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

[raghar]

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

Harpoon. Then again I should read previous posts.

[gecko716]

I think the only way to improve naval combat is to make trade routes and make them much faster. For all trade involving gpt, resources and luxuries a trade route would have to be established via sea, air or land or a combination of that would be visable to everyone on the map. These routes could be distrupted at any point and the pirating nation would get half the gpt involved. This would only be available to privateers unless you are at war with the nation or possibly embargoing the nation. Of course they could also be distrupted by land or air units.

Purely commercial trade routes could also be built into the game where no actual trade takes place between nations but they just generate gold. These could be pirated in the same way.

To stop the trade routes being disrupted any number of units could be assigned to defend them. Fighters would defend air routes, ships sea routes and ground units land routes. Units wouldnt defend the entire route but part of the route relative to their movement and terrain improvements. Sea units would be able to defend about a large area while fighters would have a limited area etc.

At the same time naval units would have a movement of at least 4 or 5 times what they have currently. Beccause this would make naval invasion easier units would be given a zone of control or a 2 or 3 square radius ability to enagae any units that pass through.

With these additions naval engagements would be more interesting and actually importent. This could even make air combat more interresting. It also reduces micromanagement as you just set units to defend the route and they act automatically.

[epics]

gecko716: as someone said earlier if we give ships so big movement it would be imposible to intercept them.
If you give them 3 square ZOC than it would be imposible to past them. On small area of water the combat would be very... hmmm... wierd (or something ), just practicly imposible.

But the idea to defend the trade route is qiute good. At sea it's quite obvious, but how do you see a 1 movement unit would defend a trade route on land?

[Spiffor]

Gecko 716 :

The only problem I see with simply raising boat's moves is that they would explore way too quickly, and potentially cross oceans before the normal tech for it is available (oceans aren't very wide, tilewise, in standard or smaller maps).

I just had an idea as I wrote
Maybe we could make it more move-costly to go to a tile next to an unexplored tile ? Like, when your ship goes to explore, each move cost 3 move points instead of 1 ?

[Kuciwalker]

I made sea cost 2 and ocean cost 3. I then gave Ironclad on up 2 mp (3 for destroyer and aegis), and gave them all "all as roads".

[gecko716]

I wouldnt have early ships increased to much but i would greatly increase modern ships. I dont see a problem with ships having massive movement sure they could land on your sure easily but you could still catch those ships the turn after.

epics,
I probably would make the ZoC an order like setting fighters to intercepting. Then if an enemy ships enters this area they would fight. In real life ships wouldnt just be able to float past each, if you tried to move past an enemy ships you would either end up sinking or getting in a fight. I cant really see 5 transports and a dozen battelships just watlzing past the enemy fleet and landing in their country. The idea is that if they want to get past them they would have to fight them first.

1 unit units on land would only be able to defend maybe 3 squares of a trade route unless their was terrain improvements. The amount of a route that they defend would be relative.

I think units movement should change per map size.

[Spiffor]

Gecko :
Actually, I have tried this, and in my mod,
galleys have 4 moves,
age of sail ships have 6 (caravels) to 8
Ironclads and subs have 10
Modern ships have 12 (carriers) to 15 (all the others)

It makes the navy a tad more useful, but It's not that great either. Even when more mobile, the navy lacks usefulness (because it has no chance to match the mobility of land units) and fun

Your ZOC idea is good
If I understand it correctly, it means a ship will have by default a "Sea Superiority" mission with an operating range of a few tiles when it is on sea. Good, very good idea IMHO.

[Rommel2D]

A lesser point I've questioned: should it cost a movement point to attack with a ship? Unlike land units whose attack ability depends heavily on positioning, ships with guns have much less dependency. I've assumed that modern attack ships get the extra movement point so they can fire and still keep pace with carriers, but this causes other inconsistencies with movement.

Of course, we need special attack rules to simulate depth charges and maybe hit-and-run sub tactics also.

[Rommel2D]

How about curbing exploration by making the 'lost at sea' RNG check at the end of each move instead of each turn? The % chance would be adjusted proportionally, of course.

[Patroklos]

I like what Petermarkab said or reiterated.

However...
1. I think that you should be able to choose what type of trade route you want, so that if your sea lanes are blockaded but there is still a land route available, you don't get screwed (in CTP they chose the route of least reistance, and if that went through an enemy sea then you were out of luck). So there would be paramiters when you open a route, ie just land, just sea, land and sea.

2, I do not think that international trade should be an option with airports. Airlift is possible, but no major industrial resourse is traded that way. I would alow it to be a link between intra empire trade though and maybe luxuries.

3. In CTP if you blockaded a trade route you had to destroy it. I would say that if you pillage a trade route it remains there but just closed, which means you would have to keep a unit on the route at all times to close it. You could pillage it and get gold each turn (from intercepted freight). If the civ couldn't free the route it could voluntarily end it.

4. This would make the Privateer the scourge of the seven seas, Pilaging trade routes and blockading whole nations without anyone knowing who it was. That would be amazingly cool.

[altF18]

so, the way i see it, to improve the naval aspect of the game, which is in dire need of improving, a few changes ought to be made. these are, namely,
-reducing the effect of railroads. handsdown, even if it has nothing to do with the ship side.
-ancient age ships, Galleys and Triemes, ought to be shallow water meant, and will be lost if taken 2 spaces out at sea. (downright preventing them from entering ocean is a bit over doing it)
-this should not be lessed for those old ships even with advances or wonders
-older ships such as Caravels, Galleons, and Frigates, ought to have slightly increased speed so as to keep up with...
-an increase in modern day vessels speed so as to give them more realism and usefullness in going to war
-a must and a great idea, the ability for ships to go on Patrol mode, in which they would remain stationary in their square unless an enemy ship attempted to pass their zone of control, this being an increased radius about them (up to 3/4 of their movement rate) in which they would automatically move to intercept the tresspessing vessel)
not to mention the incorporating of trade routes for them to protect, but this ought to be discussed in another thread.