Revamped Navies

[stormbind]

Following my thread on VTOL where I concluded that the proven airspace VTOL technology actually changes ships more than it changes planes, I am posting my vision of an improved navy upgrade path.

This vision excludes the Age of Sail, and marines (which existed across several eras).

The format followed is

+ TECHNOLOGY = Ship Type | Ship Type (obsolete type)

<-- Age of Sail

+ STEAM = Ironclad (upgrade tallship)

+ STEEL = Destroyer | Transport

+ OIL ? STEAM TURBINE = Cruiser | Submarine

+ MASS PRODUCTION = Dreadnought | Carrier

+ NUKE = Nuclear sub | Super Carrier (upgrade Carrier)

+ VTOL = Through-Deck Cruiser (upgrade Cruiser)

+ SAT = Landing Platform (upgrade Transport) | Aegis (upgrade Destroyer)

The following were ommited: Pre-Dreadnought, Battle-Cruiser, Corvettes, Frigates, Arsenal Ships, Light Carriers, and many more..

DEFINITIONS & DIS-AMBIGUATION

These definitions include example ships in brackets. Examples might represent only a small cross section of the ship type.

Ironclad = All Ironclad & Ironhull vessels (Tekkousen, HMS Warrior, La Glorie, CSS Manassas, Monitor, &c.)

Destroyers = Largest of fleet escorts, which also include Frigates and Corvettes.

Cruiser = Independent patrols, anything upto 48k ton battlecruiser (HMS Hood)

Dreadnought = Anything from the 10k ton HMS Dreadnought upto 65k ton super-dreadnought (Yamato). The term Battleship is even more ambiguous.

Carrier = Early carriers like the <10k ton ACV-51 or 24k ton HMS Centaur which could carry half as many jets as prop-planes.

Super-Carrier = Fleet carriers over 50k tons (USS Nimitz)

Through-deck Cruisers = Fully independent patrols (HMS Invincible)

Aegis = Updated Escorts

Landing Platform = Updated Transports (with helicopters)

 

[stormbind]

PIRATES and SMUGLERS should exist in every era, and have small (custom) ships that harrass ports and steal money (like water-borne barbarians), forcing players to build at minimum a couple of patrol ships.

 

[rhialto]

Well, first, you havent proved anything in that thread. And as for your disambiguation...

The Monitor class was quite different from teh European ironclads in one important respect - it wasnt an ocean going vessel, by design. Its draft was too shallow to avoid heavy rolling and taking water in ocean storms. European ironclads didnt tend to venture too far from calm waters either, but that was for an entirely different reason - the coaling station network wasnt sufficiently well developed for most nations to allow travel far from European ports. But the limiting factor for European ironclads was geopolitical, not naval architecture. It is also worth noting that European ironclads usually had a full rig of sails, missing on the Monitor.


Check out the wiki in my signature - there is an entire page dedicated to just naval unit types.

 

[stormbind]

You claimed in the other thread I wanted too much reality... and now you are the one adding too much reality!

Civ3 monitor should sink like a brick when it leaves port: It is not sea worthy!

I bundled all the Ironclads and Ironhulls together because that is more playable and I imagine it appeased Americans. However, I would greatly prefer that the model depicted an iron tallship as that would be less insulting to common sense.

One detail that you (and Civ3) ommits is that the monitor fired wood-shattering balls from smoothbore cannons at another ironclad

At least the Royal Navy had the wits to put rifled armour-penetrating rounds on their ironhull ship, though that may have been a later upgrade?

What I do know is that the steam engine on HMS Warrior (and other early Ironhulls) was not the primary form of locomotion. They still rellied on sails most of the time. I think the engine replaced the use of oars. The engine was unreliable, hot and dirty: even under good wind & steam power, they were not the fastest ships available and one admiral claimed wood would never be obsolete

 

[rhialto]

I did not say you wanted too much reality (or even irreality - I made no statement either way). I did note that the problem with adding vtol is that it doesnt fix teh basic problem with naval warfare (nothing to fight over), and that marines are essentially a useless unit type. And whether the monitor class is 'seaworthy' or not will be irrelevant if we make a rule in the unit specs that it can only enter coastal tiles. And yes, I omitted some details in my description of the monitor class. You would too if typing from a museum piece computer with a crappy keyboard. I doubt the engine replaced oars though - those hadnt been used on any British warship for a looong time.

Personally, Id like to see both monitors and ironclads present in the game.

 

[stormbind]

Oh sorry, it must have been someone else. I know someone complained about wanting as little realism as possible

I have a feeling we play very different maps. I like capturing islands and launching amphibious assaults and the random maps selected reflect this preference

Where would you put the monitors if most rivers do not show on the map?

P.S. Your dusty antiquated computer is almost certainly newer than my P166 laptop

 

[rhialto]

Nope, im on a p133 with 32 megs of ram and a 2 gig hdd. Its my backup computer (my main one had teh power supply literally melt last month). Im getting a new machine next week though. Fortunately, I had a data backup done as soon as I noticed teh psu starting to act weird.

Back to civ...

Id have monitors as a coast only unit, with decent combat stats (relative to wooden hull ships). Id then have ironclads as their seagoing counterpart. Perhaps if boolean tech trees are implemnted, have it so any given civ can only ever have one of these two, then give ironclads slightly weaker combat stats, giving an opportunity loss decision to make.

 

[stormbind]

P166, 98Mb, 1Gb HDD

How about giving tyremes and monitors a glimmer of hope in crossing ocean tiles.. like a random dice roll to see if they survive?

 

[stormbind]

Well, first, you havent proved anything in that thread.

I said I have concluded things in that other thread, and I think there is extremely strong evidence to support my conclusions. I also linked to Wikipedia many times, and expect anyone who really wants to know the truth do some additional reading

My conclusions over TDC and LDP ship-types are backed up by case studies involving primary source evidence dating back many almost half a century.

 

[NP300]

+ STEEL = Destroyer | Transport

+ OIL ? STEAM TURBINE = Cruiser | Submarine

+ MASS PRODUCTION = Dreadnought | Carrier

I would make dreadnoughts appear with steel. Ironclads (HMS Warrior type) should upgrade to the dreadnoughts.

I think in real life the first modern cruisers used steam engines. Cruisers ought to appear with steel also, although it may be better to put them somewhere else for gameplay purposes.

As for submarines, the first experimental submarines were powered by steam engines and gasoline engines. The British actually built oil-turbine steam submarines during WWI, called the K-class, but they were not very successful. When diesel engines were perfected they became the choice for submarines.

I think the most important enabling technologies for submarines are electric bateries and motors and then the internal combustion engine. As such, Civ3 represents it well by making Mass Production enable them as this is the first tech that has electricity and combustion in its prerequisite path.

I think steam submarines might be an interesting one to add for an alternative tech tree. What if the internal combustion engine had been discovered a few decades later? Then it is quite possible that we would have seen steam submarines in action.

The K-class:

http://www.submariners.co.uk/Dits/Articles/kclass.htm
http://www.battleships-cruisers.co.uk/k_class.htm
http://www.gwpda.org/naval/ks000001.htm

+ NUKE = Nuclear sub | Super Carrier (upgrade Carrier)

Yes, but the prerequiste tech should be nuclear power, not fission, as it is in Civ3.

+ VTOL = Through-Deck Cruiser (upgrade Cruiser)

I still don't see the pressing need for VTOL. A normal ship can carry perhaps 2 helicopters or VTOL planes. That is so little that I don't see the point in representing it as an extra VTOL unit. It is better to represent it as better attack/defense for the ship.

VTOL only becomes a factor when you convert a ship into an aircraft carrier. But then, we already have carriers in Civ.

I guess if the game is a moddable as they say, it may be possible to create a VTOL flag. Then VTOL air units could be tagged as such. Then you could give cruisers a carry of 1 and only allow VTOLs to land on them.

If you want to upgrade the cruiser then the upgrade should be called a "jump carrier" or something like that.

+ SAT = Landing Platform (upgrade Transport) | Aegis (upgrade Destroyer)

In my personal mod I have an "aegis destroyer" unit. My destroyers upgrade to aegis destroyers.

 

[Horus Kol]

what about the discrepancy in movement....

In Civ III, my cavalry can move 9 squares (with roads) a turn - not to mention from one side of the globe to the other with railroads... but it still takes 30 turns for my carrier to reach it's destination.

 

[stormbind]

NP300, I value your input

If Civ4 fails to deliver, maybe we can work together to mod the navies to respect history? I will have to work on VTOL to convince you

My reason for advocating VTOL is because it proven itself to be a genuinely valuable technology.

My reason for preferring my upgraded-cruisers to your upgraded-cruisers is that VTOL provides defense against bombers/kamakazie, and can carry out it's own oportunist attacks. I think oportunist behaviour makes the game more exciting.

My reason for advocating the need for upgraded-cruisers is that Aircraft Carriers are too slow and boring. They move slowly, they are slow to build, and they require escorts which add more production time. TDC are quick to build, quick to move, and require no escort.

TDC are Rapid Reaction solutions that work for every civilisation (large and small). They carry 20+ aircraft (fighters & helicopters), 650 sailors/officers, 350 aircrew, 500 commandos.

Carriers are Slow and Boring solutions that work for only very powerful civilisations.

TDC would be fun. You could send them around the world and sneak up on an enemy without commiting your entire navy. But TDC are not too powerful, they would quickly run away if they came across a full-sized carrier with escorts.

 

[stormbind]

what about the discrepancy in movement....

In Civ III, my cavalry can move 9 squares (with roads) a turn - not to mention from one side of the globe to the other with railroads... but it still takes 30 turns for my carrier to reach it's destination.

Like how it takes a Warrior 10 years to walk up a hill!

The way I see it, your government gets to see everything that the unit sees. So when it travels out into the ocean, the time taken has to represent the invisible ships that travel back and forth delivering messages. Maybe the time taken is too long, but that is how I explain it taking more than one turn to go seemingly short distances.

 

[rhialto]

Two reasons why vtol aircraft will never replace conventional aircraft in the way that stealth will:

- vtol can never be as fast as conventional due to teh extra structural requirements (airframe needs to be strssed against movement in many directions, not just one), and that teh directable exhaust nozzles can never be as strong as the equivalent-tech conventional exhausts.
- Any time a vtol craft uses the features unique to vtol, it uses incredible amounts of fuel compared to conventional aircraft. Endurance (how long it can stay in the air) can become a real issue.

These two issues (or other serious negative features) do not exist for stealth.

 

[stormbind]

1. This is simply untrue. Newest VTOL aircraft do Mach 1.8 but the project requirements do not emphasise speed. VTOL aircraft would be as fast as governments are prepared to pay for them to be.

2. There is some truth in this, but it is why the RN & RAF deploy them as STOVL which results in more efficient use of fuel. This is what the funny-looking curved ramps are for. VTOL technology is required to achieve STOVL. Thus the problem is solved and your statement leaking water

Now here is a major drawback with CTOL aircraft: They need to be allocated runway time which reduces the number of planes that can take-off or land simultanously. How do you get around that?

 

[rhialto]

ok, newest vtol can do mach 1.8, and newest conventional can do ___?

 

[Horus Kol]

Plus, the control thrusters on something like the Harrier make it the most maneuvarable aircraft at speed - it can out-turn missiles....

 

[stormbind]

ok, newest vtol can do mach 1.8, and newest conventional can do ___?

That is completely irrelevant!

Harrier/JSF do not represent the limitations of VTOL aircraft. They represent only their specific project requirements.

Your question is like asking, what about the slowest ever CTOL? The slowest ever CTOL was a lot slower than the slowest ever VTOL!

But that is also completely irrelevant.

 

[rhialto]

You have missed my point entirely. Which is this: At equivalent tech levels, a conventional fighter will always be faster than a vtol fighter, because a vtol fighter has engineering requirements that aren't needed for conventional aircraft.

And regarding the slowest ever, seeing as a vtol can hover, I know that they are actually slower than any conceivable conventional fixed wing aircraft.

 

[stormbind]

Then you know wrong. The Harrier/JSF do not represent the limits of VTOL technology. Also, the Harrier is very old and not an indication of latest technologies

VTOL was developed in response to the threat of nuclear warfare in the UK, USA and USSR.

The American attempts were largely failures. The Russian attempts may have been faster and worked but the USSR collapsed before they entered service. The UK project also failed, but the remnants of that failed project became the Harrier Jump-Jet of 1969.

The greatest ever VTOL project was scrapped. It was the UK pre-Harrier project (I forgot the name of it) but it went in the bin during the 1960s defense reviews that also scrapped QE-class 50,000 ton aircraft carriers.

The Harrier replaced the Buccaneer. If you look at the Buccaneer you will see that it is also slow! This is because speed was never part of Royal Navy requirements. If speed is not the requirement, then the manufacturer is not going to respond by making something fast!

If VTOL is never going to be important then why do the UK, USA, Russia, India, Spain, Italy, Australia, and many other nations have their fingers in it?