{The List-} Movement, supply, etc.

[Agathon]

And another thing. Anyone who ever played the "Red Stom Rising" boardgame knows how effective air interdiction can be.

I propose that tactical aircraft be assigned an additional mission capability, the capability to interdict certain squares (or hexes if Firaxis does the decent thing).

So say I want to keep my enemy from leaving or entering a certain square (naval interdiction can be much more expansive - 9 squares). I assign a fighter or stealth fighter to the square. An enemy moving into, or attempting to move out of, the square suffers an attack. The attack is modified depending on the terrain and the unit type (mechanized units are harder to interdict and steath units are better at interdicting [smashing bridges etc.]).

Three things can then happen. (1) The interdiction fails; (2) The Interdiction fails, but the enemy unit suffers damage; or (3) The Interdiction succeeds and the enemy unit is prevented from entering the square and loses all its movement points for that turn.

[wrylachlan]

Bleyn
That's a friggin great idea!

[Kuciwalker]

So in a convoluted kind of way, I think if you could encourage cities to be placed further away from each other, it would allow you to increase naval movement without some of the associated problems...

You forgot one

5) Ensure continents are (usually) placed far enough apart that it takes at least two turns to launch from port and attack the enemy coastline.

[Kuciwalker]

Originally posted by Agathon


But this isn't such a big deal by the time that railroads exist. I've said that I believe that all units other than marines should have a 1 turn penalty to their defensive score upon landing. This would enable the defenders to throw off the invaders easily unless they use marines.

This is what happened historically. Naval movement was an advantage up to the invention of the railroad.

And as for your worries about defending against naval attacks. You are looking at it from the wrong direction. You don't defend your own coastline if you have the superior navy, you park up a stack of ships outside the other guy's ports or at choke points which close off his ports to the greater ocean.

This is exactly what Great Britain did to Germany in both World Wars and what Nelson did to the French.

What if your navies are about equal? What if you want to prevent a surprise attack? Are you saying I should make a pre-emptive strike?

Oh, and the thing about Marine defense - if you haven't noticed, in C3 at least they have a defense of six. By the time they come around the other side will have Tanks, attack 16. And giving Marines sufficient defense to withstand an attack unfortified in open terrain would make them possibly the most powerful unit in the game. Plus, as they are now, even -1 defense Infantry are better defenders

Oh, and finally, you're never going to attack an empty coastline with Marines - the whole point of them is to attack units directly from a transport, which most of the time means cities (the basic unit of territory in civ, so it works out).

[Agathon]

Originally posted by skywalker

What if your navies are about equal? What if you want to prevent a surprise attack? Are you saying I should make a pre-emptive strike?

Well then, you take your chances and blockade. This is just like the real world - so what's your point?

If you want to prevent landings, use naval bombers to interdict (my other suggestion).

Oh, and the thing about Marine defense - if you haven't noticed, in C3 at least they have a defense of six. By the time they come around the other side will have Tanks, attack 16. And giving Marines sufficient defense to withstand an attack unfortified in open terrain would make them possibly the most powerful unit in the game. Plus, as they are now, even -1 defense Infantry are better defenders

I'm suggesting they be changed and that the penalty be much more than -1. A naval landing ensures that your troops are vulnerable, the game should recognize that.

Oh, and finally, you're never going to attack an empty coastline with Marines - the whole point of them is to attack units directly from a transport, which most of the time means cities (the basic unit of territory in civ, so it works out).

That's why I favour morphing them into a general naval assault unit. They gain a bonus for naval assaults and a defensive bonus for holding beachheads. The aim is to make naval invasions more realistic.

[Kuciwalker]

Well then, you take your chances and blockade. This is just like the real world - so what's your point?

If you want to prevent landings, use naval bombers to interdict (my other suggestion).

How would you do this exactly? If they can launch and attack in the same turn, you CAN'T interdict without declaring war.

I'm suggesting they be changed and that the penalty be much more than -1. A naval landing ensures that your troops are vulnerable, the game should recognize that.

Not vulnerable to the extent that Marines are - given their defense, if they are your best bet for holding a beachhead, the cost in shields will be so high as to make it pointless in the first place. OTOH, giving them the defense to make this worthwhile would make them unbalancingly powerful.

That's why I favour morphing them into a general naval assault unit. They gain a bonus for naval assaults and a defensive bonus for holding beachheads. The aim is to make naval invasions more realistic.

Then you'll have to change the entire focus of civ. The basic unit of territory in civ is the city. All other attacks are focused on taking cities (or taking out resources); so should attacks with Marines.

[Agathon]

Originally posted by skywalker

Well then, you take your chances and blockade. This is just like the real world - so what's your point?

If you want to prevent landings, use naval bombers to interdict (my other suggestion).

How would you do this exactly? If they can launch and attack in the same turn, you CAN'T interdict without declaring war.

Of course you can't interdict when you aren't at war. Generally surprise attacks are just that. One remedy is to prevent an opponent from moving troops into coastal squares without declaring war and have aircraft on overwatch protecting your coasts.

I'm suggesting they be changed and that the penalty be much more than -1. A naval landing ensures that your troops are vulnerable, the game should recognize that.

Not vulnerable to the extent that Marines are - given their defense, if they are your best bet for holding a beachhead, the cost in shields will be so high as to make it pointless in the first place. OTOH, giving them the defense to make this worthwhile would make them unbalancingly powerful.

Not if the defence bonus only occurs for that one turn. Think about it. You unload a stack of marines who hold the beachhead. Any units that land on that beachhead in subsequent turns do not suffer a penalty as long as you have units there. The troops holding the beachhead effectively hold open the supply route.

That's why I favour morphing them into a general naval assault unit. They gain a bonus for naval assaults and a defensive bonus for holding beachheads. The aim is to make naval invasions more realistic.

Then you'll have to change the entire focus of civ. The basic unit of territory in civ is the city. All other attacks are focused on taking cities (or taking out resources); so should attacks with Marines.

But the way it works now it is easier to dump a huge stack of heavy armour onto an adjacent tile and then motor into the city on the next turn. That's why no one uses marines - it's easier to attack a city from land (since armour has a higher attack rating).

As it stands you can mass a huge invasion force on someone else's territory with no penalty. But historically there is a penalty to pay for a naval assault, whereever that assault takes place. After all D Day did not take place against a city, yet it was a militarily precarious operation.

[Kuciwalker]

Not if the defence bonus only occurs for that one turn. Think about it. You unload a stack of marines who hold the beachhead. Any units that land on that beachhead in subsequent turns do not suffer a penalty as long as you have units there. The troops holding the beachhead effectively hold open the supply route.

You never mentioned a defense bonus, just a penalty for non-Marine units.

But the way it works now it is easier to dump a huge stack of heavy armour onto an adjacent tile and then motor into the city on the next turn. That's why no one uses marines - it's easier to attack a city from land (since armour has a higher attack rating).

Many, many people in the C3 forums beg to differ especially Theseus.

As it stands you can mass a huge invasion force on someone else's territory with no penalty. But historically there is a penalty to pay for a naval assault, whereever that assault takes place. After all D Day did not take place against a city, yet it was a militarily precarious operation.

They were also attacking enemy troops. They didn't land on an empty beach. If they had, they would be vulnerable, because unfortified defenders, especially in the late industrial and modern eras, are MUCH more vulnerable. Thus, the stack is vulnerable.

[wrylachlan]

What about making Marines super-troopers but upping their cost so that it just isn't economically viable to build more than you need to take a certain beach head?

Also, the more I think of it, the more I like the idea of a "shoals" type water tile that makes it so you can't land there. That would allow the defender to concentrate its forces on the "likely" landing spots.

Another posibility - we've talked in other threads about giving certain tiles a percentage chance of taking hp. What if ocean tiles have a percentage chance of using up an extra movement point. This wouldn't be too agrivating on a single ship, but when you are trying to move a whole invasion fleet, it would tend to string them out. That would force you to regroup before you actually launch the attack. To add to that, there could be a smaller percentage chance that you are"blown off course": if you want to go due E, there is a percentage chance that you go SE or NE.

Why would I want to force them to regroup? Because it allows you to increase there overall movement rate without runnning into as much of the leave port and attack on the same turn issues.

[Kuciwalker]

Another posibility - we've talked in other threads about giving certain tiles a percentage chance of taking hp. What if ocean tiles have a percentage chance of using up an extra movement point. This wouldn't be too agrivating on a single ship, but when you are trying to move a whole invasion fleet, it would tend to string them out. That would force you to regroup before you actually launch the attack. To add to that, there could be a smaller percentage chance that you are"blown off course": if you want to go due E, there is a percentage chance that you go SE or NE.

Can you say "pain in the @ss"?

[Bleyn]

One thought on the Marine vs. Armor question re. naval assault.

How about disallowing certain unit types from even landing outside harbored cities where they can unload. It would be realistic for mounted, wheeled and mechanized units to be limited this way.

Basically allow only foot units to land on beaches at all. The Marine amphib assault ability could also be made more worthwhile by giving them an attack bonus when attacking that way. So maybe they are an 8 in a regular attack, but a 12 in an amphib attack to represent their extra training and focus on this sort of warfare.

One effect of this in the modern era is that if one fully upgraded all of ones ground combat units, the Marine or the Paratrooper would be also be the only combat units able to hit the beaches. Mech. Inf. and Modern Armor would both be mechanized and not able to land that way. The only other option would be to not upgrade some of ones Infantry to Mech Infantry.

Something else that could also be included in this is a modern terrain improvement that acts like a harbor for unit landing purposes. With this an invader would have two options.

1. Land amphib/foot units and attempt to take a city that could then be used to land the heavy hitters.

2. Land amphib/foot units to secure a beachhead while workers/engineers build harborages to allow further landings.

This would also be somewhat realistic as those are exactly the options the D-Day invasion planners had. And ultimately they ended up going with option 2 and the brilliantly concieved Mulberries. The D-Day invasion troops were for the most part acting as Marines, and the majority of the armor did not land until the Mulberries were completed a few days later.

This simple restriction would also make the Paratrooper more appealing in certain variations of this situation also. Which would be nice.

[POTUS]

But, many tanks and APCs are amphibious.

[rendelnep]

How about changing the storms system so that your ships won't destroyed instantly but damaged minorly say 1-2 hp. Enough to destroy an inexperienced ship or one that has been weakened from previous battles. More spanish armadas and less othello with the anticlimax where the turkish fleet got destroyed by the storm

[Kuciwalker]

Basically allow only foot units to land on beaches at all. The Marine amphib assault ability could also be made more worthwhile by giving them an attack bonus when attacking that way. So maybe they are an 8 in a regular attack, but a 12 in an amphib attack to represent their extra training and focus on this sort of warfare.

This was added in C3C a 25% attack bonus when attacking amphibiously

But, many tanks and APCs are amphibious.

Yes, the ones used by the Marines. Those amphibious tanks and APC's are part of the Marine unit. The units represented by Mech. Infantry and Modern Armor are not amphibious.

[TheBirdMan]

Ohh "dear" Skywalker.

I might have misunderstood the whole idea with this forum.

I had written a long mail, arguing, making things clear, telling you something. - well, now I have deleted it, even before I made it public...

You are an Ironhead - a Cato - A "BonI". You will and do not accept changes to what you think know is the best.

I thought, that this should be the place to come with ideas, suggestions... anything.... for an open discussion.

But you returns with arguments like:
It is not what a CIV-game should be
I like railroad all-over the map
Sid Maier didn't want it what way
CIV2 did it just the right way
CTP sucks
CTP2 sucks even more
...

I do not write, that I am pulling away from this forum just because - I am not - but I will just tell you, that you are more conservative than even the most concrete-communist from the old SovietUnion......