 |
| |
|
|
GodKing
|
 |
Detroit
Feb 2002
time: 00:32
|
|
quote:
1) Double movement points for all ships.
|
Yep. Something need to be done about movement.
quote:
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).
|
Look to real historical shipping. Lots of good styles, names, classifications, etc.
quote:
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.
|
Sorry. Got to disagree. Ironclads were important, but mostly for RIVER warfare. Read a bit about the US Civil War and you will see. We need to add a system of including a Brown Water Naval element into this game.
quote:
6) The Dreadnought Battleship is the first "modern" ship. It remains the premier ship in close combat until the end of the game.
|
Dreadnought was a specialized battleship that had only the large guns. With the introduction of aircraft, the smaller guns had an important role to play again. First, be able to build Dreadnoughts, then later on upgrade them to battleships with the invention of the aircraft carrier.
quote:
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.
|
You ever been on a thin hulled transport that was being shot at with a 6” gun on a boat 2 times as fast as you are? The destroyer is the workhorse of the modern navy because it is inexpensive, flexible, and capable of dealing damage. Sure, put a single destroyer against a single battleship, guess who will probably win. But put 30 of them up against the battleship, and guess who is going to get hit by the most torpedoes?
quote:
8) The present sub system is fine - except more nukes should be allowed.
|
I mostly agree, but check out the thread about truly invisible units.
quote:
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.
|
Many of the WW2 aircraft carriers were in service until the 60 or even the 70’s. Yes, they can carry jets. But they are smaller and have less capacity. Jeep carriers from WW2 were even smaller and were used to ferry planes from the US mainland to the front line carriers. They are small, fast, and had almost no armor IIRC.
quote:
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.
|
They should replace battleships, as that is what they did in real life. Also, they should be able to carry a single nuke, and although less strength in bombardment, they have the ability to select a target from a stack.
Sorry if it sounds like I am attacking you. Not my intention.
--GK
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Agathon
|
 |
Leafs 4TW!! - CPA
Dec 2002
time: 00:32
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by GodKing
Look to real historical shipping. Lots of good styles, names, classifications, etc. |
That's the general idea.
quote:
Sorry. Got to disagree. Ironclads were important, but mostly for RIVER warfare. Read a bit about the US Civil War and you will see. We need to add a system of including a Brown Water Naval element into this game. |
I'd considered this, but I think it would be too difficult to incorporate into the game.
quote:
Dreadnought was a specialized battleship that had only the large guns. With the introduction of aircraft, the smaller guns had an important role to play again. First, be able to build Dreadnoughts, then later on upgrade them to battleships with the invention of the aircraft carrier. |
Yes, I know about Dreadnoughts. However, the battleship became quickly obsolete during WWII. I don't see the need of demanding an upgrade that almost no one would find useful.
quote:
You ever been on a thin hulled transport that was being shot at with a 6� gun on a boat 2 times as fast as you are? |
No, have you?
I'd thought about including cruisers for this sort of role, as destroyers historically did not have the range.
quote:
The destroyer is the workhorse of the modern navy because it is inexpensive, flexible, and capable of dealing damage. Sure, put a single destroyer against a single battleship, guess who will probably win. But put 30 of them up against the battleship, and guess who is going to get hit by the most torpedoes? |
That's true. I can't think of any real objections to this. I just don't want to see everyone using all and only destroyers. I'd like to see them as primarily anti-submarine escorts for capital ships. They are replaced by Aegis Cruisers.
quote:
I mostly agree, but check out the thread about truly invisible units. |
I shall.
quote:
Many of the WW2 aircraft carriers were in service until the 60 or even the 70�s. Yes, they can carry jets. But they are smaller and have less capacity. Jeep carriers from WW2 were even smaller and were used to ferry planes from the US mainland to the front line carriers. They are small, fast, and had almost no armor IIRC. |
I'm pushing for the upgrade option so as to recognize the difference between the old carriers and modern ones. Less capacity for the old ones would do that job as well.
quote:
They should replace battleships, as that is what they did in real life. Also, they should be able to carry a single nuke, and although less strength in bombardment, they have the ability to select a target from a stack. |
I see them as having long range bombardment capacity but not being the match of a battleship in close combat. Battleships are so expensive that it makes sense to keep them around, or no one will build them.
quote:
Sorry if it sounds like I am attacking you. Not my intention.
--GK |
No. No problem, some interesting ideas there.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Fosse
|
|
U.S.A.
Mar 2002
time: 23:32
|
|
I agree with joncha. Rivers go back to the center of the tile, an we get two kinds: navigable rivers and nonnavigable. The smaller rivers can carry tiny ships and trade can occur around them. Land units can stand "in the river" just like they could in Civ 2 or SMAC.
Larger ones can hold bigger ships, trade, and must have a bridge built over them before units can cross them.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Brent
|
|
I'm not very naval. I don't like combat ships, but I guess they're useful at defending my transports.
Trade
Like in Colonization
Rivers
Yes back in the middle of tiles, yes navigable. Let there be special ships designed for rivers.
Relations between Land and Naval ships
I like being able to build a ship that can't transport anything so I don't have to use as much resources. I want to be able to abandon a ship and use the people that were part of the ship unit to explore, conquer, and/ or settle land. I want to be able to build a ship unit and a land unit at the same time and have them automatically connected until they reach another landmass. Whoops, that should be Relations between Land and Naval Units.
Faster
I would enjoy having faster ships, not because of realism, but because it would make the game easier and more fun.
uselessness
I don't like having ships to manage when they have nothing more to do. Often this means when all the oceans have been explored. It would be better if I could do like I said and transform the ship into a land unit. One thing that would be good is if I could tell my useless ships to automatically re- explore, looking for enemy targets.
Currents and Winds
Maybe our ships won't go exactly where we want them as easily as we want them to. Maybe bring in another feature from Colonization, have separate linked maps that represent different sides of oceans, you go to the edge, you reappear on the other map. We could do this with separate included maps for the Americas and the Old World, whose main purposes may be to be used separately without being linked.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Filippo
|
|
Caravels should come with Engeneering. Middle Age equals Caravel. Just thinking to board a medieval PIKEMAN onto a freaking prehistoric GALLEY makes me bang my head against the desk. It's simply ludicrous, yet pikemen are 4 techs away from Caravels. That's frankly too much. Astronomy placed there is also a joke.
I would place Caravels with Engeneering and Frigates with "Astronomy" (let's say in a tech that fits at that stage, cos Astronomy surely doesn't).
Ships need to move from 50% to 100% faster, BUT have many more chances to sink due to bad sea conditions, and be quite good chances even with Wonders or the knowledge of certain techs. I mean, the Atronomy will not save a Caravel from a sea tempest or an iceberg (Titanic anyone ?).
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Filippo
|
|
Also the need to make a fleet important looks quite simple to me. To trade goods via sea (and you almost always do that) you need a harbor and proper scientific knowledges. Well, I don't recall what game I used to play that had this, but how hard is it to implement a port blockade feature ? No need for complicated commercial routes, pirates and pirating etc... sure they might add to it and I welcome them, but starting from simple stuff, a blockade is the way to go. You will need a fleet to defend your ports or you won't trade anything.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Carolus Rex
|
|
Sweden
Jan 1970
time: 06:32
|
|
I disagree with the basic premise of this thread. In Civ 2, at least, even triremes (the first and simplest navy vessel) can be very powerful if you have the Lighthouse. Maybe not so much for naval warfare, but for shipping your army and camels without running the risk of sinking or being attacked.
Later in the game, the Super Ironclad takes out everything up to (possibly vet) riflemen IIRC. With LH and Magellan's Expedition it has 7 movement points and is simply deadly...
That being said, a new Civ game has to come up with some new concepts and why not for the navy? But IMHO the navy doesn't suck as badly in Civ 2 as you think...
Carolus
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
Fosse
|
|
U.S.A.
Mar 2002
time: 23:32
|
|
Navies might play a role in a few scenarios of Conquests, but the real thrust of this thread is the point that you never really need a navy in the epic game.
For every game in which I've built a massive fleet and "controlled" the seas, I've played ten where nothing but a few transports were needed, and then only until an airport was built.
If you can win the game without a navy, every time, then the problem is certainly not that you "don't know how to use them."
As for why the active contributors to this thread are "even discussing this." Come on, don't be absurd.
If a signifigant part of the Civ community feels that navies are terrible (and they do) then it is a topic that needs to be addressed.
Some people also will always say that the AI is great, whups them every time. So why would we even discuss improving it?
|
|
| |
|
|
|
ThePlagueRat
|
 |
Insert banana to play...
May 2002
time: 06:32
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Fosse
Some people also will always say that the AI is great, whups them every time. So why would we even discuss improving it? |
Heh, if you get your bottoms spanked by the AI, it is certainly not because it is a good AI. It is because the AI is cheating...
Ok, and you are right. Navy is not very important in a standard game. I wonder if even the airforce is worth the price? As long as they can only reduce HP, and not make kills as they did in Civ2.
Last edited by ThePlagueRat on 16-01-2004 at 06:01
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Carolus Rex
|
|
Sweden
Jan 1970
time: 06:32
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Fosse
For every game in which I've built a massive fleet and "controlled" the seas, I've played ten where nothing but a few transports were needed, and then only until an airport was built.
|
The beauty of Civ is that you can play it and win using different strategies. It's a well-balanced game! Sea dogs can use navies, army lovers land units and peace-knicks can go for the stars without any fighting at all. That you choose one way that you like every time you play, doesn't mean the others are flawed. To each his own.
quote:
Originally posted by Fosse
If you can win the game without a navy, every time, then the problem is certainly not that you "don't know how to use them."
|
Winning every time without using navies doesn't mean that navies are useless or flawed. Again, you can win the game using different strategies. Heck, you can even win the space race with a single city. Does this mean that the "building more cities" - feature is flawed and needs improvement in Civ 4?
quote:
Originally posted by Fosse
If a signifigant part of the Civ community feels that navies are terrible (and they do) then it is a topic that needs to be addressed.
|
I don't know Civ 3 well enough to speak about how the navy works in that game. In Civ 2, navies don't suck IMHO (check out my links above). I do not know what the rest of the Civ community thinks. Clearly, if a new Civ game is to be developed then some changes and additions will have to be made. Whatever they do, I hope they keep it well-balanced. 
Carolus
Last edited by Carolus Rex on 16-01-2004 at 15:58
|
|
| |
|
|
|
CerberusIV
|
|
The real issue with naval units isn't perhaps that they are poor, it is that you can largely do without them by careful use of other units. C3C is a big improvement on previous versions but still has flaws.
My biggest problem is that frigates and privateers only have an attack of 2 whilst caravels and galleons have a defence of 2. A warship only having a 50:50 chance of taking out a transport vessel is ludicrous. I give frigates an attack of 3 and Man-O-War 4.
The lifespan of advanced sailing warships is too short - but this probably requires adjustment to the tech tree as much as anything.
Airlifting heavy military equipment is still limited even today and the airlift ability in the game should be seriously reduced so sea transport (and an AI that targets transport ships) would be more important.
Warships should exert a ZOC to make blockades more effective - so you only need a few ships several tiles out rather than a continuous line (more modern ships might have a larger ZOC). This could be enhanced by cities not connected to your capital/FP city have higher unhappiness and corruption so that being blockaded hurts.
I don't think it would take that much to fix, that's why it is a bit frustrating.
|
|
| |
|
| |
All times are GMT. The time now is 05:32.
Apolyton Time is 00:32. |
top of page
|
|
|
Forum Rules:
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
|
HTML code is ON
vB code is ON
Smilies are ON
[IMG] code is ON
|
|
|
|
|
|
01-01-2004 01:28
Dromons 
It already takes care of navy and even air too so why are we discussing this? As far as me, even before C3C I got great use out of my navies, see some of my old threads. Now, if you have C3C installed and still say navies suck, you definitely don't know how to use them. 
So bring out the big ships, setup your fleets, get your carriers out there and wreak some havoc! 
If they only had ironed them out, it would have been The Perfect Game (it's still the best game ever) and I wouldn't even be in this thread/forum! 
|