Possible Privateer Fix

Andrew_Jay · August 19, 2002, 15:19

I guess Play the World is the best forum to post this idea . . .

Anyway, I just got an idea to make privateers at least somewhat more useful. Just like dispersing a barbarian camp and getting 25 gold, what if you also got 25 gold from sinking another ship?

ixnay · August 19, 2002, 15:37

That's actually quite a good idea - comission a fleet of privateers to try and increase your treasury.

I like it.

Hagbart · August 19, 2002, 17:18

Why will this "fix" the privateer?

Andrew_Jay · August 19, 2002, 18:05

the best term I could come up with. I don't necessarily mean it's broken . . . call it an alteration or addition.

Basically right now, I don't see a whole lot of use for this unit. I see it this way:
If you REALLY needed one or more ships of another Civ sunk, chances are the AI was going to go to war with you anyway. Nobody is going to keep a fleet of privateers so they can sink enemy invasion fleets without declaring war.

Basically, right now Privateers are just a way to be a Jerk on the high seas. If you sink a ship, chances are it's destruction really isn't going to help you - or even hurt the other Civ - a whole lot.

However, there may be one flaw I've just thought of, what if you exploited it by bombarding ships with other ones during war, and then finishing them off with Privateers? Maybe all neutral shipping sunk by Privateers earns you 25 Gold.

statusperfect · August 19, 2002, 19:02

Andrew Jay> Good thinking!

But how about gaining a % of the enemy treasury for taking a ship with a privateer?

Chandragupta · August 19, 2002, 19:20

I like the set gold amount idea, since a ship could only really carry so much gold. If you're looking for a way to fix the privateer so it's actually useful, do like i did in my own mod (which i may or may not post on apolyton at some point) and change the attack value from 2 to 3 (you can actually sink ships).

Coracle · August 19, 2002, 21:38

It IS broken.

Privateers and subs were built in reality to attack rival civs' MERCHANT shipping on his trade routes. They were not built to attack enemy warships; that was never their purpose. Fix THAT, Firaxis.

Blockading also stinks.

Capt Dizle · August 19, 2002, 22:11

Right on spot Zouave.

Andrew_Jay · August 19, 2002, 23:46

I had also thought about a percentage of the treasury, so then it would actually hurt the civ that lost their ships. I just wasn't sure how damn annoying that would be . . . then again, barbarians take a percentage of your money . . .
Maybe when Privateer technology comes around the Barbarian ship becomes a privateer and everyone can go running around taking percentages of eachother's gold similar to what Barbarians do.

DrFell · August 20, 2002, 10:28

Does seem real wierd why privateers cant be used by the barbs in standard rules.

Rather than taking a percentage, privateer attacks could take a set amount out of the treasury. And of course as said before this wouldn't apply to wartime.

I do miss caravans actually. Been playing scenarios like colonies 3 recently, that being a prime example of a scenario which would really benefit if civ2 had a 'hidden nationality' option. Taking out merchant shipping is great fun in this and other scenarios (Imperialism 1870 for example). Shame there's not an option to bring back caravan units, as with civ3s great goto command and potential stacked moves in PTW, trade would be no hassle at all.

The_Aussie_Lurker · August 21, 2002, 02:03

Well, I still reckon that the best idea CtP had was the immobile caravan unit! You know what I mean, you had to build one caravan for every new trade route you created, but didn't suffer the nightmare of micromanagement! Connected to this idea, of course, is having the physcial trade routes drawn on the map. routes which could be vulnerable to attack or blockade (by privateer, sub or any other unit!) Ideally trade routes should be invisible to all but those involved, but should be become visible to the enemy if they come within a certain range of the route (with that range being greater for privateers and submarines!)
Anyway, I know I've said this before, and I don't want to sound like a broken record, but I just think this would introduce an excellent new strategy to the game. Also, given the lack of support CtP 1 and 2 recieve from Activision, it's not like they're going to notice if a couple of their ideas get stolen

Yours,
The_Aussie_Lurker

SABRA · August 21, 2002, 08:50

They should also fix the hidden nationality , when you sail with a privateer and pass the waters of a nation that nation all to frequently contacts you .
Yet you have not contacted them .

Galvatron · August 22, 2002, 08:25

Yup because in the end Privateers are freelancer they don't tie directly to any nation (well that's why their name

)They capture ships from foreign nations and get a reward from the sovereign which employs them that's it. I like the idea of getting a reward of sinking ships (but only civilian ones as privateers hunted only merchants most of the time as stated out earlier somewhere) yeahh that's what pirates do after all wohoo

Andrew_Jay · August 22, 2002, 08:52

Come to think of it; you'd think Sid Meier would know about Pirates.