Limited sea warfare and a chance to fix it.

[snoopy369]

From a micro perspective, however, the mechanism is very fundamentally different. The focus is VERY important.

Yours: In order to attain trade, you must actively do things.

Mine: Normally, do nothing and you're fine. However, in wartime or with privateers, you have to destroy enemy ships to preserve trade. If the enemy brings some ships to block your trade, just wipe them out directly.

They are very fundamentally different, and this is important. Having to do nothing normally, and only act to block an enemy action, is a lot more fun and less boring than having to always have it set up that way. You'll have a lot more ships in peacetime that you have to pay attention to, and muddy up the waters a lot more.

You also would require protecting the entire line all at once, while my theory would only require eliminating ships as you see them

[Jaybe]

Originally posted by snoopy369
... with privateers, you have to destroy enemy ships to preserve trade. If the enemy brings some ships to block your trade, just wipe them out directly.

However, if you have the intelligence capability to investigate a city that is being blockaded, you will note that ITS TRADE ROUTES ARE NOT BEING AFFECTED!

At least per the display.
This is very frustrating. Someone, PLEASE, tell me that the city trade display is just not being updated!

[Jaybe]

Re: Limited sea warfare and a chance to fix it.

Originally posted by Cyrus The Mike
So what I thought a solution would be was, and this would only work in industrial on up, to put a min. production on a ship and let you place how much you want to go into your ship. Lets say that the amount to build a battleship is 200 with the enhanced battleship you can invest 450 to gain 10

This is already simulated in the game with promotions. For a super-battlewagon, use a great general ... then find that it gets overwhelmed by enemy aircraft and a couple destroyer units (that's how I would counter it).

This game is not all about the glory of individual units that last for decades or centuries; it's more about the whole, not the details.

[Thedrin]

Edit: Summary of below is that if you include a rule that I had previously assumed you had been applying to your method, Snoopy369, our different methods are effectively the same. You haven't been including that rule - my fault for assuming - but I am fairly convinced that without it your system is not as good a way of improving the importance of naval vessels.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Ah, there's a difference in the way we've been looking at things that hasn't yet been specified, Snoopy369.

Under the rules that I've been using (in my head - not in any mod I've made) all trade can go through all paths. But if a ship is on a particular tile - even during peace time - it blocks out trade going to all civs except trade going to its own civ and trade going to civs with which the ships civ has open borders.

If this rule is applied to your method something happens that I consider to be a very nice side effect: Civs can be blocked out of the best trade route paths during peace time and obtaining the best trade route paths can become a reason to go to war. Especially after the development of astronomy (on appropriate map types) when intercontinental trade routes first arise.

Under your system, as it is, at the beginning of a war there will be major naval conflict since civs would have already stationed ships along the best trade routes as insurance against any possible wars (similar to stationing units in cities when you're at peace as insurance against possible invasion). The trade route system also becomes a reason not to go to war since both sides of a war are likely to lose out (unless one side is massively dominant).

Under your system, with the above addition, there is already a dominant naval presence. The trade route system does not cause the navally dominant civ to worry about going to war since they already have protection in place, but it gives reason for the navally weaker civ to go to war since they can stand to gain better trade.

Yours: In order to attain trade, you must actively do things.

Mine: Normally, do nothing and you're fine. However, in wartime or with privateers, you have to destroy enemy ships to preserve trade. If the enemy brings some ships to block your trade, just wipe them out directly.

I still don't think that there's much difference in the amount of unit movement. In fact I'm inclined to think that your system has more, but I'll cover that - including why I prefer the movement types associated with my method (an arguement you used earlier) - in the last 3 paragraphs of this post.

They are very fundamentally different, and this is important. Having to do nothing normally, and only act to block an enemy action, is a lot more fun and less boring than having to always have it set up that way. You'll have a lot more ships in peacetime that you have to pay attention to, and muddy up the waters a lot more.

I think you've made a mistake here (within the confines of just the rules you had applied for your own system).

Even if no trade can be blocked out during peace time you'll still keep forces in place on the best trade route path in case war breaks out. 'always be set up that way' applies to both systems.

You also would require protecting the entire line all at once, while my theory would only require eliminating ships as you see them

When you put it like this, I definetly prefer my system. Making an analogy to land warfare, protecting an entire line at once is equivalent to stationing units on important strategic points - cities, resources, choke points - and waiting for the enemy to attack you. Eliminating ships as you see them is equivalent to going out and destroying pillagers.

Maybe I'm in the minority, but I prefer when the aggressor attacks specific points I've chosen to defend rather than picking away at my economy through pillaging. Also, when I'm the aggressor, I definetly prefer going for targets of definite strategic value (cities, resources) rather than pillaging their less important improvements.

Don't get me wrong; I'm aware that pillaging can play an important part in a warfare strategy, but it's no where near as much fun to me as assaulting cities and I suspect that introducing definite, permanent strategic targets - in the form of a stationed line of ships - will make a much bigger impact on naval warfare.

[Unimatrix11]

how about this: civs running the free trade civic do not blockade anyone, they are not in war with, during peace time... ? So: Either remove your ships from this straits of gibraltar to my mediterranien empire or open borders or switch to free trade or prepare for war...

[snoopy369]

Under the rules that I've been using (in my head - not in any mod I've made) all trade can go through all paths. But if a ship is on a particular tile - even during peace time - it blocks out trade going to all civs except trade going to its own civ and trade going to civs with which the ships civ has open borders.

If this rule is applied to your method something happens that I consider to be a very nice side effect: Civs can be blocked out of the best trade route paths during peace time and obtaining the best trade route paths can become a reason to go to war. Especially after the development of astronomy (on appropriate map types) when intercontinental trade routes first arise.

Impractical. Two peacetime civs with no OB have a ship both on the same tile, and that means no trade can pass through there... not happening. Regardless, the open sea is not a border area so no reason to deny trade from other civs on one tile if you're not at war.

Having to have a line of ships is just too complicated, and too much MM. I'm restating the same thing i've been saying this whole time, so i'm going to stop arguing with you now, except to say that one of our ideas would have a snowball's chance in **** of being implemented, while the other's wouldn't even have that. Actively blocking trade routes is more fun and interesting than having to maintain them, and that's proven simply by the fact that the 'camel' method from civ2 being actively rejected for basically that reason. I'm sure some people enjoyed it - my dad did anyhow - but overall, IT'S NOT FUN. The line has no relation to 'land war' - you keep units in your CITIES, not spread out across the landscape. Typically you don't even keep more than one or two in each city except for strategic points (near borders or other potential danger spots)...

If this would be fun for you, then I encourage you to implement it... but it's not Civ4, and generally runs counter to the game design concepts behind Civ4.

[Thedrin]

For the record I hated the camels in CivII.

Thinking on it further our ideas hardly differ at all in effective outcome. The differences are less than you may realise since I think you failed to spot that actively maintiaining trade routes = blocking enemy trade routes in my idea.

Spoiler:

Commerce Gains and Losses:

Civ II;
If you don't build camels you lose nothing.
If you do build camels you gain extra commerce.
Your idea;
If you don't build a significant navy you lose commerce (due to enemy ships).
If you do build a significant navy you can reduce your commerce losses (against privateers in peace time and all military vessels during war) and possibly harm your opponents.
My idea;
If you don't build a significant navy you lose commerce (identical to your idea).
If you do build a significant navy you can reduce your commerce losses and possibly harm your opponents (but this may require war if another civ has gotten there first).

Unit Micromanagement:

Civ II; send a camel (possibly with protection) to a city.
Your idea; send ships to line of best trade to harry enemy trade and protect your own (you can choose to move them about but once they're parked on the line of best trade but why would you move them any further?).
My idea; send ships to the exact same line of best trade to harry enemy trade and protect your own.

There is only one significant difference between our two ideas:

Your idea: Both civs risk losing in commerce if a war starts.
My idea: Only one civ risks losing commerce in war while the other civ stands to gain commerce.

I could have missed something which hasn't been brought up yet, but I don't think that this difference runs counter to the game designs of CivIV.

That's that I guess. G'luck.

[Unimatrix11]

Whats with the secrecy ?! It doesnt make any sense here - sorry.