25-12-2003 04:27									#1
	Why do Navies suck so badly in Civ? Remove this text

I mean, they really do.

They don't move fast enough. For example, everyone knows that the British were able to burn Washington because it was far faster to transport troops by ship than by road.

In Civ 3 mounted units actually travel much faster than available ships and foot units aren't much slower (even if you have the wonders).

Moreover, the Age of Sail sucks. England managed to dominate the word during this time by naval power, yet England is one of the worst Civ III Civs because their UU becomes obsolete so quickly and is pretty useless anyway due to the low movement of ships.

Naval power only really comes into its own with Aircraft Carriers because you can re-base planes to them in 1 turn and that gives them a wide strike power.

So I propose the following changes.

1) Double movement points for all ships.

2) The first unit is the trireme which is limited to coastal warfare.

3) This is replaced by the early Middle Ages by the medieval warship, which is sort of a proto-caravel. Caravels are abolished.

4) This is replaced by the Sailing Transport (Galleon is a stupid name) and the Ship of the Line. The game is structured in such a way that these are good for about 350-400 years. These are used for exploration and conducting embargoes (the trade link system is tweaked to make embargoes easier - a sea lanes doctrine).

5) Ironclads are abolished. They are slow, they suck and they take away from the glory of Sail. Plus the Ai builds lots of them and they steam around for no useful purpose.

6) The Dreadnought Battleship is the first "modern" ship. It remains the premier ship in close combat until the end of the game.

7) Destroyers are small and cheap and of use primarily for anti submarine warfare - they are next to useless against transports and capital ships. But they are fast.

8) The present sub system is fine - except more nukes should be allowed.

9) Aircraft Carriers are divided into two kinds, roughly WWII and Nuclear. They are upgradeable. Nuclear Carriers are faster and have a greater carrying capacity. WWII carriers cannot carry jets.

10) Aegis cruisers are revamped. They are faster and can conduct bombardments from long range (tomahawk missiles). They replace destroyers as the ultimate sub killers.

11) Marines are strengthened and the combat system is changed so as to make it much more advantageous to conduct marine assaults against cities (i.e. merely landing on a coast results in a turn of extreme vulnerablity except for marine units which gain a bonus.

	25-12-2003 04:30									#2
	Got spare money?

I'll add that I love Eu2 primarily because the naval side of things is so much better.

	25-12-2003 12:52									#3
	Support Apolyton or Terrorists Win

Speed and marines are discussed. Take a look at page 2 and 3 in this thread: http://apolyton.net/forums/showthre...30&pagenumber=2

	25-12-2003 14:14									#4
	Support Apolyton

Not much on everything except marines.

I accept the idea that marines are meant to take rather than hold, but surely it would be better to exempt them from the holding penalty to give them a stronger role. After all your typical civ game doesn't result in a Fortress Europe type scenario. I have occassionally had long lines of forts, artillery and infantry along my border, a la WWI, but coasts are just too big to defend that way (by the time tanks turn up this isn't so much of a problem).

But no one seems to accept the general accusation. Navies suck in all the civ games. Naval dominance should mean something. Otherwise they just become bit players.

I know I'm a battleship nut, but I think mine are reasonable complaints. Look at the fabulous way EU2 handles navies. They are indispensable and can win a war if you use them rightly.

	25-12-2003 14:20									#5
	Put an end to popups!

Well, I agree with you. Sea(warfare) should be an important part of any game and I am still waiting for the first game, where the AI is able to use all concepts like settling on islands or making invasions from sea or using carriers as they should be.

	25-12-2003 14:29									#6
	Enter the AD-FREE zone

quote: Originally posted by TheBirdMan Well, I agree with you. Sea(warfare) should be an important part of any game and I am still waiting for the first game, where the AI is able to use all concepts like settling on islands or making invasions from sea or using carriers as they should be.

Yeah, that's another thing. You should be able to build naval bases on small islands and have these immune to some idiot's expanding borders.

I actually don't see the future of civ as being human versus AI. The best games are ones where you play other people. As such the designers should attempt to prevent the proliferation of killer tactics or killer units.

	25-12-2003 17:12									#7
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization III: Complete

Its not that Naval units are bad in themselves, its the need for using Naval units. Example, navies matter more in the CtP games because you can build Ports, Fisheries and Drilling Platforms as tile imps to be pillaged along your coast and of course you need to protect your trade routes (CtP1) aswell. The SotL was far too powerful in CtP1 too, can carrry 3 units and bombard cities.

	25-12-2003 20:22									#8
	Got spare money?

Destroyers are very good against transports and excellent against unprotected merchant ships. Aegis cruisers aren't any good against subs at all AFAIK.

	25-12-2003 23:28									#9
	Support Apolyton, buy GURPS/ Alpha Centauri

One big drawback of civ ships is that there's nothing to model trade and trade routes, for which ships have been essential. CtP2 is slightly better there since you can use ships to pirate trade routes pretty easily, but trade in CtP2 is worth very little.
Ships movement rates could be augmented in civ, but this introduces a problem with the trireme crossing ocean feature, as triremes could go everywhere.
I don't think ironclads should be removed. There's no reason to remove these, and they have had a lot of importance in history (Korans Turtle Ships for instance). They should, however, have slower movement than sails, so they would be used as heavy weapons, and ships of the line as faster, "light" units, until battleships and cruisers become available.

	26-12-2003 03:23									#10
	Support Apolyton, buy Call to Power 2

wait, Galleon is a stupid name, but 'Sailing Transport' isn't?

	26-12-2003 04:54									#11
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

quote: Originally posted by Azazel wait, Galleon is a stupid name, but 'Sailing Transport' isn't?

That's a stop gap until you can come up with a better name.

	26-12-2003 14:59									#12
	Support Apolyton, pre-order Civilization IV

Galleon is really better than sailing transport... but I don't think that's essential.

	26-12-2003 16:16									#13
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization 2

I agree with the ship problem. Yes. Something's got to be done about the ships .. but ...

quote: Galleon is a stupid name

	26-12-2003 18:24									#14
	Browse Apolyton AD-FREE

quote: Originally posted by Agathon That's a stop gap until you can come up with a better name.

How about .... 'Galleon'?


On topic:

I agree that there should be actual trade routes, and ( wishful thinking here) currents that would show where the merchants ships go. So far, the navy only becomes valuable in the modern age.

	26-12-2003 19:14									#15
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization III: Complete

If the seas were made more critical to the game, then the navies would follow suit.

I agree ships should move farther-the way to stop trireme might be to simply prohibit their movement into deep water period...though don't like that at all-add movement vaue to ocean squares as ell so a trireme would not be able to go very far into the ocea as it would along the coasts. Add this in general- basically newer ships would move faster in the oceans.

As for ship types- honestly the galley needs to be updated sooner- go from galley to Carrack or some late medeival ship (if we want to increase the importance of the sea, why start at aorund 1650 age tech?)
Keep the frigate and ADD a ship of the line- which would ne the rather expensive, heavy version. Make them come sooner in the game- so either move them out of magnetism, or make manets come earlier- better yet, move ronclads further back- they id NOT come straigth with steam power- no pre-indstrilized society could have built such ships. I know in Conquest they added Cruisers, so that is taken over.

The destroyer should look like a WW1 or 2 destroyer, and be replaced later in the game by missile frigate (looking like the modern desroyer, with the ability to carry cruise missiles) And fix the look of the Aegis cruiser- very funky looking ship.

	26-12-2003 20:44									#16
	Support Apolyton

Yes, I agree that a lot of work is required in fixing up the great navies of the game.

And as to their importance, why bother having water in the game if the navies are not relevant, as they have been in the histories of this planet

	27-12-2003 00:03									#17
	Suffering from ads?

quote: Originally posted by Azazel How about .... 'Galleon'?

Didn't Galleons include fighting ships?

Frigate is dumb too, unless we take GePaps solution and have Ships of the Line as well.

	27-12-2003 00:41									#18
	Support Apolyton, buy Alpha Centauri

Ships of the Line would be more accurate. Frigates were only used for scouting, serving as couriers for fleets, and as occasional merchant raiders. Ships of the Line were the battleships of that time.

	27-12-2003 01:37									#19
	Browse Apolyton AD-FREE

quote: no pre-indstrilized society could have built such ships.

This is wrong.
Korean turtle ships were built in 1591 without steam power. They were ironclad, had cannons that threw cannon balls or huge arrows, and did huge damage to the japanese fleet. Check this link: http://www.franklinsidekicks.com/Yisunshin.htm
Also check this one: http://www.ohiotkd.net/taekwondoreporter/page321.htm to see how effective they were and why these ships spelled the doom of the vastly superior Japanese ground forces (supply lines).

So, historically, ironclads existed before the 17th century. Bear this in mind when delaying ironclads. A different Korea could have built more ironclads and ruled the seas at this time. Had they been in a stratgeic position like England, Venice or Portugal, their fleet might have ruled the world ny the end of the 16th century.

	27-12-2003 02:26									#20
	Tired of ads?

I agree the navies are bad. Naval bases, shipping lanes, etc. should be added. Also, the AI needs more time to be able to effectively use there ships.

How many times have you noticed the AI launching a naval invasion only to end up declaring peace before there ships ever reached your shores...ships are to slow...but the dumb AI, instead of "parking" there fleet close to your shores where they could get to you quickly if war breaks out again, end up spending many turns returning all there ships back home.

	27-12-2003 21:38									#21
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization III: Complete

Please read my Maritime Manifesto about developing the naval aspect of Civ 3.

One problem in Civ 2 & Civ 3 is that you have no use for a great navy. You might need a few ships for exploration, and later on some invasion vessels and escorts for those. In the real world, the main task of navies have been protection of commercial fleets.

In my never-finished mod I try to induce the need of a navy by allowing barbarian ships and Privateers to bombard. Then they will demolish your terrain improvements, and you will need at least some warships to secure your coasts.

	28-12-2003 02:13									#22
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization III: Complete

But that quickly becomes too complicated for a good game. That sort of thing works in Hearts of Iron, but I can't see it working in Civ.

	28-12-2003 03:28									#23
	Suffering from ads?

I have a question . . . . .

in Civilization III, what was the point of building Frigates when, by the time you have a small navy of those sailing ships, you have already discovered Steam technology, so that if you have easy access to Coal, you have just built up a navy of Frigates, but now they're useless just when you're ready to use them.

	28-12-2003 09:54									#24
	Support Apolyton or Terrorists Win

I am not buying another computer game until the crew of any ship can abandon their vessel and become a 'sailor' or 'corsair' or 'what have you land unit.'

	28-12-2003 12:50									#25
	Suffering from ads?

quote: Originally posted by MrFun I have a question . . . . . in Civilization III, what was the point of building Frigates when, by the time you have a small navy of those sailing ships, you have already discovered Steam technology, so that if you have easy access to Coal, you have just built up a navy of Frigates, but now they're useless just when you're ready to use them.

My point exactly. Death to ironclads.

	28-12-2003 21:15									#26
	Put an end to popups!

"Ironclad" in civ 3 terms is not the same as any old ship clad in iron, no matter what the name says, just as "frigates" in civ 3 means all warships of the age of sails. What about Steam Frigates? the Sort of warships of the civil war? A Korean turtle ship would have been torn to shreds by such non-ironclad ships- simply becuase of speed and firepower. An Ironclad in Civ3 would include the USS Maine and other such coal driven ships form the 1860's to 1890's.

The problem in civ 3 is that the age of sail, which went from the mid 1500's to 1820's (ignoring for now the intermidiary age of steam and sail ships) has less time to play itself out than the era of warhips from 1860 to 1890. Sailing warships need to come much sooner- primarily, magnetism needs to come much sooner. Honestly, knowledge of magnetism came before physics as a discipline, just as knowledge of agricultural techniques came before biology as a discipline.

	28-12-2003 21:23									#27
	Support Apolyton, buy Galactic Civilizations

I agree with navy sucking in all civ games. Let's analyze why navy has been so important in this world, and why isn't it in civ2.

1) The navy as a way of trade (in any age). Well this isn't bad reflected in civ2, but maybe in civ3....

2) The navy as a way to bring food to the cities - being un-"navied" against a "navied" enemy means you can't siege their cities as he/she would recieve food from their navy. Not reflected in any civ game (as far as I know).

3) The navy as a pirate machine to stop your enemy's colonies treasures reaching the mainlad... (very important in the 17th century, for isntance). Not reflected very well in civ2, maybe well reflected in CTP I, not reflected at all in civ3...

4) Navy as a powerful way of destroying cities... Why did the japanase surrender to Perry? Could that happen in any civ game?

And more... let's think on it.

----------------
Summarizing: navy is a way from comunicate your lands and TRANSPORT not only unit but also merchant goodies (and food) from one point to another AND also a way to hurt your enemy's cities. The enemy cities is reflected in many games, better or worse, but reflected. But the poin of the merchant goodies hasn't been very well reflected in too many civ games and maybe there is the point of navies sucking...

Plus, the game runs too fast in tech age and many units get obsoleted before you've used them a lot (but this happen also with other kinds of units - specially after each new expansion adds more units)

Just my humble opinion.

	29-12-2003 00:13									#28
	Avatar Enlargement: We've got the solution

quote: Originally posted by yaroslav Plus, the game runs too fast in tech age and many units get obsoleted before you've used them a lot (but this happen also with other kinds of units - specially after each new expansion adds more units) Just my humble opinion.

I know -- this is very true, unfortunately.

	30-12-2003 22:14									#29
	Put an end to popups!

quote: Originally posted by Optimizer One problem in Civ 2 & Civ 3 is that you have no use for a great navy. You might need a few ships for exploration, and later on some invasion vessels and escorts for those. In the real world, the main task of navies have been protection of commercial fleets. In my never-finished mod I try to induce the need of a navy by allowing barbarian ships and Privateers to bombard. Then they will demolish your terrain improvements, and you will need at least some warships to secure your coasts.

The problem with that is $ is not properly represented in the earlier games. There are several things that needed to be done. First, put in a maintenance cost in $ (i.e. arrows). This represents labour and other costs. Second, rush builds have to cost extra $ (extra people on shifts, etc). Third, all military units take up $ (salaries and such). Then make sea routes trading lucrative and introduce pirates and privateers.

	31-12-2003 20:59									#30
	Increase the size of your Attachments

Magnetism should not have the role it has had in Civ 1, 2 & 3. Magnetic compasses were used long before Columbus, but the physical nature of magnetism wasn't understood untill the mid-18th century.

There were other innovations during the 17th and 18th century that made ocean traffic easier - mostly instruments like chronometers and sextants.