units themselves. Lets face it, a single transport in CivIV was sufficient to carry a significant invasion force-& had sufficient defense to see off anything but a concerted attack. Plus, because you could stack all your transports in 1 tile, you could keep your invasion "profile" very small. With Embarkation, you still have to pay the price of your invasion force, but because they occupy a larger area, the need for defense will be significantly higher. Plus, unless you plan your invasion properly, you'll almost certainly get slaughtered the moment you land your troops whilst you wait for your chance to attack! I'm disappointed that you're focusing more on the negatives (viewed through the prism of CivIV rules I might add) rather than on the obvious benefits of this system. Now you can no longer rely on the time needed to build a fleet to defend you from naval attack-the AI probably *will* engage in more naval action, which will force you to expand your navy accordingly!

Aussie.

 

[Carver]

The new ocean rules are great. Big thumbs up. There will be alot more naval action, and finally, there will be a point to building fleets of warships. The AI will be transporting its units by water much more, so will human players. Imagine the potential for units like submarines, which up until now, have been useless except to deliver nukes. All warships ... triremes, frigates, everything ... instead of just being frills, these units will become critical. Salamis, here I come!

Submarines are pretty useful for spying on enemy territory, which is also one of their major real life roles.

 

[Aussie_Lurker]

Wow, interdiction is news to me-but very good news indeed. It sounds like Zones of Control the way it was *meant* to be.

Roland, as I've stated, you're assuming the same rules will apply to coastal tiles as they did in CivIV, but such assumptions have no basis given the extent to which they're changing the game. Its far more likely that Embarkation & Disembarkation will be limited to only certain land tiles & that said tiles will be as much invasion choke-points as mountain passes on land. To my mind, the only people who'll suffer from the new rule are those too lazy to build their own navy, & instead relying on a poor naval AI like in previous games!

Aussie.

 

[Ahriman]

Its far more likely that Embarkation & Disembarkation will be limited to only certain land tiles

While this seems theoretically possible, this doesn't seem at all *likely*. Has there been any mention of this at all by Fireaxis? Its an interesting idea, but I worry that your random idea that you invented will become "conventional wisdom" through sheer repetition.

 

[Aussie_Lurker]

What is & isn't *likely* are very much up in the air, Ahriman, given they're building this from the ground up. How did they do this in Panzer General? If embarkation in PG works as I described, then there's a better than average chance that this is how it will work in CiV. I just love the way certain people *assume* it will be a bad system-without waiting for these very details!

Aussie.

 

[Thormodr]

Exactly. Everyone should take a wait and see approach.

What I like is that maybe, just maybe, the AI will actually conduct naval invasions correctly now. They have always been incompetent at that.

It sounds like the game will be a lot more challenging. That's good news.

 

[eleazzaar]

...With Embarkation, you still have to pay the price of your invasion force, but because they occupy a larger area, the need for defense will be significantly higher. Plus, unless you plan your invasion properly, you'll almost certainly get slaughtered the moment you land your troops whilst you wait for your chance to attack!

That's more or less how i see it, and it sounds more fun. It's quite possible that a good defense from invasion could be a fortified beach-head as well as naval defenses. Since a "embarked" unit is civilian and apparently gets no attack, it might very well normally (unless it has "amphibious") not regain that attack until after it gets back on land. Thus even feeble land troops could defend their shores.



Re: "Its far more likely that Embarkation & Disembarkation will be limited to only certain land tiles"

While this seems theoretically possible, this doesn't seem at all *likely*. Has there been any mention of this at all by Fireaxis? Its an interesting idea, but I worry that your random idea that you invented will become "conventional wisdom" through sheer repetition.

I also don't see any particular reason why embarkation should only be possible on certain tiles.

Though i do agree with the idea that we shouldn't assume Firaxis is run by idiots. They've created some marvelous games. While i probably won't like every new thing in Civ V, i expect all the new features to be very carefully considered and tested.

 

[Ahriman]

What is & isn't *likely* are very much up in the air, Ahriman, given they're building this from the ground up. How did they do this in Panzer General? If embarkation in PG works as I described, then there's a better than average chance that this is how it will work in CiV. I just love the way certain people *assume* it will be a bad system-without waiting for these very details!

Its been a very long time since I played PG, but I don't remember anything like that.

I didn't assume that it would be a bad system (did you read my posts?) I just think its bizarre how you act as if some particular idea you had is likely to be how it will work, based solely on the fact that you like the idea.

I like the idea too, FWIW, I just wouldn't assume that there is any significant probability of it being implemented.

* * *
Also, it has some problems. What about an island comprised entirely of hill tiles? How do you guarantee that every island is in fact able to be landable on, and that every continent allows at least reasonable scope for amphibious invasion?

 

[galahadba]

My whole post is about the possible lack of hammer investment in the civilian fleet and how this could result in the availability of amphibious invasions without any strategic planning. Essentially, if you would notice that the future enemy had no military ships close to your coastline, then you could invade with your units without any thought of such an invasion in previous turns. You could invade on a whim.

I don't see what relation this holds to the section of your post which I quoted above.



We know very little about the mechanics of naval invasion. I just worry a little that the designers removed a major part of the planning of these tough invasions, that they are too cheap now. It could be that the AI always quickly builds some military ships. But I doubt that these will be present during every single turn on every single coastal tile to block any and all transports which might arrive from any direction. If sailing into enemy lands (and thus declaring war) plus disembarkation can be done in a single turn (nobody claimed this to be untrue and it has been true in every previous version of civ), then the only way for military ships to stop transports is by sinking them before the declaration of war of the invader.
There are certainly ways to design civ5 so that military naval ships can easily protect a long coastline, but such designs were never chosen in previous versions of civilization. So I wonder what your guaranteed investment in military shipping is going to accomplish.

So, even though you give guarantees , I remain worried that military invasions in civ5 might require less investment and less planning and might often be performed on a whim.

I sincerely hope that there is still a significant planning cost involved in amphibious invasions. And I don't mean micromanagement, but a relative high cost in time and hammers to make such an invasion into a success.

Well, they say that they are doing the combat system similar to war games like Panzer general.

We have cofirmed the "interdiction" , that means we can shot at the enemy on enemy turn

We have confirmed in one of the previews that the ships can shot long range,was said more or les 6 hexes for modern one if i am not wrong

If we assume that they get another features comon on these war games , that is militar units can shot more that once per turn, and shots not used in my turn can be used in the enemy turn when they come in range (you can choose if you want or not to use it).

your surprise naval atack can be defended with some ships disposed on my coast


Assume i have 3 war ships defending my coast and each one have 2 shots, you declare war after my turn (so i have not used any shot of my ships), this mean i have 6 shots to use when you enter my range.... ...so, if you do not destroy my ships before get your transport ships in range, i will sink 6 of then before you reach my coast.


of course we will only know for sure when they release the game, but these war games have very little exploits... ...the only thing that concerns me is that these war games are based on real battles, each battle began with the enemy ai with balanced troops that are alread disposed in a good formation to fight you. in civ the ai beguns with nothing, have to choose what to build, when to build and how to dispose it acording to terrain to give you a good fight... and a good ai for that i think is dificul to do (too many variables)... lets see how they will do it...

 

[frekk]

My whole post is about the possible lack of hammer investment in the civilian fleet and how this could result in the availability of amphibious invasions without any strategic planning. Essentially, if you would notice that the future enemy had no military ships close to your coastline, then you could invade with your units without any thought of such an invasion in previous turns. You could invade on a whim.

Yes, you could attempt to land on an undefended coastline if there were no military ships in the area. But there might be huge problems with doing that. First, we don't what the relative speed of military ships vs transports would be. You may not see any military ships when you start out, but what if they arrive while you're en-route and sink everything you were sending? In the modern era, of course, subs will ensure you can never be certain, even when you can see tiles and tiles of empty ocean using aircraft.

We don't know the mechanics of disembarking, which might present a deterrence. If you're stuck and very vulnerable for a round or two, then you might not even want to consider any amphibious invasions into occupied territory until the modern era, when you can bring air and naval assets to bear on any ground units that respond.

We don't know what other hazards amphibious attackers might face besides warships and ground units arriving at the beachhead. There could be cheap coastal artillery; special naval fortifications; mines; aircraft. Invading without a large fleet of warships and/or air cover may be total suicide, even if the enemy doesn't have any ships in the area. At least, in the modern age. If amphibious assault is relatively easy in the middle ages, well, that would account for the Saxon shore and all those Viking raiders.

We also don't know the frequency of naval warships in the game. It may be that to protect a coastline, you need to invest just as much as to protect any other border. If that's the case, then an undefended coastline presents an easy target - but how is this different from an undefended land border? If you don't invest in defence, you cannot expect security. My guess is that the AI will scuttle the easy-as-pie amphibious assault, and so will human players.

 

[The_J]

When you think about all these things, don't forget, that cities, archers, catapults, etc. can bombard probably 2 tiles. You can probably sink slow transports without the need of any fleet.

 

[Aussie_Lurker]

That said, The_J, I'm predicting that most land-based units won't be able to fire into sea or ocean tiles. Of course, thats just a guess on my part.
Meanwhile, though, I'm guessing even early naval units (Galleys & Triremes) will be able to interdict enemy vessels up to 1-2 tile away.

Aussie.

 

[Ahriman]

I would think that galleys and triremes would not be able to "inderdict" at all. Interdiction surely requires a ranged attack, and early galleys/triremes fought basically by trying to ram each other and then board. Ranged fire was relatively insignificant to the outcome of early naval battles.

 

[Aussie_Lurker]

Why can't a Trireme be outfitted with a small siege weapon (like a ballista or catapult) or even have a troops of archers to do very short-range interdiction? Even if not historically accurate, interdiction is going to have to be available from the onset of navies *if* we're going to avoid the very problem people are describing here.
I still don't think land-based units will be able to fire into sea/ocean hexes, because of the English Channel scenario that some people have mentioned elsewhere.

Aussie.

 

[The_J]

That said, The_J, I'm predicting that most land-based units won't be able to fire into sea or ocean tiles. Of course, thats just a guess on my part.

I don't think so.
It would not make sense, that a catapult can't sink an ancient ship.
Maybe they make less damage when firing on water tiles. It was already said, that ranged bombardment will hit everytime, but it should be more difficult to fire at an unit on a water tile.

 

[Ahriman]

Why can't a Trireme be outfitted with a small siege weapon (like a ballista or catapult) or even have a troops of archers to do very short-range interdiction?

Even if not historically accurate

You answer your own question. Gameplay > realism, but when there is no major gameplay problem realism should be considered.
I think there is a major risk of everything becoming bombardment. Ranged fire bombardment should be kept to a minimum few units, or unit positioning becomes unimportant.

If they did make late-era naval warfare about bombardment (which I don't really like, but whatever) then I hope they would make ancient era naval warfare melee, so as to distinguish them. Pre-gunpowder naval warfare really did happen only at extremely close range, mostly through boarding actions.
And pre-gunpowder naval warfare was pretty rare outside calm coastal waters - if nothing else because the chance of *finding* an enemy fleet is otherwise difficult.

interdiction is going to have to be available from the onset of navies *if* we're going to avoid the very problem people are describing here.

Why?
As long as you have a picket to spot an incoming armada, and units loading into transports take a turn to do so, then land forces are still vulnerable to a melee-only naval unit. Particularly if the transports are slower than the warships.

There is no need for interdiction to stop transports.

I'd also be surprised if interdiction fire could destroy even civilian units outright.
I'd sure hope not; accidentally move my transport one tile too far forward (because I move it first by accident) and it gets entirely destroyed, even without engaging in combat at all? That doesn't sound fun.

 

[Stile]

I don't think naval interdiction would be necessary pre-astronomy. It's only when invasions come from over the ocean that your coastline becomes too long to defend.



So what happens if a unit embarks in an inland sea in enemy territory to avoid destruction. They could perhaps even heal, then pop up ready to fight. If there's no city on the lake then no navy will threaten it. This would lead one to believe that ranged land units would be able to attack it.

 

[PieceOfMind]

Not sure if this has been mentioned yet but I am guessing that the units-turn-to-transports feature was motivated in some part by the NIGHTMARE that AI coders had to go through getting all the naval AI logic working correctly. You won't find many people disagree with the assertion Civ4 AIs sucked at naval warfare. BtS was a big step for naval AI, and the Better AI mod even moreso, but there are still massive problems like units getting stranded and units running late for the intended transport departure time. The AI performance on Archipelago maps was noticeably poorer than on more land-heavy maps.

Even if this AI advantage was the only benefit of the new rule, I'd probably still be in favour of it.

The reason I'm calling it an AI advantage is that it almost surely is going to cause fewer problems - it takes much less planning/preparation which is a plus for AI.