CIV shouldn't have Siege Units

[Brutus66]

Another bombardment-related thing- how is it that coastal cities have no defense against bombarding ships?
Even Civ2 had the coastal defense building.
If cities can't shoot back, at least allow cannons and artillery to damage ships.
It always strikes me as kinda ridiculous that, in the game, ships can just sit out in the water and bang away unmolested. I live in Charleston, and our city has been subjected to a few naval bombardments in the wars of Independence, but at least we shot back...

[ZEE]

Originally posted by Brutus66
I live in Charleston, and our city has been subjected to a few naval bombardments in the wars of Independence, but at least we shot back...

a good point Brutus!

i said before and i will say again. Siege warfare should be both ways. Siege/bombard units attack, defenders retialate... winner takes all. none of this cheezy stuff for "game balance." they are actually UNBALANCING things this way...

[Alexander I]

Though in bombarding, I'd like to feel that I'm doing more damage. Maybe bombard units should do a little more collateral damage?

After all, who wants to attack a city with 17 catapults and 1 axeman? That doesn't feel realistic.

[Six Thousand Year Old Man]

Originally posted by Brutus66
I live in Charleston, and our city has been subjected to a few naval bombardments in the wars of Independence, but at least we shot back...

How many ships did they sink?

[Brutus66]

Since I'm not a Revolutionary or Civil war historian, I can't answer that question with any degree of certainty.

The park rangers running the tour at Moultrie claim that the first British fleet to attack in 1776 was driven off by the guns.

During the War of Northern Aggression, the Union fleet attacked at least three times and were less than successful.
In July of 1863, Admiral du Pont attacked with nine ironclads. Five were disabled and one was sunk by the shore defenses.

The Union did not take the city until 1865 when Sherman arrived.

At any rate, the shore batteries played an important role in the defense of the city in each war.

[Six Thousand Year Old Man]

Thanks. I was curious, mainly because I can't think of any shore bombardment situations since Gallipoli where land-based guns had any significant effect on the ships doing the bombardment.

Perhaps shore defences could work against Frigates and Ironclads, but I can't imagine a battleship being sunk by them (Destroyers are a maybe).

[Dis]

I can't remember the final numbers. But the final stats my last game said I wiped out 64 trebuchets. That is just too many!! Standard map fyi.

I'm tired of trebuchets. And I'm scared to death of them.

[Dis]

Originally posted by Six Thousand Year Old Man
Thanks. I was curious, mainly because I can't think of any shore bombardment situations since Gallipoli where land-based guns had any significant effect on the ships doing the bombardment.

Perhaps shore defences could work against Frigates and Ironclads, but I can't imagine a battleship being sunk by them (Destroyers are a maybe).

yeah by the time you get to battleships, the range of the guns is too great. And most modern cities do not have guns strewn all about town. .

[Six Thousand Year Old Man]

Originally posted by Dis


yeah by the time you get to battleships, the range of the guns is too great. And most modern cities do not have guns strewn all about town. .

Do Civ4 bomb shelters work against land- and sea-based artillery? (I've never built one)

If they don't, they should. That would offset some of the hazards of shore bombardment.

Or else... build a navy. I'll never understand why the AI leaves ships in cities under attack.

[Dis]

my last game they built a pretty good size navy. bigger than mine, albeit with out dated ships. I never seen that many ships. I was losing battleships left and right.

Which brings me to my next gripe. Naval warfare. I think battleships struggle too much against destroyers. I can barely destroy them sometimes. I always figure it takes 2 naval units to defeat 1 naval unit of equal strength. It's very irritating.

[Jaybe]

I find it difficult to believe that a battleship's strength of 40 would often lose to a destroyer's strength of 15 or 20 (after appropriate use of air power).

[Brutus66]

The battleship doesn't often lose, but it does suffer a disproportionate amount of damage. Can you imagine the Bismark taking 20% damage from the guns of a destroyer?

Of course, it all comes down to the abstract nature of the units in Civ. Does a destroyer unit represent a single ship or a squadron?

But Dis has a valid point, the naval combat system leaves something to be desired.

Ships being attacked in coastal squares get a 10% defense bonus.
Why?
Especially in the case of submarines: a destroyer attacking a sub in a coastal tile has a 69% chance of success, but in an ocean square the odds are 10% better.
Everyone knows that the submarine is, in reality, far more vulnerable in the shallower water.

But back to the point Dis was trying to make:

Originally posted by Dis
I always figure it takes 2 naval units to defeat 1 naval unit of equal strength. It's very irritating.

A ship attacking another of the same class, in a coast tile, with no promotions on either side, has a 32.2% of winning.

As much as I love Civ4, I have to say that there is definitely room for improvement when it comes time to design Civ 5.

[Brutus66]

Originally posted by Six Thousand Year Old Man
I'll never understand why the AI leaves ships in cities under attack.

That's no lie; I have often marched troops into AI cities with a half-dozen or more ships just sitting there, but I admit I haven't used the improved AI for a while so I'm not sure it happens with Blake's AI.

The game assumes that all the ships in the captured city are scuttled and they are removed from play, but shouldn't you have a n% chance of capturing some of them?

[Six Thousand Year Old Man]

Originally posted by Brutus66

That's no lie; I have often marched troops into AI cities with a half-dozen or more ships just sitting there, but I admit I haven't used the improved AI for a while so I'm not sure it happens with Blake's AI.

The game assumes that all the ships in the captured city are scuttled and they are removed from play, but shouldn't you have a n% chance of capturing some of them?

I would prefer that the warships come out and fight (think Primaguet), or at least flee to another, unthreatened city. I can see merchant shipping being captured - in fact, I don't see why merchant shipping wouldn't be capturable at sea - the commerce raider concept put into play.

I suppose I can see a ship getting a defensive bonus from a coastal square within the ship-owner's cultural boundaries. That could reflect knowledge of underwater hazards, tides, prevailing winds, assistance from spotters on shore, and so forth. Otherwise the coastal bonus makes little sense.

I'd love to see changes to the naval system in general - battleships should seldom suffer much damage from destroyers, and there ought to be some chance for carrier planes to destroy warships. But that's getting a bit far off topic. Warships should definitely be able to bombard military units outside of cities - there's precedent for that in reality (Normandy springs to mind).

[zeace]

Originally posted by Brutus66
Especially in the case of submarines: a destroyer attacking a sub in a coastal tile has a 69% chance of success, but in an ocean square the odds are 10% better.
Everyone knows that the submarine is, in reality, far more vulnerable in the shallower water.

I like your idea here. What if subs were given a +100% in open ocean, but were made a little weaker. Suddenly they'd actually be useful for attacking ships in the ocean, but would be child's play to mop up when they're near the shore. This almost sounds like something that could be modded into the current game. (Maybe someday I'll find myself motivated to actually make a mod rather than merely talk about them...)

I hate naval warfare because each boat is virtually the same as the last one except it has a bigger number next to attack. I want specialization. I want to need diversified attacks. A battleship provides the strength, a carrier with planes provides better scouting and protection from other planes, submarines should get to pick their target so they can take out the carriers or trasnprts. Destroyers should be designed to detect and counter subs. And then there should be missiles, and even nukes...

Oh the dream...