16-01-2004 18:29									#61
	Increase Your PM Length

quote: Originally posted by skywalker quote: Originally posted by Fosse 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. Which he pointed out was WRONG.

Yes, he incorrectly pointed out that this is wrong. That you can play the whole epic game without sizable navies is hardly a "strategic option," it's evidence that the naval system is bad. Think real world: You need navies to control the seas, and control of the seas to control trade. Well... In Civ 3 you need ships to move ground units. Hardly measures up, does it? Sure, you can use your navy to bombard if you want, or if you have the patience to actually blockade the enemy you could do that. But you'll never need to. Every. It's less micromanging to simply raze the other guy's ports.

quote: quote: 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. Pre-C3C.

Explain to me how you know this.
Explain to me how you are able to read deep into my statements to see that I am for some reason leaving my Conquest games out of that statement?

	17-01-2004 00:49									#62
	Support Apolyton, buy GURPS/ Alpha Centauri

quote: Yes, he incorrectly pointed out that this is wrong. That you can play the whole epic game without sizable navies is hardly a "strategic option," it's evidence that the naval system is bad. Think real world: You need navies to control the seas, and control of the seas to control trade. Well... In Civ 3 you need ships to move ground units. Hardly measures up, does it? Sure, you can use your navy to bombard if you want, or if you have the patience to actually blockade the enemy you could do that. But you'll never need to. Every. It's less micromanging to simply raze the other guy's ports.

You need navies if you don't have a land route to your enemy - which is pretty realistic.

quote: Explain to me how you know this. Explain to me how you are able to read deep into my statements to see that I am for some reason leaving my Conquest games out of that statement?

Sorry, I misread that, I thought you meant that you weren't seeing big AI navies.

	17-01-2004 04:08									#63
	Inflate your Upload Space

quote: Originally posted by skywalker You need navies if you don't have a land route to your enemy - which is pretty realistic.

True, but there is very little to gain from actually controlling the oceans. Also, you hardly need "navies" in the sense of a huge arm of your military. Just a few transports and defenders will usually do. As long as you have safe passage for your ships, you're fine.

A couple of ships on your coast to shoot down enemy transports in single player and you'll be all set, naval wise.

quote: Sorry, I misread that, I thought you meant that you weren't seeing big AI navies.

Oh. Yes, the AI seems to be much more navy prone, which is a huge plus. Forgive my self-rightousness.

	17-01-2004 09:21									#64
	Tired of ads?

quote: True, but there is very little to gain from actually controlling the oceans. Also, you hardly need "navies" in the sense of a huge arm of your military. Just a few transports and defenders will usually do. As long as you have safe passage for your ships, you're fine.

And lose out on the advantages of naval bombardment and amphibious attacks. Just because you don't need to build air units or arty to win, doesn't mean that they need to be beefed up. Hey, it's possible to win without getting wonders. That doesn't mean that wonders are underpowered.

	19-01-2004 07:03									#65
	Got spare money?

quote: Originally posted by Fosse Yes, he incorrectly pointed out that this is wrong. That you can play the whole epic game without sizable navies is hardly a "strategic option," it's evidence that the naval system is bad. Think real world: You need navies to control the seas, and control of the seas to control trade. Well... In Civ 3 you need ships to move ground units. Hardly measures up, does it?

You need a navy from Magnetism to Flight if you hope to defend against naval bombardment. The AI will pound your coastal squares otherwise. Even then, until you have cruise missiles, some navy is a good idea.

As for the "real world", the real world is 75% water, and closer to 80% water if you exclude Antarctica from the land equation, as Civ maps do. How many people play 80% water maps?

It's hardly perfect the way it is, but it's part of Civ's scaling problems. I don't see any way to speed the sea game up without slowing the land game down. I don't think that would be a good thing.

[ok]

	19-01-2004 10:35									#66
	Support Apolyton, pre-order Civilization IV

I get through the game pretty easily with only a few ships the entire game, most of the time.

	19-01-2004 15:25									#67
	Support Apolyton, pre-order Civilization IV

quote: Originally posted by POTUS I get through the game pretty easily with only a few ships the entire game, most of the time.

Random settings? I don't use much of a navy. I agree that it's less relevant in Civ than in history. But I don't see a remedy that doesn't have serious other repercussions. I think the incremental boosts between Civ 3 and Conquests have been good, though.

[ok]

	19-01-2004 18:09									#68
	Full PM-box? Change here!

quote: Originally posted by skywalker You REALLY have no experience with C3, do you?

C3? Standard edition you mean? - Too much... in fact I hate it.
Now, in C3C things got a little better... as I mentioned above.

	20-01-2004 22:04									#69
	Inflate your Upload Space

For an excellent example of how navies should work, look at EU2.

Britain is so powerful because it can effectively prevent commerce from the New World reaching its enemies.

	21-01-2004 07:27									#70
	Increase Your PM Length

My suggestions, as I've mentioned elsewhere, are:

1) Generally double ALL Movement rates for naval units!

2) Give increased movement costs for moving on Sea and ocean tiles, then allow later naval vessels to ignore these movement costs!

3) Bring in CtP style 'trade routes' that you can actually attack or pirate!! This was the one element that I always felt CtP did better than the Civ series!!!

4) Allow naval units to rebase between friendly coastal cities with a harbour or naval base, within a given range! This becomes especially important for balancing naval units against ground units after the RR is introduced.

5) Allow for a tile improvement Naval Base tile improvement which can be placed on unclaimed islands or coastlines, to allow for speedy movement over the seas and oceans!!!

If all of these were done, then I reckon that naval power would easily become the equal of ground forces in the Civ series!!

Yours,
The_Aussie_Lurker.

	21-01-2004 08:35									#71
	Enter the AD-FREE zone

I've found navies to be pretty horrible in Civilization II because the map generator tends to make planets where they can't be used.

	21-01-2004 11:47									#72
	Remove this text

Aussie Lurker: I'll see your 5 points (all great) and raise you 2.

6) Navigable rivers (I know, I'm repeating myself, but its just that important), with different (two, maybe three) classes of river that ships can or cannot navigate, depending on size, etc. The smallest rivers are completely impassible, except by maybe explorers or a voyageur-type unit (Quebecois UU? hmm).

7) Canals. We're gonna do it by putting useless cities on those annoying one-square isthmuses (isthmusi?), so you might as well let us do it for real.

jon.

	21-01-2004 16:31									#73
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization 2

T_A_L,

#s 1 and 2 sound good.

#3--I haven't played CTP but I would like to see trade play a bigger role, not just navally but culturally and scientifically.

#4 - Maybe. I mean, if you're doubling movement and eliminating movement penalties for later ships, do you really need rebasing? And doesn't it fly in the face of being able to intercept ships, etc?

#5 - Naval and military bases are a good idea, I think.

[ok]

	21-01-2004 16:37									#74
	Tired of ads?

quote: Originally posted by The_Aussie_Lurker My suggestions, as I've mentioned elsewhere, are: 1) Generally double ALL Movement rates for naval units!

Ok, maybe ships should have more movement points. Two thoughts, however:

i) Can't you fiddle with the rules.txt and change that as you wish anyway? True, in MP everyone would have to agree on the "right" number of movement points, but it's doable...

ii) There are wonders that do this exclusively for the civ that builds them, introducing different strategic paths. More viable/feasible strategies -> more replayability -> a more interesting game...

quote: Originally posted by The_Aussie_Lurker 3) Bring in CtP style 'trade routes' that you can actually attack or pirate!! This was the one element that I always felt CtP did better than the Civ series!!!

I know it works differently in CtP, but you can sabotage trade in Civ 2:

i) Preventing trade routes from being established in the first place by taking out caravans/freights.

ii) Destroying city improvements and pillaging railroads (and roads?) will diminish the value of trade routes.

Best regards,

Carolus

	21-01-2004 16:45									#75
	Get a bigger avatar today!

joncha,

Good suggestions! I would also like to see smaller river vessels, but I guess they're already incorporated implicitly in Civ 2: units move more easily along rivers. So introducing them as transport vessels seems unnecessary.

Canalbuilding, however, would add an interesting new tactical/strategical element to the game. I would restrict it and only allow minor war ships to pass, though...

Carolus

	22-01-2004 03:58									#76
	Increase Your PM Length

I liked the fast move along rivers in Civ2, but I didn't really miss it in Civ3 (those first few games took a little getting used to, though).

I can understand concerns about adding canoe/barge/river-boat casino style units as being unnecessary.

What about restricting fast river movement to certain units, to better reflect how small rivers can be a bonus for smaller units (ie, those that can fit easily into canoes... in Civ3, say... scouts, warriors, explorers and their varients) and a hinderence for large ones (think mounted units, artillery, etc.)?

Civ2's emphasis was on the movement bonus rivers can give, Civ3's on the hinderence. Ideally, Civ 4 can allow for both.

jon.

	22-01-2004 20:11									#77
	Put an end to popups!

Again, seems like a good suggestion!

Now we only need to get a real confirmation that Civ 4 is under way (or has there been one already?) so that all the discussions and ideas in this forum will amount to more than just +1's...

Carolus

	23-01-2004 04:23									#78
	Support Apolyton, pre-order Civilization IV

We do have a real confirmation of C4.

EDIT: and what's wrong with +1's?

	23-01-2004 05:48									#79
	Support Apolyton or Terrorists Win

yeah what do you want? Firaxians confirmed it here and elsewhere. What more do you want, the estimated gold date?

	23-01-2004 05:48									#80
	Suffering from ads?

quote: Originally posted by The_Aussie_Lurker 3) Bring in CtP style 'trade routes' that you can actually attack or pirate!! This was the one element that I always felt CtP did better than the Civ series!!!

I don't think that worked very well since it made trade routes almost impossible to protect.

My way of doing this would be to allow trade routes much as they are now, but extend the ZOCs of ships so that they can blockade much more effectively. The traditional way to blockade can be done in Civ 3 but you need supplementary embargoes most of the time.

Or one could have some appalling algorithm that calculates relative city size and commerce and determines where the trade is going, thus giving sea lanes and land routes which can be blockaded/disrupted. Of course this would work much better if half of your commerce came from trade as it does in EU2.

	23-01-2004 07:04									#81
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization: The Boardgame

I do agree with you, Agathon, that there were some problems with this system-mostly that the trade routes were too easy to attack! My personal opinion would be to make it a true 'attack'-in that you attack it in the same way as you might attack another naval unit, and give the trade route some kind of defense strength (one which increases with each new naval technology!)
Each time a naval vessel unsuccessfully attacks a trade route, it will lose a hp!!

Yours,
The_Aussie_Lurker.

	23-01-2004 07:31									#82
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

That would probably work.

	23-01-2004 09:07									#83
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

quote: Originally posted by Agathon I don't think that worked very well since it made trade routes almost impossible to protect. My way of doing this would be to allow trade routes much as they are now, but extend the ZOCs of ships so that they can blockade much more effectively. The traditional way to blockade can be done in Civ 3 but you need supplementary embargoes most of the time. Or one could have some appalling algorithm that calculates relative city size and commerce and determines where the trade is going, thus giving sea lanes and land routes which can be blockaded/disrupted. Of course this would work much better if half of your commerce came from trade as it does in EU2.

I've said it before and I'll say it again: GalCiv-style trade routes! I want the little freighter chugging along so I can KILL it.

	24-01-2004 18:36									#84
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

quote: Originally posted by skywalker I've said it before and I'll say it again: GalCiv-style trade routes! I want the little freighter chugging along so I can KILL it.

Yeah, but that would take up a lot of processing power.

Here's a better idea, do it the Hearts of Iron way. That's similar to what I suggested.

	02-02-2004 17:05									#85
	Help yourself to an AD-FREE life

I think teh biggest problem with navies is the requirement to build transport ships. In ancient and medieval times, getting transports for your army was a matter of confiscating whatever merchants were in port. By modern times, shipbuilding tech is sufficiently advanced that getting transports is trivial.

Any city with an appropriate sea improvement should automatically generate a transport for any land unit that attempts to move to sea. this transport can only be directed to a friendly city, and will be AI controlled, and will vanish when the unit disembarks.

	08-02-2004 14:55									#86
	Enter the AD-FREE zone

How about replace the magnetism advance with "The Sextant". Sextants, together with clocks that could function on a moving platform, allowed ocean navigators to determine longitude for the first time. Before this, plotting longitude was done mostly by dead reckoning (we went west 5 days at 40 knots, so we must be somewhere around there by now), and very prone to error.

Last edited by lajzar on 09-02-2004 at 18:02

	10-02-2004 17:13									#87
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

Ships should be much faster, should hit harder on land. Maybe, being able to sail in rivers, too.

The same situation for airforce, too.

Or, just to improve the AI's strategy with these units... In real life, there were wars, where the outcome was decided by the navy or airforce. In civ3 there is no chance for that, yet...

All this would make the game more colorful.

	10-02-2004 21:39									#88
	Support Apolyton, pre-order Civilization IV

quote: Originally posted by The_Aussie_Lurker 1) Generally double ALL Movement rates for naval units!

Hm, not sure, if that is an good idea. I don't like too early colonization. But if all ships have higer movement... May be it works together with point #2)

quote: Originally posted by The_Aussie_Lurker 2) Give increased movement costs for moving on Sea and ocean tiles, then allow later naval vessels to ignore these movement costs!

They did it in Conquest. This seems to be the right way.

quote: Originally posted by The_Aussie_Lurker 3) Bring in CtP style 'trade routes' that you can actually attack or pirate!! This was the one element that I always felt CtP did better than the Civ series!!!

Again I'm not sure. I didn't like the way they did it in CtP. Much much different varicoloured lines and dumb pathfinding for trade routes in CtP turned me mad. How about something similar: You need ships (at least one ship) for each naval trade route. This ship(s) are moving "automaticaly" between ports with higer (doubled?) speed and if it was attacked successful by pirates/enemy the traded good disapeares for one turn (ore longer).

quote: Originally posted by The_Aussie_Lurker 4) Allow naval units to rebase between friendly coastal cities with a harbour or naval base, within a given range! This becomes especially important for balancing naval units against ground units after the RR is introduced.

May be this work, but I don't like it very much.

quote: Originally posted by The_Aussie_Lurker 5) Allow for a tile improvement Naval Base tile improvement which can be placed on unclaimed islands or coastlines, to allow for speedy movement over the seas and oceans!!!

Agreed! Tile improvement "harbor" seems a good addition. This could be some kind of upgrade from (Civ3) coastal colonies, but it generate a one tile border. So it won't disappear if opponent's borders expand. But if the port is within enemy's territory (all neighbouring land tiles) he declares (automatical) war and you have to defend your harbor or you loose it.

Some other ideas:
6) Galleys (and Ironclads too) are "coastal ships". This sort of coastal ships should sink on ocean even if magnetism allready is discovered.

7) I wish to buid naval armys... called fleets. How about a naval leader or something like that for doing that?

9) There should be a order (also for AI use) "sea blockade". If a ship is following this order, no opposing tradegoods can pass within 1 field in each direction from this ship. I.E. if you take 2 ships, you may block a 6 tile sea lane without these (to) simple trade embargos. Works only, if you are at war with someone.

10) Loading artillery (means especially cannons for early sailing ships) in special rooms on ships could add +1 attack point or bombard ability, but lowers transport capacity.

11) Special(!) land units (boarding partys) loaded in ships can take other ships. Not sinking, they take it, if successful.

Just some basic ideas. Have to be polished.

	10-02-2004 22:31									#89
	Support Apolyton

quote: Originally posted by AroSch *SNIP* Again I'm not sure. I didn't like the way they did it in CtP. Much much different varicoloured lines and dumb pathfinding for trade routes in CtP turned me mad. *SNIP*

The trade routes can be toggled off and the dumb pathfinding is now fixed (CTP2 Source Code project... thanks to MartinG)

	10-02-2004 23:56									#90
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

quote: Originally posted by MrBaggins The trade routes can be toggled off and the dumb pathfinding is now fixed (CTP2 Source Code project... thanks to MartinG)

Oh, sorry, I don't own CtP2. I never bough it, becouse I was disappointed about CtP. I know, many things are fixed now, but there are still many features, wich I personally don't want in a Civ game. For example I don'tlike very much future age, space(?)- and oceanic cities or some of the unit abilities. Also I don't like very much the CtP graphics, wich are looking like plastic toys to me (okay, graphics are a minor point in civgames). Yes, they fixed the thumb AI, and some other things too, didn't they? May be CtP2 is now (with mods) a cool Civ game, but when Civ3 relased I bough it and liked it (apart from some smaller design mistakes). Now I'm hoping for a Civ4 with some more flavour.