1. We have added a Gift Upgrades feature that allows you to gift an account upgrade to another member, just in time for the holiday season. You can see the gift option when going to the Account Upgrades screen, or on any user profile screen.
    Dismiss Notice

Should battleships/destoyers be able to inflict damage on land units?

Discussion in 'Civ4 - General Discussions' started by BearMan, Nov 10, 2005.

?

Should battleships/destoyers be able to inflict damage on land units ?

Poll closed Nov 20, 2005.
  1. Yes, like bombers do, (without risking damage to themselfs).

    113 vote(s)
    76.4%
  2. Yes, like artillery do, (with risk of beeing damage themselfs).

    25 vote(s)
    16.9%
  3. No.

    10 vote(s)
    6.8%
  1. Aussie_Lurker

    Aussie_Lurker Deity

    Joined:
    Jul 21, 2003
    Messages:
    7,782
    Location:
    Adelaide, South Australia
    I would be perfectly happy if battleships, frigates and artillery 'softened up' ALL units in a good defensive position-be that within a city or in any other terrain. So, units in a hill-fort could have their defensive bonuses reduced by naval and land bombardment BEFORE an attack by conventional units. I don't think this ability should be restricted to cities alone. I do think that naval vessels should also be able to bombard terrain improvements too.

    Yours,
    Aussie_Lurker.
     
  2. ahsingjai

    ahsingjai Chieftain

    Joined:
    Jan 6, 2004
    Messages:
    76
    even if modern navel units were not able to bombard with their cannons, they should be allow to carry tomahawk cruise missles at least. Giving them some ability to attack land.

    This makes more sense. Since it's ship missles that destroy buildings and improvements not their giant cannons.
     
  3. Mythrl

    Mythrl Chieftain

    Joined:
    Nov 11, 2005
    Messages:
    47
    I voted yes but I just changed my mind :) Main reason being that high powered naval units get introduced far sooner than high powered land units. At least in my games I've been getting battleships when musketmen and cavalry are still running around. Battleships have strength 30 vs 10-15 they would always annihilate them.

    I do think though that they should be able to bombard cities.

    I think the reason I voted yes is because I want to see naval play a more important role in the game. My biggest gripe actually is that Galleons are strictly forbidden from leaving coastal areas.
     
  4. snepp

    snepp King

    Joined:
    Oct 27, 2005
    Messages:
    667
    Location:
    Sioux Falls, SD
    I'm guessing that you mean Galley's, which can enter ocean tiles if it's within your cultural border.
     
  5. Runriot

    Runriot Chieftain

    Joined:
    Mar 31, 2002
    Messages:
    86
    Location:
    Orlando, Fla
    First off, I must say that I wouldnt have the foggiest idea how to code these changes, or even if they would be possible at all to make in the game, but heres my idea:

    Im voting yes that naval units should be able to bombard cities defense bonus down, destroy (IE pillage improvments without gaining money for it) tiles, and only be targetable by other navies, aircraft, or artillery right on the waters edge.

    I would also be in favor of the Coastal Fortress to return, as well as the civ III style of fortifactions where you could tack on additional earthworks for more defensive bonuses, and which changed with your tech levels, growing more intricate with advents of gunpowder and artillery. Some of these later designs could afford defensive bonus vs naval bombardments, while the earlier versions suffered a penalty.

    With all that in place, you could easily diminsh naval bombardments in cities (Coastal fortress/shore batteries) protect your tiles/Units outside the city (addaptive fortifications) and give the opposing navy a shot in the kisser with artillery moved to the coast (also vulnerable to return naval fire) and aircraft (with interception values for newer naval craft like carriers and AGEIS crusiers.)

    Unit, city & tile improvement all balanced and counter balanced. It'd be a hell of a mod :)
     
  6. Jabba

    Jabba Warlord

    Joined:
    Oct 26, 2005
    Messages:
    128
    Historically galleys were limited to coastal waters. They use oars.
     
  7. ahsingjai

    ahsingjai Chieftain

    Joined:
    Jan 6, 2004
    Messages:
    76
    They could already bombard cities. I'm not sure about pre-modern naval units but I've used my destroyers to bombard costal city defenses to 0%. When you move your ship next to the city, a red and white bullseye appears.
     
  8. Zakar

    Zakar Chieftain

    Joined:
    Nov 5, 2005
    Messages:
    25
    Location:
    Australia
    That doesn't mean it never did. If you didn't notice, CIV is not only set in the current day.

    Bombading Units should be allowed, however any unit that is fortified should recieve a large defencive bonus.
     
  9. Runriot

    Runriot Chieftain

    Joined:
    Mar 31, 2002
    Messages:
    86
    Location:
    Orlando, Fla
    I would say that should depend on how and where you are fortified. As is, the naval guns destroy fortification bonuses in cities, so implementing that idea would be just a waste of time.

    Personal, I think the way I outlined above would be fair, as on paper atleast, it is balanced and counterbalanced all around :)
     
  10. Garand

    Garand Warlord

    Joined:
    Mar 22, 2005
    Messages:
    203
    Location:
    USA
    I don't know why you think naval bombardments aren't used against enemy formations... when they have the opportunity, they are used and are quite effective. However, the day of naval bombardmentshas passed (for a time at least) as the aircraft carrier is the Lord of the Seas these days.

    The United States used battleships and cruisers heavily in the Pacific theater to bombard Japanese defenses before attacks. One reason "battlewagons" were rarely used against enemy formations is that they were rarely given the opportunity to hit formations themselves - in the Pacific and at D-Day, the enemy was dug in to their defenses, therefore, you have to hit the defenses to hit the troops.

    If you want to find just how effective and often-used battleships can be in bombardment roles, look up the USS New Jersey's and USS Wisconsin's action in the Korean War on Wikipedia.

    The last time the great battleships were used was in the Gulf War. The USS Missouri and USS Wisconsin were used to support American troop movements and to silence Iraqi gun batteries and bunkers from their vantage point in the Gulf. The United States still keeps a few of its battleships in mothballs in case they are needed for shore bombardment or escort duties in time of war.
     
  11. AER

    AER Chieftain

    Joined:
    Apr 19, 2004
    Messages:
    43
    I strongly agree that ships should be able to bombard improvements. I remember stories my dad told about Vietnam - he was in the Navy, and was involved in targetting a large gun from a destroyer. He said that most of the time, they were targetting roads. In the game, I think that this would give ships a bit more to do. For me it seems like they often bombard a city to 0, then sit there waiting around doing nothing.

    I am kind of ambivalent about bombarding units - it would be nice, and it looks historically accurate, but it might be too strong of an ability.
     
  12. Mythrl

    Mythrl Chieftain

    Joined:
    Nov 11, 2005
    Messages:
    47
    The Vikings did make it to Newfoundland and yes they followed a lot of coast but the stretch from england to iceland is as open ocean as it gets. I'm not suggesting they should be able to have free reign over open oceans though but I think Civ 3 had it right by having you randomly lose them if they left coastal waters although they probably should be lost more often than in Civ 3 (or whatever the equiv Civ3 unit was called).

    And yeah I did mean Galleys

    Since posting that I've played an archipelago game and even there I found naval units to be minimally useful. You keep enough to sink incoming ships loaded with troops and you bombard city defenses a bit but other than that they aren't all that useful.
     
  13. shackleton

    shackleton Warlord

    Joined:
    Nov 8, 2005
    Messages:
    109
    I'm going to be altering artillery so that they can bombard like bombers can; e.g. cause collateral damage at no risk to themselves. Furthermore, I *think* I'm going to allow artillery to "intercept" other artillery, so that you get a kind of artillery duel thing going on.

    Given that I'm going to make those changes, I guess I'm going to add it to battleships and destroyers too.

    There isn't really any fundamental difference between artillery and battleships. If anything, battleships have bigger guns, so should be better.

    I guess the intercept thing means its not without risk though.
     
  14. Soryn Arkayn

    Soryn Arkayn Prince

    Joined:
    Oct 14, 2005
    Messages:
    315
    I kinda agree. A Frigate looks like a behemoth compared to a Battleship, but IRL a WWII battleship is several times longer than a Colonial-era frigate. The reason is units models and scaling. The Devs want them to be as detailed as possible, so they made the Frigate really big. But a Battleship is much longer than it is wide, so when you see a Frigate next to a Battleship the former looks massive whereas the latter looks like a metal stick in comparison.

    The only way to fix this would be to shrink the Frigate. You couldn't enlarge the Battleship without it occupying more than one square. I wouldn't mind if they shrunk the Frigate's model slightly, but not make the scale 100% accurate compared to the Battleship, otherwise they'll look like fishing boats.

    I think the problem is that the Devs didn't expect this problem to crop up in the game much. But I think they overlooked the fact that the AI rarely upgrades their units -- usually because they never have much gold to spare -- so they end up with an army and navy filled with obsolete units. A player would either upgrade them into Destroyers or just delete them, because a Frigate wouldn't stand a chance against even a Transport, nevermind a Battleship.
     
  15. Venger

    Venger Give it a tumble, sport

    Joined:
    Apr 18, 2002
    Messages:
    783
    I try to help the AI with their obsolete navy... by sinking it.

    Venger
     
  16. Zany

    Zany Prince

    Joined:
    Jul 1, 2005
    Messages:
    567
    Location:
    Wherever map generators place me
    Yes, like bombers. Civ IV is an embarrasment the way it is now (in every way, not just not being able to bombard with naval units).
     
  17. Venger

    Venger Give it a tumble, sport

    Joined:
    Apr 18, 2002
    Messages:
    783
    As to naval bombardment...

    Yes, of course. BUT - no fatal bombardment to land units, only half strength.

    I'd like a fort built on the coast to act like the old Coastal Defense in Civ3 - you swim within range, you're gonna get a heapin' handful of grapeshot. And that means as soon as you are IN range, not attack...

    Venger
    P.S. To save time, yes, I think bombardment should be able to sink naval units as well...
     
  18. Raggamuffin

    Raggamuffin Warlord

    Joined:
    Apr 22, 2003
    Messages:
    244
    For the sake of gameplay and fun I like that they removed the ability to bombard with ships. For me it was just an annoyance.
     
  19. ahsingjai

    ahsingjai Chieftain

    Joined:
    Jan 6, 2004
    Messages:
    76
    The movement pts with ships when u just want to bombard is annoying. After I bombard, I still got so many turns to go, I always have to press space or enter.
     
  20. KevinTMC

    KevinTMC Utopian

    Joined:
    Oct 31, 2005
    Messages:
    122
    Location:
    Georgia, USA
    Yes! That's just what this game needs to: a) make naval strategy more interesting; b) make forts more useful; and c) add to the historical flavor of the game.

    Stategically-placed coastal forts were often a key element of naval strategy and national defense, especially from (if I recall correctly) the 16th through the 19th centuries. Making them a danger to naval forces in the game would make it necessary to plan and prepare more carefully for amphibious invasions in the ocean-going/pre-flight era. The defender would also be able to take steps, apart from lining every single coastal square with troops, to make it less easy and sure to invade by simply slipping a transport ship or two past the defender's navy and unloading without opposition.

    Of course, forts were important historically in defending river passages as well. Having a class of ships that could travel navigable rivers (wasn't this possible in some previous version of Civ, or am I thinking of a different game altogether?), with the defensive counter-possibilities of forts and artillery being able to fire on such ships, could open up a whole new area of fun.

    -- Kevin​
     

Share This Page