XP2 idea: Merchant Navies

[Solver]

A naval great person? I honestly can't imagine any way for it to work. Maybe Great Admirals, for naval Generals, but not really a separate person type.

If you really want to, you could make current Civ4 overseas traderoutes by like GalCiv2 - represented by automatically created units that sail back and forth between those cities. Then protection of those would become important at wartime, but again fall under the severe risk of becoming a micromanagement nightmare.

[MasterDave]

I see two new elements/units needed that would make the sea trade more fun and more important.

1) Merchant ships (perhaps with a modern upgrade that is faster and slightly tougher). These would work a lot like caravans in Civ 2-- you build them at one city, and sail them to another city and get a gold profit when they reach port, depending on the distance between the cities, and whether or not the city is foreign (yielding a lot more gold), and the time period of the game (rewards should go up as cargo capacity increases). Unlike caravans in Civ, these ships would be reusable, and you could get a similar profit on the return voyage. This would also allow privateers to "lurk" outside of a port that they see a merchant ship slipping into, waiting for the prey to re-emerge...

In the interest of avoiding tedious micromanagement, perhaps there could be a limit on how many of these a civ can build at a time the same as missionaries (3). These ships would be attackable by naval units that are at war with their civ OR by privateer units (see below). If one is taken, then the attacking civ gets a gold bonus (perhaps the same random payout as a goody hut). Also, I think it might be fun to have these ships be able to carry missionaries, gp's, and explorers like caravels. If one of these ships is taken, then you should be able to steal the unit they are carrying as well (this could be pretty dramatic if you board a GP).

2) Privateers, either a ship upgrade or a new kind of unit. This would be a naval ship that can attack or be attacked by any other ship, regardless of war or peace. This would be sort of a player-controlled pirate ship, just like in Civ 3. I think I prefer making privateer an upgrade option rather than a new unit, except it is sometimes hard to get ship upgrades early in the game except through combat. On the plus side you could have privateer submarines, battleships, and even aircraft carriers that could attack everyone (and be attacked by everyone) This could be a lot of fun for peacenik players who want some action and pirate booty at sea.

I think by limiting the number of trade ships, you would minimize the micromanagement, while being able to simulate fun historical events like Sir Francis Drake raiding Spanish gold galleons, WWII's and WWI's battles of the Atlantic, etc. Something like privateers and trade ships would sure liven up the naval war for me, and I think it would be huge fun, with very few changes from core gameplay.

[LordShiva]

^ That's along the lines of how I was thinking.

I don't think they'd be useful for GPs, though; it wouldn't make sense to use a merchant ship when you can use a regular transport/galleon.

I like the limit on how many you can build.

[Virdrago]

Landlocked civs are already at a disadvantage when it comes to certain trade routes. Merchant ships would make it worse, and may cause a "coast grab" so at least one of your cities is coastal. Trying to code the AI to make sure it grabbed a coastal spot would be tedious. Also, you'd have landlocked civs trying to get coastal cities anywhere, including on marginal terrain near the poles, just for the advantage of a merchant marine. I know they do already, but it would just be even more nuts.

An interesting idea, and I don't mean to pooh-pooh it, but it may be a little untenable. With a merchant marine, you should also have a land caravan-type, a la the Silk Road. Great Merchants by land and sea do both of these for you.

[Addled Platypus]

merchant navy -no
great admiral-yes


great thought, keep em coming

[MasterDave]

Originally posted by Virdrago
Landlocked civs are already at a disadvantage when it comes to certain trade routes. Merchant ships would make it worse, and may cause a "coast grab" so at least one of your cities is coastal. Trying to code the AI to make sure it grabbed a coastal spot would be tedious. Also, you'd have landlocked civs trying to get coastal cities anywhere, including on marginal terrain near the poles, just for the advantage of a merchant marine. I know they do already, but it would just be even more nuts.

An interesting idea, and I don't mean to pooh-pooh it, but it may be a little untenable. With a merchant marine, you should also have a land caravan-type, a la the Silk Road. Great Merchants by land and sea do both of these for you.

Being land-locked is a huge disadvantage for a country in the real world. Every major power in history has had at least some access to the sea, and lacking access to ports should be a huge penalty. In fact, Russia is a good example of a country that built large port cities very far north in a very Arctic Climate (Murmansk and Archangel, for example) precisely because they had access to the Barrents sea.

If you are playing a Civ that starts out far from an ocean, then there should be more incentive to try to get to the coast with settlers or conquer port cities than there is now, especially on Pangea games. The capability of making money (or pirating money) with a merchant marine makes navies more relevant on every kind of map, which I see as a good thing.

I am not completely opposed to land caravans, that could offer cash bonuses when they arrive at foreign cities, but I always found moving lots of caravans around to be sort of tedious in earlier Civs. The merchant marine is more exciting because of the chance of piracy or hostile navies intercepting them.

[jbp26]

Originally posted by MasterDave


Being land-locked is a huge disadvantage for a country in the real world. Every major power in history has had at least some access to the sea, and lacking access to ports should be a huge penalty. In fact, Russia is a good example of a country that built large port cities very far north in a very Arctic Climate (Murmansk and Archangel, for example) precisely because they had access to the Barrents sea.

agreed. at the very least, there should be another city improvement to make oceans output more commerce to represent this, or some more sea resources.

[Thedrin]

MasterDave:
If you are playing a Civ that starts out far from an ocean, then there should be more incentive to try to get to the coast with settlers or conquer port cities than there is now, especially on Pangea games. The capability of making money (or pirating money) with a merchant marine makes navies more relevant on every kind of map, which I see as a good thing.

There is no need for merchant marines (read: added units and lots of micromanagement) to make naval vessels more relevant or to introduce piracy.

Allow military vessels (except the caravel) to designate trade routes by stationing them in one place and removing fog of war accross ocean tiles - using multiple ships to generate line of sight across large bodies of water. Allow enemy ships to attack these ships and close trade routes with a successful attack (by bringing fog of war to the defending civs former trade route). This removes the need for a merchant marine while also introducing manageable trade toutes and piracy. It would encourage coastal cities since land locked civs would be unable to obtain intercontinental trade routes.

During peacetime multiple civs can station ships along the one route if they choose and then fight over the route during wartime.

To discourage a civ simply putting a line of ships along the length of an ice sheet require the trade route yields be effected by the ratio of optimal route distance versus actual route distance. To calculate such a value treat ocean squares as being faster than coastal squares which are faster than land squares.

I've thought about allowing access to excess trade routes via open borders. Suppose Isabella has 12 possible trade routes and access to 13 cities in a far away land via shipping. Open borders could allow another civ to use that extra trade route until Isabella needs it.

jbp26
agreed. at the very least, there should be another city improvement to make oceans output more commerce to represent this, or some more sea resources.

Coastal cities get a bonus to trade route income. They also get the harbour which adds a further bonus to trade routes. So coastal cities do get more commerce by virtue of being built on the coast.

[jbp26]

Originally posted by Thedrin
There is no need for merchant marines (read: added units and lots of micromanagement) to make naval vessels more relevant or to introduce piracy.

Allow military vessels (except the caravel) to designate trade routes by stationing them in one place and removing fog of war accross ocean tiles - using multiple ships to generate line of sight across large bodies of water. Allow enemy ships to attack these ships and close trade routes with a successful attack (by bringing fog of war to the defending civs former trade route). This removes the need for a merchant marine while also introducing manageable trade toutes and piracy. It would encourage coastal cities since land locked civs would be unable to obtain intercontinental trade routes.

that is a pretty good idea. that way, trading across the sea is profitable but requires a solid navy and maintenance costs- so landlocked civs are not totally screwed.

Coastal cities get a bonus to trade route income. They also get the harbour which adds a further bonus to trade routes. So coastal cities do get more commerce by virtue of being built on the coast.

i don't really understand trade routes as a game concept. i get the idea of how they generate more commerce, but i never see a noticable increase after building a harbor, castle, or even the temple of artemis.

[MasterDave]

Originally posted by Thedrin


There is no need for merchant marines (read: added units and lots of micromanagement) to make naval vessels more relevant or to introduce piracy.

Allow military vessels (except the caravel) to designate trade routes by stationing them in one place and removing fog of war accross ocean tiles - using multiple ships to generate line of sight across large bodies of water. Allow enemy ships to attack these ships and close trade routes with a successful attack (by bringing fog of war to the defending civs former trade route). This removes the need for a merchant marine while also introducing manageable trade toutes and piracy. It would encourage coastal cities since land locked civs would be unable to obtain intercontinental trade routes.

During peacetime multiple civs can station ships along the one route if they choose and then fight over the route during wartime.

To discourage a civ simply putting a line of ships along the length of an ice sheet require the trade route yields be effected by the ratio of optimal route distance versus actual route distance. To calculate such a value treat ocean squares as being faster than coastal squares which are faster than land squares.

I've thought about allowing access to excess trade routes via open borders. Suppose Isabella has 12 possible trade routes and access to 13 cities in a far away land via shipping. Open borders could allow another civ to use that extra trade route until Isabella needs it.



Coastal cities get a bonus to trade route income. They also get the harbour which adds a further bonus to trade routes. So coastal cities do get more commerce by virtue of being built on the coast.

That is an interesting alternative to moving merchant ships back and forth manually. If you add a privateer upgrade to ships allowing neutral players to act as pirates to this idea of an escort convoy chain, then that could greatly add fun to the naval part of the game.

The income from an overseas trade route would have to be pretty enticing (more than the typical 4 or 5 commerce from a mid game overseas route) to be worth building a convoy chain of 7-8 ships that would be needed to cross a large ocean.

[Thedrin]

The income from an overseas trade route would have to be pretty enticing (more than the typical 4 or 5 commerce from a mid game overseas route) to be worth building a convoy chain of 7-8 ships that would be needed to cross a large ocean.

Larger trade route incomes would be needed to make it clear how much more profitable some routes are over others - so that putting together a string of ships around South America isn't a bad alternative to passing through a city build in Panama.

[Virdrago]

Originally posted by jbp26
i don't really understand trade routes as a game concept. i get the idea of how they generate more commerce, but i never see a noticable increase after building a harbor, castle, or even the temple of artemis.

The increases are there, just less noticable when you're getting +1 or +2 gold. Having four or five built on the same turn makes it more obvious(but nearly never happens), and in the late game, you'll notice it more with larger cities. It's just that when a new trade route is added, it's not as much as your first one or two (because they are your most lucrative ones, of course).