25-07-2004 06:21									#1
	AU Mod: Industrial / Modern Naval Movement Support Apolyton, pre-order Civilization IV

As I mentioned in one of my DARs for AU 503, I found late game naval movement... well, annoying. I have yet to post my final DAR, but in it I will report that due to the varying movement rates, I ended up restricting myself to primarily: 1) Cruisers as Transport escorts, and 2) Destroyers for far-reaching bombardment tasks.

In C3C, and in this respect we have not made any changes thus far to the AU Mod, movement values are as follows:

Transport 6
Destroyer 8
Cruiser 6
Battleship 5
Carrier 7
Aegis Cruiser 7
Submarine 4
Nuclear Submarine 5

Now, I don;t really know about how RL values should be reflected, but from a gameplay perspective, I propose the following:

Transport 6
Destroyer 8
Cruiser 6
Battleship 6
Carrier 6
Aegis Cruiser 8
Submarine 4
Nuclear Submarine 6

This would facilitate easier management of mixed unit-type fleets, which is desirable.

Special note re Subs: I recommend leaving Subs at 4, which will in practice likely restrict their use to remaining in port and standing underneath surface pickets. By matching Nuclear Subs to the primary fleet movement value, they can be at least partially utilized under the cover of fleet stacks.

Thoughts?

	25-07-2004 06:51									#2
	Full PM-box? Change here!

Just a thought from somebody who really should get more involved in AU, but hasn't ...

I kind of like the variance between battleships and transports, with the caveat of cruiser/transport being synchronized. It creates a decision: go faster with less cover or go a bit slower with heavier cover. I think the nuclear sub change is very good, though. I've never understood, from a gameplay aspect, why carriers should outrun everything but destroyers, so of your changes, the battleship is the only one I would really take issue with. AEGIS is a good change, but really an afterthought in light of the others.

	25-07-2004 07:12									#3
	Support Apolyton, buy Galactic Civilizations

In thinking about Solomonwi's response, I just did a little bit of *very* rough research, and something occurred to me... OF COURSE, in RL, navies have been faced with the same issue.

It seems that post-WWII ships have been focused on the same speed range: high 20s to low 30s knots. All of'em, including Destoyers, Frigates, Battleships, Carriers, etc.

I stand by my suggestions.

	25-07-2004 07:23									#4
	Enter the AD-FREE zone

No fair bringing realism into play when I'm posting from a gameplay aspect.

	25-07-2004 07:25									#5
	Tired of ads?

I agree that the speed differences can make managing fleets a bit annoying, but I think the speed differences also make for more interesting strategic choices. The very essence of interesting strategic choices is having to compromise one thing in order to get something else. How many battleships do I want when they can't keep up with transports? Do I want to move my carriers at full speed escorted only by destroyers, or move them more slowly with heavier ships as escorts? Am I willing to slow down to involve nuclear submarines in my strike force? Alternatively, do I want to build extra battleships and/or nuclear subs so they can do escort duty in relays, with transports or carriers and their escorting destroyers (and perhaps, in the case of transports, cruisers) hopping from one escort group to another?

The proposed movement rate changes would simplify fleet operations but, in the process, would require a lot fewer compromises in choosing what kinds of ships to build and how to use them. I'd rather leave things the way they are in the standard rules.

Nathan

P.S. As a disclaimer, I would note that I don't actually use carriers and subs (either conventional or nuclear) because they don't fit into my normal style of intercontinental warfare. However, my reasons for my choices have nothing to do with fleet management issues.)

	25-07-2004 07:26									#6
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization III: Complete

I've kept poking around... it does in fact seem to be the case. If anything, Subs seem to be way off... older ones were below 20 knots, which is fine, but newer ones seem to be in the mid-20s knots. Silence, of course, seems to be the gating factor.

	25-07-2004 07:53									#7
	Lose 30 kilos (of popups)

quote: Originally posted by Theseus It seems that post-WWII ships have been focused on the same speed range: high 20s to low 30s knots. All of'em, including Destoyers, Frigates, Battleships, Carriers, etc.

Umm, post WWII Battleships??? Methinks your research was perhaps a bit too quick. To the best of my knowledge, no one anywhere in the world built battleships after WWII. The U.S. Navy's last and most powerful battleship class was the Iowa class, and I'm almost positive the only ones of those commissioned were commissioned during the war.

Granted, later-model battleships were designed to be faster than earlier models in order to keep up with carrier attack groups. But considering that Civ uses a single "battleship" unit type to represent all battleships, including WW1 as well as WWII models, the speed disparity is reasonable.

Nathan

	25-07-2004 08:06									#8
	Support Apolyton

AU Mod: Post-sail ship movement

	25-07-2004 08:15									#9
	Suffering from ads?

Sorry, on further poking around Nathan is correct.

Battleships are evidently no longer in vogue. I find that sorta weird.

But, from what I can tell, in RL it points out the fundamental premise that I am trying to get to: the carrier group has become the foundation of surface ship fleet movement... and the various ships in such move together.

So, yeah, I guess leave the revised BB movement out of the suggested change, as they are evidently obsolete. The principal (i.e., appr. equal speed for fleet elements) remains the same.

alxman, I'll review the previous thread shortly.

	25-07-2004 08:20									#10
	Lose 30 kilos (of popups)

Well, I'm consistent, aren;t I?

RL navies look to synchronizing speed... except as Nathan points out, an obsolete class of ship, why shouldn't we do the same?

Just common sense, if you ask me.

	25-07-2004 08:58									#11
	Get a bigger avatar today!

quote: Originally posted by Theseus Sorry, on further poking around Nathan is correct. Battleships are evidently no longer in vogue. I find that sorta weird.

The reason battleships are no longer in vogue is that it is almost inconceivable that a battleship today could get in range to attack the other side's surface ships with its guns. Even in World War II, the only times battleships fought each other in the Pacific were when there were no carriers around.

The big threats to carrier task forces today are aircraft, missiles, and submarines. Protecting carriers against those threats does not require something as big, tough, and expensive to build and operate as a battleship. Indeed, smaller, faster, more maneuverable ships can probably actually do those jobs better, and certainly can on a ton for ton basis.

Battleship guns can be useful for shore bombardment under certain circumstances, but their range is limited. Cruise missiles can project power a lot deeper into enemy territory. And while the last two Iowa-class battleships made very nice missile platforms in the first Gulf War, there are other types of ships that can do that job just fine.

What made battleships important was their ability to carry big guns and to carry armor to fend off enemy big guns. Once big guns were no longer relevant to naval combat, battleships became irrelevant to naval combat.

Nathan

	25-07-2004 09:21									#12
	Suffering from ads?

I get that... ships are platforms for maneuverable force.

I am surprised that Battleships have not evolved into the primary defender of carrier taskings, as the largest platforms around, as the center role of multiple kinds of escorts.

Heck, that is how I want to use them!!

	25-07-2004 12:34									#13
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization 2

This is a beautiful example of RL and gameplay diverging. While battleships today are obsolete, they don't really become obsolete in the "carrier age" of any incarnation of Civ3. This, I think, is due to the small transport capacity of the carrier more than anything, but I digress...