Privateers?

[nokmirt]

Although, as said, privateers flew under a flag, it would be a nice touch if you wouldn't be able to see what nation enemy privateers are of, so you could attack another nation without the need of proper war and spread confusion.

Maybe even foment a war between two nations that don't like eachother and are wary of eachother. Send one privateer to harrass one nation, another privateer to harass the other and voila.

But probably just wishful thinking

Well sure things like this did happen, even if privateers had a letter of marque they certainly would over abuse their power. They are pirates after all, just pirates with legal license under the law of the nation they work for, or are a citizen of.

I do know one thing privateers should be able to enter rival territory. At least give us that. Privateers would always go in to gather information about rival nations and do all kinds of unofficial acts for their bosses. Queen Elizabeth used them for information and for other things. She was very shrewd.

 

[elprofesor]

In some other thread somebody pointed out that it would be weird if privateers had hidden nationality, since then sea beggars would lose that bonus.
So it would be weird if the privateer had indeed hidden nationality.

 

[Lyoncet]

Well sure things like this did happen, even if privateers had a letter of marque they certainly would over abuse their power. They are pirates after all, just pirates with legal license under the law of the nation they work for, or are a citizen of.

Weren't plenty of non-pirate civilian vessels essentially conscripted though? I don't believe you *had* to be a pirate to find yourself with a letter of marque. And I seem to recall at least some flying flags, although I'm sure the royalty didn't exactly go out of her way to ensure that their privateers were playing nice.

Granted, my knowledge of privateering comes from a period re-enactment debate I did in 2004 and Stan Rogers songs, so I may be mistaken.

 

[HeraldtheGreat]

In some other thread somebody pointed out that it would be weird if privateers had hidden nationality, since then sea beggars would lose that bonus.
So it would be weird if the privateer had indeed hidden nationality.

Never even thought of that... You sir are one smart cookie!

 

[HeraldtheGreat]

Maybe the sea beggar receives double gold when capturing coastal cities?

 

[Peng Qi]

A quick thought:

1) I never played Civ IV, but from what I understand Privateers had hidden nationality. Why then, would Civ V introduce a unit called the privateer that didn't resemble the previous unit with the same name? Why not use any other name for the unit? There are plenty of other ship types not yet represented.

Add to this the fact that espionage is 1/2 of the major theme of G&K, and I don't see why it's so unreasonable to hope that the privateer works like...y'know...the privateer.

~R~

Yeah, you may be right. In that vein, I propose that Jaguar Warriors be moved to Iron Working, Keshiks be made into melee units, ironclads be totally useless, and ranged units function identically to melee units.

 

[Haig]

About Sea Beggar, If they wanted all privateer units to hide nationality they could make it so that other civs see Sea Beggar with regular private graphics and Dutch player sees them with the Sea Beggar graphs.

I think in Red Alert spy units were shown to other players as workers and to the owner as a spy, for example.

It's just that there's been no mention for Privateers to have hidden nationality, I'd love it, but the annnouncements have only said that they can pillage. I bet they can pillage ports like other melee ships too, but also can capture ships.

 

[nokmirt]

Weren't plenty of non-pirate civilian vessels essentially conscripted though? I don't believe you *had* to be a pirate to find yourself with a letter of marque. And I seem to recall at least some flying flags, although I'm sure the royalty didn't exactly go out of her way to ensure that their privateers were playing nice.

Granted, my knowledge of privateering comes from a period re-enactment debate I did in 2004 and Stan Rogers songs, so I may be mistaken.

No, you did not have to actually be a pirate. Primarily that is what nations looked for though. They felt by taking pirates and making an alliance with them, they were then one less problem to worry about. This is my best guess I am still doing some reading on pirates.

 

[Raiki]

Yeah, you may be right. In that vein, I propose that Jaguar Warriors be moved to Iron Working, Keshiks be made into melee units, ironclads be totally useless, and ranged units function identically to melee units.

You...missed my point entirely. I wasn't saying:

This is how Civ IV worked, so why doesn't everything in Civ V work this way?

I was saying:

In a previous game, this unit had a specific role and specific abilities. Since the unit is being introduced in an expansion pack where the previous unit's abilities would be highly relevant, is it entirely unreasonable to hope it could work similarly in Civ V? And if they didn't want it to be comparable to the unit from Civ IV (or III?), why wouldn't they choose one of the multitude of other available ship names for it?

Also, you'll be happy to know that Civ V has already implemented 1/4 of your suggestions. Ironclads are useless.

~R~

 

[Uberfrog]

About Sea Beggar, If they wanted all privateer units to hide nationality they could make it so that other civs see Sea Beggar with regular private graphics and Dutch player sees them with the Sea Beggar graphs.

I really hope that's not true, even if only for the sake of the poor designer who made the Sea Beggar model.

It would be a bit rubbish if the Dutch had the only unique unit in the game that was entirely unnoticeable to other civs.

 

[Louis XXIV]

Not to mention that it would require different stats or else people would figure out what it was based on combat odd calculations.

 

[Peng Qi]

Also, you'll be happy to know that Civ V has already implemented 1/4 of your suggestions. Ironclads are useless.

~R~

Did you miss the part where they upgrade to battleships now? Definitively not useless anymore.

Also:

In a previous game, this unit had a specific role and specific abilities. Since the unit is being introduced in an expansion pack where the previous unit's abilities would be highly relevant, is it entirely unreasonable to hope it could work similarly in Civ V? And if they didn't want it to be comparable to the unit from Civ IV (or III?), why wouldn't they choose one of the multitude of other available ship names for it?

This is exactly what I thought you were saying. Keshiks were melee units, archers and the like fought in melee, and jaguar warriors used to be line-breaking swordsmen. None of these units have the same specific role or specific abilities.

 

[Raiki]

Did you miss the part where they upgrade to battleships now? Definitively not useless anymore.

I actually discovered this about an hour after I made my last post, in a game I was playing as Elizabeth. Still rubbish, but I suppose on an archipelago map where most of the islands are connected by shallow water, I'd build a few.

This is exactly what I thought you were saying. Keshiks were melee units, archers and the like fought in melee, and jaguar warriors used to be line-breaking swordsmen. None of these units have the same specific role or specific abilities.

Please, don't insult my intelligence or your own by making such contrived comparisons. The keshik and the archer are ranged units now because ranged combat exists now. As far as the Jaguar example...I find your argument unconvincing. The Jaguar went from an early-game unique unit that replaced the swordsman, to an early-game unique unit that replaces the warrior. No practical difference. If they went from replacing the swordsman to replacing the infantry or even the pikeman, then your point would have merit.

The fact of the matter is this: 'Privateer' is the name of a ship that has iconically had hidden nationality. If the developers wanted to include a new ship with hidden nationality, this would be the logical choice of name. If the developers wanted to include a new ship without hidden nationality, then using the privateer name is misleading and, frankly, sloppy game design. I, for one, choose to give the devs the benefit of the doubt.

~R~

 

[DemonMaster]

A Privateer was a ship, owned by a private person (and not by a state) that was given a Letters of Marque by a state that allowed them to be part of any warfare of that state. As an incentive to take prize ships (instead of sinking them) was that the private owner (or owners sometimes) that they was allowed to keep the taken cargo. It became banned 1856 and more official in the 1958 Geneva-convention and 1982 by U.N.

Edit: Info from Swedish NE

 

[smallfish]

Yeah, you may be right. In that vein, I propose that Jaguar Warriors be moved to Iron Working, Keshiks be made into melee units, ironclads be totally useless, and ranged units function identically to melee units.

melee... keshiks...

 

[TM Moot]

As I've pointed out, the Privateer in Civ3 (I don't think it was in Civ4, but I could be wrong), was inaccurate. Firaxis is actually more accurate this time. It also never really worked effectively so it wasn't really as fun to use as it was supposed to be.

Yep, you are wrong. I'm not sure about civ3, but Privateers were definitely in civ4.

I thought they were really well implemented, and added another layer of gameplay that is sadly missing (so far) from civ5.

Being able to pillage sea resources, blockade AI cities (when international trade routes mattered) and pick off AI ships whilst not declaring war was most enjoyable. I often beelined the required tech to gain mastery of the seas before Frigates brought the party to an end!

 

[vcutag]

Once again, they're not Pirates. They were officially sanctioned private vessels. An American privateer in the War of 1812, for example, would have flown the American flag and treated as a prisoner of war if caught. They would have had an official license (letter of mark and reprisal) that means that the government they're fighting for officially sanctions the fight. If they had flown a different flag or no flag, they would have been hung for piracy. But they didn't do this. So hidden nationality actually doesn't make that much sense.

I wonder if they're going to be fairly cheap to purchase. Technically, they didn't cost the government anything but the letter of marque, being private vessels.

 

[Peng Qi]

Please, don't insult my intelligence or your own by making such contrived comparisons. The keshik and the archer are ranged units now because ranged combat exists now. As far as the Jaguar example...I find your argument unconvincing. The Jaguar went from an early-game unique unit that replaced the swordsman, to an early-game unique unit that replaces the warrior. No practical difference. If they went from replacing the swordsman to replacing the infantry or even the pikeman, then your point would have merit.

Actually siege units had ranged attacks in Civ3, and ranged units had a "ranged attack" value that only provided a single first strike when defending and at a reduced strength against incoming attacks, which Keshiks did not have (although archers did). I find it interesting that you don't think that warriors have a different role than swordsmen do. Warriors are weaker than spearmen and have no abilities. I basically use them as gap-fillers almost exclusively on rough terrain to hold what would otherwise be empty spots in my lines, and sometimes to finish off wounded units. Civ 4 swordsmen were almost exclusively used for attacking cities, and absolutely never used for defense unless it was all you had available. I find that to be quite a bit different.

The fact of the matter is this: 'Privateer' is the name of a ship that has iconically had hidden nationality. If the developers wanted to include a new ship with hidden nationality, this would be the logical choice of name. If the developers wanted to include a new ship without hidden nationality, then using the privateer name is misleading and, frankly, sloppy game design. I, for one, choose to give the devs the benefit of the doubt.

Or perhaps they simply read a bit more about the age of piracy and decided that making Privateers hidden nationality made about as much sense as making Keshiks a melee unit.

 

[Louis XXIV]

I wonder if they're going to be fairly cheap to purchase. Technically, they didn't cost the government anything but the letter of marque, being private vessels.

That's an interesting idea, but I suspect no. I think people are overthinking this. They need a melee naval unit in this era and decided Privateers are far more interesting than throwing in a Sloop or something that has no more reason to be melee attack than Frigates. At least Privateers usually tried to move in close for an attack or would board an enemy ship. Plus, coastal raids were not unheard of. In other words, it makes perfect sense as a melee unit, which is what they needed.

 

[Lyoncet]

I agree with Louis. Civ V is pretty generally built from the bottom up rather than from the top down, meaning they seem to say "what effect do we need, and what iconic (building/wonder/policy) can we name it that seems roughly historically accurate?" rather than "what does this (building/unit/policy) do and how can we represent that in-game?" That's not a bad thing from a gameplay perspective, but it does mean you usually can't read too far into things.

I should also note that some things, like UAs, are also much more top-down.