Stronger and More Useful Navy

[elementgoo]

I think that navu should play a stronger role in the game because all that i ever use the navy for is a few boats early on for exploration, transportation for invasion and then i few ships to guard the transports. Navy could do much damage to the enemy in civ3. Naval bomabrd should be stronger or something.

 

[Stid]

bombarding multiple units in one attack might work for this. but would not have the same strength as in civ3 for sinlge unit attacks. ie ironclads attack 1 unit/structure only but have a better chance of hitting and inflicting damage than frigates. destroyers can inflict damage on 2 units/structures and so on. however this should be limited as to not entirely destroy units unless severly bombarded by numerous ships to not make it too easy

 

[Colonel]

The part of the navy problem you are talking about has nothing to do with the actual naval units but rather the AI, the fact that they dont use navies makes it highly wasteful for you to have more then a few ships just to fend off the few ships an enemy may have or to protect invasions.

 

[Dida]

AI can never use naval ship effectively in invasion, so navy can be totally ignored unless u wish to project power across water.

 

[KrikkitTwo]

I think the best way to improve the navy would be to give it an Zone of Combat, so that when an enemy transport fleet moves near your coast, your fleet automatically attacks (just like fighters intercept bombers) with the possibility of sinking it. (I would also make the transports much faster to make ambhibious invasions more reasonable)

 

[mst3k_freak]

Maybe the main reason there isn't as much emphasis on the navy is that there is nothing in the water to protect, besides transports. Theoretically, you could use a carrier to support a costal invasion, but that would cost a lot and once you moved inland there would be no more use for it.

I think there ought to be trade lanes in the water which you have to protect from pirating by enemy navies. Or perhaps fishing fleets and offshore platforms represented on the map. As it is, you don't need a big navy to secure anything of value, so there is no reason to build one.

And also, submarines should be able to withdraw like fast units do on land. Run silent, run deep.

 

[elementgoo]

I enjoy building a large navy and I like the idea of protecting trade routes. Is there any other ways to add importance to navy?

 

[Shylock]

Cities on water like in the Civ 2 expack would make a navy worth it.

 

[Plexus]

Trade routes. With the addition of trade routes, a navy will be able to protect/cut off access to resources and colonies. Also, more effective blockades.

 

[Mewtarthio]

But how would such trade routes be implemented? An invisible line in the water seems like a silly idea. I've proposed an automatic merchant ship that would try to remain safe from attackers of its own volition, but nobody's seemed very interested in that.

 

[searcheagle]

I enjoy building a large navy and I like the idea of protecting trade routes. Is there any other ways to add importance to navy?

I grabbed this post of mine from an old thread. I have posted it to keep it in its place on the Rhialto's Civ Wiki.

Naval Units will become more important if:

1. Reduced Rail/Road: I think that if we slow down Rail/Road traffic it will make sea transport a more common occurence in innercontinental traffic.

2. Reduced Air Transport Reduce the amount of units that can be transported via air transport. Or just make air transport unattractive in other ways- cost for transportation, etc

3. Interceptable Resources: Make resource traffic interceptable in the big blue. The problem with a blockade is that it make your units too vulunerable to artillery and air attacks. This can be done through either visible trade routes or visible resource carrying ships, which can be sunk. THere are also too many harbors to make blockading effective. In the modern ages, I have never tried this cause its not worth it.

4. More Naval Power: Increase the power of Naval units. The power of combat ships is weak. The battleships, destroyers, cruisers only get one attack each turn where tanks get 3. However, the ships cost much more to build. Carriers only hold 4 air units, which makes them very underpowered. There are times when all 4 units can't put 1 hit point of damage on a unit- pathetic. Also, the ability to do inland assault from the sea would be appreciated- helicopters operating from carrier would help, as would paratroopers.

Adding these will make civ an even more exciting game because it has a viable navy.

 

[searcheagle]

What makes civ navies worthless:

1. resources move without interception across the ocean. If the goods were there to be stopped, the NAVY would be there.

2. difficulty in intercepting an amphidous landing- set a transport 6 squares out and drop it in an unprotected coastline square. If there was some way for ships to intercept mid turn, it would force transports to be protected, which they rarely are now.

3. Unlimited RR on land- why move resources on the ocean when you can move them the whole way by land instanteously.

4. relatively slow speed of ocean travel

5. weak naval units- a battleship can only attack once but a MA can attack 3 times and the battleship costs much more. A carrier can carry only 4 air units. (I've had times where entire carrier didnt knock one hit point off a unit.)

6. limit the transport ability of air transport. if this is done, it force more to the water.

Those are the problems as i see it. I'm not necessarily advocating the simplest or most obvious fix. But those are the problems.

 

[elementgoo]

I like those ideas. Transports are to easy to get across oceans...

 

[Aussie_Lurker]

I agree with the vast bulk of your ideas Searcheagle. As I have said elsewhere, though, I think you can leave RR's with infinite movement-and boost road movement-but STILL make sea-lanes and sea-trade more important.
By having a capacity point system-capacity which gets used up by the movement of units or formation of land-based trade routes-trade routes formed between port cities suddenly become MUCH more important-even if both cities are actually on the same land-mass. Of course, if land-based trade routes were 'slower' than sea-based ones (and, therefore, produce less income) then that is even more incentive to use sea-lanes-at least until the age of modern rail and flight.

Yours,
Aussie_Lurker.

 

[CurtSibling]

Trade routes. With the addition of trade routes, a navy will be able to protect/cut off access to resources and colonies. Also, more effective blockades.

I agree - The navy should also be used to support ground invasions in a more powerful manner...
Also to be grouped into fleets that can blocade as Plexus mentioned...

Sadly,
The navies in CIV3 seem to be an afterthought...

.

 

[dh_epic]

I'm with searcheagle on some valuable thoughts on the Navy. Historically, it's been possible for nations with a relatively average army to beat a superior army with a killer navy. Not because the boats go onto land and kill all the soldiers, but because they do all kinds of other things to make that country's quality of life a living hell (with regards to food, medicine, and commerce), not to mention their speed advantages.

 

[Colonel]

I see the same problem as before, even after all these ideas. Any and all ships seem as though they are an afterthought, we need ships, harbors, and trade routes, imbeded into the game. Think thoughout history and even today 60% of the world's population live on the coasts today, now think in a real life sense what would happen if those oceans werent there, just dead open plains, we would be dead, no food transported, no luxuries transported, and so on. So we need to have ships be part of the earliest techs, wether it be fishing ships, small raiders, everything. Up until the mid modern age your people should be nearly completely dependant on oceans, seas, rivers, lakes if nothing else. To point out how valueable they have been in real life, think of countries that have no coastal borders, Kazahestan or one of the many eastern european countries, thoughout history you never hear of great accomplishments coming from such countries, but nearly every country with a coast has had some great and important contrabutions to culture, trade, or military expasion. Without a coast however no countries could make such an impact.

 

[Admiral8Q]

I think that trade should be more like in Civ2, with the caravan idea. The only difference should be that a "Civillan" transport ship must be assigned a trade rout. Also the ship would not be "used up". Perhaps one transport/traderoute can be assigned for a town, 2 for a city and 3 for a metropolis. The ships would move back and forth, for example, on the real eath, up to 3 traderoutes between New York and London. Trade between other civs would have to be negotiated first in diplomacy of course. Each trade ship could move independantly, or be grouped together in a convoy. Warships could be assigned to each transport, or to the convoy. Instead of an abstract sea-trade system, one that needs defence and is also vulnerable to piracy and like in the WW's submarines.

 

[elementgoo]

Land routes could be defended by forts and sea routes by ships.

 

[Rambuchan]

I agree with just about all of this and particularly empathise with the comments on trade routes. The loss of caravans from Civ2 seriously dented the need for a nation's navy. Caravans were realistic (dangers and rewards of long distance trade & there's gotta be some kind of exchange involved right?), exciting (ohhh how much am I gonna get for these silks? Are they gonna get killed on the way?), good for peaceful play (build caravans not military, generate wealth not conquests) and you needed Navy to protect them and get them there.

I mourn the loss of the Caravan and all that it has done to the naval units. We can have both trading systems work in tandem and restore navies to their former glory.