Limited sea warfare and a chance to fix it.

[DaveV]

Originally posted by dregor
Is there a way to out and out ignore another users posts so they don't show up?

Yes, go to control panel at the top of this page, then edit ignore list.

[wodan11]

Originally posted by dregor
Is there a way to out and out ignore another users posts so they don't show up?

Go to one of their posts, click on profile, then at the bottom of their profile there's an option to "Add X to your ignore list".

Wodan

[Thedrin]

Johnmcd:
I agree with the 'navies are pointless'. It's a function of such badly modelled trade in general. The only purpose of military in Civ is conquest of land, or occasionally to extort small sums of money or resource out of someone.

Navies should be all about controlling international trade, but as trade in the game is practically abstract how you would make boats act on it is hard to sea.

I agree that navies need to interact with trade but I like the abstract nature of trade routes at the moment - I certainly think it's a vast improvement over previous versions of Civ - and believe it can be built upon to make navies more relevant to the game.

Naval units exist as support for land units since all objectives are based on land. I don't think that any objective as important as a city can be created for naval units to persue, but important objectives can be created.

The following alterations would, I believe, make navies much more relevant to the game by giving them objectives that they can persue, without requiring land units, for a small increase in micromanagement and without creating merchant shipping:

1) Trade can only pass through visible tiles and tiles visible to civs with which an open border pact is signed. Result: Land trade routes are unchanged. Ships must be stationed between different land masses for intercontinental trade to occur ( 3) has further details on how naval ships would act to provide trade).

2) Make the amount of commerce granted by trade routes proportional to the ratio of 'the fastest route available' and 'the fastest route possible'. Result: There will be a most profitable place for naval units to remove fog between land masses. Bonus result: Canals become commercially important by providing indirect commerce.

3) Introduce 'protect trade' ability which has the opposite effect to the current blockade ability that ships have. This allows friendly trade (own trade and trade going to civs with open borders) to pass through the area but doesn't allow trade to others to pass through. Result: naval military objectives. The best route gives you benefits and denies them to your enemy. If your enemy has it, destroying his ships becomes an important objective.

Best route would need to be defined. Soimething along the lines of an ocean square providing quicker travel to trade than coastal squares than rivers than railways than roads, or some other similar scheme.

[johnmcd]

Thedrin, that's pretty much right up my street. I would hate to go back to camel building and what have you, the automatic nature of it today is welcome, the total abstraction is not as you cannot act on it with units. I like your suggestion.

How that works post astronomy is harder to see though, shipping lanes would perhaps emerge somehow - it would depend on the map I guess.

The major ports of cities like Rotterdam or Shanghai start to look like setting off points for international seafaring, perhaps that bundles trade routes nicely and allows you to have sea channels to attack and defend. You'd need another national wonder or maybe just go for largest costal population of something?

[snoopy369]

That's an interesting idea ... probably not impossible to develop a mod around that, I imagine; using python to interact with trade routes would not be difficult, though you might need to increase trade route returns significantly overall in order to have an appreciable effect (in order to have a reasonable scale of possibilities, anyhow)...

Perhaps trade routes could be defined as:
max[(Pop&1 + Pop&2)/10,1]*[0.5 if both same civ]*[1+(# of resources city 1 has that city 2 does not/5)]*[harbor or other trade bonus]/[1+("Real Distance" from city1 to city2/50)]
Or something to that effect. A direct modifier to each trade route's value...

[Thedrin]

Johnmcd:
How that works post astronomy is harder to see though, shipping lanes would perhaps emerge somehow - it would depend on the map I guess.

The major ports of cities like Rotterdam or Shanghai start to look like setting off points for international seafaring, perhaps that bundles trade routes nicely and allows you to have sea channels to attack and defend. You'd need another national wonder or maybe just go for largest costal population of something?

Well international trade routes wouldn't crop up automatically. They would exist as a result of naval ship placement so if you only have access to one line of ships (and the relevant ports) that exist between 2 continents then all of your trade routes from that continent will pass through that line. If no one placed lines of ships between land masses no international trade would exist.

Snoopy369:
That's an interesting idea ... probably not impossible to develop a mod around that, I imagine; using python to interact with trade routes would not be difficult, though you might need to increase trade route returns significantly overall in order to have an appreciable effect (in order to have a reasonable scale of possibilities, anyhow)...

It'd probably be simplest, and have the most appreciable affect, and make the most profitable trade route paths most important, if a scaling increase in trade route income with trade route path was not used and instead something along the lines of one of the following:
1) Trade routes that don't go through the best route provide as much commerce as though they were domestic trade routes, or
2) Trade routes that don't pass through the most profitable route provide 75% of what they currently do while trade routes that do pass through the most profitable route provide 150% of what they currently do.

The sharp increase in commerce when the best path is obtained would the value of make fighting for and defending the best paths more easily appreciable.

[wodan11]

Originally posted by Thedrin
Well international trade routes wouldn't crop up automatically. They would exist as a result of naval ship placement so if you only have access to one line of ships (and the relevant ports) that exist between 2 continents then all of your trade routes from that continent will pass through that line. If no one placed lines of ships between land masses no international trade would exist.

No offense, but personally I would prefer camels.

(The camel mechanic, that is.)

Wodan

[snoopy369]

Thedrin, your more recent post is unlikely to be implemented or to be useful - too much micro. Civ4 is about reducing micro wherever possible.

Having trade routes identical to our current ones and just modifying how much they pay based on distance makes more sense. I actually think the best mechanic would be:
(Trade route value otherwise)*(Distance between cities as the crow flies)/(Distance travelled on trade route)

That multiplier would be 1 for airport-airport cities; that is the only problem really (airports happen not so long after the meaningful naval period, so you might have to penalize airport trade some). Otherwise you can factor in roads/railroads and sea/coast (road square = 1/3 distance, railroad square = 1/10 distance, coast square = 1/10 distance, sea/ocean square = 1/5 distance) ... and then adjust the multiplier as you wish (if you want a pure road connection to be 1, then 1,1/3,1/3,1/2; etc.)

[Thedrin]

Having trade routes identical to our current ones and just modifying how much they pay based on distance makes more sense. I actually think the best mechanic would be:
(Trade route value otherwise)*(Distance between cities as the crow flies)/(Distance travelled on trade route)

How will this make navies more relevant?

Edit: I get, and fully support, the goal of reducing micromanagement as much as possible. As far as I can see stationing military vessels between land masses as a means of allowing international trade is the way with the least micromanagement to provide naval units with important strategic objectives (other than as support to land units).

Also, the player doesn't have to micromanage. Trade could pass through open borders (as it already can). This means that a line of ships placed by a friendly AI will do the job (though it would require a more ambitious project than simply changing game rules - changing AI behaviour).

[jbp26]

one of the few things i really liked about civ3-conquests was that both airplanes and ships could bombard the land, and once any improvements were destroyed, the terrain itself was damaged. it was akin to having fallout on the tile. so with a strong navy you could declare war on someone and blockade their cities, then blow up their coastline and starve their population pretty dramatically. you could cripple a nation without ever landing infantry, which is a compelling reason to have a navy, both for defense and offense.

this would probably necessitate reintroducing lethal bombard, at least to bombers.

[Hauptman]

I often never make a naval unit until steam engine, so i can defend my clams with ironclads... But once you reach modern times a carrier fleet is a real nice way to inflict damage on someone who declared war on you or a friend. Bombing farms and mines etc.

sorry if i end up with a double post, quick replay is taunting me.

[snoopy369]

Originally posted by Thedrin


How will this make navies more relevant?

Edit: I get, and fully support, the goal of reducing micromanagement as much as possible. As far as I can see stationing military vessels between land masses as a means of allowing international trade is the way with the least micromanagement to provide naval units with important strategic objectives (other than as support to land units).

Also, the player doesn't have to micromanage. Trade could pass through open borders (as it already can). This means that a line of ships placed by a friendly AI will do the job (though it would require a more ambitious project than simply changing game rules - changing AI behaviour).

Stationing units around to just sit there is boring. I should have correctly said that micromanagement is fine if it's not BORING micromanagement. Civ after all is quite micro-heavy anyhow.

Combat is fun; placing units on the screen individually is not so fun. Camels, as said above, would probably be more fun than that (although not fun overall). So, focusing it around "passive trade that is interrupted by active measures" is generally more fun than "active trade", because it's only "work" when there is some aggressive action going on.

Basically, I'm suggesting that trade routes occur as normal, along defined trade routes. The value of the trade route is determined by the distance traveled compared to the shortest possible distance (as the crow flies); so there is an 'optimal' trade route, and then many 'suboptimal' routes. You can actively block (pillage) "optimal" routes, by placing a ship or patrolling fighter in the way of an enemy's routes, and then they must use the 'suboptimal' route, which gives less bonus.

That would encourage combat, because you would want to destroy your opponent's ships blocking your optimal trade routes (thus increasing your income), and also at the same time it would cut their own optimal trade routes (if they have similar cross-oceanic trade).

[Quillan]

Interesting idea, but it does sound like way too much micromanagement. Personally, I think I'd prefer something a little different. Visibility over water is at a base of 1 square, raised to 2 with Optics. I'd like to see it increase to 3 or 4 squares with Astronomy, increase again to about 6 squares with Radio, and any civilization with Satellites should know where every naval unit on the water is at all times world-wide. That would at least allow you to defend your coastlines.

[snoopy369]

Originally posted by jbp26
this would probably necessitate reintroducing lethal bombard, at least to bombers.

This will not see the light of day... lethal bombardment is NOT a good idea for many reasons. Bombers are already too powerful... even post-BTS with the new fighter mechanic.

[Thedrin]

Basically, I'm suggesting that trade routes occur as normal, along defined trade routes. The value of the trade route is determined by the distance traveled compared to the shortest possible distance (as the crow flies); so there is an 'optimal' trade route, and then many 'suboptimal' routes. You can actively block (pillage) "optimal" routes, by placing a ship or patrolling fighter in the way of an enemy's routes, and then they must use the 'suboptimal' route, which gives less bonus.

But isn't this mechanism effectively identical to the mechanism I'm suggesting?

Say a single ship isn't capable of blocking a route completely from enemy trade. Unless a second ship is used to block the rest of the optimum route, the enemy can come in and block the other section preventing everyone from using the route. Because you don't want the enemy to block your trade, you put enough ships in place to block the entire route from the enemy and, simultaneously, you are making the route safe for your trade to pass through. You want to maintain your hold on this trade path. You leave the ships in place.

Result: identical to what I'm suggesting; placing a line of ships between land masses to facilitate (read: protect) your own trade.

Edit: Even if it's not quite the same in a way I haven't spotted, placing ships in a line to protect trade between land masses isn't that different to placing archers in a city to protect it from other civs. The point, as stated originally, is to give navies objectives as important as those available to land units. I'm not saying that protecting a path for trade is as important as protecting a city but I am looking for a way to provide players with naval objectives worth defending (and, consequently, worth attacking and making navies more useful).