Discussion of Naval Units for Canadian Patriot

[Colonel Kraken]

Here are some of my thoughts. (I still want to look at your spreadsheet, Alpha). Bear in mind, these are just musings.

Ideas for Unit Stats: Attack/Ranged/Defense/Movement. [Cargo Capacity] Ranged attack in ( ) is range 0. Ranged attack with "r" is the range.

TRADER: 0/(0)/0/2 [1] Capturable. Coast movement only. Foot units only. *No graphic.
GALLEY: 1/(1)/1/3 Coast movement only. *In game.
POLYREME: 3/(2)/2/3 [1] Coast movement only. Foot units only. *No graphic. (But see this thread)
CARAVEL: 0/(0)/0/4 [2] Capturable. Coast and Sea movement. Foot units only. *In game.
GALLEON: 4/(4)/4/5 [3] Coast, Sea, and Ocean movement. Foot and horse units (is this possible?) *In game.
FRIGATE: 6/(6)/6/6 *In game. (Temporarily use Pirate ship as Frigate, Man-o-War for Ship-of-the-Line, and Frigate for Merchantman).
SHIP-of-the-LINE: 10/10r1/10/5 *No graphic, but see above.
MERCHANTMAN: 0/(0)/2/5 [5] Foot and horse units only. *No graphic, but see above.
IRONCLAD: 15/(6)/15/5 HP+1 *In game. (Although would be nice to have graphic like HMS Warrior [as was in CtP2]).
DREADNOUGHT: 25/20r2/22/8 HP+2 *Graphic available.
TRANSPORT: 0/(0)/5/8 [8] Can transport all land units. *No graphic.
DESTROYER: 20/(10)/18/8 Can see subs and attack subs. *In game.
SUBMARINE: 18/(0)/15/6 Cannot see other subs. *In game.
BATTLESHIP: 30/25r2/28/10 HP+2 *In game.
AIRCRAFT CARRIER: 0/(0)/10/10 HP+1 [6^] ^Aircraft only. *Graphic available?
MISSILE DESTROYER: 22/25r3/20/12 [4^] ^Cruise missile only? Can see and attack subs. *Graphic available.
NUCLEAR ATTACK SUB: 25/20r2/18/10 [2^] ^Cruise missile only? Can see and attack other subs. *In game.
BOOMER: 20/(0)/20/10 [6] Can carry ICBMs. Can see and attack other subs. *No graphic.
SUPER CARRIER: 0/(0)/20/12 HP+1 [8^] ^Aircraft only. *In game.
AMPHIBIOUS ASSAULT SHIP: 0/(0)/20/12 [12] Can carry all land units and helicopters. Is this possible? *No graphic.
AEGIS CRUISER: 25/25r3/22/12 [8^] ^Cruise missile only? Special defense against air/cruise missile attack? Can see and attack subs. *In game.

Note on limits on movement: all units can move in sea tiles with Astronomy and Ocean tiles with Navigation. Another thing you'll notice is the progression of movement rates all the way to 12! Well, I think that is justified, especially given the common complaint of slow naval movement. You may say, "Why can the Caravel move faster than the Galley?" or "Why can't the Destroyer move faster than the Dreadnought?" Movement rates do not necessarily merely represent raw speed, but the strategic ability of the unit to move about. For example, on a tactical level, the destroyer definitely will severely out pace the Dreadnought. Strategic movement across oceans would show both of them moving at the same rate. The same idea for land movement exists with sea movement. A Napoleonic infantry would strategically be able to move further than a Phalanx because of logistics capabilities. Modern navies have tremendous logistics support and are able to span the globe in record time without stopping.

TECHS: Available with . . .

Trader: Pottery?
Galley: Map Making
Polyreme: Construction
Caravel: Astronomy
Galleon: Navigation
Frigate: Magnetism
Ship-of-the-Line: Magnetism
Merchantman: Magnetism
Ironclad: Industrialization
Dreadnought: Steel
Transport: Steel
Destroyer: Refining
Submarine: Refining
Battleship: Mass Production?
Aircraft Carrier: Flight?
Missile Destroyer: Rocketry
Nuclear Attack Sub: Nuclear Power
Boomer: Nuclear Power
Super Carrier: Rocketry
Amphibious Assault Ship: Advanced Flight?
Aegis Cruiser: Robotics?

There's no doubt here that the tech tree needs to be reworked. I've done so on my own personal mod. Industrial and especially Modern eras need reworking. I'm just going to leave it at that until there's some discussion. I'll then give out more of my opinion as the situation warrants.

[Canadian_Patriot]

No industrial cruisers or modern frigates?

Matt

[Harlan]

CK,
Your comments are really instructive. We really need to get you the spreadsheet. Some things to keep in mind while looking at it though:

1. We recognize the need to add more units, but also only want to add "must haves" - its easy to get carried away. We also will only add new units as the graphics for them become available (luckily we have at least adquate subsitutes for most now).
2. All unit strengths were doubled (before additional tweaking), to allow more fine tuning.
3. The idea is to greatly increase the cost of modern units and modern things in general, so as to prevent massive swarms of units from super-productive towns. Not sure if this is fully reflected in the numbers yet.
4. Another idea is to double the cost and double the effectiveness of bombard units, to reduce the tedium of moving huge artillery stacks around.
5. Now that the new patch can allow ocean, sea, and coastal numbers to be different, the move in the coast is 1, sea 2 and ocean 3. Most modern units then have the "all terrain as roads" flag on, but some older units up to and including Ironclad, do not.
6. A couple of unique units were changed because it was felt it wasn't fair to have a naval or air unique unit - now all are land. The new Chinese UU, Chu Ko Nu, is a bit wierd - its the same as the Crossbowman unit, but its bonus is that it comes earlier.
7. Rifleman and more modern units get an extra hit point, and there is a second extra hit point boost for very modern units. This is to help prevent the "phalanx beating a tank" problem, and reflects the quantum leap in power of these units.
8. Movement is also boosted for just about everything post 1800 (due to improved logistics, as you seem to recognize as well), and for naval units generally.

I'd be interested to see your mod. Have you made that public? Please send me a copy at harlant@earthlink.net, so I can check it out.

Also, a specific question about the Boomer unit. I don't like that name, sounds like an NFL quarterback or something. Could that be called a Stealth Sub instead? And could we give it the stealth flag Stealth planes have?

Finally, I assume you made a typo, and Frigate should be available with Navigation? We also are expanding the tech tree, so in some cases have better techs to attach units to.

[ALPHA WOLF 64]

OK, lets see if i can get some answers in during my breaks (gotta love long work days). Sorry for the delay in getting the updated spreadsheet up online. I hope to be able to get to that tonight.

Every unit costs the same for maintenance. Not sure why they did this. So your MA costs the same as a warrior to support.

As far as the AEGIS vs a dreadnaught type discussions, lets keep it purely on a game level unless we arent disagreeing with the realistic outcome. Alot of game discussions get bogged down in reality but reality isnt programmed into the game sometimes, so IRL a dreadnaught would never get close but in the game, it can walk right up to you in one turn before you ever see it (a TBS limitation is general). So the only issue is whether the dreadnaught could hurt the AEGIS close quarters because that is a valid game situation. Unless we decide to make the values reflect standoff ability in which case the modern ships need to be drastically increased in abilities. BTW, dreadnaughts DO upgrade to BBs.....LOL In game terms, some units upgrade to their replacement even tho the older unit could never have actually transformed into the newer version.

HEYYYYYYY, i thought we were buddies last year.....LOL

As far as you ship numbers go, alot of your innovations have already been included in ours. One major difference is that we are using the "all terrain as roads" so that when you see on ours m3 thats really 12 tiles (road = 1/4). This means that a unit loses 4 tiles of movement during an attack vs just one tile the other way. After all, if you are attacking, you cant be moving About the various transport options, I'm unaware of any flags that tell a ship what kind of units it can carry other than, air-only, missile-only, land-only (i thought i saw mech inf come off a caravel the other day...dohhhhhhh)

If you think a unit needs a specific tech thats not in the game, list it, and it can be added. Dont limit yourself to existing techs. I'd like to put together a complete sea tech tree (dont worry about eras), and land unit tree as well, and what units will come out of each tech. We have the initial air one that goes something like this (harlan, this is out of memory so keep me honest here): flight (biplane) - aerodynamics (fighter/bomber/paratrooper) - vertical flight (helos) - jet engine (jet fighter/jet bomber) - microchip (interceptor [f15 replacement]) - stealth (stealth fighter/stealth bomber).

[Colonel Kraken]

Originally posted by Canadian_Patriot
No industrial cruisers or modern frigates?

Matt

Sorry it took me so long to reply, CP.

I thought about industrial cruisers. What would their use be? They would be weaker than battleships, but stronger than destroyers. I envision their use would be to have a cheaper unit than a battleship that could take out a destroyer pretty easily. When you add such a unit, though, you begin to blur the lines in unit stats between units. I think with the current game mechanics (e.g. same maintenance costs for all units), players would gravitate toward the mix of units I envisioned: Battleship and Destroyer. This, simply because it would take 2 extra turns to build the battleship instead of the cruiser? Players would think, heck, I'll go for the BB.

I'm not saying it would hurt to have the cruiser in there, it's just not totally necessary. But, sure, if you've got a graphic for it, I'll use it!

Modern Frigate? Here's why not:

In modern times the terms Frigate and Destroyer are interchangeable and have been blurred. In the US Navy, a destroyer tends to be larger than a frigate, but only sometimes. It's more of a designation of mission specialty. In the British Navy, it's almost the exact opposite. There's no doubt that the terms are so interchangeable as to be unrecognizeable. For the purposes of our game, having a "Missile Destroyer" (DDG if you will) that has the dual capability of Anti-ship and Anti-sub effectively gives us the platform we need for that roll. A Frigate (FFG perhaps) would be redundant. The Missile Destroyer and Aegis Cruiser work out quite well.

What do you think so far, CP?

[Colonel Kraken]

Originally posted by Harlan
CK,
Your comments are really instructive. We really need to get you the spreadsheet.

Why, thank you Harlan, you're the best.

3. The idea is to greatly increase the cost of modern units and modern things in general, so as to prevent massive swarms of units from super-productive towns. Not sure if this is fully reflected in the numbers yet.

Agreed.

4. Another idea is to double the cost and double the effectiveness of bombard units, to reduce the tedium of moving huge artillery stacks around.

Excellent idea!

5. Now that the new patch can allow ocean, sea, and coastal numbers to be different, the move in the coast is 1, sea 2 and ocean 3. Most modern units then have the "all terrain as roads" flag on, but some older units up to and including Ironclad, do not.

Cool.

6. A couple of unique units were changed because it was felt it wasn't fair to have a naval or air unique unit - now all are land. The new Chinese UU, Chu Ko Nu, is a bit wierd - its the same as the Crossbowman unit, but its bonus is that it comes earlier.

Sounds good to me.

7. Rifleman and more modern units get an extra hit point, and there is a second extra hit point boost for very modern units. This is to help prevent the "phalanx beating a tank" problem, and reflects the quantum leap in power of these units.

This is something I've thought about a lot. Obviously, once the Napoleonic era began, land units became MUCH larger and obviously more effective. How do we show that? Should we assume the unit size stays relatively the same but its effectiveness goes way up? Or do we assume that unit size can go down, maintenance costs don't go up much, and the power still rises? Hmmm . . .

8. Movement is also boosted for just about everything post 1800 (due to improved logistics, as you seem to recognize as well), and for naval units generally.

Good, these are my thoughts exactly.

I'd be interested to see your mod. Have you made that public? Please send me a copy at harlant@earthlink.net, so I can check it out.

My "mod" is in a very rough beta stage. I have added units and changed stats (still testing these) and have changed the tech tree through Industrial (Modern is a REAL screwed up mess). I don't have any library entries and beautiful advisor tech screens. I would prefer to scan my hand sketched tech trees and unit stats and send them as a jpeg or something.

Also, a specific question about the Boomer unit. I don't like that name, sounds like an NFL quarterback or something. Could that be called a Stealth Sub instead? And could we give it the stealth flag Stealth planes have?

Ah, yes, "Boomer". I knew that would stir up trouble. I do agree it is a clumsy name, and I did hesitate putting it in there. However, it is the nickname given to these types of subs. Stealth Sub is completely inaccurate and not descriptive of its role. Perhaps the technical name, Ballistic Missile Sub, should be used. Or, its more casual name "Missile Boat".

Finally, I assume you made a typo, and Frigate should be available with Navigation? We also are expanding the tech tree, so in some cases have better techs to attach units to.

Nope, no typo. If you recall, Civ3 default bic has the Frigate and Man-o-War appear at the same time along with Galleon! Well, in game terms, and what I envision the frigate to be, it would appear with Ship-of-the-Line. It's hull design, sails, rigging, and cannon are all of the same technology level of the SotL. The SotL should be very expensive compared to the Frigate. In real life, governments found it very difficult to maintain large fleets of SotLs. The Frigate is perfect to scout, patrol (placed around your shores with the "Y" command), and Merchantman harassing. Besides, they're plenty powerful to take on Galleons and below.

[ALPHA WOLF 64]

i havent figured out the difference between the game DDG and AEGIS cruiser. Both would have the same flags and according to real world costs, they cost the same. Unless you are talking about a DDG w/o AEGIS capabilities but then how would it be different from a destroyer? According to my research, the US navy stopped using the designation FF in the early/mid 70s. DDG and CCGN are so small that you cant have a smaller true warship.

Also, we need a better graphic for ironclad so people dont think its the monitor. That was always my issue with the game ironclad because i equated it to the monitor i knew the monitor was nowhere near as effective as its game stats.

[ALPHA WOLF 64]

CK, i'll take a copy of that tech tree in handwritten form.. all my tech changes are in the bic, and I havent found an easy way (or the time) to get it electronically yet.

I like the term boomer, but which should go with the NUclear Missile sub over missile boat as i can already hear the complaints that we used the wrong graphic if we call it a boat....LOL

[Colonel Kraken]

Originally posted by ALPHA WOLF 64
. . . so IRL a dreadnaught would never get close but in the game, it can walk right up to you in one turn before you ever see it (a TBS limitation is general).

Are you so sure? What are the distances of each square in the game? I'd wager it's valid to give the modern destroyer/cruiser relatively high defense ratings.

Unless we decide to make the values reflect standoff ability in which case the modern ships need to be drastically increased in abilities.

Exactly, this is exactly the reason (stand-off weapons) that these ships would have good defense ratings. Do any of you know if we'd be allowed to put Cruise Missiles on these ships? Please forgive me, but I'm completely dumb on this subject as I have not ever really played into modern yet.

HEYYYYYYY, i thought we were buddies last year.....LOL

Yes, indeed, Alpha, I had completely forgotten. One year might as well be 5 years in my crazy life!

As far as you ship numbers go, alot of your innovations have already been included in ours. One major difference is that we are using the "all terrain as roads" so that when you see on ours m3 thats really 12 tiles (road = 1/4). This means that a unit loses 4 tiles of movement during an attack vs just one tile the other way. After all, if you are attacking, you cant be moving.

This sounds great. Get me that spreadsheet, Alpha!

About the various transport options, I'm unaware of any flags that tell a ship what kind of units it can carry other than, air-only, missile-only, land-only (i thought i saw mech inf come off a caravel the other day...dohhhhhhh)

Yeah, real bummer.

As far as tech's go, I can try to get my ideas out to you guys, but it's going to take a while. I'm working a lot of hours and there's tons going on.

And as far as that all goes, here's a little about myself . . .

I'm 29 (30 in November ) I'm married to a lovely, wonderful wife who loves Civ!! I have an almost 4 year old and a 9 month old. Busy, busy, busy! I sell (at least try to ) new Volkswagens. If I'm not at work, I'm working on my new yard and my new house, or I'm involved in some church activity. Phew!

I graduated from the University of Michigan with a Bachelors in Poli Sci in 1995. I joined the Air Force in 1996 for four years where I was an avionics technician on the F-15Es. I was with the 391st Bold Tigers!

Ok, your turn.

[Colonel Kraken]

Originally posted by ALPHA WOLF 64
i havent figured out the difference between the game DDG and AEGIS cruiser. Both would have the same flags and according to real world costs, they cost the same. Unless you are talking about a DDG w/o AEGIS capabilities but then how would it be different from a destroyer? According to my research, the US navy stopped using the designation FF in the early/mid 70s. DDG and CCGN are so small that you cant have a smaller true warship.

You know, I've thought about this too. That's why, in my game, only the Missile Destroyer can see and attack subs. This gives it its necessity. If only we could give some flag to AEGIS about missile/aircraft defense. Or is this already in the game? This distinction is based on reality. Although the AEGIS cruisers can detect and help attack subs, this is certainly not their primary role. The DDG is designed to hunt subs. Also, modern naval formations steam in concentric circle formations. At the center is the Carrier, support ships, and an AEGIS cruiser or so. Then there's the Anti-air Warfare (AAW) screen further out with another AEGIS cruiser and perhaps an AEGIS destroyer and couple older DDGs with plenty of missiles. Finally, there's the Ant-Submarine Warfare (AAW) screen. It's the furthest concentric circle out. This is where the Oliver Hazard Perrys and such FFG/DDGs are, looking for and hunting subs.

Also, we need a better graphic for ironclad so people dont think its the monitor. That was always my issue with the game ironclad because i equated it to the monitor i knew the monitor was nowhere near as effective as its game stats.

Oh, I totally agree!

[Harlan]

quote:
7. Rifleman and more modern units get an extra hit point, and there is a second extra hit point boost for very modern units. This is to help prevent the "phalanx beating a tank" problem, and reflects the quantum leap in power of these units.

This is something I've thought about a lot. Obviously, once the Napoleonic era began, land units became MUCH larger and obviously more effective. How do we show that? Should we assume the unit size stays relatively the same but its effectiveness goes way up? Or do we assume that unit size can go down, maintenance costs don't go up much, and the power still rises? Hmmm . . .

Given that we don't want huge stacks of modern army units that are a pain to move around, it makes sense to go with fewer but more powerful. We have a very big numbers jump to Rifleman for instance, in addtion to the extra hitpoint it gets.

My "mod" is in a very rough beta stage. I have added units and changed stats (still testing these) and have changed the tech tree through Industrial (Modern is a REAL screwed up mess). I don't have any library entries and beautiful advisor tech screens. I would prefer to scan my hand sketched tech trees and unit stats and send them as a jpeg or something.

Given that you're just starting and you're so busy, you should just join our efforts. Many hands make light work, and the whole is greater than the sum of the parts, etc... It seems like we have very similar visions, so different but nearly identical modpacks seem silly. In any case, we look forward to the scans.

"Boomer". I knew that would stir up trouble. I do agree it is a clumsy name, and I did hesitate putting it in there. However, it is the nickname given to these types of subs. Stealth Sub is completely inaccurate and not descriptive of its role. Perhaps the technical name, Ballistic Missile Sub, should be used. Or, its more casual name "Missile Boat".

Of the choices you give, Ballistic Missile Sub sounds best, but I thought Nuclear Subs could do that too, so I don't really see the difference. You must forgive me for my general post-WW2 ignorance of military details.

Nope, no typo. If you recall, Civ3 default bic has the Frigate and Man-o-War appear at the same time along with Galleon! Well, in game terms, and what I envision the frigate to be, it would appear with Ship-of-the-Line. It's hull design, sails, rigging, and cannon are all of the same technology level of the SotL. The SotL should be very expensive compared to the Frigate. In real life, governments found it very difficult to maintain large fleets of SotLs. The Frigate is perfect to scout, patrol (placed around your shores with the "Y" command), and Merchantman harassing. Besides, they're plenty powerful to take on Galleons and below.

I don't like this. In gameplay terms, with the big naval changes around 1500, one needs a new transport ship and new offensive ship then. We need one offense ship there, much more than 2 later. Frigate is a very flexible term - its still being used today! So I don't see why the Frigate couldn't come with Galleon, and still be useful after the SotL arrives, because its cheaper, faster, but not as strong.

I'm not saying it would hurt to have the cruiser in there, it's just not totally necessary. But, sure, if you've got a graphic for it, I'll use it!

Our goal is to only include "must have" units, not "what the heck" units. Sounds like you're squarely putting the Cruiser into the second category, so let's can it. I agree that a player contemplating building a ship at that point would probably go with Destroyer or Battleship, and not something inbetween.

And as far as that all goes, here's a little about myself . . .

Here's the scoop about me. 33, still single, living in Berkeley, Calfornia. Undergrad degree in Psychology from Stanford, Master's degree from University of Hawaii in Geography. Lived two years in Indonesia inbetween, teaching in a Peace Corps type program. Since leaving school I've been working at an environmental non-profit called the Borneo Project. Saving the rainforest and all that. Consider that whenever you make me respond to interesting emails from work, you cause a chunk of rainforest to come down!

My life is not so hectic right now, but I want to limit my civ time so I have for other things in my life (esp. big on music, playing and seeing). Which means while I have time to edit civ, I never have any time to actually play the game! Like CK, I've never actually made it to Flight and that era.

Finally, regarding the whole Dreadnaught vs. AEGIS Cruiser debate, I think you need to include the missile factor into both the offense and defense of the unit. Its unrealistic to expect the AI to stock these guys with missile units (assuming that's even possible). I agree the Dreanaught should suck in comparison because its never gonna get close enough to fire its guns. The only way to reflect that is with higher numbers, cos in the game it might happen that the AEGIS would end its turn near a Dreadnaught.

So a general modern naval numbers boost is needed.

[ALPHA WOLF 64]

here's my bio:
38, single, near Chicago, computer consultant. Grew up playing avalon hill board games and designing our own. Working alot lately but this has been fun.

[Colonel Kraken]

Originally posted by ALPHA WOLF 64
Grew up playing avalon hill board games

Hey, me too! It still have a bunch in a box somewhere.

[Colonel Kraken]

Originally posted by Harlan


Since leaving school I've been working at an environmental non-profit called the Borneo Project. Saving the rainforest and all that.

Oh, one of thoooose types.

Consider that whenever you make me respond to interesting emails from work, you cause a chunk of rainforest to come down!

Oh, Please.

My respect for ya just went waayy down.

[Colonel Kraken]

OK, Getting serious now . . .

Originally posted by Harlan
Given that we don't want huge stacks of modern army units that are a pain to move around, it makes sense to go with fewer but more powerful. We have a very big numbers jump to Rifleman for instance, in addtion to the extra hitpoint it gets.

Excellent.

Given that you're just starting and you're so busy, you should just join our efforts. Many hands make light work, and the whole is greater than the sum of the parts, etc... It seems like we have very similar visions, so different but nearly identical modpacks seem silly. In any case, we look forward to the scans.

Ok, I will work with you guys. Typically what I've done in the past is keep close tabs on what other people are doing and posting (taking notes of good ideas, downloading units, taking pieces of mods, etc.) and adding them into my mod just the way I like it. What I'll do in this case is simply help you research and throw my ideas out. I'll let you two lead the direction the mod takes. (More or less )

Of the choices you give, Ballistic Missile Sub sounds best, but I thought Nuclear Subs could do that too, so I don't really see the difference. You must forgive me for my general post-WW2 ignorance of military details.

If by "Nuclear Subs" you mean SSN attack subs: no they can not. The ballistic missile subs require a much larger and different design. Also, they are programmed with a certain firing sequence so as to keep the boat stable while launching those huge missiles.

I don't like this. In gameplay terms, with the big naval changes around 1500, one needs a new transport ship and new offensive ship then. We need one offense ship there, much more than 2 later. Frigate is a very flexible term - its still being used today! So I don't see why the Frigate couldn't come with Galleon, and still be useful after the SotL arrives, because its cheaper, faster, but not as strong.

Hmmm . . . I see what you're saying. So you envision that the Galleon is basically just a transport (albeit an armed one) and that the more specialized Frigate is the main warship of that time. Ok, I can run with that. No more arguments about historical reality.

Finally, regarding the whole Dreadnaught vs. AEGIS Cruiser debate, I think you need to include the missile factor into both the offense and defense of the unit. Its unrealistic to expect the AI to stock these guys with missile units (assuming that's even possible). I agree the Dreanaught should suck in comparison because its never gonna get close enough to fire its guns. The only way to reflect that is with higher numbers, cos in the game it might happen that the AEGIS would end its turn near a Dreadnaught.

These were more or less my thoughts as well.