Tweet
To continue my rantings on Naval Warfare . . .
Trade Routes:
Heaven forfend that I say anything good about Call to Power, but I did like the basic trade route concept in that game. I would modify it for Civ 3 in this way:
Firstly, I would keep the ability to negotiate to trade resources and commodities. But, once the trade is agreed upon a trade route must be defined. As in CTP, you'd have to build and dedicate a caravan or -- if by sea -- a transport to move that commodity. As was mentioned in a post above, this transporting unit would not be helpless when attacked, but -- being a non-military unit -- would be relatively weak.
This, of course, leads me to the idea of being able to perform commerce warfare or guerre de course. Instead of depicting the trade route as the commodity moving over a blue line -- as in CTP -- which could be interdicted at any point, I would have the transporting unit physically move between ports by the shortest path (allowing deviations as necessary for intervening neutral ships). To interdict this transport, the enemy naval unit would have to intercept it (move into the same square) as it would any other unit.
Players could elect to protect their sea-going transports by assigning escorts (perhaps in the same way armies are built for land purposes -- although, I would hope it would be possible to detach ships from task forces -- see below).
A caravan or sea transport would only be able to carry one commodity or resource. As is depicted in the game now, it would not be necessary to physically carry the commodity between trading cities (as in Civ 2) but simply open the trading route.
Task Forces:
Permit the construction of Task Forces (TFs). These would operate much like armies on land -- though it should be possible to attach/detach ships to it at the beginning of any move.
Amphibious Operations:
Amphibious assault directly upon a defended coastal square should be possible by any ground unit, but require specialized amphibious naval vessels to perfomr this mission. These could look like LSTs or LCMs, but the bottom line is, they enable direct assault.
Marine units would perhaps receive an attack bonus -- or at least suffer no combat penalties -- for performing an amphib assault. Other ground units would attack at, say 50% their normal power when performing an amphib assault. Cavalry and armored units would also loose their ability to retreat during combat when performing amphib assault.
LSTs (amphib vessels) would only be able to carry one unit. Thus, an amphib unit would have to be relatively cheap to build. (I am doing this so that players will differentiate between large sea-going transports and amphib vessels).
Normal coastal landings on undefended shores should still be possible from transports, but landed units may not move further that turn. If these landings (on an undefended coastal square) are made from amphib vessels, however, the ground unit should be able to move up to one-half its normal movement rate -- normal terrain and other movement costs woudl still apply.
It should NEVER be possible to land any ground unit -- except, perhaps, rangers if/when such a unit is created for the game -- from the sea directly onto a mountain square.
Naval Air Warfare:
Naval vessels should have an anti-aircraft (AAA) capability!! Any aircraft attacking a naval vessel should be subjected to AAA. If hit by AAA, the aircraft would either suffer damage -- or even be shot down! (What a concept!)
An aircraft that is hit by AAA would still be able to attack the ship, but at a lower probability of getting a hit on the ship, and/or doing less damage if/when the hit occurs.
A ship would be able to fire AAA each time it is attacked (although I could be persuaded this defensive fire would be as is currently depicted in the game for artillery).
(Oh yeah, when I get the chance to write about air warfare, I will most definitely wax prolific on the need for the player to BE ABLE TO MOVE HIS AIRCRAFT again as in Civ 2 -- but that is a topic for another thread).
As mentioned above, there should be naval aircraft -- and only they should be permitted to operate from CVs. Moreover, they should have a bonus attack strength when attacking ships at sea or in port.
I forgot to mention in the ASW posting above that there should be ASW aircraft (such as the P-3 or S-3) in the game as well. These would cost about as much as a bomber, but be able to patrol and spot any submarine at the shallowest depth.
(I also forgot to mention in my discussion of deeply diving subs that they'd have to come to the shallowest depth to attack surface vessels or launch ballistic missiles. They'd have to remain at the shallowest level at the end of any turn in which combat had occurred).
Naval aircraft, of course, would be able to operate from land bases as all aircraft currently do in the game. But no non-naval aircraft could operate from a CV.
Fuel and Replenishment
For those of you who played Civ 2, you will no doubt recall the helicopter unit, which lost strength each turn it was away from a city. Naval vessels -- other than sailing ships -- require an immense amount of fuel to stay underway. As with the helicopters in Civ 2, I'd like to see naval vessels affected by their running low on fuel.
Here's how I'd emulate this. I'd give all naval vessels -- except those under sail -- a second power/strength bar which would show the amount of fuel it has remaining. Once this goes to zero, the ship would be dead in the water (though, perhaps it could be towed by any other naval vessel at 1 or 2 squares per turn).
Coal-powered ships would be able to stay at sea four turns. Oil powered ships would be able to stay at sea six turns. Nuclear powered vessels should be able to stay at sea indefinitely.
Players should be able to build underway replenishment ships -- colliers and tankers. These would be able to refuel any number of ships at sea at a rate of one or two per turn.
I know players often don't want to worry about such logistics, but is sure would make the game more interesting. Moreover, it could be toggled off if players really did not want to bother with it.
I've more, but I need to get to work.
Da Colonel
Trade Routes:
Heaven forfend that I say anything good about Call to Power, but I did like the basic trade route concept in that game. I would modify it for Civ 3 in this way:
Firstly, I would keep the ability to negotiate to trade resources and commodities. But, once the trade is agreed upon a trade route must be defined. As in CTP, you'd have to build and dedicate a caravan or -- if by sea -- a transport to move that commodity. As was mentioned in a post above, this transporting unit would not be helpless when attacked, but -- being a non-military unit -- would be relatively weak.
This, of course, leads me to the idea of being able to perform commerce warfare or guerre de course. Instead of depicting the trade route as the commodity moving over a blue line -- as in CTP -- which could be interdicted at any point, I would have the transporting unit physically move between ports by the shortest path (allowing deviations as necessary for intervening neutral ships). To interdict this transport, the enemy naval unit would have to intercept it (move into the same square) as it would any other unit.
Players could elect to protect their sea-going transports by assigning escorts (perhaps in the same way armies are built for land purposes -- although, I would hope it would be possible to detach ships from task forces -- see below).
A caravan or sea transport would only be able to carry one commodity or resource. As is depicted in the game now, it would not be necessary to physically carry the commodity between trading cities (as in Civ 2) but simply open the trading route.
Task Forces:
Permit the construction of Task Forces (TFs). These would operate much like armies on land -- though it should be possible to attach/detach ships to it at the beginning of any move.
Amphibious Operations:
Amphibious assault directly upon a defended coastal square should be possible by any ground unit, but require specialized amphibious naval vessels to perfomr this mission. These could look like LSTs or LCMs, but the bottom line is, they enable direct assault.
Marine units would perhaps receive an attack bonus -- or at least suffer no combat penalties -- for performing an amphib assault. Other ground units would attack at, say 50% their normal power when performing an amphib assault. Cavalry and armored units would also loose their ability to retreat during combat when performing amphib assault.
LSTs (amphib vessels) would only be able to carry one unit. Thus, an amphib unit would have to be relatively cheap to build. (I am doing this so that players will differentiate between large sea-going transports and amphib vessels).
Normal coastal landings on undefended shores should still be possible from transports, but landed units may not move further that turn. If these landings (on an undefended coastal square) are made from amphib vessels, however, the ground unit should be able to move up to one-half its normal movement rate -- normal terrain and other movement costs woudl still apply.
It should NEVER be possible to land any ground unit -- except, perhaps, rangers if/when such a unit is created for the game -- from the sea directly onto a mountain square.
Naval Air Warfare:
Naval vessels should have an anti-aircraft (AAA) capability!! Any aircraft attacking a naval vessel should be subjected to AAA. If hit by AAA, the aircraft would either suffer damage -- or even be shot down! (What a concept!)
An aircraft that is hit by AAA would still be able to attack the ship, but at a lower probability of getting a hit on the ship, and/or doing less damage if/when the hit occurs.
A ship would be able to fire AAA each time it is attacked (although I could be persuaded this defensive fire would be as is currently depicted in the game for artillery).
(Oh yeah, when I get the chance to write about air warfare, I will most definitely wax prolific on the need for the player to BE ABLE TO MOVE HIS AIRCRAFT again as in Civ 2 -- but that is a topic for another thread).
As mentioned above, there should be naval aircraft -- and only they should be permitted to operate from CVs. Moreover, they should have a bonus attack strength when attacking ships at sea or in port.
I forgot to mention in the ASW posting above that there should be ASW aircraft (such as the P-3 or S-3) in the game as well. These would cost about as much as a bomber, but be able to patrol and spot any submarine at the shallowest depth.
(I also forgot to mention in my discussion of deeply diving subs that they'd have to come to the shallowest depth to attack surface vessels or launch ballistic missiles. They'd have to remain at the shallowest level at the end of any turn in which combat had occurred).
Naval aircraft, of course, would be able to operate from land bases as all aircraft currently do in the game. But no non-naval aircraft could operate from a CV.
Fuel and Replenishment
For those of you who played Civ 2, you will no doubt recall the helicopter unit, which lost strength each turn it was away from a city. Naval vessels -- other than sailing ships -- require an immense amount of fuel to stay underway. As with the helicopters in Civ 2, I'd like to see naval vessels affected by their running low on fuel.
Here's how I'd emulate this. I'd give all naval vessels -- except those under sail -- a second power/strength bar which would show the amount of fuel it has remaining. Once this goes to zero, the ship would be dead in the water (though, perhaps it could be towed by any other naval vessel at 1 or 2 squares per turn).
Coal-powered ships would be able to stay at sea four turns. Oil powered ships would be able to stay at sea six turns. Nuclear powered vessels should be able to stay at sea indefinitely.
Players should be able to build underway replenishment ships -- colliers and tankers. These would be able to refuel any number of ships at sea at a rate of one or two per turn.
I know players often don't want to worry about such logistics, but is sure would make the game more interesting. Moreover, it could be toggled off if players really did not want to bother with it.
I've more, but I need to get to work.
Da Colonel
Comment