Why do Navies suck so badly in Civ?

[Fosse]

Originally posted by skywalker

Originally posted by Fosse
Navies might play a role in a few scenarios of Conquests, but the real thrust of this thread is the point that you never really need a navy in the epic game.

Which he pointed out was WRONG.

Yes, he incorrectly pointed out that this is wrong. That you can play the whole epic game without sizable navies is hardly a "strategic option," it's evidence that the naval system is bad. Think real world: You need navies to control the seas, and control of the seas to control trade. Well... In Civ 3 you need ships to move ground units. Hardly measures up, does it? Sure, you can use your navy to bombard if you want, or if you have the patience to actually blockade the enemy you could do that. But you'll never need to. Every. It's less micromanging to simply raze the other guy's ports.

For every game in which I've built a massive fleet and "controlled" the seas, I've played ten where nothing but a few transports were needed, and then only until an airport was built.

Pre-C3C.

Explain to me how you know this.
Explain to me how you are able to read deep into my statements to see that I am for some reason leaving my Conquest games out of that statement?

[Kuciwalker]

Yes, he incorrectly pointed out that this is wrong. That you can play the whole epic game without sizable navies is hardly a "strategic option," it's evidence that the naval system is bad. Think real world: You need navies to control the seas, and control of the seas to control trade. Well... In Civ 3 you need ships to move ground units. Hardly measures up, does it? Sure, you can use your navy to bombard if you want, or if you have the patience to actually blockade the enemy you could do that. But you'll never need to. Every. It's less micromanging to simply raze the other guy's ports.

You need navies if you don't have a land route to your enemy - which is pretty realistic.

Explain to me how you know this.
Explain to me how you are able to read deep into my statements to see that I am for some reason leaving my Conquest games out of that statement?

Sorry, I misread that, I thought you meant that you weren't seeing big AI navies.

[Fosse]

Originally posted by skywalker
You need navies if you don't have a land route to your enemy - which is pretty realistic.

True, but there is very little to gain from actually controlling the oceans. Also, you hardly need "navies" in the sense of a huge arm of your military. Just a few transports and defenders will usually do. As long as you have safe passage for your ships, you're fine.

A couple of ships on your coast to shoot down enemy transports in single player and you'll be all set, naval wise.

Sorry, I misread that, I thought you meant that you weren't seeing big AI navies.

Oh. Yes, the AI seems to be much more navy prone, which is a huge plus. Forgive my self-rightousness.

[Kuciwalker]

True, but there is very little to gain from actually controlling the oceans. Also, you hardly need "navies" in the sense of a huge arm of your military. Just a few transports and defenders will usually do. As long as you have safe passage for your ships, you're fine.

And lose out on the advantages of naval bombardment and amphibious attacks. Just because you don't need to build air units or arty to win, doesn't mean that they need to be beefed up. Hey, it's possible to win without getting wonders. That doesn't mean that wonders are underpowered.

[okblacke]

Originally posted by Fosse

Yes, he incorrectly pointed out that this is wrong. That you can play the whole epic game without sizable navies is hardly a "strategic option," it's evidence that the naval system is bad. Think real world: You need navies to control the seas, and control of the seas to control trade. Well... In Civ 3 you need ships to move ground units. Hardly measures up, does it?

You need a navy from Magnetism to Flight if you hope to defend against naval bombardment. The AI will pound your coastal squares otherwise. Even then, until you have cruise missiles, some navy is a good idea.

As for the "real world", the real world is 75% water, and closer to 80% water if you exclude Antarctica from the land equation, as Civ maps do. How many people play 80% water maps?

It's hardly perfect the way it is, but it's part of Civ's scaling problems. I don't see any way to speed the sea game up without slowing the land game down. I don't think that would be a good thing.

[ok]

[POTUS]

I get through the game pretty easily with only a few ships the entire game, most of the time.

[okblacke]

Originally posted by POTUS
I get through the game pretty easily with only a few ships the entire game, most of the time.

Random settings? I don't use much of a navy. I agree that it's less relevant in Civ than in history. But I don't see a remedy that doesn't have serious other repercussions. I think the incremental boosts between Civ 3 and Conquests have been good, though.

[ok]

[ThePlagueRat]

Originally posted by skywalker


You REALLY have no experience with C3, do you?

C3? Standard edition you mean? - Too much... in fact I hate it.
Now, in C3C things got a little better... as I mentioned above.

[Agathon]

For an excellent example of how navies should work, look at EU2.

Britain is so powerful because it can effectively prevent commerce from the New World reaching its enemies.

[The_Aussie_Lurker]

My suggestions, as I've mentioned elsewhere, are:

1) Generally double ALL Movement rates for naval units!

2) Give increased movement costs for moving on Sea and ocean tiles, then allow later naval vessels to ignore these movement costs!

3) Bring in CtP style 'trade routes' that you can actually attack or pirate!! This was the one element that I always felt CtP did better than the Civ series!!!

4) Allow naval units to rebase between friendly coastal cities with a harbour or naval base, within a given range! This becomes especially important for balancing naval units against ground units after the RR is introduced.

5) Allow for a tile improvement Naval Base tile improvement which can be placed on unclaimed islands or coastlines, to allow for speedy movement over the seas and oceans!!!

If all of these were done, then I reckon that naval power would easily become the equal of ground forces in the Civ series!!

Yours,
The_Aussie_Lurker.

[Mr. President]

I've found navies to be pretty horrible in Civilization II because the map generator tends to make planets where they can't be used.

[joncha]

Aussie Lurker: I'll see your 5 points (all great) and raise you 2.

6) Navigable rivers (I know, I'm repeating myself, but its just that important), with different (two, maybe three) classes of river that ships can or cannot navigate, depending on size, etc. The smallest rivers are completely impassible, except by maybe explorers or a voyageur-type unit (Quebecois UU? hmm).

7) Canals. We're gonna do it by putting useless cities on those annoying one-square isthmuses (isthmusi?), so you might as well let us do it for real.

jon.

[okblacke]

T_A_L,

#s 1 and 2 sound good.

#3--I haven't played CTP but I would like to see trade play a bigger role, not just navally but culturally and scientifically.

#4 - Maybe. I mean, if you're doubling movement and eliminating movement penalties for later ships, do you really need rebasing? And doesn't it fly in the face of being able to intercept ships, etc?

#5 - Naval and military bases are a good idea, I think.

[ok]

[Carolus Rex]

Originally posted by The_Aussie_Lurker

My suggestions, as I've mentioned elsewhere, are:

1) Generally double ALL Movement rates for naval units!

Ok, maybe ships should have more movement points. Two thoughts, however:

i) Can't you fiddle with the rules.txt and change that as you wish anyway? True, in MP everyone would have to agree on the "right" number of movement points, but it's doable...

ii) There are wonders that do this exclusively for the civ that builds them, introducing different strategic paths. More viable/feasible strategies -> more replayability -> a more interesting game...

Originally posted by The_Aussie_Lurker

3) Bring in CtP style 'trade routes' that you can actually attack or pirate!! This was the one element that I always felt CtP did better than the Civ series!!!

I know it works differently in CtP, but you can sabotage trade in Civ 2:

i) Preventing trade routes from being established in the first place by taking out caravans/freights.

ii) Destroying city improvements and pillaging railroads (and roads?) will diminish the value of trade routes.

Best regards,

Carolus

[Carolus Rex]

joncha,

Good suggestions! I would also like to see smaller river vessels, but I guess they're already incorporated implicitly in Civ 2: units move more easily along rivers. So introducing them as transport vessels seems unnecessary.

Canalbuilding, however, would add an interesting new tactical/strategical element to the game. I would restrict it and only allow minor war ships to pass, though...

Carolus