new navy idea

[johncmcleod]

I have a new idea, though I'm sure I'm not the first to think of it. I think damaged naval units should lose movement points. When a ship is damaged, it moves slower. It's kind of dumb when a ship has one hit point left, meaning it's almost destroyed, and it moves as fast as a non-damaged ship. What do you guys think?

[Carver]

IIRC, that's how it worked in Empire . But ships are already so slow, I think I would be annoyed by it. I do think that ships shoud be repairable at sea. Gain 1 HP for each turn lying dormant.

[Asmodean]

[Story Mode]

...Engine room...this is the bridge. We have taken too many hits. Give us full speed, so that we can get out of here.

...Bridge...Here is the engine room...the engine is kinda smashed up by that last torpedo, and half the crew down here is dead. But I think we can just manage full speed, Sir.

[/Story Mode]

Come to think of it, your idea is quite good, johncmcleod

Asmodean

[Jaybe]

Consider that most naval units are more than one ship, and that lost hit points are reflecting damaged or SUNK ships. Crippled (1 HP remaining) units ought'a have their movement halved.

When any type of transport takes damage, that proportion of hit points should be removed from its cargo. The damage is taken at random, so some units might be destroyed while others are damaged or untouched.

Workers and Settlers would, of course, have to be given special consideration since they are an all-or-nothing thing.

[SofaKing]

The problem with naval units is not their speed, but their lack os usefulness. I think a better change would be to give ships an "Area Of Control." Squares that fall under an enemy ships AOC would be considered occupied. This would prevent a city from drawing resources from an AOC'ed square and would potentially act as a blockade. I suggest the following:

Galleys - no AOC
Caravels - no AOC
Galleons - no AOC
Privateers - 1 square radius in coastal waters only
Frigates - 1 square radius in coastal or sea waters only
Iron Clads - 1 square radius in coastal or sea waters only
Submarines (conventional) - 1 square radius in all waters
Destroyers - 1 square radius in all waters
Aegis Cruiser - 1 square radius in all waters
Battleships - 2 square radius in all waters
Carrier - 2 square radius in all waters
Nuclear Submarine - no AOC (nuclear platform only)

[Arrian]

What if two ships ended their turns next to each other? Would the stronger one (a/d stats-wise) control the contested tiles?

I like the basic idea, btw, just trying to clarify.

-Arrian

[SofaKing]

That's a good point. I hadn't thought of that. I think simpler rules work better than complex hierarchies, so perhaps AOC will only come into effect if the ship is "fortified." When that occurs the only way to break it, is if the controlling ship is destroyed or "defortifies" (bombards, moves, attacks).

Example: The French Privateer fortifies off the coast of Rome. The coastal water run only one square from the coast so the privateer's AOC controls. Itself and the two adjacent squares. Rome is now blockaded from overseas trade and cannot "work" the three controlled squares. The next turn, an English Frigate fortifies directly behind the French privateer. The English AOC blocks the sea squares from being "worked," but the coastal squares are still controlled by the French. Now, if the French Privateer is destroyed (or defortifies for any reason), the the English Frigate will take over the Coastal squares. If it "re-fortifies", nothing will happen until the frigate's AOC is disrupted.

Does that make sense, or is there maybe an easier way?

[Sava]

It's a good idea, but I don't see how it could be implemented in Civ 3's code, I doubt Firaxis wouldn't be lazy and do it either.

[SofaKing]

In defense of Firaxis, I doubt laziness is a factor. It is a cost/benefit analysis that dictates whether or not the addition makes sense. Every change involves quite a bit of design/coding/and QA.
With that said, I think it might be cheaper than you think. The AOC rules are similiar to that of culture boundaries, so it is possible that code could be leveraged. Also, this change would breathe a huge amount of life into the naval aspect of the game (an aspect that has almost universally ignored in other strat games). In today's marketplace, expansion packs get bad-mouthed for nat adding anything substantial to gameplay. This could prove a useful marketing tool.

[Falcon X]

The one thing I think they should have are fleets. They have armies.

[Deathwalker]

The whole naval system needs more work on it. It was almost totally ignored in Civ 3.

[Sava]

The biggest problem is that Firaxis didn't think outside the box for Civ 3. They didn't change anything related to the actual gameplay of moving units. They should have taken a step backwards and figured out a better way of integrating all the different types of units and the way they behave.

The biggest mistake was making the combat system so simple.... Attack and Defense... that's it... what a crock! They should have taken a look at a game like Empire Earth and looked at the different relationships between units.

[Asmodean]

On the other hand...maybe they only wanted to keep it as simple as possible. This game was probably designed more for newbies...let's face it, the learning curve is not that steep. My guess is that they had thought about this, and just dismissed it together with a bunch of other great ideas.

Asmodean

[Marquis de Sodaq]

CivII has reduced movement, to a minimum of 2. That could easily have been implemented - but as others have pointed out many times, the navy clearly did not get the attention it deserved in Civ3.

[johncmcleod]

I agree, they downsize the navy a lot in this game. It has been said "He who rules the seas rules the world." And Britian was not a big country but they formed a huge empire because of their navy. And naval units aren't put to much use besides bombarding. I also think there should be a huge difference in ironclads and frigates. ie One time an ironclad fleet attacked my frigate fleet and they were relatively the same size, and guess who one? The woodies. That's just dumb. Frigates should be no match for them.

[ShredZ]

With regards to changing game concepts like:

The biggest mistake was making the combat system so simple.... Attack and Defense... that's it... what a crock!

If it aint broke, dont fix it.

Theyve already got a good thing going, I can only imagine the b|tching going on if they wouldve tried something new...

[Cyclotron]

Civilization games have never had a steep learning curve. Indeed, the simplicity in design and variability of strategies are probably the pillars of the entire series. It would seem that Civ3 follows in this tradition whether you like it or not... My opinion, however, is that additional rules, exceptions, and additions would have greatly multiplied the loopholes and bugs and would have lowered the economic viability and broad-based interest of the game that made its predecessors so successful.

[HazieDaVampire]

only ships that are tipping to the side tend to slow down, a battleship, or anyother ship in civ "are designed to work when things arn't 'hunky dorey'". A ship could lose the hole of its deck and work just as well (captain might have to move a little, and the radar won't work, nor its radio probubly) when it comes to moving!

[SofaKing]

I absolutely agree. Civilization is a great game in that it is easy to pick-up while still maintaining a great deal of depth. Sid Meier's has been often quoted saying that when designing games fun and gameplay always trump realism. As such, I think the combat rules (attack vs. defense) are more than adequate.
When it comes to navies I think Firaxis had the right idea. They can transport troops, bombard targets, and blockade. In fact, I think the rules governing the first two make perfect sense. However, blockade (and please correct me if you think I'm wrong) is totally impractical. On average it will take three ships to block every port an enmeny CIV has. That's a huge investment that is all for not if they can destroy even one ship. Does anyone actually create blockades?
Imagine this. Your civ is progressing nicely. You control your borders, your cities are well garrisoned, tech is coming along every 4 or 5 turns, and due to trading techs for luxuries your people are happy. Then out of nowhere, half of your cities go into civil disorder. You quickly create entertainers in your cities, but are not quite observant enough to figure out what caused the disturbance.
Next turn, the civil disobedience ends, but starvation occurs in several coastal cities and many others are burning through their granaries. Upon checking the city screen again, you notice that you can't work the water squares. You've been blockaded.
You have ignored your navy but still have a couple of caraval's you built centuries earlier. You sail one out of port and sure enough find an enemy sub.
What are your options? You can try to build you navy up to break it, but you better have either iron or oil on your continent. If not, well, you're sunk (pun intended).
Now imagine that this was a multiplayer game, and instead of being blockaded, you were the blockader. Further, imagine the rage of your hapless friend/brother-in-law/co-worker and the joy of talking trash to him afterwards.

[Panag]

Originally posted by johncmcleod
I have a new idea, though I'm sure I'm not the first to think of it. I think damaged naval units should lose movement points. When a ship is damaged, it moves slower. It's kind of dumb when a ship has one hit point left, meaning it's almost destroyed, and it moves as fast as a non-damaged ship. What do you guys think?

hi ,

you should make a poll out of it , ....
but most people would agree
also , there should be a "port" , to fix and build ship's , and your allies should ba able to fix the ship's for you , ...

have a nice day