14-05-2002 23:01									#1
	Discussion of Naval Units for Canadian Patriot Avatar Enlargement: We've got the solution

This thread is at the request of Canadian Patriot in this thread. Anyone, feel free to add to the discussion.

One of the things I found lacking in Civ3 as well, Canadian Patriot, was a logical progression of naval vessels. As with all the units in Civ3, I think naval units should progress in an orderly fashion, in logical progression from era to era. What I mean is: each successive ship should be more powerful/better performing/more useful than the last. This only makes sense as, who would think that a ship (or any unit for that matter) obtained from a recent advance would be weaker or only as strong as a ship obtained from an old tech.

With that in mind, it makes sense to me that each ship is more powerful/useful than the last, even if that means a little a-history. Also, to that end it would seem that you would then only introduce new units when there is a pretty good leap in technology/ability.

I have found the following links that give us pretty good insight into Ancient to Middle Ages naval history:

History of Naval Design
History of the Galley
Ancient Sailing Ships
Naval Warfare
Development of Sailing Ships
A Concise History of the Square Rigged Ship
HMS Warrior: Some Facts and Figures

This information, along with info from a book I have at home on the history of warfare, I would propose the following types of naval units in Civ3. What I'd like to see is a mostly independent progression of cargo ships and warships.

	14-05-2002 23:01									#2
	Suffering from ads?

ANCIENT ERA:

TRADER: A relatively long ship with a wide beam for carrying cargo. Has one square rig sail for power and no oarsmen so as not to take up cargo room, such as the ancient Phoenician traders.

GALLEY: A unireme or bireme class galley of the earlier Greek type. The first ship made for war with a prow ram as the main armament and a small contingent of missile firing soldiers. These ships were very maneuverable. Ramming was the principal means of attack.

POLYREME: The quintessential development of the bireme/trireme. Much larger than the galley with many banks of oars, with prow and underwater ram, catapults, and missile firing troops. Unfortunately, since they could be outmaneuvered by the smaller Galley, their success was not assured. These vessels were designed to carry a good sized contingent of troops. Such galleys and variants of them remained useful well into the 15th Century.

	14-05-2002 23:02									#3
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

MIDDLE AGES:

CARAVEL: The sailing ships of Magellan and Columbus, these ships were built for cargo and designed with living quarters. Although not especially faster than galleys, the new sail design allowed the ship to sail into the wind and was much more sea worthy than galleys.

GALLEON: Developed from the carrack (which was a refinement of the caravel) with a larger haul and better rigging, these ships were designed to haul more and travel the oceans. Although previous ships had guns, Galleons carried more and better weaponry. Galleons changed the way naval battles were fought, from close in grappling/ramming sessions to firing long range cannon. These ships were dual purpose platforms used for merchants and warships.

FRIGATE: The British defeat of the Spanish Armada, a battle between war Galleons, necessitated sailing ships designed strictly for war. Developments in navigation, rigging, haul design, and number and complexity of guns immensely increased the war fighting capabilities of these ships. Frigates typically had 38 to 54 guns. Frigate refers to vessels with one row of guns; frigates were used for scouts, commerce interdiction, and screening.

SHIP-of-the-LINE: These ships were the culmination of years of sailing warship design and experience. They ranged from 3rd rate 64 gun ships to the 1st rate 130 gun behemoths designed to fight ship to ship in the line of battle. Sailing warships at their zenith.

MERCHANTMAN: Design of merchant ships continued from the galleons of the 15th century into the Indiamen used by the Dutch East India Company traveling to India with gold to bring back spices and other goods to Europe. Development continued into the Clipper ships of the 19th Century. Large, fast, durable, such ships found usefulness into the 20th Century.

	14-05-2002 23:02									#4
	Get a bigger avatar today!

INDUSTRIAL:

IRONCLAD: Development of the steam engine and screw propeller brought about another breakthrough in warship design. The famous Monitor and Merrimack were odd designs attempting to find a fit for the new technologies; they were unwieldy and better suited for coasts and rivers. Britain's HMS Warrior, however, was a hybrid of the contemporary frigates and a much better design than the Monitor or Merrimack. Warrior was revolutionary - at a stroke, all existing ships were rendered obsolete. Warrior housed all her main guns, engines and boilers within an armored iron hull, and could be driven by both steam and sail. The combination of iron hull, armor-plating, breech loading guns and powerful steam screw propulsion meant that she could outrun and outgun any ship afloat.

DREADNOUGHT: As steam warships got bigger, heavier, and fitted with more armor, the engines had to get increasingly larger. The reciprocating steam engines became so large, in fact, that the engine rooms would nearly fill half the ship. Then, a breakthrough in engine design came at the turn of the century: the gas turbine engine. With several compression stages, these engines could harness nearly all the energy the old engines wasted. These engines required a fraction of the room of previous engines and produced thousands more horsepower. Leaps in screw design, turret design, and rifled, breach loading guns all made for a revolution in warship design. HMS Dreadnought is the most famous, rendering previous warships obsolete.

TRANSPORT: The advent of powerful steam engines allowed for the construction of enormous cruise liners and cargo ships, such as the Lusitania. These ships were the principal means by which governments could ship men and materiel across the oceans. Even though specialized landing craft were developed in WWII, these were merely tactical in nature to carry out the landing assaults. Transports were the raw moving power of navies.

DESTROYER: Dreadnoughts ruled the seas, then something developed that shook everyone up: the torpedo. Striking below the waterline, torpedoes could easily capsize a dreadnought. With the development of torpedo boats to use these new weapons, came torpedo boat Destroyers --shortened to just destroyers. Destroyers took over the role of both torpedo boats and destroyers and became the primary weapon against the new threat of submarines.

SUBMARINE: The effective development of the diesel engine, powerful batteries, torpedoes, and pressurized hulls resulted in the creation of the submarine. Although slow, submarines' underwater diving ability made them deadly when employed in packs and set across shipping lanes ready to ambush transports and targets of opportunity.

BATTLESHIP: Refinements in hull design, armor, guns, weapons control, damage control, and propulsion made dreadnoughts better and better and became known as super dreadnoughts. Such line-of-battle-ships, or just battleships, came to their zenith with the commission of the U.S. Iowa class battleships. These behemoths housed 9 independently firing 16", radar-controlled guns and bristled with secondary armament. Refinements in engine power allowed these beasts to keep up with carriers at 33 knots and were thus called fast battleships. Retrofitting in the 1980s, modernized a couple of these ships with anti-ship missiles and close in weapons systems and other refinements. No contemporary armament could match the awesome power of shore bombardment with the 16" guns and the armor was so thick that no modern missile could bring her down. Unfortunately, the cost of operating these massive displays of might was prohibitive for a peace time navy and they were decommissioned in the 1990s.

AIRCRAFT CARRIER: The attack and devastation of Italian ships in port by British carrier-launched planes at the beginning of WWII, sent shivers down the spines of some navies. Against the wishes of WWI Admirals, the plane would become the premier naval weapon, striking with more power and at a greater distance.

	14-05-2002 23:03									#5
	Enter the AD-FREE zone

MODERN:

MISSILE DESTROYER: The development of guided missiles such as the U.S. Harpoon and French Exocet, allowed navies to attack targets with near impunity "over the horizon." Because of the curvature of the earth, RADAR can only see so far. With the help of scouting helicopters or other means, ships can launch missiles toward a target and allow the missile's on board computer and RADAR to target and destroy enemy ships. The extreme speed of the missiles, their low-altitude flight, and final "pop-up" makes them very difficult to destroy. Quantum leaps in SONAR technology along with on-board, sub-hunting helicopters makes these vessels very effective against submarines.

NUCLEAR ATTACK SUB: The development of nuclear powered propulsion revolutionized submarine design. Now, subs are able to travel faster underwater than above water and keep up with surface fleets, attacking proactively. Developments in SONAR, low-cavitation screws, and wire-controlled, high-speed, high-explosive torpedoes make nuclear attack subs some of the deadliest anti-ship platforms in the world. Many attack subs have now been fitted with anti-ship missiles as well.

BOOMER: Nuclear subs make ideal platforms for ICBMs. Stealthy and always moving, they provide imminent threat to any nation that would seek to initiate a nuclear attack. Such subs can carry over a dozen ICBMs with several multiple independently targeted re-entry vehicles (MIRVs) each. One such sub can take out a multitude of cities.

SUPER CARRIER: Initially, carriers had one straight flight deck and operations were constricted and chaotic at launch and recovery. Shortly after WWII, the angled flight deck was developed which allowed launch and recovery operations to proceed simultaneously. Heavy jet aircraft necessitated a means to propel them to launch speed, thus, the steam catapult was developed. It didn't take long for carrier operations to become a finely tuned orchestra of operations. Modern carriers, based on the USS Nimitz are often called super carriers because of their immense size. Nuclear powered engines allow a nation to use these carriers to project its power around the world. Only the U.S. has the budget to sustain these immensely costly behemoths.

AMPHIBIOUS ASSAULT SHIP: Years and years of amphibious assault experience have culminated in very specialized assault ships and attack craft. The USS Tarawa is a prime example. The size of a small carrier, it houses transport and attack helicopters, VTOL close-support jets, and a multitude of landing craft. Marines, Special Forces and other troops can launch an simultaneous airmobile/amphibious assault onto a hostile beach with a high chance of success. These ships are well defended and have a hospital of several hundred beds. These ships are the epitome of amphibious assault.

AEGIS CRUISER: The threat of a saturation attack of hundreds of anti-ship missiles by plane or ship led the U.S. to develop a ship specifically designed to counter that threat. Spectacular developments in RADAR technology allows the AEGIS Cruiser to independently track and target over one hundred missiles at once. Named after the shield of Zeus, these ships are missile shields for today's carrier battle groups. AEGIS cruisers also have the latest SONAR and carry helicopters, anti-ship missiles, and ground attack cruise missiles.

Last edited by Colonel Kraken on 15-05-2002 at 00:13

	14-05-2002 23:14									#6
	Support Apolyton, buy Alpha Centauri

not to rain on your parade, but how do the trader and merchantman factor in as ships in civ 3? we don't have caravans anymore, so there is no way of simulating cargo shipments. therefore, why would anyone want to build these ships when there are valuable military ships to be built instead?

dont' get me wrong, I'd love to see these units in the game, but they currently don't have any purpose.

	14-05-2002 23:15									#7
	Full PM-box? Change here!

I will be posting my notes, thoughts, and unit stat ideas later. I need a break

	14-05-2002 23:18									#8
	Support Apolyton, buy Alpha Centauri

quote: Originally posted by Captain not to rain on your parade, but how do the trader and merchantman factor in as ships in civ 3? we don't have caravans anymore, so there is no way of simulating cargo shipments. therefore, why would anyone want to build these ships when there are valuable military ships to be built instead? dont' get me wrong, I'd love to see these units in the game, but they currently don't have any purpose.

I knew I'd get into trouble without posting my thoughts, notes, and stats.

Well, you would use them, of course, to transport ground units. Each successive transport can travel further and carry more units. That's the whole point.

This is not to say that we have graphics for all these ships, yet . . .

	15-05-2002 00:43									#9
	Tired of ads?

Very useful, CK!

CP and AW, I say we base our naval more along these lines. Something between the Galleon and Transport is especially needed. It would be a bit wierd to have Galleons floating around as the only transport in 1850 even! Question though: with the advent of Ironclad, wasn't any wooden ship essentially toast if caught?

Regarding graphics, Viewpoint (which CK at least knows about) should have most of this stuff. I believe they even have a merchantman or clipper type (if you look under British ship names, like the Discovery). Now we just need someone who could make Civ3 units out of all that artwork.

	15-05-2002 01:52									#10
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

i agree that the naval transport line was somewhat weak. Until the pre-dreadnaughts came out, ironclads were coastal only. In that one thread on the history of all US ships, it appears that few ironcalds were actually built and they were mostly riverboats.

I'm glad to see that I'm not the only one that realized that dreadnaughts came before destroyers. Good descriptions Kraken.

	15-05-2002 01:55									#11
	Support Apolyton, buy Galactic Civilizations: Deluxe Edition

quote: Originally posted by Colonel Kraken IRONCLAD: Development of the steam engine and screw propeller brought about another breakthrough in warship design. The famous Monitor and Merrimack were odd designs attempting to find a fit for the new technologies; they were unwieldy and better suited for coasts and rivers. Britain's HMS Warrior, however, was a hybrid of the contemporary frigates and a much better design than the Monitor or Merrimack. Warrior was revolutionary - at a stroke, all existing ships were rendered obsolete. Warrior housed all her main guns, engines and boilers within an armored iron hull, and could be driven by both steam and sail. The combination of iron hull, armor-plating, breech loading guns and powerful steam screw propulsion meant that she could outrun and outgun any ship afloat.

Is this the pre-dreadnaughts or an even earlier class?

	15-05-2002 03:17									#12
	Suffering from ads?

AW, HMS Warrior was before the Pre-Dreadnoughts. I believe it was built in 1860. From a distance, it looks like any other sailing ship, except quite a bit longer. The equipment is quite a bit different, too. (Use the link in my first post to read about HMS Warrior).

The Pre-Dreadnoughts were built in the 1890s to about 1905. The HMS Dreadnought, with her then huge 12" guns, relegated all previous ships to Pre-Dreadnought status. This was the result of a naval arms race with Germany. Britains naval hegemony was at its pinnacle.

	15-05-2002 03:29									#13
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization: The Boardgame

AW,
Can you send the unit spreadsheet to CK? CK, what's your email, so we can send you that?

Also, what's the story about wooden Merchantmen facing up to Ironclads? Did they have any chance of survival, or could they easily outrun them? If so, how to represent that in Civ3?

One last thing. The naval links are a good thing. Does anyone have a similar link for the history of artillery? I was looking a little bit recently and didn't find what I wanted. I want A) to make sure we are doing bombard weapons intelligently, and B) want to see graphics to know how field artillery looks compared to culverins and so forth.

Last edited by Harlan on 15-05-2002 at 03:39

	15-05-2002 03:41									#14
	Suffering from ads?

I just got done reading the links. Excellent job of finding these pages. based on this information, and some pages I found earlier, I think I can place numbers of the various ships. However, one importtant question remains. How should 20th century warships fight? Destroyers and battleships are attacking vessels, but missle and AEGIS-class ships are virtual defensless except for their missiles which seems like they should have a low attack and defense, but a high bombard. But that leaves open the ironclad versus AEGIS cruiser debate. From these pages, I'd say that an ironclad or dreadnaught would easily lose to a battleship, but would sink a modern ship IF it could get close enough. In gameplay, this could easily happen so that we'd have modern ships being sunk by ironclads which we all know we make people scream bloody murder.

There's also the issue of battleships. Currently they dont upgrade to anything. In real life, the retrofitted Iowa-class were substantially better than their WW2 versions. I called it an AEGIS BB which could be misleading. I dont think they should upgrade to the much smaller AEGIS cruisers. The Russians, until the collapse of the USSR, had BCGN (battlecruisers/guided/nuclear), but I cant find specs on them, but it sures sounds like the logical upgrade from BB. This is one of those game issues thats so annoying. In reality, BBs are too expensive to maintain, but maintenance is a non issue in the game since all unts cost the same to support. As long as BB are non-upgradable, then they can be built and will be the dominant warship throughout the game.

	15-05-2002 18:04									#15
	Support Apolyton, buy Galactic Civilizations

I was hoping to get this post up last night, but as luck would have it, Apolyton went down. I had typed up the entire post, and then I thought, "You know, this is such a long post, I'd better save it." Boy, I'm glad I did. I clicked on "Submit Reply" and came back with page not found. So I hit the back button. Page not found. Well, I'm sure glad I had the premonition to save it.

Well, anyway, here it is . . .

AW and Harlan, thanks for the compliments. With this kind of praise, I'll do anything for you! I love doing research, especially in something I enjoy.

I'm certainly no expert on the subject. Shhh . . . don't tell anyone. But, modern naval warfare was a huge interest of mine in the early 90s when I delved deep into the topic as I had an extreme interest in the game Harpoon. Hear of it? It's so realistic and detailed, the U.S. Navy uses it to train its officers!!!

So, anyway, I know about ships like the Russian BCGNs and CGNs.

AW, I like your thoughts on the BBs. This leads me to ask: (I always assumed it is possible) Can we change the maintenance cost of units using the editor? This really should be an absolute necessity and would really help maintain the realism. That way we could have situations like: sure the BB is the king of the sea, but are super expensive to maintain, or would you rather have almost the same combat effectiveness at a much cheaper price? (i.e. AEGIS Cruiser)

I agree it would make sense for the game to allow an upgrade of Battleships to BBGNs (made that acronym up ). Because of their enormous size, such ships could carry enormous stores of missiles. That's all the Russian BCGNs are all about : big missile carrying platforms. These ships are one of the things the US Navy had in mind in countering with the AEGIS Cruiser. The Soviets' tactics were always numbers, numbers, numbers. Swarm the enemy with missiles --some are bound to get through. Statistics.

It's unfortunate that we can not make units more specific in their attack and defense. It would be nice to say that a Dreadnought can slam a destroyer, but is almost helpless against a sub, so it needs the destroyer to hunt the sub, and subs can't attack subs. I don't think this kind of unit logic/ability can be set up with the existing game engine.

One thing we must all bear in mind when looking at movement rates, attack and defense, etc. is we're not talking merely could this ship totally take out such and such other ship, but many, many factors must be taken into account. Furthermore, we need to make the game units fun and playable. None of us dispute that, it's just a matter of how each of us wants to go about it.

AW, you talked about the defense of an AEGIS cruiser against a Dreadnought. Is it only just a matter of the fact that we know the 12"-14" shells of a Dreadnought could wreak havoc with a modern ship? I don't think that's the whole story. Let's look at the full dynamics of the situation: the resources of the AEGIS Cruiser allow it to detect the Dreadnought well in advance and launch a pre-emptive strike. (Reflected in a higher defense rating?) I do have some thoughts on what the various ratings could be, but they're all at work (and I'm at home right now). I'll post them tomorrow.

I'm kind of rambling here without saying much, but I hope you get the gist of what I'm saying.

quote: Also, what's the story about wooden Merchantmen facing up to Ironclads? Did they have any chance of survival, or could they easily outrun them? If so, how to represent that in Civ3?

This is a good question because it attempts to take into account other things other than just can the iron balls of an Ironclad smash through the hull of the Merchant. Everyone would agree that, yes, they could. Is it possible that a Clipper ship could outrun the Ironclad? Yes, I'm sure. But does that really matter for purposes of our game? Civ3 cannot model tactical scenarios of such and such a ship getting away in the nick of time. The only way would be to have a a movement rate of equal or greater value, so that if spotted, the Merchant could keep away from Ironsides. But do we really want that? In game terms, I think most everyone would expect that if I find your Merchant with my Ironclad, and you left it un-escorted, you're dead meat. The end.

There's so many different things I'd like to model in the game, but I can't. So we'll work with what we've got. (Sound familiar, Harlan? CtP . . . ? )

Oh, I know what else I wanted to mention. Battleships did not render Dreadnoughts completely ineffective. Most Navies went into WWII with Dreadnoughts: the Japanes Nagato class, Britain's Reknown and Repulse (I think), and all those US' BBs that were in battleship row during the attack on Pearl Harbor. All of these ships with 12" and 14" guns could put some hurt on "modern" battleships. It was just a matter of how likely it was that the dreadnought didn't get smashed to pieces first. Could the dreadnought have gotten those lucky shots in? No doubt.

So Dreadnoughts should be able to sink Battleships, just not real commonly --just sometimes. Let's also not forget to mention that a lot of things that made the Iowa class so effective: RADAR directed firing, superior damage control, more effective armor, etc. would have been a relatively easy retrofit on Dreadnoughts (unlike going from a Galley to a Galleon or even a Galley to a "Polyreme" where the ships have to be of a totally different design). What I'm trying to get at is allowing a Dreadnought to defeat a Battleship sometimes could be seen as the result of such retrofitting. Or, for that matter, we could allow an upgrade from Dreadnought to Battleship.

Hmmm . . . . the possibilities.

This is so much fun. I feel like we're becoming buddies.

Seriously, I am having fun.

Wow, that was a long one.

Patriot, you gettin' all this?

Oh, by the way, me e-mail at work or at home. I spend most of my day at work. (Wed. I work from 8:30 till 9PM)

--Colonel

	15-05-2002 18:23									#16
	Support Apolyton, buy Galactic Civilizations

Here are some of my thoughts. (I still want to look at your spreadsheet, Alpha). Bear in mind, these are just musings.

Ideas for Unit Stats: Attack/Ranged/Defense/Movement. [Cargo Capacity] Ranged attack in ( ) is range 0. Ranged attack with "r" is the range.

TRADER: 0/(0)/0/2 [1] Capturable. Coast movement only. Foot units only. *No graphic.
GALLEY: 1/(1)/1/3 Coast movement only. *In game.
POLYREME: 3/(2)/2/3 [1] Coast movement only. Foot units only. *No graphic. (But see this thread)
CARAVEL: 0/(0)/0/4 [2] Capturable. Coast and Sea movement. Foot units only. *In game.
GALLEON: 4/(4)/4/5 [3] Coast, Sea, and Ocean movement. Foot and horse units (is this possible?) *In game.
FRIGATE: 6/(6)/6/6 *In game. (Temporarily use Pirate ship as Frigate, Man-o-War for Ship-of-the-Line, and Frigate for Merchantman).
SHIP-of-the-LINE: 10/10r1/10/5 *No graphic, but see above.
MERCHANTMAN: 0/(0)/2/5 [5] Foot and horse units only. *No graphic, but see above.
IRONCLAD: 15/(6)/15/5 HP+1 *In game. (Although would be nice to have graphic like HMS Warrior [as was in CtP2]).
DREADNOUGHT: 25/20r2/22/8 HP+2 *Graphic available.
TRANSPORT: 0/(0)/5/8 [8] Can transport all land units. *No graphic.
DESTROYER: 20/(10)/18/8 Can see subs and attack subs. *In game.
SUBMARINE: 18/(0)/15/6 Cannot see other subs. *In game.
BATTLESHIP: 30/25r2/28/10 HP+2 *In game.
AIRCRAFT CARRIER: 0/(0)/10/10 HP+1 [6^] ^Aircraft only. *Graphic available?
MISSILE DESTROYER: 22/25r3/20/12 [4^] ^Cruise missile only? Can see and attack subs. *Graphic available.
NUCLEAR ATTACK SUB: 25/20r2/18/10 [2^] ^Cruise missile only? Can see and attack other subs. *In game.
BOOMER: 20/(0)/20/10 [6] Can carry ICBMs. Can see and attack other subs. *No graphic.
SUPER CARRIER: 0/(0)/20/12 HP+1 [8^] ^Aircraft only. *In game.
AMPHIBIOUS ASSAULT SHIP: 0/(0)/20/12 [12] Can carry all land units and helicopters. Is this possible? *No graphic.
AEGIS CRUISER: 25/25r3/22/12 [8^] ^Cruise missile only? Special defense against air/cruise missile attack? Can see and attack subs. *In game.

Note on limits on movement: all units can move in sea tiles with Astronomy and Ocean tiles with Navigation. Another thing you'll notice is the progression of movement rates all the way to 12! Well, I think that is justified, especially given the common complaint of slow naval movement. You may say, "Why can the Caravel move faster than the Galley?" or "Why can't the Destroyer move faster than the Dreadnought?" Movement rates do not necessarily merely represent raw speed, but the strategic ability of the unit to move about. For example, on a tactical level, the destroyer definitely will severely out pace the Dreadnought. Strategic movement across oceans would show both of them moving at the same rate. The same idea for land movement exists with sea movement. A Napoleonic infantry would strategically be able to move further than a Phalanx because of logistics capabilities. Modern navies have tremendous logistics support and are able to span the globe in record time without stopping.

TECHS: Available with . . .

Trader: Pottery?
Galley: Map Making
Polyreme: Construction
Caravel: Astronomy
Galleon: Navigation
Frigate: Magnetism
Ship-of-the-Line: Magnetism
Merchantman: Magnetism
Ironclad: Industrialization
Dreadnought: Steel
Transport: Steel
Destroyer: Refining
Submarine: Refining
Battleship: Mass Production?
Aircraft Carrier: Flight?
Missile Destroyer: Rocketry
Nuclear Attack Sub: Nuclear Power
Boomer: Nuclear Power
Super Carrier: Rocketry
Amphibious Assault Ship: Advanced Flight?
Aegis Cruiser: Robotics?

There's no doubt here that the tech tree needs to be reworked. I've done so on my own personal mod. Industrial and especially Modern eras need reworking. I'm just going to leave it at that until there's some discussion. I'll then give out more of my opinion as the situation warrants.

Last edited by Colonel Kraken on 15-05-2002 at 18:36

	16-05-2002 00:16									#17
	Support Apolyton, buy Alpha Centauri

No industrial cruisers or modern frigates?

Matt

	16-05-2002 01:27									#18
	Got spare money?

CK,
Your comments are really instructive. We really need to get you the spreadsheet. Some things to keep in mind while looking at it though:

1. We recognize the need to add more units, but also only want to add "must haves" - its easy to get carried away. We also will only add new units as the graphics for them become available (luckily we have at least adquate subsitutes for most now).
2. All unit strengths were doubled (before additional tweaking), to allow more fine tuning.
3. The idea is to greatly increase the cost of modern units and modern things in general, so as to prevent massive swarms of units from super-productive towns. Not sure if this is fully reflected in the numbers yet.
4. Another idea is to double the cost and double the effectiveness of bombard units, to reduce the tedium of moving huge artillery stacks around.
5. Now that the new patch can allow ocean, sea, and coastal numbers to be different, the move in the coast is 1, sea 2 and ocean 3. Most modern units then have the "all terrain as roads" flag on, but some older units up to and including Ironclad, do not.
6. A couple of unique units were changed because it was felt it wasn't fair to have a naval or air unique unit - now all are land. The new Chinese UU, Chu Ko Nu, is a bit wierd - its the same as the Crossbowman unit, but its bonus is that it comes earlier.
7. Rifleman and more modern units get an extra hit point, and there is a second extra hit point boost for very modern units. This is to help prevent the "phalanx beating a tank" problem, and reflects the quantum leap in power of these units.
8. Movement is also boosted for just about everything post 1800 (due to improved logistics, as you seem to recognize as well), and for naval units generally.

I'd be interested to see your mod. Have you made that public? Please send me a copy at harlant@earthlink.net, so I can check it out.

Also, a specific question about the Boomer unit. I don't like that name, sounds like an NFL quarterback or something. Could that be called a Stealth Sub instead? And could we give it the stealth flag Stealth planes have?

Finally, I assume you made a typo, and Frigate should be available with Navigation? We also are expanding the tech tree, so in some cases have better techs to attach units to.

Last edited by Harlan on 16-05-2002 at 01:37

	16-05-2002 03:58									#19
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

OK, lets see if i can get some answers in during my breaks (gotta love long work days). Sorry for the delay in getting the updated spreadsheet up online. I hope to be able to get to that tonight.

Every unit costs the same for maintenance. Not sure why they did this. So your MA costs the same as a warrior to support.

As far as the AEGIS vs a dreadnaught type discussions, lets keep it purely on a game level unless we arent disagreeing with the realistic outcome. Alot of game discussions get bogged down in reality but reality isnt programmed into the game sometimes, so IRL a dreadnaught would never get close but in the game, it can walk right up to you in one turn before you ever see it (a TBS limitation is general). So the only issue is whether the dreadnaught could hurt the AEGIS close quarters because that is a valid game situation. Unless we decide to make the values reflect standoff ability in which case the modern ships need to be drastically increased in abilities. BTW, dreadnaughts DO upgrade to BBs.....LOL In game terms, some units upgrade to their replacement even tho the older unit could never have actually transformed into the newer version.

HEYYYYYYY, i thought we were buddies last year.....LOL

As far as you ship numbers go, alot of your innovations have already been included in ours. One major difference is that we are using the "all terrain as roads" so that when you see on ours m3 thats really 12 tiles (road = 1/4). This means that a unit loses 4 tiles of movement during an attack vs just one tile the other way. After all, if you are attacking, you cant be moving About the various transport options, I'm unaware of any flags that tell a ship what kind of units it can carry other than, air-only, missile-only, land-only (i thought i saw mech inf come off a caravel the other day...dohhhhhhh)

If you think a unit needs a specific tech thats not in the game, list it, and it can be added. Dont limit yourself to existing techs. I'd like to put together a complete sea tech tree (dont worry about eras), and land unit tree as well, and what units will come out of each tech. We have the initial air one that goes something like this (harlan, this is out of memory so keep me honest here): flight (biplane) - aerodynamics (fighter/bomber/paratrooper) - vertical flight (helos) - jet engine (jet fighter/jet bomber) - microchip (interceptor [f15 replacement]) - stealth (stealth fighter/stealth bomber).

	16-05-2002 04:21									#20
	Avatar Enlargement: We've got the solution

quote: Originally posted by Canadian_Patriot No industrial cruisers or modern frigates? Matt

Sorry it took me so long to reply, CP.

I thought about industrial cruisers. What would their use be? They would be weaker than battleships, but stronger than destroyers. I envision their use would be to have a cheaper unit than a battleship that could take out a destroyer pretty easily. When you add such a unit, though, you begin to blur the lines in unit stats between units. I think with the current game mechanics (e.g. same maintenance costs for all units), players would gravitate toward the mix of units I envisioned: Battleship and Destroyer. This, simply because it would take 2 extra turns to build the battleship instead of the cruiser? Players would think, heck, I'll go for the BB.

I'm not saying it would hurt to have the cruiser in there, it's just not totally necessary. But, sure, if you've got a graphic for it, I'll use it!

Modern Frigate? Here's why not:

In modern times the terms Frigate and Destroyer are interchangeable and have been blurred. In the US Navy, a destroyer tends to be larger than a frigate, but only sometimes. It's more of a designation of mission specialty. In the British Navy, it's almost the exact opposite. There's no doubt that the terms are so interchangeable as to be unrecognizeable. For the purposes of our game, having a "Missile Destroyer" (DDG if you will) that has the dual capability of Anti-ship and Anti-sub effectively gives us the platform we need for that roll. A Frigate (FFG perhaps) would be redundant. The Missile Destroyer and Aegis Cruiser work out quite well.

What do you think so far, CP?

	16-05-2002 04:41									#21
	Browse Apolyton AD-FREE

quote: Originally posted by Harlan CK, Your comments are really instructive. We really need to get you the spreadsheet.

Why, thank you Harlan, you're the best.

quote: 3. The idea is to greatly increase the cost of modern units and modern things in general, so as to prevent massive swarms of units from super-productive towns. Not sure if this is fully reflected in the numbers yet.

Agreed.

quote: 4. Another idea is to double the cost and double the effectiveness of bombard units, to reduce the tedium of moving huge artillery stacks around.

Excellent idea!

quote: 5. Now that the new patch can allow ocean, sea, and coastal numbers to be different, the move in the coast is 1, sea 2 and ocean 3. Most modern units then have the "all terrain as roads" flag on, but some older units up to and including Ironclad, do not.

Cool.

quote: 6. A couple of unique units were changed because it was felt it wasn't fair to have a naval or air unique unit - now all are land. The new Chinese UU, Chu Ko Nu, is a bit wierd - its the same as the Crossbowman unit, but its bonus is that it comes earlier.

Sounds good to me.

quote: 7. Rifleman and more modern units get an extra hit point, and there is a second extra hit point boost for very modern units. This is to help prevent the "phalanx beating a tank" problem, and reflects the quantum leap in power of these units.

This is something I've thought about a lot. Obviously, once the Napoleonic era began, land units became MUCH larger and obviously more effective. How do we show that? Should we assume the unit size stays relatively the same but its effectiveness goes way up? Or do we assume that unit size can go down, maintenance costs don't go up much, and the power still rises? Hmmm . . .

quote: 8. Movement is also boosted for just about everything post 1800 (due to improved logistics, as you seem to recognize as well), and for naval units generally.

Good, these are my thoughts exactly.

quote: I'd be interested to see your mod. Have you made that public? Please send me a copy at harlant@earthlink.net, so I can check it out.

My "mod" is in a very rough beta stage. I have added units and changed stats (still testing these) and have changed the tech tree through Industrial (Modern is a REAL screwed up mess). I don't have any library entries and beautiful advisor tech screens. I would prefer to scan my hand sketched tech trees and unit stats and send them as a jpeg or something.

quote: Also, a specific question about the Boomer unit. I don't like that name, sounds like an NFL quarterback or something. Could that be called a Stealth Sub instead? And could we give it the stealth flag Stealth planes have?

Ah, yes, "Boomer". I knew that would stir up trouble. I do agree it is a clumsy name, and I did hesitate putting it in there. However, it is the nickname given to these types of subs. Stealth Sub is completely inaccurate and not descriptive of its role. Perhaps the technical name, Ballistic Missile Sub, should be used. Or, its more casual name "Missile Boat".

quote: Finally, I assume you made a typo, and Frigate should be available with Navigation? We also are expanding the tech tree, so in some cases have better techs to attach units to.

Nope, no typo. If you recall, Civ3 default bic has the Frigate and Man-o-War appear at the same time along with Galleon! Well, in game terms, and what I envision the frigate to be, it would appear with Ship-of-the-Line. It's hull design, sails, rigging, and cannon are all of the same technology level of the SotL. The SotL should be very expensive compared to the Frigate. In real life, governments found it very difficult to maintain large fleets of SotLs. The Frigate is perfect to scout, patrol (placed around your shores with the "Y" command), and Merchantman harassing. Besides, they're plenty powerful to take on Galleons and below.

	16-05-2002 04:43									#22
	Support Apolyton, buy Galactic Civilizations

i havent figured out the difference between the game DDG and AEGIS cruiser. Both would have the same flags and according to real world costs, they cost the same. Unless you are talking about a DDG w/o AEGIS capabilities but then how would it be different from a destroyer? According to my research, the US navy stopped using the designation FF in the early/mid 70s. DDG and CCGN are so small that you cant have a smaller true warship.

Also, we need a better graphic for ironclad so people dont think its the monitor. That was always my issue with the game ironclad because i equated it to the monitor i knew the monitor was nowhere near as effective as its game stats.

	16-05-2002 04:48									#23
	Support Apolyton, buy Call to Power 2

CK, i'll take a copy of that tech tree in handwritten form.. all my tech changes are in the bic, and I havent found an easy way (or the time) to get it electronically yet.

I like the term boomer, but which should go with the NUclear Missile sub over missile boat as i can already hear the complaints that we used the wrong graphic if we call it a boat....LOL

	16-05-2002 04:59									#24
	Remove this text

quote: Originally posted by ALPHA WOLF 64 . . . so IRL a dreadnaught would never get close but in the game, it can walk right up to you in one turn before you ever see it (a TBS limitation is general).

Are you so sure? What are the distances of each square in the game? I'd wager it's valid to give the modern destroyer/cruiser relatively high defense ratings.

quote: Unless we decide to make the values reflect standoff ability in which case the modern ships need to be drastically increased in abilities.

Exactly, this is exactly the reason (stand-off weapons) that these ships would have good defense ratings. Do any of you know if we'd be allowed to put Cruise Missiles on these ships? Please forgive me, but I'm completely dumb on this subject as I have not ever really played into modern yet.

quote: HEYYYYYYY, i thought we were buddies last year.....LOL

Yes, indeed, Alpha, I had completely forgotten. One year might as well be 5 years in my crazy life!

quote: As far as you ship numbers go, alot of your innovations have already been included in ours. One major difference is that we are using the "all terrain as roads" so that when you see on ours m3 thats really 12 tiles (road = 1/4). This means that a unit loses 4 tiles of movement during an attack vs just one tile the other way. After all, if you are attacking, you cant be moving.

This sounds great. Get me that spreadsheet, Alpha!

quote: About the various transport options, I'm unaware of any flags that tell a ship what kind of units it can carry other than, air-only, missile-only, land-only (i thought i saw mech inf come off a caravel the other day...dohhhhhhh)

Yeah, real bummer.

As far as tech's go, I can try to get my ideas out to you guys, but it's going to take a while. I'm working a lot of hours and there's tons going on.

And as far as that all goes, here's a little about myself . . .

I'm 29 (30 in November ) I'm married to a lovely, wonderful wife who loves Civ!! I have an almost 4 year old and a 9 month old. Busy, busy, busy! I sell (at least try to ) new Volkswagens. If I'm not at work, I'm working on my new yard and my new house, or I'm involved in some church activity. Phew!

I graduated from the University of Michigan with a Bachelors in Poli Sci in 1995. I joined the Air Force in 1996 for four years where I was an avionics technician on the F-15Es. I was with the 391st Bold Tigers!

Ok, your turn.

	16-05-2002 05:08									#25
	Support Apolyton, pre-order Civilization IV

quote: Originally posted by ALPHA WOLF 64 i havent figured out the difference between the game DDG and AEGIS cruiser. Both would have the same flags and according to real world costs, they cost the same. Unless you are talking about a DDG w/o AEGIS capabilities but then how would it be different from a destroyer? According to my research, the US navy stopped using the designation FF in the early/mid 70s. DDG and CCGN are so small that you cant have a smaller true warship.

You know, I've thought about this too. That's why, in my game, only the Missile Destroyer can see and attack subs. This gives it its necessity. If only we could give some flag to AEGIS about missile/aircraft defense. Or is this already in the game? This distinction is based on reality. Although the AEGIS cruisers can detect and help attack subs, this is certainly not their primary role. The DDG is designed to hunt subs. Also, modern naval formations steam in concentric circle formations. At the center is the Carrier, support ships, and an AEGIS cruiser or so. Then there's the Anti-air Warfare (AAW) screen further out with another AEGIS cruiser and perhaps an AEGIS destroyer and couple older DDGs with plenty of missiles. Finally, there's the Ant-Submarine Warfare (AAW) screen. It's the furthest concentric circle out. This is where the Oliver Hazard Perrys and such FFG/DDGs are, looking for and hunting subs.

quote: Also, we need a better graphic for ironclad so people dont think its the monitor. That was always my issue with the game ironclad because i equated it to the monitor i knew the monitor was nowhere near as effective as its game stats.

Oh, I totally agree!

	16-05-2002 07:04									#26
	Support Apolyton or Terrorists Win

quote: quote: 7. Rifleman and more modern units get an extra hit point, and there is a second extra hit point boost for very modern units. This is to help prevent the "phalanx beating a tank" problem, and reflects the quantum leap in power of these units. This is something I've thought about a lot. Obviously, once the Napoleonic era began, land units became MUCH larger and obviously more effective. How do we show that? Should we assume the unit size stays relatively the same but its effectiveness goes way up? Or do we assume that unit size can go down, maintenance costs don't go up much, and the power still rises? Hmmm . . .

Given that we don't want huge stacks of modern army units that are a pain to move around, it makes sense to go with fewer but more powerful. We have a very big numbers jump to Rifleman for instance, in addtion to the extra hitpoint it gets.

quote: My "mod" is in a very rough beta stage. I have added units and changed stats (still testing these) and have changed the tech tree through Industrial (Modern is a REAL screwed up mess). I don't have any library entries and beautiful advisor tech screens. I would prefer to scan my hand sketched tech trees and unit stats and send them as a jpeg or something.

Given that you're just starting and you're so busy, you should just join our efforts. Many hands make light work, and the whole is greater than the sum of the parts, etc... It seems like we have very similar visions, so different but nearly identical modpacks seem silly. In any case, we look forward to the scans.

quote: "Boomer". I knew that would stir up trouble. I do agree it is a clumsy name, and I did hesitate putting it in there. However, it is the nickname given to these types of subs. Stealth Sub is completely inaccurate and not descriptive of its role. Perhaps the technical name, Ballistic Missile Sub, should be used. Or, its more casual name "Missile Boat".

Of the choices you give, Ballistic Missile Sub sounds best, but I thought Nuclear Subs could do that too, so I don't really see the difference. You must forgive me for my general post-WW2 ignorance of military details.

quote: Nope, no typo. If you recall, Civ3 default bic has the Frigate and Man-o-War appear at the same time along with Galleon! Well, in game terms, and what I envision the frigate to be, it would appear with Ship-of-the-Line. It's hull design, sails, rigging, and cannon are all of the same technology level of the SotL. The SotL should be very expensive compared to the Frigate. In real life, governments found it very difficult to maintain large fleets of SotLs. The Frigate is perfect to scout, patrol (placed around your shores with the "Y" command), and Merchantman harassing. Besides, they're plenty powerful to take on Galleons and below.

I don't like this. In gameplay terms, with the big naval changes around 1500, one needs a new transport ship and new offensive ship then. We need one offense ship there, much more than 2 later. Frigate is a very flexible term - its still being used today! So I don't see why the Frigate couldn't come with Galleon, and still be useful after the SotL arrives, because its cheaper, faster, but not as strong.

quote: I'm not saying it would hurt to have the cruiser in there, it's just not totally necessary. But, sure, if you've got a graphic for it, I'll use it!

Our goal is to only include "must have" units, not "what the heck" units. Sounds like you're squarely putting the Cruiser into the second category, so let's can it. I agree that a player contemplating building a ship at that point would probably go with Destroyer or Battleship, and not something inbetween.

quote: And as far as that all goes, here's a little about myself . . .

Here's the scoop about me. 33, still single, living in Berkeley, Calfornia. Undergrad degree in Psychology from Stanford, Master's degree from University of Hawaii in Geography. Lived two years in Indonesia inbetween, teaching in a Peace Corps type program. Since leaving school I've been working at an environmental non-profit called the Borneo Project. Saving the rainforest and all that. Consider that whenever you make me respond to interesting emails from work, you cause a chunk of rainforest to come down!

My life is not so hectic right now, but I want to limit my civ time so I have for other things in my life (esp. big on music, playing and seeing). Which means while I have time to edit civ, I never have any time to actually play the game! Like CK, I've never actually made it to Flight and that era.

Finally, regarding the whole Dreadnaught vs. AEGIS Cruiser debate, I think you need to include the missile factor into both the offense and defense of the unit. Its unrealistic to expect the AI to stock these guys with missile units (assuming that's even possible). I agree the Dreanaught should suck in comparison because its never gonna get close enough to fire its guns. The only way to reflect that is with higher numbers, cos in the game it might happen that the AEGIS would end its turn near a Dreadnaught.

So a general modern naval numbers boost is needed.

	16-05-2002 08:38									#27
	Full PM-box? Change here!

here's my bio:
38, single, near Chicago, computer consultant. Grew up playing avalon hill board games and designing our own. Working alot lately but this has been fun.

	16-05-2002 17:30									#28
	Help yourself to an AD-FREE life

quote: Originally posted by ALPHA WOLF 64 Grew up playing avalon hill board games

Hey, me too! It still have a bunch in a box somewhere.

	16-05-2002 17:33									#29
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

quote: Originally posted by Harlan Since leaving school I've been working at an environmental non-profit called the Borneo Project. Saving the rainforest and all that.

Oh, one of thoooose types.

quote: Consider that whenever you make me respond to interesting emails from work, you cause a chunk of rainforest to come down!

Oh, Please.

My respect for ya just went waayy down.

	16-05-2002 18:04									#30
	Tired of ads?

OK, Getting serious now . . .

quote: Originally posted by Harlan Given that we don't want huge stacks of modern army units that are a pain to move around, it makes sense to go with fewer but more powerful. We have a very big numbers jump to Rifleman for instance, in addtion to the extra hitpoint it gets.

Excellent.

quote: Given that you're just starting and you're so busy, you should just join our efforts. Many hands make light work, and the whole is greater than the sum of the parts, etc... It seems like we have very similar visions, so different but nearly identical modpacks seem silly. In any case, we look forward to the scans.

Ok, I will work with you guys. Typically what I've done in the past is keep close tabs on what other people are doing and posting (taking notes of good ideas, downloading units, taking pieces of mods, etc.) and adding them into my mod just the way I like it. What I'll do in this case is simply help you research and throw my ideas out. I'll let you two lead the direction the mod takes. (More or less )

quote: Of the choices you give, Ballistic Missile Sub sounds best, but I thought Nuclear Subs could do that too, so I don't really see the difference. You must forgive me for my general post-WW2 ignorance of military details.

If by "Nuclear Subs" you mean SSN attack subs: no they can not. The ballistic missile subs require a much larger and different design. Also, they are programmed with a certain firing sequence so as to keep the boat stable while launching those huge missiles.

quote: I don't like this. In gameplay terms, with the big naval changes around 1500, one needs a new transport ship and new offensive ship then. We need one offense ship there, much more than 2 later. Frigate is a very flexible term - its still being used today! So I don't see why the Frigate couldn't come with Galleon, and still be useful after the SotL arrives, because its cheaper, faster, but not as strong.

Hmmm . . . I see what you're saying. So you envision that the Galleon is basically just a transport (albeit an armed one) and that the more specialized Frigate is the main warship of that time. Ok, I can run with that. No more arguments about historical reality.

quote: Finally, regarding the whole Dreadnaught vs. AEGIS Cruiser debate, I think you need to include the missile factor into both the offense and defense of the unit. Its unrealistic to expect the AI to stock these guys with missile units (assuming that's even possible). I agree the Dreanaught should suck in comparison because its never gonna get close enough to fire its guns. The only way to reflect that is with higher numbers, cos in the game it might happen that the AEGIS would end its turn near a Dreadnaught.

These were more or less my thoughts as well.