What's missing, unit-wise?

[ChaosSlayer]

well its not like the moment new ship was made all previous ships were collected and scrapped. They were still in service for decades despite being obsolete.
yes a specific destroyer was inferior to a dreadnought released 2-3 years later, but there were hundreds of those destroyers at sea used by opponent's forces and very few of the ultra-modern dreadnoughts. Those ships kept sailing and kept fighting for years and even decades to come.

Frankly the ships were getting obsolete the moment they were constructed. The upgrades and changes in design were made all the time. But still, any changes made within say 5 years were far less significant than changes made from 1810 to 1939.
There were long periods of time (10-20) years during second half of 19th century and first quarter of 20th century when many countries had more or less equal naval forces at sea.

Wars of 1850s, 1880-90s, Russo-Japanese war 1905, WW1 - they all significant landmarks of early armored navy warfare, before final transfer to ww2 warships.

But as it stands in base Civ - you get decent selection of age of sale ships, then a SINGLE ironclad to represent period of about 150 years, then you jump to a full set of ww2 ships, and then the modern times (past ww2) get their own set.
IMHO a century long period in Industrial era definitely deserves its own set of ships.

 

[damerell]

So there simply was a rapid revolution in ship design, simulated-ish by the tech line.

Well, that's true to a degree (although see, for example the Battle of Lissa; 1866, with wooden (albeit steam-powered) ships withstanding fire from and sinking ironclads by ramming).

But there are two conditions it would be nice to satisfy:
1) Gaps between units should not be too small, as well as too large. Filling the sail/oil gap with six generations of units would be just as bad as leaving it empty.
2) As far as possible, the unit relationships should be historically plausible; if unit A really would be powerless against unit B, it should also be so in game.

But... you can't satisfy both these conditions. If 2) is satisfied, you'll have to have wooden ships with auxiliary steam, wooden ships primarily powered by steam, ironclads, steel pre-dreadnoughts, post-dreadnought ships; and before you know where you are, you're the Wolf mod.

So I think 2) has got to give a little.

Finally, my second point, about the non-need of dreadnoughts, is summed up by another wiki quote I found while I was researching, so I'll just use their words again.

This seems to be purely a terminological argument; I'm sure we are all well aware that large warships have been called "battleships" well before anything represented by the Civ oil-fired Battleship unit was constructed. I don't see that that changes the desirability of representing other kinds of warship at all; you might as well say that because there's an Infantry unit, all other units representing infantry aren't needed.

 

[Rusty Edge]

I've been reading back through old threads, and there are a few that discuss units which players feel are missing from the game. I'd be interested to collate opinions on those. The ones that sparked this in me were:

A "bombard" between trebuchets and cannon.
Coal-fired ocean-going ships; one between Ship of the Line and Battleship, one between Galleon and Transport, and perhaps one between Frigate and Destroyer?
Arguably also a "man of war" between the Trireme and Frigate (it ought to be a "galleon" except, oops, that's taken...)

I know there's a bit of a risk here in that before you know where you are you've got six flavours of pre-dreadnought, but I do (obviously) feel the sparseness of the naval tech tree. So, CFC types, what do you think is missing?

I happen to be a Legends of Revolution fan, and maybe I'm more on the historical side than the gameplay side of the balance than you are, but I'll try to help...

First I'll cite some LoR solution examples to your problems -

1) Man of War between trireme and frigate

"Galleass" 4 strength, 2 movement, 65 hammer cost, Techs- Guilds and Compass
Cannot enter ocean ( gameplay wise, an earlier ironclad ) / upgrades to frigate or Ship of the Line

2)one between Galleon and Transport

"Paddlesteamer" 8 strength, 4 movement , 100 hammer cost, Techs - Steampower and Astronomy , Resources coal or oil / cargo capacity 4 / upgrades to transport.

3) one between frigate and destroyer

"Deystroyer Escort" strength 17, movement 6, 180 hammer cost
Techs- Gas Turbine and War Machines, Resources- Coal OR Oil & Drydock
Can intercept aircraft 5% chance / Can withdraw from combat 20% chance/ Plus 50% against submarines, paddlesteamers and ironclads./ Can bombard city defenses -10% per turn. / Upgrades to Destroyer


Which brings us to "Coal-fired ocean-going ships; one between Ship of the Line and Battleship" There's a glaring hole here.

Historically not much happened in the way of sea wars between the American Civil/ Crimean Wars and The Spanish- American/ Russo-
Japanese Wars. There were experiments and evolution, but no standard designs.

I happen to think that those two sea wars were historically significant because they established the USA and Japan as world powers. They were fought with Pre-Dreadnoughts, which were described as "Modern Battleships" at the time, but were only around for 25 years, which isn't much on Marathon and negligible at faster game speeds.
I think Pre- Dreadnoughts are what ought to be in the game.

Phungus had them in from Wolfshanze, but removed them in a streamlining process.

He wound up with the "Ironclad Battleship" ( styled after La Glorie and HMS Warrior )filling that void ....

21 strength, 3 movement, 145 hammer cost
Techs-Steel, Steam Power, Astronomy and Military Science. Requires Iron & ( Coal OR Oil) & Harbor & Forge. Can bombard city defenses -13% /turn. Can cause collateral damage 30% max. Upgrades to Dreadnought.

"Dreadnought"28 strength, 5 movement, 230 hammer cost,
Techs- Steel, Electricity, War Machines, Resources - Iron and Coal or Oil and Drydock
Can Intercept aircraft 5% / Can cause Collateral damage max 50% to 4 units /Can perform ranged attacks ( range 1 ) / Can bombard City defenses 18% per turn
Upgrades to battleship.


Well, I guess Ship of the Line to PreDreadnought to Battleship seems like the one-step answer to me.

I'm kind of partial to OrionVeteran's Navy Mod myself, but that introduces a Thanksgiving Dinner

 

[damerell]

I'm not convinced by Dr. Null's canoe, but I quite like his delaying of Destroyers to Artillery+Radio, delaying of Battleships to Artillery, and introduction of the Torpedo Boat as a 20 replacement for the Destroyer at Combustion - still worth having, especially if it is economic hammer-wise. (Perhaps the Fast Torpedo Boat, to distinguish it from steam torpedo boats not modelled, at 140 ).

The LoR "galleass", my "man of war", seems spot on, except that (if this is possible) perhaps it should become ocean-going at Astronomy?

The LoR paddle steamer seems well supplied with , making a presumably largely unarmed unit able to sink ships of the line 50% of the time. Perhaps instead it could be 6 , but have a good withdrawal chance against sailing units - if it can retreat upwind it is basically untouchable? (For the avoidance of doubt, I'm not proposing a change to LoR - just thinking out loud).

I'm finding it hard not to talk myself into two generations of coal-fired warships, small and large:

"Corvette": Steel, Steam Power, Astronomy, Iron, Coal or Oil, 12 , 4 , 120 .
"Ironclad Battleship": Steel, Steam Power, Astronomy, Military Science, Iron, Coal or Oil. Maybe 18 , 4 , 180 .

"Early Destroyer" (what an awful name): Corvette, plus Assembly Line, Rifling, 16 , 5 , 140 ... and a bonus vs Torpedo Boats to let them actually perform in their intended role.
"Dreadnought": Ironclad Battleship plus Assembly Line, Rifling, 24 , 5 , 200 .

(This was Electricity, Artillery, but then I looked at the tech tree and concluded I'm an idiot).

Give the Torpedo Boats a bonus against these early battleships as well, and destroyer escorts have a real purpose.

Obviously this is a mashup of Dr Null's ideas and those from LoR. I freely admit I now have a lot more sympathy for the way anyone who tries to tackle this seems to end up with sixty-eight coal-fired warships. But... will anyone in this scheme build Early Destroyers, or will they just go straight for Combustion if they have oil? Part of the trouble here is there just isn't much tech tree between Ships of the Line and Destroyers - 150 years in reality, but really quite a short period in Civ.

 

[damerell]

At the risk of replying to myself... the easiest way to trim that down to one generation would be to omit the Corvette and Ironclad Battleship, renaming the Early Destroyer an Armored Cruiser. I think it's more important to retain the stronger, later units; if you only have Coal you can fight off Torpedo Boats fairly evenly, albeit bleeding hammers every time they sink a Dreadnought; and you might just be able to fight a campaign against Destroyers to secure your own oil supply.

The earlier units, by comparison, just render ships of the line even more marginal, as units go; if you can mangle them with Corvettes from the same layer of the tech tree, who's ever going to build one?

Sure, we leap from about 1850 to 1906; but it's better than leaping from 1850 to 1940, with the attendant complete dependence on oil for a post-sail naval campaign; and HMS Dreadnought surely gives the flavour of the zenith of steam-powered warships.

And maybe, looking at other mods, all the and values for the units discussed want to come up a bit, making a Dreadnought at least a fairly even fight with a Destroyer...

 

[Te_Wheki]

In terms of navy I'd always thought it was only the early steam ships that were missing, and that they should just be cheap upgrades for Frigates, Ships of the Line, and Galleons, and only offer an increase in movement range. Also the Ironclad should be styled on the HMS Warrior and be able to move into Ocean squares, and an Armoured Battery introduced as a poweful, but slow, and coastal only ship.

Given the slower time lapse of the industrial era I guess i could see a place for Dreadnoughts and Cruisers as early Battleships and Destroyers, making them the first of the super high powered naval ships but lacking the speed of the their oil powered successors which obviously would come a bit later. I can't see a role for Torpedo Boats though as they were used much earlier than these ships, and were never used against submarines as someone suggested. I think as well the submarine should just be a sub with no missile carrying ability potential around the tie of Dreadnaughts, while the Missile Subs and Attack Subs should come with Fission in line with naval history.

 

[vranasm]

the problem with the in-between units is that even if we remember there were ton of fun units between say napoleon's wars and first WW and then second WW, the timeframe is represented only by couple of turns.

you will very quickly outtech the units and will not have enough time to build reasonable stack of them.

if you look at trebs->cannons even if at first sight the gap is big, in tech tree side of things you look at engineering->gunpowder->chemistry->steel... with let's say 400 bpt it's like 20 turns after engineering?

if you add at gunpowder some in-between bombard unit, you have 10 turns to build army of them before you could get cannons.

And then there is issue with liberalism and tech trades which skews the time even more.

the same with WW 1 -> WW 2 units...that's why we got only 2 types of tanks since with the typical tech tempo at the point you would have like 6-7 turns to build WW 1 tanks before you get WW 2 tanks

 

[Te_Wheki]

Yeah I guess you could just give +1 to all naval units with Steam Engine, I'd still like to see an ocean going Ironclad type ship though, maybe use the HMS Warrior style model instead of the USS Monitor same but on par with a SotL. Perhaps this is where a Torpedo Boat could fit, as a blockade busting counter to Ironclads (coastal only 2 lower not enough to beat Frigates but with a massive bonus against Ironclads).

 

[civac]

The gap betwenn cannons and trebs isn't that problematic, although an in-between unit would still be preferable.

The gap between Frigates and destroyers is ridiculous and more importantly bad for balance. Whoever gets destroyers first on any semi-waterheavy map wins. (I'm not talking Archipelago here. Most continents maps or the world map are sufficiently water-based in this respect.) The problem is that you can almost completely screw your opponents economy by blockading there coastal cities.

 

[damerell]

The gap between Frigates and destroyers is ridiculous and more importantly bad for balance. Whoever gets destroyers first on any semi-waterheavy map wins. (I'm not talking Archipelago here. Most continents maps or the world map are sufficiently water-based in this respect.) The problem is that you can almost completely screw your opponents economy by blockading there coastal cities.

Quite. That's why I feel the last generation of steamships is more important than the first (although giving +1 movement with Steam Power would be a neat way to give a nod to those first steamships, and to render the poor Ship of the Line more useful); the complete dominance of the Oil navy is vexing.

 

[Dr.Null]

I was thinking this over, and there may be room for stuff like the Bombard and Steam Dreadnaughts, but let's put that stuff off the main tech path. They won't play a part in most games, and AIs usually won't mess with them, but they'll be there for games which -- for whatever reason -- spend a lot of time warring on a strange tech path.

Like, if you get to Gunpowder before Engineering, should you have access to Bombards? That would be kind of cool, then Gunpowder could be a passable break-out package for civs with less-sucky Muskets (Oromo, Janissary, Musketeer?), but since they're basically equivalent to Trebs, you wouldn't see them often in a typical Normal speed game. In a game without tech trading, you would see some; in a Marathon No-Tech-Trading game, it might even be common.

Similarly, if you get to Artillery before Combustion, or you totally lack for Oil, there should be some steam ships which you can use to compete with Torpedo Boats. I think the rules for these historical footnotes ought to be:
- They are not on the default naive AI tech path for long; and
- They are more expensive in hammers than the default units.

Basically then we'd have more "Ironclad" class units: interesting in a few specific situations, but usually we skip them.

Thoughts?

 

[damerell]

I was thinking this over, and there may be room for stuff like the Bombard and Steam Dreadnaughts, but let's put that stuff off the main tech path. They won't play a part in most games, and AIs usually won't mess with them, but they'll be there for games which -- for whatever reason -- spend a lot of time warring on a strange tech path.

I think the difficulty there is that, frankly, it is hard to cram steam warships into the tech tree at all. That's why I realised having two generations is totally unfeasible without a rehashed tech tree (which is definitely moving out of the territory of being a minimal mod) - 1850 to 1906 might be a long time in history, but it's the blink of an eye in Civ 4.

As such, anything that imposes additional requirements on where you place them is difficult.

However, if you'll pardon me saying so, I don't think putting them off the main tech path is a good idea in and of itself. First of all, after all, the steam warships are an important part of history; anyone who uses a mod with them in is presumably doing so out of a desire to actually see them floating around the map. Secondly, if the player is going to be given an option to fight on with Coal and no Oil, in the interests of a challenging game, it should be likely that the AI also exercises that option in the same situation.

 

[Dr.Null]

1850 to 1906 might be a long time in history, but it's the blink of an eye in Civ 4.

Only if you follow the same tech path we did on Earth. Following Earth's tech path is absolutely not required when playing Civ.

However, if you'll pardon me saying so, I don't think putting them off the main tech path is a good idea in and of itself. First of all, after all, the steam warships are an important part of history; anyone who uses a mod with them in is presumably doing so out of a desire to actually see them floating around the map. Secondly, if the player is going to be given an option to fight on with Coal and no Oil, in the interests of a challenging game, it should be likely that the AI also exercises that option in the same situation.

I welcome debate on this point. I feel that we are brain-storming, and I thank you for considering my ideas.

I totally agree that, when you deny oil to the AI, it should come at you with steam ships. Part of what I want to do is make Combustion a less dominant tech, so that is an explicit goal.

However, that is not the default, just like teching Construction + Feudalism so you can war with Catapults + Longbows is not the default. It's possible, and that's cool for when you find yourself lacking resources, but it's not the default.


Regarding your second point, that players who pick this (hypothetical) mod up want to see the units floating around, IMHO those players ought to play Marathon games. Preferably Marathon games without tech trading, or at least without tech brokering. Slower tech pace => increased lifetime for units => maximum chance for these units to matter.

How does that sound?

 

[damerell]

Only if you follow the same tech path we did on Earth. Following Earth's tech path is absolutely not required when playing Civ.

It's not... but whichever tech path one follows, it's just not that far from Frigates to someone getting Combustion if there are multiple civs at the cutting edge of the tech race.

However, that is not the default, just like teching Construction + Feudalism so you can war with Catapults + Longbows is not the default. It's possible, and that's cool for when you find yourself lacking resources, but it's not the default.

I think I disagree. Particularly if Destroyers and Battleships are delayed, as you suggest, it is almost inevitable that you'll want to build the first available units which can squash Frigates and Ships of the Line like bugs. Indeed, if I have one gripe with this proposal, it's that it will likely render SotL even more unlikely to be deployed in large numbers, which is historically unsatisfying.

Regarding your second point, that players who pick this (hypothetical) mod up want to see the units floating around, IMHO those players ought to play Marathon games.

Ouch, no. Of course Marathon makes any unit more likely to have a day in the sun - but compelling people to play Marathon just to get any particular unit out seems a little harsh.

 

[civac]

It would already help do reduce the strength of oil based navys (Destroyers to 20, Battleships/Missile Cruisers 28 maybe). These numbers are arbitrary anyway. One could also replace the Ironclad with a sea-going steam ship available at Steam Power. Ironclad has marginal use anyway.

 

[Dr.Null]

It's not... but whichever tech path one follows, it's just not that far from Frigates to someone getting Combustion if there are multiple civs at the cutting edge of the tech race.

Right. That is why we're talking about adding in some units and delaying other units, isn't it?

I think I disagree. Particularly if Destroyers and Battleships are delayed, as you suggest, it is almost inevitable that you'll want to build the first available units which can squash Frigates and Ships of the Line like bugs. Indeed, if I have one gripe with this proposal, it's that it will likely render SotL even more unlikely to be deployed in large numbers, which is historically unsatisfying.

The problem here is that Ships of the Line are too niche. They have only one role (squish Frigates). If they actually benefited from being in formations (stacks), as they historically did, you'd probably see more of them -- and more historically satisfying sea battles.

A mod which only adds missing units can't fix that fundamental problem. So, I'm not trying to address it in this thread. Ships of the Line will suck in this (hypothetical) mod because they already suck.

Ouch, no. Of course Marathon makes any unit more likely to have a day in the sun - but compelling people to play Marathon just to get any particular unit out seems a little harsh.

That's not quite what I said. If you want to see the unit be relevant you can easily take a non-standard tech path.

What I'm saying is that if you want to see the AIs deploying these niche units in large numbers, your best bet is to play Marathon + no tech trading.

 

[damerell]

The problem here is that Ships of the Line are too niche. They have only one role (squish Frigates). If they actually benefited from being in formations (stacks), as they historically did, you'd probably see more of them -- and more historically satisfying sea battles.

I think part of the difficulty is that Military Science is a dead-end - and a dead-end at the point where the tech tree is absolutely full of juicy useful technologies, a free GS for being first to Physics, and so forth.

Also, for whatever reason, the AI rarely seems to build them. If the AI had more of a tendency to turn up with SotL and sink all my Frigates, I'd find myself compelled to research and build them myself to counter that.

What I'm saying is that if you want to see the AIs deploying these niche units in large numbers, your best bet is to play Marathon + no tech trading.

I don't disagree with that; but equally I feel it would be satisfying if a normal speed game would still result in them getting a look-in.

 

[Dr.Null]

I think part of the difficulty is that Military Science is a dead-end - and a dead-end at the point where the tech tree is absolutely full of juicy useful technologies, a free GS for being first to Physics, and so forth.

Also, for whatever reason, the AI rarely seems to build them. If the AI had more of a tendency to turn up with SotL and sink all my Frigates, I'd find myself compelled to research and build them myself to counter that.

What's odd is that the AI sometimes does prioritize Military Science -- I've seen Ragnar in particular bee-lining Grenadiers and being very successful in prosecuting war with them vs. other AIs. But even the naval power that is the Vikings tends to ignore SotL.

I don't disagree with that; but equally I feel it would be satisfying if a normal speed game would still result in them getting a look-in.

In a normal speed game, I will ignore Catapults or Trebs (or both if I'm using a Horse Archer rush). There is just not enough time for me to have two useful pre-Renaissance wars (or I'm not good enough to profit from them).

I'll almost always ignore Musketmen, Ironclads, Anti-Tanks, and Stealth Destroyers.

I will occasionally make use of Airships, Marines, SAM Infantry, and Attack Submarines, but usually those get ignored too.

So yeah, I don't see the harm in making units which can be useful but are not in the player's face by default. They are there if you need them, like if you lack Oil or if you end up on some odd tech path, and that's good enough for me.

 

[ChaosSlayer]

new units can't be just added to the game without some rework of tech tree, including some improvements to it
In my mod I am reworking the tech tree so direct bee-lining ignoring ton of contemporaneity techs is not really possible.

 

[digitalcraft]

To me, what is missing unitwise is more a mechanics thing than individual units. It would be nicer for a smoother transition sure, but what always bothered me a bit about civ games is the way unit upgrade works. I think there should be two upgrade options for each unit. The standard, where you completely refit the unit with state of the art weapons and training which is fairly expensive sure, but there should be a second: the equivalent of having your axement go down to walmart and buy the super saver hunting rifle. A sort of militia upgrade for each era. Super cheap, but lets your units be relevant at least. Then the militia unit for the era, for money can always be upgraded further in to the regimented state of the art unit if need be.