Tweet
I've been trolling around Apolyton like a nuclear submarine now for probably a year without posting, but after seeing a previous thread on Navy proposals for Civ 4, I decided to surface briefly and put in my two cents.
For the background, I'm a cautious warmonger by nature, which means I'm a genocidal SOB that prefers to have a precise plan of action -- one that reflects the way war is actually fought in the real world. I like combined arms, I like minimizing casualties, I prefer plans that do not involve putting all my eggs in one basket, and I generally adhere to a strategy that incorporates these elements even if I know the computer would just as easily die by me throwing everything I have at them and leaving nothing at home as precaution against counterattack. Insane, I know, but I do it anyway.
It is no different with navies. Despite the micromanagement issues involved, I will build a navy based on a hierarchy. A battleship or a carrier (or both, or several of each, etc.) will be the flagship of the battle group. As attack/defence strength diminishes, more units are included (ie: 1 battleship, 1 carrier [w/ its supporting aircraft, of course], 3 cruisers, 6 destroyers, etc. These units form concentric rings of defence that radiate out with the least significant units (the destroyers invariably) occupying the outermost ring.
This is messy and tedious. I, sadly, continue to do it in the futile hope that the computer might one day send something my way that would justify the effort. No luck so far
Short story long, now that you have the background, what I'd like to propose is this:
A "naval army unit" loaded in the same way as a regular army or a method of stacking that allows for more organizational control than what is currently available for the typical Army unit. No big deal at first glance. I'm sure its been proposed before, but God is, as they say, in the details. What else do we need to make this work...
1. An inverted hierarchy that allows the weakest unit to be attacked first
Where a regular stack of ground units allows the strongest unit to defend first, this unit or stack would do the opposite, effectively mimicking the spatial organization of a fleet. The intended benefit hopefully being that it deters the computer (or an underhanded human opponent) from sending a rouge unit to attack in hopes of scoring a knock-out blow. It also would promote the formation of similar units by the enemy if he hopes to control the seas, allowing for all kinds of Jutland-style epic naval battles to ensue.
2. Jet fighters are modified to perform air AND SEA superiority missions
Another feature to deter rouge attacks, an enemy unit entering the range of a carrier group's fighters could be subjected to an auto-bombard equivalent before it even reached at 4-5 tiles out.
3. Line of sight for any battlegroup that contains a carrier WITH JET FIGHTERS based there is immediately extended to the air superiority limits of those jet fighters.
Let's be honest, now; a carrier with the requisite reconaissance aircraft should be able to maintain a line of sight as far as those reconaissance aircraft can effectively travel and return safely. To integrate this feature into the mechanics of the naval unit itself only serves to minimize micromanagement and acknowledges the conceit that, if you can only base 5-6 aircraft units onto a carrier that typically holds roughly 80+, routine functions that require minimal investment in the ship's resources need to be assumed to be done already.
4. The speed of the battlegroup is subject to the speed of its slowest unit
I believe the ship speed of the naval units needs to be revamped anyway for Civ4. "www.navy.mil" provides a fact file on the various statistics of the US military's naval forces, speed included. From the information provided, a fleet looks to be able to operate at a consistent speed without any units being forced to seriously under or over-perform. Anyway, that's all debatable, but for Civ4's purposes, the group needs to move together.
5. Naval units with bombard capability should be able to auto-bombard approaching enemy ships regardless of whether or not that ship engages the fleet
Pretty standard. Battleships get their two tiles, and everyone else has one. Also, bombardment should not have an effect of the distance the ship can travel. Knocking off a tile of travel distance because the ship used its guns doesn't make much sense.
6. The unit would have to allow you to define the hierarchy you want
Since the stack is only occupying one tile and the true spatial relationships of a fleet are being lost in the trade-off, it would be important for the player to be able to define the attack order (basically, who is guarding who) of your ships.
7. Combat between two naval units would have to involve the destruction of individual ship
It would be a difficult proposition for anyone to one to build one of these things, much less actually attack with it, if you thought that a loss meant that your opponent could simply go heal up. Meanwhile, you would have lost a crippling number of ships all at once.
Of course, there could also be a percent chance of being able to withrawing from combat. Though, counterattack might be an unvoidable side-effect of this option.
----------------------------------------------
I'm sure there is more that could be added. Maybe there are ways to improve these ideas. Is it all just wishful thinking? Maybe you just think the whole thing stinks. Please feel free to give some feedback.
IMHO, naval warfare is severely lacking in the AI strategy and forcing it to address the issue would vastly improve the playability for people like myself who love the idea of true naval combat.
For the background, I'm a cautious warmonger by nature, which means I'm a genocidal SOB that prefers to have a precise plan of action -- one that reflects the way war is actually fought in the real world. I like combined arms, I like minimizing casualties, I prefer plans that do not involve putting all my eggs in one basket, and I generally adhere to a strategy that incorporates these elements even if I know the computer would just as easily die by me throwing everything I have at them and leaving nothing at home as precaution against counterattack. Insane, I know, but I do it anyway.
It is no different with navies. Despite the micromanagement issues involved, I will build a navy based on a hierarchy. A battleship or a carrier (or both, or several of each, etc.) will be the flagship of the battle group. As attack/defence strength diminishes, more units are included (ie: 1 battleship, 1 carrier [w/ its supporting aircraft, of course], 3 cruisers, 6 destroyers, etc. These units form concentric rings of defence that radiate out with the least significant units (the destroyers invariably) occupying the outermost ring.
This is messy and tedious. I, sadly, continue to do it in the futile hope that the computer might one day send something my way that would justify the effort. No luck so far
Short story long, now that you have the background, what I'd like to propose is this:
A "naval army unit" loaded in the same way as a regular army or a method of stacking that allows for more organizational control than what is currently available for the typical Army unit. No big deal at first glance. I'm sure its been proposed before, but God is, as they say, in the details. What else do we need to make this work...
1. An inverted hierarchy that allows the weakest unit to be attacked first
Where a regular stack of ground units allows the strongest unit to defend first, this unit or stack would do the opposite, effectively mimicking the spatial organization of a fleet. The intended benefit hopefully being that it deters the computer (or an underhanded human opponent) from sending a rouge unit to attack in hopes of scoring a knock-out blow. It also would promote the formation of similar units by the enemy if he hopes to control the seas, allowing for all kinds of Jutland-style epic naval battles to ensue.
2. Jet fighters are modified to perform air AND SEA superiority missions
Another feature to deter rouge attacks, an enemy unit entering the range of a carrier group's fighters could be subjected to an auto-bombard equivalent before it even reached at 4-5 tiles out.
3. Line of sight for any battlegroup that contains a carrier WITH JET FIGHTERS based there is immediately extended to the air superiority limits of those jet fighters.
Let's be honest, now; a carrier with the requisite reconaissance aircraft should be able to maintain a line of sight as far as those reconaissance aircraft can effectively travel and return safely. To integrate this feature into the mechanics of the naval unit itself only serves to minimize micromanagement and acknowledges the conceit that, if you can only base 5-6 aircraft units onto a carrier that typically holds roughly 80+, routine functions that require minimal investment in the ship's resources need to be assumed to be done already.
4. The speed of the battlegroup is subject to the speed of its slowest unit
I believe the ship speed of the naval units needs to be revamped anyway for Civ4. "www.navy.mil" provides a fact file on the various statistics of the US military's naval forces, speed included. From the information provided, a fleet looks to be able to operate at a consistent speed without any units being forced to seriously under or over-perform. Anyway, that's all debatable, but for Civ4's purposes, the group needs to move together.
5. Naval units with bombard capability should be able to auto-bombard approaching enemy ships regardless of whether or not that ship engages the fleet
Pretty standard. Battleships get their two tiles, and everyone else has one. Also, bombardment should not have an effect of the distance the ship can travel. Knocking off a tile of travel distance because the ship used its guns doesn't make much sense.
6. The unit would have to allow you to define the hierarchy you want
Since the stack is only occupying one tile and the true spatial relationships of a fleet are being lost in the trade-off, it would be important for the player to be able to define the attack order (basically, who is guarding who) of your ships.
7. Combat between two naval units would have to involve the destruction of individual ship
It would be a difficult proposition for anyone to one to build one of these things, much less actually attack with it, if you thought that a loss meant that your opponent could simply go heal up. Meanwhile, you would have lost a crippling number of ships all at once.
Of course, there could also be a percent chance of being able to withrawing from combat. Though, counterattack might be an unvoidable side-effect of this option.
----------------------------------------------
I'm sure there is more that could be added. Maybe there are ways to improve these ideas. Is it all just wishful thinking? Maybe you just think the whole thing stinks. Please feel free to give some feedback.
IMHO, naval warfare is severely lacking in the AI strategy and forcing it to address the issue would vastly improve the playability for people like myself who love the idea of true naval combat.
Comment