Wait, ships can take cities now?!?!

[jjkrause84]

The question is this, do you think the game more realistic if:

A: You are at no risk of naval invasion and sea power barely matters, and destroyers cant attack cities.

B: You are at risk of naval invasion, sea power matters and destroyers can attack cities.

Of course I would pick B. If I have sent enough navy to capture a city without any land units then its not that much of a stretch to imagine that I have enough of a landing force to take the city.

Straw Man.

I vote option C: You are at risk of naval invasion, sea power matters and destroyers can NOT attack cities....only transports full of ground units can.

 

[huserib]

Straw Man.

I vote option C: You are at risk of naval invasion, sea power matters and destroyers can NOT attack cities....only transports full of ground units can.

It does seem weird to me as well. I love the fact that destroyers can no longer shoot "over the horizon" and preform coastal bombardments, and are not relegated to the anti-sub and fleet escort duty they were intended. But I still am not sure ships should be able to take cities period. If the AI can do real amphibious landings now, I'll probably mod it out if possible. If not, I'll deal with it.

 

[fenwayb]

It does seem weird to me as well. I love the fact that destroyers can no longer shoot "over the horizon" and preform coastal bombardments, and are not relegated to the anti-sub and fleet escort duty they were intended. But I still am not sure ships should be able to take cities period. If the AI can do real amphibious landings now, I'll probably mod it out if possible. If not, I'll deal with it.

it does make sense, but only in the earlier eras.

 

[DemonMaster]

So many people here shouting Straw Man of other peoples arguments, saying no, woof, grr at anything that anybody says, regardless ... and for what.

We will get a system that allows a destroyer to attack a city (I guess they also can "melee" attack units in coastal hexes as well, but of course cannot occupy it, but this is a guess). Cities will be harder to take now, a city of equal age, need bombardment and artillery to be taken. Good then that artillery units are stronger against cities (and weaker against units) to make up for that. A destroyer have almost the same strength as a WWI-Infantry. This will mean that a destroyer will do their part in an ambitious assault, but the main attacks will still be by artillery type units and specialist melee units (i.e. marines).

Sure, there will be times when your destroyer can swoop in and take a city that for example another civ has bombarded back to stone age, but how smart is that, any defender standing close to the city will re-take it (and sink your ship) the next turn (a newly taken city usually don't have so many HP) because you have no backup to.

Also, there will be times when you can send for example a flotilla of BB, CV and DD ships and take an island city. But still this will take time (to bombard it down) and still you have just bombarded a city back to stone age. I'm sure, the 60-300 (depending how many ships a destroyer represent) on board marines that exist on destroyers can take over a rubble.

I don't think a destroyer can defend a newly taken city with no other land support. An island city on the other hand is another deal but also not so far fetch.

Edit: What I meant with this post was that I think we all are building up not only a chicken from a feather, but a whole chicken run

 

[nokmirt]

The question is this, do you think the game more realistic if:

A: You are at no risk of naval invasion and sea power barely matters, and destroyers cant attack cities.

B: You are at risk of naval invasion, sea power matters and destroyers can attack cities.

Of course I would pick B. If I have sent enough navy to capture a city without any land units then its not that much of a stretch to imagine that I have enough of a landing force to take the city.

C. You are at risk of naval invasion, sea power matters and destroyers can attack cities. The AI is sudden and deadly in carrying them out.

I choose C.

 

[DemonMaster]

Well, I will not be so afraid of a little cute enemy destroyer lurking in my waters. I will have full confidence that my coastal cities will bombard it to the bottom of the ocean.

If a whole flotilla is in my waters, My problems will be more than the cute little destroyer.

 

[gunnergoz]

I think it's ridiculous. We ALREADY have amphibious assaults in Civ5....why do boats now need to be able to do them?

Because the AI doesn't use the existing amphibious assault capability very often, or very intelligently. Programming for melee warships to invade cities was apparently easier to do for them than to improve the AI's handling of embarked land units in the amphibious assault role.

 

[gunnergoz]

There will be a late-game Marine melee unit that will morph into a beefy assault ship when embarked (like any other land units that enters the sea) ... that will be used to invade from the sea and can also be used inland in combat normally.

Then I do think that infantry and in particular the new marine unit will be much better when attacking cities and from the sea than the destroyer.

Edit: Sorry for the double posting

Edit2: I saw in the PAX clip that a destroyer will have a str of 55 and a WWI-Infantry will have a str of 50. To this comes any penalty for attacking land units/cities from the sea.

I know about the marine unit, its been in Civ before and also modded in Civ V IIRC. And regular units can get an amphibious/river attack bonus with XP. But this is in reference to how the AI primarily attacks cities...now it will be with these melee destroyers, not the amphib unit. I think the amphib marine unit is there more as a sop to players than as a tool that the AI will use intelligently. We'll see, though, perhaps I'll be proven wrong. But if the amphib marine works so well, why have melee ships invading cities?

 

[Securion]

I dont think ships should be able to take cities. Not that it will ruin the game if they can... I dont really care i guess...

I really really really dont wanna be forced to build transports again. Thank god that "feature" is gone.

 

[alpha wolf 64]

i understand using the destroyer as a melee since the japanese used their destroyers that way in ww2. my worry there is what unit will now provide anti-sub/AA cover for amphibious assaults?

will the AI be any smarter in not sending units into the sea? At least now they can defend themselves, but they go amphibious for no reason way too often. I was playing a game the other day, and me and my minion CSs declared war on I think it was Spain. To my delight, one of the CS launched an amphibious invasion on a nearby Spanish city and capture it (with a little help from 1 of my bombers). The Spanish had 3 infantry nearby, 2 of which could immediately counterattack. But noooooo, all 3 jump into the water and w/i 2 turns, all 3 die trying to retake the city from the sea. And far too often, i see enemy units jump into the water right in front of enemy naval units as if they had no idea they'd die the next turn.

Another concern is that the AI already tends not to build too many destroyers once they can build carriers. so will this even help the AI at all? The only destroyers i see most games are converted sailing ships.

 

[Callonia]

I'm worried about what would be the dessy's ranged equivalent for modern era..

Cuz u see, dessys is nice ship to park in a coastal city everywhere that races out to deal with occasional threat and retreat.

Perhaps they're adding in cruisers now?

Battleships is quite expensive and slow to be built everywhere.

And i'm pretty sure dessys will keep their antiair capabilites.

 

[nokmirt]

I'm worried about what would be the dessy's ranged equivalent for modern era..

Cuz u see, dessys is nice ship to park in a coastal city everywhere that races out to deal with occasional threat and retreat.

Perhaps they're adding in cruisers now?

Battleships is quite expensive and slow to be built everywhere.

And i'm pretty sure dessys will keep their antiair capabilites.

I agree that cruisers would be a nice cost effective unit, which would pack enough punch to deal with most threats, DDs can't deal with. The other thing about cruisers is that they would be more cost effective for protecting carrier battle groups. BBs are expensive and harder to replace if lost.

 

[Bergerperson]

I honestly... can’t believe what God and Kings is doing to navies... I was going to find a thread to put out an idea for puppet cities... But this... Is too much. I value navies in this game. If I put my comment down about this, I’ll probably get banned. So look at the part 2 of that video and read the comment by GnomepuntingFTW. This is complete scheiße.

 

[Alone]

I honestly... can’t believe what God and Kings is doing to navies... I was going to find a thread to put out an idea for puppet cities... But this... Is too much. I value navies in this game. If I put my comment down about this, I’ll probably get banned. So look at the part 2 of that video and read the comment by GnomepuntingFTW. This is complete scheiße.

I had to agree with you. Of all changes for G & K, this one is apsolutly worst (from those that I am aware of). Ships can take city? Whos idea was that? Why? I cannot belive.

 

[KillingMeSoftly]

Don't we already have Cruisers? They will surely be a ranged unit, still. But they cost aluminium, which is a pain. As for an earlier Cruiser, then why not just build a Battleship? They don't really cost all that much more than a Destroyer. So why build an intermediate ship with less power? If the Battleship is too slow, give it the +1 Mobility promotion! Now we have Battlecruisers!

A lot of missing "specialty" units can be created with promotions.

Though I'm sure the Destroyer will retain its bonuses against submarines and aircraft. Against submarines, you will just have to get right next to them. Which is actually how it is (or was) done with depth charges.

Also I'm not too concerned about melee ships taking cities. Viking raiders would often pillage cities with their longboats.. I don't think a single destroyer will be able to take a city, but will be a concerted effort by a fleet and possibly invasion force. I'm also fairly certain melee ships CAN attack units that are sitting on the coast. So destroyers performing coastal bombardments are still a thing.

 

[Bergerperson]

Don't we already have Cruisers? They will surely be a ranged unit, still. But they cost aluminium

I already put that down in my YouTube comment. Aluminium is too valuable to be put into 5 or 6 missile cruisers. Bombers, jet fighters, tanks, artillery are a more concern than 5 cruisers. I usually have 2 or 3 in my navy, no more, no less, the rest goes to my army.

 

[RealHuhn]

I personally love the idea. It adds another layer of depth to the game and makes navy a lot more important.

Navy techs get more desirable, defense on the coast can't be neglected, the top of the tech tree (early game) might be a viable choice now, hopefully sub marines aren't useless anymore etc. pp.

I don't care whether it's realistic or not. It adds depth to the game and I really like that.

 

[LDG]

It really should be considered purely on its merits as a gameplay device... but if one insists upon looking for examples from history:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Occupation_of_Vera_Cruz

None of the ground forces landed were of Regimental strength and a significant number were "bluejacket" companies formed from the crews of the warships.

***

Edit: serves me right for not reading *every* comment upstream... #22~various and #44~51 addressed the same idea with different examples.

 

[Buccaneer]

I personally love the idea. It adds another layer of depth to the game and makes navy a lot more important.

Navy techs get more desirable, defense on the coast can't be neglected, the top of the tech tree (early game) might be a viable choice now, hopefully sub marines aren't useless anymore etc. pp.

I don't care whether it's realistic or not. It adds depth to the game and I really like that.

I do too. "Realism" usually means more advantages to the human player (since they care about such things) and less advantages to the AI. Anything that make the AI take a human city better (and actually succeed) can only be a good thing and more challenging.

 

[Yzman]

People will find anything to complain about. Civ has never been an actual war simulator and IMO shouldn't try to be. They obviously did this because they didn't want to add a new unit or couldn't find a good one but needed a modern melee ship, so they choose the destroyer. In the end this will add to the gameplay, not detract from it, which I consider to be the most important thing. Also, like others have said, we will have land units such as marines for amphibious assaults, so it would be silly to add in another unit exactly like that. Then if they chose to just not have any modern melee ship, people would complain that they reach an upgrade dead end path. This was a fine solution to me.