Naval combat

[Rage]

There should be more than 1 type of battleship u can build. It would add a lot to the naval side of things if you could could build different sizes of ships and have the ability to design them-like u could design units in SMAC. You would have to decide wether to sacrifice armour for speed or what size weapons u want on it etc.
Obviously the more firepower or bigger it is the more expensive it will be to make.
you guys hae an opinion on this?

[Libertarian]

That's not a bad idea. In fact, it could probably be more generalized. Maybe you should archive it in the discussion at the top.

[Rage]

thx i will!

[notyoueither]

Lib, leave to newbies alone. They'll fumble along quite nicely without your en/dis-couragement.

How's the new game goin?

Salve

[Rage]

ive been playing civ ever since it came out just because i havent posted much here doesnt make me a newbie

[Zachriel]

Naval could use revamping:

- Subs should be able to pick off transports in stacks (some of the time).
- Cruisers should be able to "see" subs.
- Battleships should be somewhat vulnerable to subs.
- Aircraft should be able to sink ships.
- Ships should be able to fire at attacking aircraft.
- Subs should be vulnerable to counterattack for one turn after their attack.
- Fast ships should be able attack then retreat like cavalry (this would help with the Frigate v. Battleship problem).

[Barnacle Bill]

Originally posted by Zachriel
Naval could use revamping:

- Subs should be able to pick off transports in stacks (some of the time).
- Cruisers should be able to "see" subs.
- Battleships should be somewhat vulnerable to subs.
- Aircraft should be able to sink ships.
- Ships should be able to fire at attacking aircraft.
- Subs should be vulnerable to counterattack for one turn after their attack.
- Fast ships should be able attack then retreat like cavalry (this would help with the Frigate v. Battleship problem).

I agree with some of this, but not all.
Bombardment should be able to sink ships.
Nothing should be able to "see" subs and attack them in its own turn except modern subs.
Submarine attacks should be treated as a form of bombardment (i.e. no damage to the sub is possible, only to the target).
Subs should be able to pick their target out of a stack.
There should be a seperate bombardment factor for use against against subs, which would be 0 except for ASW units so let's call it an ASW factor. When a sub attacks a ship/stack, there should be a chance (not a sure thing but a chance) for the best ASW escort (i.e. ship with a non-zero ASW factor) in the stack to detect the sub before it shoots. If an ASW escort detects the sub before it shoots, it would to get a first shot at the sub - similar to the way artillery stacked with the defender works in ground combat. Detection should be more likely against a WWII-type sub than a modern one (best model would be two new factors - one for ASW sensors and one for stealth, detection probability being a function of the ratio - and modern subs having the highest sensor factor and stealth factor). After the sub takes its shot, the best ASW ship in the stack would get another chance to detect the sub, this time a better one because the sub has revealed its presence by shooting, and get to bombard it if it detects it.
The bombardment factor and number of rounds of bombardment of a sub should be sufficient to take out even a battleship. However, a sub could be sunk before firing by an escorting destroyer, and if the sub survives a defensinve escort ASW bombardment but is reduced to 1 HP it should retreat without firing.
A modern sub would not be able to act as an escort for other ships, but would be able to detect & respond to attacks by other subs upon it.
There should be an AA factor which "bombards back" against bombarding aircraft, but it would be 0 for pre-modern units of course.
General air units should be unable to detect or bombard subs, but it would be OK if special ASW patrol aircraft with a sensor & ASW factor could be added.

[GePap]

Naval combat is exemplary for what is wrong with the Civ3 combat system. This is a very old discussion that was already brutally discussed in Nov. and Dec. I think that a few more units, like a cruiser in the industrial age, war galleon in medieval (warship equivalent of Caravel) and merchant (a transport for ancient times, carry 2, make the trireme carry 1, the warship of the time) would generally give the game some needed depth. Also, treat the Aegis cruiser as a sort of floating SAM battery would really help.

[Rage]

an order where you could set ships to automatically intercept incoming ships or transports would be nice-instead of u having to do it yourself and sometimes missing them!

[Willem]

Originally posted by notyoueither
Lib, leave to newbies alone. They'll fumble along quite nicely without your en/dis-couragement.

How's the new game goin?

Salve

Well sometimes it's so easy, even I'm tempted.

[Zachriel]

Originally posted by Barnacle Bill
Nothing should be able to "see" subs and attack them in its own turn except modern subs.

Sure ships can "see" subs, at least as well as other subs, because they rely on sound, not sight. An exact position is not necessary for an attack on a sub. But certain ships were built specifically for the purpose of sounding out subs and destroying them.

Using bombardment to represent the sub attack could work. But all ship attacks (since the industrial age) are actually bombardment. By trying to represent all the complexity, it may become too burdensome to play.

The model has to be kept simple to make it playable in the game, but I'm sure there is more than one possible solution.

[Willem]

Originally posted by GePap
war galleon in medieval (warship equivalent of Caravel)

I like that idea but not the name you have for it. The later Galleons were sometimes re-fitted into warships as well. Does anyone know the name of an historical ship that fits with this idea? Easy enough to make one with Gramphos's utility.

[Willem]

Originally posted by Zachriel


Sure ships can "see" subs, at least as well as other subs, because they rely on sound, not sight. An exact position is not necessary for an attack on a sub. But certain ships were built specifically for the purpose of sounding out subs and destroying them.

Yes, a depth charge doesn't have to make direct contact with a sub in order to destroy it. It creates a shock wave which can fracture the hull and sink it.

[Zachriel]

They should try to extend the age of sail and cannon, too.

[Zachriel]

Originally posted by Willem
I like that idea but not the name you have for it. The later Galleons were sometimes re-fitted into warships as well. Does anyone know the name of an historical ship that fits with this idea? Easy enough to make one with Gramphos's utility.

BRITANNICA: The name derived from 'galley,' which had come to be synonymous with “war vessel” and whose characteristic beaked prow the new ship retained.

If you mean a refitted merchant vessal, that would be John Paul Jones beating a British Frigate. Grappled it he did.

[Willem]

Originally posted by Zachriel


BRITANNICA: The name derived from 'galley,' which had come to be synonymous with “war vessel” and whose characteristic beaked prow the new ship retained.

If you mean a refitted merchant vessal, that would be John Paul Jones beating a British Frigate. Grappled it he did.

No I'm thinking of a military version of the Caravel. Something with firepower, but no transport capacity. I'm sure there must have been a ship like that then, but I don't know of any examples off hand.

[Zachriel]

Originally posted by Willem


No I'm thinking of a military version of the Caravel. Something with firepower, but no transport capacity. I'm sure there must have been a ship like that then, but I don't know of any examples off hand.

I'll take another stab at it
The Turkish Man-of-War was called a caravel.
?

Car"a*vel (?), n. [F. caravelle (cf. It. caravella, Sp. carabela), fr. Sp. caraba a kind of vessel, fr. L. carabus a kind of light boat, fr. Gr. a kind of light ship, NGr. ship, vessel.] [written also caravel and caravelle.] (Naut.) A name given to several kinds of vessels. (a) The caravel of the 16th century was a small vessel with broad bows, high, narrow poop, four masts, and lateen sails. Columbus commanded three caravels on his great voyage. (b) A Portuguese vessel of 100 or 150 tons burden. (c) A small fishing boat used on the French coast. (d) A Turkish man-of-war.

[Willem]

Originally posted by Zachriel


I'll take another stab at it
The Turkish Man-of-War was called a caravel.
?

Car"a*vel (?), n. [F. caravelle (cf. It. caravella, Sp. carabela), fr. Sp. caraba a kind of vessel, fr. L. carabus a kind of light boat, fr. Gr. a kind of light ship, NGr. ship, vessel.] [written also caravel and caravelle.] (Naut.) A name given to several kinds of vessels. (a) The caravel of the 16th century was a small vessel with broad bows, high, narrow poop, four masts, and lateen sails. Columbus commanded three caravels on his great voyage. (b) A Portuguese vessel of 100 or 150 tons burden. (c) A small fishing boat used on the French coast. (d) A Turkish man-of-war.

I don't have my game up but isn't there UU named Man-of War? I want something in the same time period as the Caravel, but I don't know the ships of that era very well. Maybe there wasn't one, who knows. Thanks for the effort though.

[John Paul Jones]

If only privateers could capture other ships...

[Dr Strangelove]

Artillery and cannons should be able to sink ships, not just damage them!

[Willem]

Originally posted by Dr Strangelove
Artillery and cannons should be able to sink ships, not just damage them!

Not a chance! Artillery and cannons are way to inaccurate. The odds of them hitting a ship often enough, or in just the right spot, are so extreme that they're virtually non-existant. I'd be surprised if artillery were even able hit a ship more than once every ten or so rounds. They're mainly useful for fixed targets or locations, not something that's moving around like a ship.

[YC4B4U]

I think that the desire for an ASW field is indicative of this series of games inability to account for any kind of combat other than that which ocurrs on land.

Hit points, Armour, stealth, indecisive battle, anti-air, anti-missile, anti-sub, anti-ship abilities should also be considered. But not at the cost of gameplay or enjoyability.

It has long annoyed me how easy it is to sink subs without having anti-sub abilities. Subs can only be sunk by depth charge or torpedo (or navigational error). Subs should also be able to share the same square as an opponents units and therefore only be seen by anti-sub units.

Aircraft should be able to see War World II era subs (that is how the battle of the Atlantic was won). But perhaps not later eras.

Ships should be sunk by Bombardment (aircraft, ship and artillery) in the later industrial age and modern age.

In conclusion, many things can be changed to ship combat to make it more realistic - but I still want it to be fun...

[star mouse]

I think it would be cool if we could lay anti-ship mines. Each mine when struck would do 1 damage to the ship that hits it. Mines would damage any ship that hits them, even if they were friendly. There would be minelayers and minesweepers.

Since that's not likely to be implemented, here's what I want to see instead:

* Aircraft able to sink ships.
* Air superiority working from aircraft carriers, so a fleet can be protected. Such protection would work more reliably than land protection because of better visibility over ocean, but would only protect against airstrikes against the fleet.
* Battleships and destroyers exerting a zone of control against enemy aircraft from Anti-aircraft (AA) weapons. Perhaps destroyers could be more effective?
* AA weaponry for ships becomes available with the same advance that makes SAM weapons available for cities.

I don't actually remember if airbases can be built as terrain improvements in CIV3, but if they're not already there they should be added. Aircraft would be able to rebase to an airbase as well as a city. Airbases would need to be defended with ground troops otherwise an enemy would march in with a tank and obliterate everything.

[Deathwalker]

The whole navy things needs to be updated. The units, ai power and more. The naval asspect of the game was servealy ignored

[Libertarian]

Maybe they thought the spec sheet said navel combat.

[Willem]

Originally posted by star mouse
I think it would be cool if we could lay anti-ship mines. Each mine when struck would do 1 damage to the ship that hits it. Mines would damage any ship that hits them, even if they were friendly. There would be minelayers and minesweepers.

It should be possible to create your own using the tools that are available. Create an immobile sea unit that can paradrop, a copy of a Cruise Missile should do nicely. Give it a Bombard strength high enough to do the damage you want. Then set the bombard range to 0, so if a ship tries to enter the square with it, it will have a "free shot". Making it colourless would be a nice touch as well, and would probably give an incentive for a foreign ship to attack it.

[Thrawn05]

well, I thought japan's UU was a little dumb, so I edited my game and gave them Yamoto Battleship. Basicly the same as the regular battleship only with an extra bombardment range and an extra movement point. It works out nicely

[Barnacle Bill]

By "see" subs I mean to be able to attack them in your own turn. ASW surface ships have effectively zero capability to hunt subs, and never did. They only get a shot at subs when subs attack their convoy/task force. Even in WWII, a destroyer can be seen by a sub before the destroyer can see the sub, so the sub dives & gets away, so they didn't really get subs to any significant degree except when defending a target the subs were coming after. In Civ this would be best modelled by having them unable to "see" subs but have a defensive capability if a sub attacks their stack.

ASW patrol aircraft were effective at hunting WWII subs because they could spot them on the surface (where they spent most of their time) and could pounce on them before the sub could dive. From personal experience, I can tell you they are not very effective against modern nuke boats. If this can be modelled that way, using specialized ASW aircraft that are not much good for anything else, then I'm fine with it. However, giving aircraft no ASW capability is less of a distortion than letting any old aircraft unit attack subs.

Using bombardment to reflect submarine torpedo attacks is to reflect that the target can't shoot back. Naval gun fire might be mutual bombardment, but in effect it is simultaneous exchange of direct fire. They both get hurt - and normal Civ combat models that fine. With subs, the sub tries to sneak past the escorts. If it gets caught, it gets shot at with little ability to reply (especially in WWII). If it gets by the escorts, it gets to shoot at the target and can't get hurt by the target. After the sub attacks, regardless of what happens to its target, it has to escape the now-alerted escorts. If it fails to, it gets shot at with little ability to reply. This is the dynamic my proposal is intended to model.

[Willem]

Originally posted by Barnacle Bill
ASW patrol aircraft were effective at hunting WWII subs because they could spot them on the surface (where they spent most of their time) and could pounce on them before the sub could dive. From personal experience, I can tell you they are not very effective against modern nuke boats. If this can be modelled that way, using specialized ASW aircraft that are not much good for anything else, then I'm fine with it. However, giving aircraft no ASW capability is less of a distortion than letting any old aircraft unit attack subs.

There is a flag in the Editor that can give any unit the ability to see subs. You could probably add the ability to some plane you're using for Recon, or create a new one, if you wished. I suppose with nuclear subs, you could add the stealth flag as well. I'm not sure how that well that would work though.

[The Emperor Fabulous]

I personally find the navy useless. I only build ships defensively, because offensively is a waste of time and resources.