Thinktank : How should naval warfare look like in a Civ-game ?

[Spiffor]

Rommel2D :
That was what I was thinking about too, with my original idea. Intercept orders are needed to have a balanced mechanics of "relocating" ships.

[Kuciwalker]

Oh, and Air units should be able to interdict Airports, so that a) units can't be airlifted into or out of (maybe can, but with a high chance of being destroyed) and b) the Airport no longer hooks the city up to the trade network.

The interdiction should be accomplished by simply making the unit do the air superiority mission. Any Airports within the air superiority range are interdicted.

[Jon Shafer]

Fleets had a few main functions:

Protecting trade - This is a major factor in many nations building navies, and probably the most important overall. And it's also the one that Civ 3 neglects the most. Since there are no trade routes and commerce immediately goes into your treasury overseas (though it will be subject to corruption), there's no need to defend your trade or commerce on the high seas.

Projection of power - How do you think the UK was able to maintain dominance throughout the 19th century? 'Nuff said. Boats need to be faster and more flexible to do this.

Invasion and causing trouble for other countries - This is the best part of the naval aspect of Civ 3 (but that doesn't say much). Boats in Civ 3 need to be a lot faster in order to accomplish this and my second point effectively.

[Kuciwalker]

They CAN'T be faster, though.

[Sandman]

Sandman, the problem with increasing ship mobility is that you cannot DEFEND against assaults from the sea, because they can hit you the same turn they launch to attack you. This means that the only worthwhile naval units would be offensive ones. It also means you can't intercept convoys.

Yes, but in my system it's feasible to place ships to guard the coastline, since there are fewer squares to guard. If the sea squares were amalgamated, then obviously the speed of ships would be toned down as well.

[Kuciwalker]

Originally posted by Sandman


Yes, but in my system it's feasible to place ships to guard the coastline, since there are fewer squares to guard. If the sea squares were amalgamated, then obviously the speed of ships would be toned down as well.

...

Wow. I never thought of that. That's a really good idea.

Perhaps they could increase ship movement and have the "sea superiority" option other people have mentioned, making your ship intercept other ships.

[HazieDaVampire]

We need moving trade vessels dammit! The moment you have them, you need to protect them with escorts, and scout around the areas they pass through to keep them clear.

If you leave a transporter unprotected, or send it through an unclear and possibly hostile area, they'll start being destroyed and so will your trade.

[MattH]

We need moving trade vessels dammit!

That would defeat the whole CIV III trading system! I suggested trade lines because they would keep with the current theme and still allow for piracy and naval action. The Civ II forum is here.

[Kuciwalker]

Hazie - moving trade vessels would a) KILL the AI (it probably couldn't use them effectively) and b) make it difficult to get resources consistantly. It would also add a ton of sheer micromanagement.

[Cruddy]

Originally posted by skywalker
Sandman, the problem with increasing ship mobility is that you cannot DEFEND against assaults from the sea, because they can hit you the same turn they launch to attack you. This means that the only worthwhile naval units would be offensive ones. It also means you can't intercept convoys.

Personally I don't bother intercepting enemy ships in my coastal waters. Just reduce 'em to 1 hp with artillery and they'll run home with their tails between their legs. Ditto invasions/transports - they have to spend a turn on the beach, blast 'em with artillery and roll over them with offensive units (if they got only 1 hp, then conscripts can do the job at a push).

OK, so I'll maybe get a couple tiles pillaged - but it lets me concentrate my navy on offensive duties like taking enemy cities.

Anybody know if the naval minefields work - I mean, can the AI use them? Forget the guy's name, Latino, begins with a P... Pesoloco, that's the guy. Anyone try it?

[Rommel2D]

That was what I was thinking about too, with my original idea. Intercept orders are needed to have a balanced mechanics of "relocating" ships.

Oops, sorry Spiffor, I skimmed over your post a little fast and missed the air combat system suggestion. Spiffy idea!! :]

I don't know about the rebase for ships, though. It could work, but its a bit overkill, IMO. Giving ships an intercept-like 'blockade' command would make it possible to increase the movement points of modern ships and still defend against them.

It would also make blockading ports more feasible. Maybe if the city distance from the capital used for calculating corruption and waste was counted over roads and sea lanes instead of 'as the crow flies', disrupting trade routes could be a factor, too

[petermarkab]

Something needs to be done about the impotency of sea combat. I like the idea of imposing penalties on the railroad movement system to counter the effectiveness of land movement combat vs sea movement combat. So whether its decreasing the movement rate, or increasing sea movement (but not too much) i think this would be a good balance.

Decreasing the railroad movement rate would have two main effects:

1. players would have to manage their defensive forces more closely, and plan more in advance for invasions. I certainly don't think too much about my unit staging posts if i can move them all there in zero turns!

2. large empires would become less centralised and more fractured, (or federal) again making control of remote corners of said empire more difficult. This federal structure has a number of similarities with the provinces idea in the civ4 thread.

But as has been touched on regularly in this thread, the historical reason for maintaining a navy was to protect trade routes, and i think by altering trading to that of a system of designated routes a la CTP would be the best option. I particularly like Matt H, and Fosse's ideas.

Rather than just having these routes existing, and needing protection from the navy, one could apply a monetary cost to running the trade route. Imagine needing to pay for the merchant shipping, or in the case of overland trade, the courier company, or railroad company.

This is where a bias towards sea trade could be introduced. We all know that long distance transport of automobiles is done by sea. Why?: its cheaper than by land, and capacity is much greater.

By taxing the railroads say 3 gold per tile, roads 2 gold per tile, and sea 1 gold (or less) per tile, the preference would be to trade goods by sea.

To come full circle back to troop movement, rather than reducing the movement rate for railroads, i say sustain it at infinity, but tax each move, so players still have the option of rushing troops from one end of their empire to another, but it will cost them.

You could also have different tax rates for trade routes, workers, military units etc.

This also has the advantage of forcing the player to plan his railroad network efficiently, and not to cover the entire map with railroads, so the map is infinitely better looking!!

[HazieDaVampire]

Originally posted by skywalker
Hazie - moving trade vessels would a) KILL the AI (it probably couldn't use them effectively) and b) make it difficult to get resources consistantly. It would also add a ton of sheer micromanagement.

Yeah, i didn't think it about it that much.

Trade routes mite be better, but would the AI still have to defend them even more so?

[Demerzel]

be nice if the navy aspect was improved as at the moment there is only 2 "useful" uses for naval units

1) to transport units to another continent ( & normally airports take over from there )

2) to drive off raiders of your coastline though artillery can do this just fine too.


trade routes & the protection thereof might help spice it up some.

[TheArsenal]

CTP style visible trade routes, and protection of trade, as well as increased movement - at the very least - on huge/large maps, sounds good. I play a good deal of CTP2, and there's nothing more irritating than pirating of your trade routes. As it is now, while it is fun to put together a navy to go out and do battle with other naval units, I don't find it particularly essential, which is a shame. Enemy bombardment is a hassle, no doubt, but never such a problem that I would change priorities and beef up my navy to deal with it.

Originally posted by skywalker
Sandman, the problem with increasing ship mobility is that you cannot DEFEND against assaults from the sea, because they can hit you the same turn they launch to attack you. This means that the only worthwhile naval units would be offensive ones. It also means you can't intercept convoys.

For this to be a problem, the AI would have to first learn (a) to fill a transport to capacity and (b) group numbers of transports together in an invasion fleet before launching. Particularly after your nation is railroaded, there is nothing the AI can throw at you that matters when you can bring your entire garrisoned military to bear on it at the blink of an eye.

And in general: I like the idea of reduction of railroad movement.