Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Why do Navies suck so badly in Civ?

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Why do Navies suck so badly in Civ?

    I mean, they really do.

    They don't move fast enough. For example, everyone knows that the British were able to burn Washington because it was far faster to transport troops by ship than by road.

    In Civ 3 mounted units actually travel much faster than available ships and foot units aren't much slower (even if you have the wonders).

    Moreover, the Age of Sail sucks. England managed to dominate the word during this time by naval power, yet England is one of the worst Civ III Civs because their UU becomes obsolete so quickly and is pretty useless anyway due to the low movement of ships.

    Naval power only really comes into its own with Aircraft Carriers because you can re-base planes to them in 1 turn and that gives them a wide strike power.

    So I propose the following changes.

    1) Double movement points for all ships.

    2) The first unit is the trireme which is limited to coastal warfare.

    3) This is replaced by the early Middle Ages by the medieval warship, which is sort of a proto-caravel. Caravels are abolished.

    4) This is replaced by the Sailing Transport (Galleon is a stupid name) and the Ship of the Line. The game is structured in such a way that these are good for about 350-400 years. These are used for exploration and conducting embargoes (the trade link system is tweaked to make embargoes easier - a sea lanes doctrine).

    5) Ironclads are abolished. They are slow, they suck and they take away from the glory of Sail. Plus the Ai builds lots of them and they steam around for no useful purpose.

    6) The Dreadnought Battleship is the first "modern" ship. It remains the premier ship in close combat until the end of the game.

    7) Destroyers are small and cheap and of use primarily for anti submarine warfare - they are next to useless against transports and capital ships. But they are fast.

    8) The present sub system is fine - except more nukes should be allowed.

    9) Aircraft Carriers are divided into two kinds, roughly WWII and Nuclear. They are upgradeable. Nuclear Carriers are faster and have a greater carrying capacity. WWII carriers cannot carry jets.

    10) Aegis cruisers are revamped. They are faster and can conduct bombardments from long range (tomahawk missiles). They replace destroyers as the ultimate sub killers.

    11) Marines are strengthened and the combat system is changed so as to make it much more advantageous to conduct marine assaults against cities (i.e. merely landing on a coast results in a turn of extreme vulnerablity except for marine units which gain a bonus.
    Only feebs vote.

  • #2
    I'll add that I love Eu2 primarily because the naval side of things is so much better.
    Only feebs vote.

    Comment


    • #3
      Speed and marines are discussed. Take a look at page 2 and 3 in this thread: http://apolyton.net/forums/showthrea...0&pagenumber=2
      First they ignore you. Then they laugh at you. Then they fight you. Then you win.

      Gandhi

      Comment


      • #4
        Not much on everything except marines.

        I accept the idea that marines are meant to take rather than hold, but surely it would be better to exempt them from the holding penalty to give them a stronger role. After all your typical civ game doesn't result in a Fortress Europe type scenario. I have occassionally had long lines of forts, artillery and infantry along my border, a la WWI, but coasts are just too big to defend that way (by the time tanks turn up this isn't so much of a problem).

        But no one seems to accept the general accusation. Navies suck in all the civ games. Naval dominance should mean something. Otherwise they just become bit players.

        I know I'm a battleship nut, but I think mine are reasonable complaints. Look at the fabulous way EU2 handles navies. They are indispensable and can win a war if you use them rightly.
        Only feebs vote.

        Comment


        • #5
          Well, I agree with you. Sea(warfare) should be an important part of any game and I am still waiting for the first game, where the AI is able to use all concepts like settling on islands or making invasions from sea or using carriers as they should be.
          First they ignore you. Then they laugh at you. Then they fight you. Then you win.

          Gandhi

          Comment


          • #6
            Originally posted by TheBirdMan
            Well, I agree with you. Sea(warfare) should be an important part of any game and I am still waiting for the first game, where the AI is able to use all concepts like settling on islands or making invasions from sea or using carriers as they should be.
            Yeah, that's another thing. You should be able to build naval bases on small islands and have these immune to some idiot's expanding borders.

            I actually don't see the future of civ as being human versus AI. The best games are ones where you play other people. As such the designers should attempt to prevent the proliferation of killer tactics or killer units.
            Only feebs vote.

            Comment


            • #7
              Its not that Naval units are bad in themselves, its the need for using Naval units. Example, navies matter more in the CtP games because you can build Ports, Fisheries and Drilling Platforms as tile imps to be pillaged along your coast and of course you need to protect your trade routes (CtP1) aswell. The SotL was far too powerful in CtP1 too, can carrry 3 units and bombard cities.
              Call to Power 2: Apolyton Edition - download the latest version (12th June 2011)
              CtP2 AE Wiki & Modding Reference
              One way to compile the CtP2 Source Code.

              Comment


              • #8
                Destroyers are very good against transports and excellent against unprotected merchant ships. Aegis cruisers aren't any good against subs at all AFAIK.
                (\__/) 07/07/1937 - Never forget
                (='.'=) "Claims demand evidence; extraordinary claims demand extraordinary evidence." -- Carl Sagan
                (")_(") "Starting the fire from within."

                Comment


                • #9
                  One big drawback of civ ships is that there's nothing to model trade and trade routes, for which ships have been essential. CtP2 is slightly better there since you can use ships to pirate trade routes pretty easily, but trade in CtP2 is worth very little.
                  Ships movement rates could be augmented in civ, but this introduces a problem with the trireme crossing ocean feature, as triremes could go everywhere.
                  I don't think ironclads should be removed. There's no reason to remove these, and they have had a lot of importance in history (Korans Turtle Ships for instance). They should, however, have slower movement than sails, so they would be used as heavy weapons, and ships of the line as faster, "light" units, until battleships and cruisers become available.
                  Clash of Civilization team member
                  (a civ-like game whose goal is low micromanagement and good AI)
                  web site http://clash.apolyton.net/frame/index.shtml and forum here on apolyton)

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    wait, Galleon is a stupid name, but 'Sailing Transport' isn't?
                    urgh.NSFW

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Originally posted by Azazel
                      wait, Galleon is a stupid name, but 'Sailing Transport' isn't?
                      That's a stop gap until you can come up with a better name.
                      Only feebs vote.

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Galleon is really better than sailing transport... but I don't think that's essential.
                        Clash of Civilization team member
                        (a civ-like game whose goal is low micromanagement and good AI)
                        web site http://clash.apolyton.net/frame/index.shtml and forum here on apolyton)

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          I agree with the ship problem. Yes. Something's got to be done about the ships .. but ...

                          Galleon is a stupid name

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Originally posted by Agathon


                            That's a stop gap until you can come up with a better name.
                            How about .... 'Galleon'?


                            On topic:

                            I agree that there should be actual trade routes, and ( wishful thinking here) currents that would show where the merchants ships go. So far, the navy only becomes valuable in the modern age.
                            urgh.NSFW

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              If the seas were made more critical to the game, then the navies would follow suit.

                              I agree ships should move farther-the way to stop trireme might be to simply prohibit their movement into deep water period...though don't like that at all-add movement vaue to ocean squares as ell so a trireme would not be able to go very far into the ocea as it would along the coasts. Add this in general- basically newer ships would move faster in the oceans.

                              As for ship types- honestly the galley needs to be updated sooner- go from galley to Carrack or some late medeival ship (if we want to increase the importance of the sea, why start at aorund 1650 age tech?)
                              Keep the frigate and ADD a ship of the line- which would ne the rather expensive, heavy version. Make them come sooner in the game- so either move them out of magnetism, or make manets come earlier- better yet, move ronclads further back- they id NOT come straigth with steam power- no pre-indstrilized society could have built such ships. I know in Conquest they added Cruisers, so that is taken over.

                              The destroyer should look like a WW1 or 2 destroyer, and be replaced later in the game by missile frigate (looking like the modern desroyer, with the ability to carry cruise missiles) And fix the look of the Aegis cruiser- very funky looking ship.
                              If you don't like reality, change it! me
                              "Oh no! I am bested!" Drake
                              "it is dangerous to be right when the government is wrong" Voltaire
                              "Patriotism is a pernecious, psychopathic form of idiocy" George Bernard Shaw

                              Comment

                              Working...
                              X