battleships: Round the world in 45 years

[Phutnote]

180 x 180 size maps! wow. that's huge. 16 civs. amazing.

Gives rise to an interesting problem tho: at that size, a battleship (movement 4) would take 45 years to circumnavigate the globe. So much for doing it in 80 days.

I wonder if movement rates on larger worlds (say earth map, large) are boosted?

Even with nuclear power, it would take 36 years to round the globe. With Magellans as well, it would take 25 years. I guess that's getting into the acceptable range . . .

I guess it doesn't really matter; the editor can change the movement values. But perhaps the default movement rates for ships are a little on the low side?

Phutnote

[Adagio]

I sure hope they have done something about that, but I don't think so..."Hey honey, what'd ya think, shouldn't we spend our last 45 years taking a cruise around the world?" Damn, then I'm never going to take a trip to Australia

[dainbramaged13]

dude... thats one of the most important things that anyone MUST realize about civgames... of COURSE its not realistic.. but how fun would it be if a. you had really small maps or b. you had to play months upon months to finish one game because turns are only a few days long.... its not realisitc, but this is THE prime example for gameplay over realism, and i think it NEEDS to be accepted

[Darkknight]

Why dont you mod the game so that the game lasts a year and that every turn is called a day?

Why not stop in at Aussieland on the Round the world trip?

[Skanky Burns]

Yes, come here. Youll enjoy it

[Phutnote]

Rather thought I'd get the standard response about it being a game and not being realistic.

And sure, I accept that there will be a lot of abstractions in the game to make it work and be playable. But the extreme to which you take what I am saying is ridiculous. I am simply saying that the default movement value is low, too low for large maps.

As a gameplay issue, you start a war in 1930 and send out your fleet to do battle. The fleet doesn't arrive at its target until 1960. Its not so much the years but the number of turns it takes: 30 turns to arrive at the enemy is a heck of a long time, game wise, year wise, any way you look at it.

When you use a metaphor for a game, you are allowing players to apply their real world/historical/sci fi scripts to the setting.

Battleships that are sunk by phalanxes don't follow a real world script either.

Obviously, you would not have complained about such an odd result because you accept that its just a game, and not realistic. Fine. But I always found phalanxes sinking battleships stretched the metaphor Civ was using a bit too much.

I see nothing wrong with commenting on various aspects of the game that don't seem to fit. Sure, there are many things that would be ridiculous to do. Doing the whole of human history using day by day turns would be silly.

I did not suggest this, however. I am suggesting that the movement rate of a battleship is too low. It is equal to a 1860 era ironclad.

By your reasoning about realism being silly, I'm surprised you aren't arguing for a return to the sailboat sinks battleship dynamic. After all, it's a GAME, it's not reality.

And I still think the battleship could do with a speed boost.

Phutnote.

[Rakki]

phalanx sinks battleship/phalanx sinks battleship are like, erhm, obsolete. I don't think I've seen it happen in civ 2 and even if it does, they must've had some damn good bonus so we can assume it's a random feat of heroics or plain good luck. (along with fortifications and....)

Anyway, nowadays with the bombardment thing, phalanxes will just have to sit there and take it like sitting ducks

As for speed and movement, I don't think there's much call for repeating Magellan's feat. The movement of naval units should remain relative to that of the land units, and while it's unrealistic that footsoldiers take an entire year (or more !) to slog through 200 miles of terrain, it's certainly a lot better than if one phalanx suddenly crossed 8 squares of wilderness - it'd be like playing chess except all the pieces are queens !

[crmeyer]

The trick isn't to look at specific representations of reality, but rather to determine whether the various representations provide a good systemic "flow."

Time and movement in turn-based games is always abstracted, so consider whether all the abstractions work, that is are well represented in the flow of the game--not whether each individual abstraction is realistic, etc.

I must confess that this troubled me for a while in Civ2 as well ... however, I was unable to think of a solution that fit the system better.

Of course, mild adjustments to movement rates of particular units can be made by each individual player to better suit his or her tastes.

[Saint Marcus]

Spearmen: 1-2-1
Hoplite: 1-3-1
Battleship 24-20-4

BOOM

[JellyDonut]

Scenario makers for Civ 2 were confronted with this problem. The solution: change movement rates. For instance, if you're going to play on a huge map, set the Battleship movement rating to 12 or something. Fifteen turns to circumnavigate the globe sounds good to me.

Your speculations on Nuclear Power and Magellan's are assumptions that they're going to be in the game and/or serve the same function. Maybe Firaxis put in a different way of speeding up ships or none at all.

[PGM]

Originally posted by Phutnote

Not the "unrealistic" thread again! Yes, it's unrealistic, blablabla, but it's fun. Otherwise it wouldn't be fun, it would be boring or too complicated. And if we wanted to have something that's realistic, complicated and not fun, we already have our own lives, Jesus!

[Skanky Burns]

Does anyone know just how many moevment points modern units have?? I get the general impression that more modern units have greater movement points than their equivalents in Civ 2. The Chinese rider, for example, has 3 movement points.

[faded glory]

yes this is a unrealistic problem in CTP PBEM that makes role playing difficult. "The 3rd panzer crossed the border this year". Or "Our MiG fighters are patrolling the middle of the ocean this Year, miles from land, without airbase in sight"

Kind of annoying...So we just ignore it all together

Ahh, just ignore it guys. No big deal. How many of you actually take not what year the game is?


This is a painful reality of TBS games.

[Madine]

The years are there for general historical reference. Of course it doesn't take 50 years to travel 100 miles

I think that naval units should have higher movement rates, but not because of the time thing.

[Stuie]

I ended up increasing the ship movement rates in my Civ2 files. Can't remember exactly how much; I felt the ships better reflected the abilities of ships (while still "unrealistic" in terms of direct comparison to life) and the game didn't ever seem unbalanced.

So, I'll probably end up doing the same to my Civ3 files. To each his own.

[manofthehour]

You see there is the problem. If you have an enemy that is almost half way around the world and you don't have troops there it takes you 20 turns to get there. Are you going to be able to send units via arports? That would really help. Or maybe they could land in a friendly city that is closer by. But also if you give it to high a rate than a contient is overrun in a turn. (something theytried to stop with the roads).

[Sarxis]

This topic has always been an object of debate. It comes down to gameplay versus realism, and sometimes the gameplay has to take precedence.

It is, afterall, a game.

[colossus]

I have long since appreciated that the larger the map, the poorer is the gameplay. Movement stuff is just one of the problems. On large map, you have to manage many more cities, you have too much production-wonder becomes way too cheap, you don't need to worry about enemy civ-it takes century before the 1st foreign contact, AIs are more stupid in large map than in smaller one.

So why for the extra large map? Because there are plenty of expansion freaks who love to build cities. If you really worry about the movement stuff, then just don't play those huge map.

[Phutnote]

Well, some people are reasonable and articulate in their responses, and others . . . aren't.

Colossus: I agree with just about everything you said. Large/huge maps present some problems with gameplay. Note that firaxis has addressed these issues by increasing the number of civs you can have as a maximum according to the size of the map.

I think this is a reasonable and appropriate solution. Bigger planet, more room, more players. To be honest, I'm really keen on playing on a map with 16 (count'em, 16!) computer players. I'm not gonna be able to resist that. But like you say, the distance thing IS a problem. And to others I'd note that this is a GAMEPLAY problem as well, not just an anal-dang-it-ain't-realistic-I'm-gonna hold-my-breath-and-pout thing.

The game follows a rigid timeline and is over in 2020 on Diety (or 2050 not sure for civ III how the time works out). If a war breaks out, and the enemy is across an ocean, it could take 30 or 40 turns (I'll use the term turns here in stead of 'years' because I am addressing gameplay as well) for your battleships/fleet to even reach the enemy. I don't want to spend so long just in transit.

Play on smaller maps, you say? The game is ultimately balanced for the default map size, I'd imagine. So I'll use that a lot I guess.

But I want the 16 civ option! I want my cake and I wanna eat it too. Rail helps solve land movement issues, but there's a prob with the naval units on the big map. It is both a 'realism' and a gamplay issue.

From a gameplay perspective, I think that's a heck of a long time. If you are connected by land to an opponent, this problem isn't so bad: your rail lines can take troops right to the enemies border in one turn. So rail/roads in enemy territory don't work for you: that can be attributed to guerilla action, supply difficulty in unsecured territory, militia forces of the enemy, whatever.

but if you are separated by an ocean, it's a great advantage against invasion not just because of the usual military difficulties, but because ships are so slow it takes the entire modern era to reach the enemy shores with your heavy ships.

I'd like to be able to fight a faster modern war. Perhaps if ships could attack half their movement points (battleship move 8, attack 4 times) it would speed up naval attacks a bit.

Anunikoba: Again, I concede that realism is an impossibilty in a civ game, and that there are going to have to be concessions, but I think gameplay here is an issue: on a large maps, it can take an incredibly long time to reach an opponent.

I hope to play multiplayer when civ III comes out. I don't imagine this will be much of a problem because small maps will be the order of the day: huge ones will take too much time and memory. On a small map the movement rates are fine. But if Firaxis can acknowledge that a small map can hold fewer civs, why not acknowledge that on a huge map speeds need a bump?

manofthehour: I agree with you, too. Land units aren't much of a problem with airports and rail, but a big ocean is almost insurmountable.

they have stopped the howitzer rush with the new road/culture rules, so that won't be a problem now, which is great.

Madine: why do you think naval units should have improved movement rates, then? isn't speed/movement inextricably related to time?

faded glory: Ultimately, I'm sure I'll have to just accept it and ignore it, just as you say. But hey, they changed Cleo, altered the rail rules to prevent howie rush, etc. Can't blame a guy for trying. There have been plenty of less reasonable arguments here than mine.

crmeyer, jellydonut, and rakki: I think you are probably right: for the big maps, we'll have to edit the files to up the naval movement rates for the huge map. But it'd be nice if Firaxis brainstormed up a cool solution to solve the gameplay issue with the big maps that will be for everyone, especially when people start playing (and they will) multiplayer with huge maps with 16 people. It may not work well, but people will still try it because 16 civs online would be awesome.

Note that the battleship is still at 4, while cavalry have been upped to 3, and no doubt mobile armour will be 4 or more. If they are upping the movement of land units, why not up some of the naval units?

Rakki: the phalanx vs. battleship was changed for civ II because of a great deal of complaints from 'realism' minded players. I am using that as an example of how 'realism' and gameplay can be related; arguing for a more 'realistic' item in civ is not necessarily to argue for an unwieldly, insanely detailed solution.

thnx for the responses fellas


Phutnote

[Madine]

It's related to time in terms of turns, but not related to the idea of "one turn is at least a year, therefore...."

I was under the impression that the numbers quoted on the site were defaults, not maximums.

Also a ship's bombardment uses only one movement point, so a battleship can bombard up to 4 times a turn.

[Phutnote]

Madine: a semantic issue of turn/year, then. Perhaps I should have said 45 turns to circumnavigate the globe.

I did note in my first post that 20-25 years (substitute turns if you prefer) to circumnavigate the globe was in the acceptable range. It certainly does not take a real battleship 25 years to go around the world; how people interpret my points to mean that I am arguing for absolute realism i don't know.

As for the numbers on the site . . . I suppose they are defaults, at that. Which would mean that you could have 16 civs on a small map. Cool.

Phutnote

[Skanky Burns]

Thatd be funny having 16 civs on a small map... You could conquer an enemy civilization with settlers before you've even built your first city!!

[korn469]

i don't see it as a so called "realism" issue...it is a balance issue

problem #1

there still might be infinite moves on railroads in your (and allies) territory...so ground units could travel the globe in a single turn, while it takes ships decades

problem #2

is it really fun for it to take 30 turns to move your ship to the action?

[Warm Beer]

Originally posted by korn469
i don't see it as a so called "realism" issue...it is a balance issue

problem #1

there still might be infinite moves on railroads in your (and allies) territory...so ground units could travel the globe in a single turn, while it takes ships decades

I hope not. I think infinate moves for RRs is just silly, but that is a discussion for another thread.

problem #2

is it really fun for it to take 30 turns to move your ship to the action?

Not 30 turns, no. But I do like the idea that it should take some time to amass your troops and get them in a position to deploy. War preparedness (sp.. is it even a word) should be a part of the game. If your troops are buisily reading comics in the baracks while your enemy is preparing to go to war with you, you should suffer some sort of strategic penalty when the attack comes aside from your enemy getting a free poke at you.

OTOH, if even in a long war, some of your troops can't join the party because the map is so friggin big... that is no fun.

[korn469]

Warm Beer

when i refer to railroads, the reason that they are unbalancing is that infantry units can ride across europe and fight enemies in southeast asia in the same turn, while bombers can only make it to the middle east, and poor battleships will take so many turns to get there that they won't matter...so lets hope that ground units don't get such an overwhelming advantage in civ3 compared to naval and air units

if the map is too large or too small (compared to movement rates) then the game suffers

[Jaybe]

I think it IS appropriate for ships to be slow compared to railroaded ground units. For a sizeable ground unit to move from one coast to the opposite in the United States, it would take a week or two (US units have alot of "tail" (support units)).

But remember how it took several months to move ground combat divisions to the Middle East for Desert Storm?* It is really important to have your ground and naval units pre-positioned for those foreign "adventures".

*Some small-sized units were moved from Diego Garcia, and others were airlifted in from the states for Desert SHIELD. (I am totally disregarding the "1 turn = 1 or more years argument. The point is it takes a LONG time).

[Blake]

Babylonian Bowman: 6 moves on road
Battleship: 4 moves on ocean

Them bowmen have some damn fast feet.
Then again I disagree with the bonus incured by roads, on flat land, what exactly is the difference between grass and a muddy track? That ones always puzzled me

I guess this is another of those gameplay vs realism things.

But I agree ships need to move faster, a ship can move every bit as fast as a vechile on a half-decent road (a sealed road provides much better speed though).

As a guideline the speed of ships should be about as fast as armour on roads - thats approximately move 9.

Blake - "He who walks faster on grass than crude roads"

[DonJoel]

I totally agree with Phutnote!
The speed of modern ships is far to low.
In civ2, when playing on large maps battleships were never worth building since when they reached your opponent they would have had cruise missiles anyway.

The "no road bonus for attacker" rule seems to even the difference between ground and naval units a little, atleast when you are at war. Im not sure if it is enough though.

The problem is that it seems like a battleship can bombard as many times as it moves. This will prevent people from editing the speed by themselves since there would be other issues with battleships bombarding 10 times in a turn.
The solution would be to make ships bombardment use 2 movement points instead of 1, this will enable a battleship moving 8 turns to bombard 4 times, just as it is right now.

Somebody else came up with this idea, but i cant remember who.

I really hope we get Firaxis ear on this since it is an important issue. Perhaps Firaxis has already came up with a solution to this, but if they have they might as well tell us.

Ps.I dont think this is a realism issue, I think its a gameplay issue. Ships are far to slow to be usefull on a large map, atleast that were they case in civ 2.

[tuckson]

Originally posted by Mark L
BOOM

[Dutch mode]Boem [/dutch mode]
Off topic:
How come that some folks seem to dwell on apolyton since jan. 1970? That's nearly the beginning of Arpanet

[Adagio]

Originally posted by korn469
i don't see it as a so called "realism" issue...it is a balance issue

problem #1

there still might be infinite moves on railroads in your (and allies) territory...so ground units could travel the globe in a single turn, while it takes ships decades

problem #2

is it really fun for it to take 30 turns to move your ship to the action?

Yeah, that's the problems with this!?! Another problem is, the war will be pointless: I start the war now because that nation really annoys me, but when it takes 30 years to get to that nation, at that time you have proberly got some other problems (another nation "taking care" of your cities while the battleships are 30 years from home while a phalanx in the same area can get home in 0 years. I don't care that much about if it's unreal, but too much unreal makes the game boring