Who needs a navy anymore?

[Zouave]

OK, navies are still needed to launch sea-borne invasions, and to try to protect your coastline. Of course.

But besides that, what use are navies? A lot LESS use than in Civ II.


In Civ II naval units had these additional uses - uses now defunct.

1. They transported diplomats and spies to distant lands, and, conversely, intercepted enemy spies and diplomats. Many a time I landed two or three diplomats after a perilous journey to the far side of an enemy's terrirory and promptly stole some tech advances.

2. Naval units transported caravans and freight to distant lands, and, conversely, stopped enemy caravans from establishing a trade route with you or other states. It was always satisfying to have a caravan reach a far away overseas city for a huge payoff.

3. Navies transported explorers and settlers to lands unsettled. Now, in Civ III, virtually nothing is unsettled much after 500 AD, and it still won't be many hundreds of years until you can get ocean-going vessels even if you pushed for those civ-advances.
So explorer units are pointless, and ocean-going ships useful ONLY for combat. Also, with all the culture flipping in Civ III, it is inadvisable to start cities later in the game distant from your core territory.

All three of these points made it helpful to have naval patrols looking for enemy diplomats, caravans, and explorer/settlers. No more.


Additionally, in Civ II, when loaded transporting vessels were sunk in combat we were told how many units were lost. That does not seem to be occuring in Civ III.

So, naval operations have greatly changed in Civ III - and not for the better.


Besides all that, we have privateers now.

Since caravans no longer exist, the prescence of privateers in sea lanes should effect trade as they specialized in attacking commerce.

But in Civ III, privateers can only attack (with limited effectiveness) enemy warships, which they didn't do historically.

This should also hold true for submarines - their mere prescence along sea lanes should effect trade.

 

[BigBirdZ28]

You need a navy to fight the other guy's navy, pure & simple.

I think your missing the point. Think about it, why bother manually moving trade & diplomacy units when you can do it through a more real interface. You dont govern your civ on the low level anymore, I like it.

I wish subs were a lot more deadly though, maybe to balance that out, they'd need to return to a base or carrier every 10 or so turns to stock up on food, toiletries, etc...

hehe...

besdides, I like to think of it as now you need an even more powerful navy to plow thorugh the comps & deploy your troops.

 

[Zouave]

In Civ II, navies had many functions (as I mentioned) other than combat vs other naval units. I liked it that way.

Submarines? In WW II Japanese subs specialized in attacking (or trying to) U.S. warships. Wrong strategy. US and German subs specialized in going after the enemy's commerce - freighters, tankers, troop ships. Good strategy. It crippled Japan, and almost defeated Britain.

As there are no tanker or freighter units to attack, and no caravans or diplomats either, submarines in Civ III should have an incremental effect on a nation's commerce depending on the number of subs (and their duration) along sea lanes where they would threaten those freighters. Privateers did function in that exact same way. In the American Revolution American privateers wrecked Britain's ship insurance business by seizing and sinking hundreds of merchantmen - thus they helped end the war. In Civ III, all privateers can do is attack warships - WHICH THEY DIDN'T DO IN REALITY.

PATCH THIS:

Privateers and submarines along sea lanes or near harbor have a direct negative effect on the victimized nation's commece.

 

[Psychlone]

Historically, neither English longbowmen nor Roman legions ever did battle with modern armor, either, so your logic of historical inaccuracy doesn't hold a lot of water. This isn't an historical simulation, after all. Perhaps the privateer unit was a bit of a goof, intended for commerce raiding based upon how naval units functioned in Civ2, even though those functions were eliminated. I see them however, as more intended for the eventual multiplayer game, so that you can harass other opponents anonymously, albeit inefficiently.

And for what it's worth, American submarines sank one hell of a lot of Japanese combat ships in WW2, as well as merchantmen.

 

[Tocca]

I'm new to this forum. Nice to see how much posts there is!

I agree with you Zouave.
Subs and Privateers should affect trade. It would be a nice touch.
But then you should also get warnings if this method is used.
Something like: "Trading commerce has dropped, some of our
trading ships has been sunked outside (cityname)".

This way, if you don't move your privateer or sub it will be
attacked sooner or later by the AI.
Or the other way around, you can track down and attack the
AI subs/privateers that they use against you.

Otherwise i think the whole trading system in Civ3 is much better
than before.

Thomas.

 

[Zouave]

Historically, neither English longbowmen nor Roman legions ever did battle with modern armor

But knights often fought longbowmen. And, historically, the knights got creamed again and again - at Crecy, Agincourt, Poitiers. The best French knights in full plate armor got slaughtered by English longbowmen who mowed them down as they charged.

So why does a knight always defeat a defending longbowman unit when hit points and quality are equal? It is '4' attack ponts vs. '1' defense point. WRONG, Sid. Dead wrong.

BTW, historically, there have been many occasions when one civilization encountered another with a huge tech advantage, be it the Spanish and Aztecs in the 1500's, the British in India in the 1700's, or any number of European states in Africa in the 1800's.
In Civ III, unlike Civ II, large civ advantages are minimized; most civs seems to advance at about the same rate no matter what - and there has been much talk on this forum that this is artifically contrived; i.e., not real even in game terms.

AS FOR NAVIES. . .
Their main role in history has been to protect sea lanes and trade routes. That is not reflected in Civ III at all, and was done so only a little in Civ II.

Privateers and submarines were designed primarily to attack SHIPPING, not enemy warships. If someone puts many of them in proximity to a sea route, harbor to harbor, it should negatively effect the enemy's commerce.

As much as I dislike excessive flipping, the relatively ineffective and costly espionage system, and excessively scarce resources, this naval factor annoys me the most. And I hope it is PATCHED.

 

[etj4Eagle]

This like many of the issues with the game basically boils down to needing to enhance certain features of the game. While I do like the non micro aspect of trading, something has been lost (the ability to interfere with trade). What we need is for the game to display trade routes on the map (maye as simply as drawing a redline between cities). Then if you place a privateer or a uboat error type sub along a sea trade lane, there should be a trade reduction (with accompanying warning messages). Though also we would need the ability to tell our units to attack only merchant vessels of certain nationalities.

On land at least through the first two ages there should be primary trade routes between cities and a delay if those are disrupted before normal trade is restablished.

This might be douable with a future patch/enhancement, but likely would be with an expansion. Unfortuantly I think the developers in trying to simplify everything, did not take that second conterintuiive step to look back and see if some added complexity would improve things.

It would be intersting to see what kind of features people would like to see enhanced in a future add on, such as some near future tech advances, this trade routes issue, and maye a black market for producing resource contricted units in one city with certain substantial costs.

 

[wtomwhalen]

Dare I say it in the Civ III forum? Weren't trade routes handled nicely in Call To Power? When you started a trade route, it put that route on the map and the enemy could pirate the route. If you wanted to protect it, you needed to defend it. I thought that was one of nice improvements CTP made on the Civ model, unfortunately the Civ team didn't think so.

Subs are useless. You still need Navies to defend your coasts and destroy improvements by an enemy.

 

[greenie]

I am a little miffed by the naval units in Civ3. My biggest gripe is replacing the modern units attack values with bombard values. Sure bombard values are good, for taking out people, improvements, etc but it almost replaces the round by round direct annilihiation navy combat used to be in Civ2. There was nothing like a 12 attack battleship attacking the city multiple times till it lost all units.

Not saying that the civ3 system is totally bad, but its just something i miss.

 

[royfurr]

I have got to agree with Zouave and others. The Naval aspects of this game is one of the most frustrating parts therein (although the Land Grab nature of the AI- eliminating unexplored lands early on, and such high coruption to make distant "colonial outposts" of CIVS basically wothless 1 shield 1 tax cities, give it a close run for the money). SUBS where basically to reduce the commerical strenth and infrastructure (including foodstuffs and energy & raw material supplies) of the enemy, and the Japanese approach of anti warship use was a comparative failure (not with standing the losses imposed on the IJN by the US sub fleet). Privateers NEVER wanted to tangle with a non-loot producing warship and certainly subs preferred to put "fish" into merchant ships over the escorts, as a rule- and preferred tactics. (Yes, there were occasionaly exceptions, as when the US made a TEMPORARY policy to attrite the IJN destroyer force, due to a critically low number being available. BUT this is the exception that makes the rule. Compare the dirictive in mid 1944 to focus on the Japanese Tanker fleet in order to drain the IJN's oil stocks- to bottle the fleet up without fuel.)

I WISH they would really fix the Naval aspects of the game. Airplanes SINK ships and thake heavy losses doing so. The relative strengths of the ship classes are really frelled- a BB at 50% greater attack strength over a DD??? COME ON! SUBS are semi to totally worthless at it stands now. YES I have personally addressed at least the strenghts aspect of this in the editor but this does not fix the comerece raider (subs and priverteers, NOT WWII surface ship commerce raiders) issues. NAVYS exist to protect ones own sealanes and traffic and deny them to the enemy, and it does this not only by sinking the enemy navy but by direct interventions with the commerec structure. IF this direct aspect is not present and is abstaracted instead, then there is NO REASON for priviteers or subs to be present- they should be abstracted too. Personally I WANT those aspects present, so lets have some trade routes shown of the map to interfere with, if we cannot have actual commerece ships present. AND, at the $50 + price I paid, I should NOT have had to spend an afternoon calculating new combat strengths and playtesting the balance of them in the game- its one thing to tweek with the editor, its another to fix a large segment (Naval units).

That said, I *DO* very much like may features of Civ III over II, and would like to see them continued and improved. I like the improved diplomatic aspects, AND the raw materials.


BUT FIRAXIS, ARE YOU THERE??? please oh please-
PLEASE fix the NAVAL ASPECTS. AND ALLOW AN OPTION SOMEWHERE TO TONE DOWN THE LAND GRAB NATURE OF THE AI!!! I want to be able to explore the world over many centuries, not just the first quarter to half of the ancient era!!!


While I find the Naval aspect the most frustrating part, the Land Grab thing and the commitment requirement to do the same to not lose ground to the AI, and the loss of the EXPLORING AND COLONIZING aspects of the game- THESE LATER TWO *SERIOULSY* DETRACT FROM THE FUN OF THE GAME. AND GAMES ARE SUPPOSED TO BE FUN. This is important Firaxis, as people do NOT WANT TO PLAY AND WILL NOT BUY games that are NOT FUN.


Once given the nice things in CIV III, I have no desire to go back to II, but really, the game would be MUCH BETTER IMHO if Friaxis looked at these downside issues.

Sorry for the rant, got carried away there near the end, but I fear that Firaxis is done with us and we will not see another patch. IF we are lucky, we will see an "Expansion Pact" for another $50, which might or might not have sceniaros and fix some of these remaining problems. I'll probaly hope aganst hope and buy it, but if it is a dissapointment, it will be the last Firaxis game I'll buy.



FIRAXIS, PROVE ME WRONG. FIX THESE THINGS (Please!!!).
:jump:

 

[markv]

>>there is NO REASON for priviteers or subs to be present

Actually I have found subs and privateers to be very useful. Subs are useful when you deploy them far from your shores for the purpose of eliminating the fog in that area. Subs saved me once in this way, by spotting two French aircraft carriers steaming out of one of the French port cities. I had enough time to assemble my fleet before the traitorous French could get within striking distance.

Subs are also useful for finishing up a warship that has been bombarded by another vessel. Of course, their limited move rate limits them somewhat in this capacity.

Privateers are VERY nice when you see early transports approaching your shores. I believe I've prevented an invasion once or twice this way. They can also be used to protect an as-yet-unsettled island from settlement.

I agree that it would be nice for subs to have some sort of affect on commerce. The reason there is no such effect is probably because the Civ team didn't think of it. Keep in mind that you probably won't see such such a change implemented even if Firaxis thinks its a good idea, because it's a bit difficult to modify an existing program.

 

[Moulton]

Please dont confuse privateers and pirates. Privataeers were seen often as pirates by the enemy governments, but they themselves declared that they were not pirates. In fact some were.

The privateer of the American Revolution,however, was paid by the US to engage and destroy enemywarships.
The privateer in this game looks about right, to me. it has limiteddevense, limited attack power, and carries no flag, so it can atack any ship without provoking war. Now attacking a battleship with a privateer may be a little risky

 

[Zouave]

Yes, but privateers were designed to attack almost undefended civilian merchant ships, not military units even with only a '1' or '2' defense value.

Subs (as used by the Americans and Germans) also attacked mostly non-military vessels having a devastating effect on trade and commerce.

In Civ III I could put dozens of privateers along the sea lanes between the harbors from where trade is being conducted. . . and it would have no effect on commerce. It should, in reality, DEVASTATE that trade by sinking ships and causing insurance rates to skyrocket - as happened in Britain during the American Revolution.

There is no way to reflect this in Civ III, which makes navies even less important than in Civ II. Too bad.

 

[Greadius]

I agree with Tocca about the usefulness of submarines. I only used them briefly in my last game but found them extremely effective in monotring the enemy. I just wish they had a 'torpedo' feature like bombard so they could hit 'n run.

As far as privateers go, I believe I have used them effectively. It was in my first Civ3 game so maybe I didn't see it right...
Try placing the privateers around your not so enemies coastline. I wish I could test this some how, but I believe if a privateer is sitting in a square it is the equivalent of loosing all food & commerce in that square. I also believe you can block enemy ports like this. The reason THAT goes unnoticed is because all ports are insta-connected, so blocking one doesn't help, you need to block them ALL with privateers... which isn't worth it.

I personally hated the CTP trading system. I play this game as a chief executive of history, not as a trade nitpicker. It was simply too much trouble to trade.

If there is any way to simple way to expand naval control it could be done by having 'controlled areas' around your moving navy... i.e. as long as they're not engaged with the enemy, their line of sight becomes controlled waters (dotted color lines?). That way you can SEE the naval connections between your and your enemies ports, as well as block them.

 

[Archbob]

The battleship is still the most powerful non-missle unit in the game, great for shore bombardments.

 

[Mr. Socks]

Well, I agree that navies are not terribly important, but disagree that they're less important than in previous Civs. This is the first of the Civ games where I have felt like navies really matter.
Zouave, with regard to your first two points: these are really arguments about diplomats and caravans, and only indirectly related to naval units. The point that defense against dips & caravans gave navies something important to do is well taken though. But personally, I hated caravans and thought dips were way too powerful, so I welcome this tradeoff. This was only really important vs. human opponents anyway. Your third point, as I read it, is that the limited range of sea units through the early to mid game mostly rules out early expansion onto other continents. This is certainly true, although it is also much more close to being a realistic course of historical development.

I agree with Bigbird that navies are important simply because you need them to kill your opponent's navies. This is more important than ever.

Subs, for me, are the main staple of my navy. My basic navy consists of enough subs to surround my territories (1 space out from my border, and 4-6 spaces apart), a few battleships and transports, and a carrier or two. Remember that subs are invisible to most other units. For most of the game, anybody that tries to make a landing on my shores will first be subject to a minimum of 1-2 sub attacks, and usually a few bombardment (from bombers or artillery) and a battleship attack.
As far as using navies to cut off trade, you CAN build naval blockades at harbour cities. However, it's too much trouble to be useful. Maybe a better solution would be a "blockade port" action available to all warships, when adjacent to an enemy port city -- you'd only need one per city. As far as controlling shipping routes goes, I find it tough to imagine how this could be incorportated into the game in a satisfying manner... The idea is certainly a good one, though.

 

[royfurr]

Well markv and Mr. Socks,
Good job, you pointed out something I knew but didn't know. OF COURSE subs are going to make excellent pickets and "tripwires".

DUH on me!

I still wish there was a way to effect the commerce part of the game, however. I agree with Mr. Socks et al that the trouble of hauling caravans, diplomats (and spys) around for trade and less innoncent purposes, so they can be sunk by subs, is more trouble then I want to go to. OTH, I wish there was a way to seriously effect an economy by subs, or more generally, by seaborne blockade. Historically, bloackade had a pretty major effect on the Condfederate in the American Civil War, Kaiser Germany in WWI, Britian in both WW, and to a lesser extent Germany in WWII.

 

[Moulton]

Any ship can blockade, you just have to block all routes out of a port. Sometimes there is only one
All too often, however, there are multiple routes, and many ports.
And the only game I played where I was in position to blockade ports, all the other civs were on the same continent.... so I could not actually block any trade.

Privateers are relatively cheap to build, though, and could serve as pickets. And if they see an unescorted transport, they can pick it off without risk of war, since they carry no flag. I do remember, however, that I decided once to sink an exposed transport, after my battleship sunk its escort: And the undefended non-combat transport sunk my Carrier
I havent tried it in reverse, but if a transport can sink a carrier, why bother to escort it? Sure a carrier has very weak defense, but the transport is supposed to have NO attack???

 

[whstaff]

Basically I'm very dissappointed in CIV III but not in the naval warfare aspect.. although bombardment should be able to kill a unit. You guys have certainly missed the point with the privateers, run them in packs for better effectivenes. I use this ploy to harass enemy shipping or perhaps to stop a settler. 6 Privateers are probably a favorite to take out a frigate. Finding those Barb galleys and getting the privateers promoted will help also. For those who are interested (I'm not) there is a historical paralell with running privateers in packs. See sir francis drake. Remember these things are pretty cheap.

 

[FlubberDubs]

Originally posted by Zouave


But knights often fought longbowmen. And, historically, the knights got creamed again and again - at Crecy, Agincourt, Poitiers. The best French knights in full plate armor got slaughtered by English longbowmen who mowed them down as they charged.

Now this is just for curiosities sake, who has knowledge of French vs English battles at Crecy, Agincourt, and Poitiers. Does everyone run to google and do searches just to reply to this forum?

Also, it should be noted that it was with a rediculous amount of defensive structures in place also, and it was with ludicrous amounts of archers behind those, it wasn't archers sitting in a field in even numbers mowing them down.