Thinktank : How should naval warfare look like in a Civ-game ?

[Spiffor]

Well, I'm not a military buff, and I don't know rats about naval warfare in real life. But we all know that naval warfare could be made better and more interesting in Civ. The intend of this thread is that people share their ideas or knowledge on that issue.

First, I'd like to ask a couple of questions to our military fans here : what was the historical function of naval warfare ? What was its tactical role ? Its strategical role ? What was specific in naval warfare and wasn't comparable to land warfare ? How did the progresses in hullmaking and navigation affect it ?

Second, I'd like to ask some questions to all of us Civ fans : Does naval warfare need to be overhauled ? What does it lack to be fun ? What could be done to make it more interesting ? Or maybe more realistic ?

Thanks

[Spiffor]

My biggest qualm with naval warfare in Civ is mobility. Naval units are slow. They are even terribly slow once railroads are around. Except in intercontinental wars, ships are completely useless. And even in intercontinental wars, ships are mostly useless once the troops have been transported on the other side. It is much more effcient to rely on land unit's superior mobility rather than relying on the slow advance of ships.

However, you can't just give ships a huge mobility and be done with it. With a huge mobility, the exploration process will end much sooner, and a part of the game's excitement would die too quickly . A huge mobility would make the limitations on Triremes and Caravels useless as well.

I have thought of a solution : a mix between the naval moves as we know them, and Civ3's aerial moves. More precisely :
- Ships have a few moves per turn, which work exactly the same as the ones we now know. For example, if a trireme has 3 moves, the players gets to move it 3 tiles per turn.
- But ships have an "operating range" like planes as well : once a turn, you can "relocate" your ship to an explored sea/harbour tile, within a radius. This "operating range" is much bigger than the normal tile moves. However, since it only concerns explored tiles, it doesn't spoil exploration, that will remain slow.
Ships that move this way are subjected to be intercepted by enemy ships en route;

What do you think ?

[Kuciwalker]

Other solution - make land units less mobile. Decrease (severely) the railroad movement bonus.

There's a problem you didn't look at in increasing sea mobility - if you make sea units too fast, it's impossible to intercept them.

You could give advantages to amphibious assaults, as well. This may be somewhat inaccurate, but it could do the job.

[MattH]

Sea travel seems to center around the movement of people and cargo. Nearly all pre-modern age sea battles took place to prevent/allow travel. In ancient times, the sea was the quickest way to move goods over long distances. Later, invasions of foreign lands (especially by England and Spain) were carried out by boat. In WWII, fierce naval battles took place to prevent England from receiving supplies. However, ships act more like a real fighting force in the modern age. Carrier battle groups have the real ability to project power and AEGIS cruisers can launch missile strikes from long distances.

In CIV III, it's hard to have real fun until the modern age (for me, at least). I always mod ships to move farther. Carriers hold more planes, and ships bombard farther.

Spiffor: I agree that mobility is an issue, but just adding 1 or 2 points will fix that. In my opinion, the reason there aren't so many heated battles is that (1) With a large ocean, it's hard to know where to send your forces and (2) there is real reason to fight.

Point 1 can be fixed with a modern age wonder like a spy satellite ( maybe you have to build parts for it, just like the SS?). Issue 2 is harder to solve. Maybe a new resource that is in the oceans?

[MattH]

I'VE GOT IT!!
Trade between civs could be mapped out in trade lines. They would look like those lines that are the borders, contain both civs colors, and connect two cities over water. These lines would be visible to all. An enemy ship over the line would cut off trade (maybe it would have to be there for two turns?). There are two options that I'm thinking of: (1) the ship automatically cuts off trade- not a declaration of war or (2) the ship/civ must declare itself as hostile. A navy and naval combat would be necessary to preserve your interests- just like in RL .

[Fosse]

Point two... that there is no real need to control the seas, and hence to need to fight in the ocean, is a result of over simplified water trade.

If Civ had a more CtP like trade system, where routes are established and potentially interrupted, then there is a real call for a navy to protect that and disrupt other civ's trade. As it is now, an effective blockade is improbably (and not fun) in all but the most extreme situations.

Another thing preventing the Civ player from needing a Navy is the fact that a nation's wealth is created by "working" tiles... instead of taxing the revenue that private citizens create... if private citizens are scared of pirates and other civs, they won't sail... your country loses money.

Of course, addressing this isn't really withing the scope of Civ (though the gang over at Clash of Civilizations is trying to deal with stuff like that), or at least not without big changes to the wat we play.

I would propose that all ocean trade cease if you go to war with a civ that has signifigantly greater naval strength in the region than you do, and that trade routes exist over water that can be interrupted. Those two things would make navies fun and needed, I think.

[Kuciwalker]

Perhaps pirating trade routes could be implemented. Give ships an "operation range", say 2 tiles. Then, you can set them to "pirate trade routes". If you manage to completely blockade a trade route, you have a 95% chance of getting all the trade along that route each turn. If you blockade only a possible route, you have a % chance, inversely proportional to how close you are to the shortest route (say, 50% if you were directly on it), of getting all trade along that route. This percentage slowly decreases as the traders learn to take different routes (though it doesn't if you stop the entire route).

I think trading should be redone somewhat. You should only be able to trade n distance away. If all of the potential trade routes are more than n distance away, you can't trade. Roads and railroads should decrease the distance cost of a tile, while difficult terrain should increase it. Sea tiles should count a lot few distance points (say 10 sea tiles count 1 point). This advantage increases as you discover techs like navigation and steam power. Thus, the sea becomes critical to trade.

Also, resource distribution within your empire should be based on the trading model - if the city is too far away, well, it doesn't get the resource. People could even pirate resources moving through your nation - denying the resources only to the cities the routes lead to, though.

[MattH]

A limited trade distance is fine- until you get magnetism. The british were trading with asia and sending prisoners to australia around that time.

[Kuciwalker]

Exactly - but they were doing it by sea, because it was too far by land. So the limited distance would force you to do it by sea.

[MattH]

Oops, sorry... I didn't read your post carefully enough

[Cruddy]

I don't see a huge amout wrong with the naval rules of Civ. They're not as good as playing any version of harpoon, but harpoon doesn't let you crush your opponents cities.

Main gripe; giving carriers their own specialist air units and not letting land based aircraft use them. Give carrier based air the ability to destroy naval targets.

Second biggest gripe; Getting an ASW helicopter that can spot subs without waiting for AEGIS cruisers.

Both of these can (I think) be addressed with the editor. But I thought I'd state them for the record.

[Kuciwalker]

Cruddy, you can restrict the units that can be on a carrier. Just make the unit you want NOT to be on a carrier Carry 1, carry only air, carry only foot.

[Sandman]

I've got a nice, simple solution.

Amalgamate all sea squares, so that they correspond to about nine land squares. So, whilst the land squares are the same size and shape as ever, the sea zones are much larger, and may have to be a bit irregular to support the coastline.

The advantages:

Ships move much faster.
Ships can exert dominance over many more land squares, as in real life.
Much easier for ships to control chokepoints and enact blockades.
Simple and easy to use.

Concerns:

Ownership of the sea zones, what if there are two cities of different civs who both want to launch ships into the same sea zone?
How will the resources of the sea zone work?
Ship values will have to be extensively reworked.

[Kuciwalker]

Sandman, the problem with increasing ship mobility is that you cannot DEFEND against assaults from the sea, because they can hit you the same turn they launch to attack you. This means that the only worthwhile naval units would be offensive ones. It also means you can't intercept convoys.

[Rommel2D]

I think naval rules should be a sort of blend between current ground and air rules. Ships move like they do currently (maybe with some increased movement, esp. more modern ones), but give them an intercept option. Once sentried, they would blockade in about a two square radius and intercept any enemy ship that enters that radius.

[Spiffor]

Rommel2D :
That was what I was thinking about too, with my original idea. Intercept orders are needed to have a balanced mechanics of "relocating" ships.

[Kuciwalker]

Oh, and Air units should be able to interdict Airports, so that a) units can't be airlifted into or out of (maybe can, but with a high chance of being destroyed) and b) the Airport no longer hooks the city up to the trade network.

The interdiction should be accomplished by simply making the unit do the air superiority mission. Any Airports within the air superiority range are interdicted.

[Jon Shafer]

Fleets had a few main functions:

Protecting trade - This is a major factor in many nations building navies, and probably the most important overall. And it's also the one that Civ 3 neglects the most. Since there are no trade routes and commerce immediately goes into your treasury overseas (though it will be subject to corruption), there's no need to defend your trade or commerce on the high seas.

Projection of power - How do you think the UK was able to maintain dominance throughout the 19th century? 'Nuff said. Boats need to be faster and more flexible to do this.

Invasion and causing trouble for other countries - This is the best part of the naval aspect of Civ 3 (but that doesn't say much). Boats in Civ 3 need to be a lot faster in order to accomplish this and my second point effectively.

[Kuciwalker]

They CAN'T be faster, though.

[Sandman]

Sandman, the problem with increasing ship mobility is that you cannot DEFEND against assaults from the sea, because they can hit you the same turn they launch to attack you. This means that the only worthwhile naval units would be offensive ones. It also means you can't intercept convoys.

Yes, but in my system it's feasible to place ships to guard the coastline, since there are fewer squares to guard. If the sea squares were amalgamated, then obviously the speed of ships would be toned down as well.

[Kuciwalker]

Originally posted by Sandman


Yes, but in my system it's feasible to place ships to guard the coastline, since there are fewer squares to guard. If the sea squares were amalgamated, then obviously the speed of ships would be toned down as well.

...

Wow. I never thought of that. That's a really good idea.

Perhaps they could increase ship movement and have the "sea superiority" option other people have mentioned, making your ship intercept other ships.

[HazieDaVampire]

We need moving trade vessels dammit! The moment you have them, you need to protect them with escorts, and scout around the areas they pass through to keep them clear.

If you leave a transporter unprotected, or send it through an unclear and possibly hostile area, they'll start being destroyed and so will your trade.

[MattH]

We need moving trade vessels dammit!

That would defeat the whole CIV III trading system! I suggested trade lines because they would keep with the current theme and still allow for piracy and naval action. The Civ II forum is here.

[Kuciwalker]

Hazie - moving trade vessels would a) KILL the AI (it probably couldn't use them effectively) and b) make it difficult to get resources consistantly. It would also add a ton of sheer micromanagement.

[Cruddy]

Originally posted by skywalker
Sandman, the problem with increasing ship mobility is that you cannot DEFEND against assaults from the sea, because they can hit you the same turn they launch to attack you. This means that the only worthwhile naval units would be offensive ones. It also means you can't intercept convoys.

Personally I don't bother intercepting enemy ships in my coastal waters. Just reduce 'em to 1 hp with artillery and they'll run home with their tails between their legs. Ditto invasions/transports - they have to spend a turn on the beach, blast 'em with artillery and roll over them with offensive units (if they got only 1 hp, then conscripts can do the job at a push).

OK, so I'll maybe get a couple tiles pillaged - but it lets me concentrate my navy on offensive duties like taking enemy cities.

Anybody know if the naval minefields work - I mean, can the AI use them? Forget the guy's name, Latino, begins with a P... Pesoloco, that's the guy. Anyone try it?

[Rommel2D]

That was what I was thinking about too, with my original idea. Intercept orders are needed to have a balanced mechanics of "relocating" ships.

Oops, sorry Spiffor, I skimmed over your post a little fast and missed the air combat system suggestion. Spiffy idea!! :]

I don't know about the rebase for ships, though. It could work, but its a bit overkill, IMO. Giving ships an intercept-like 'blockade' command would make it possible to increase the movement points of modern ships and still defend against them.

It would also make blockading ports more feasible. Maybe if the city distance from the capital used for calculating corruption and waste was counted over roads and sea lanes instead of 'as the crow flies', disrupting trade routes could be a factor, too

[petermarkab]

Something needs to be done about the impotency of sea combat. I like the idea of imposing penalties on the railroad movement system to counter the effectiveness of land movement combat vs sea movement combat. So whether its decreasing the movement rate, or increasing sea movement (but not too much) i think this would be a good balance.

Decreasing the railroad movement rate would have two main effects:

1. players would have to manage their defensive forces more closely, and plan more in advance for invasions. I certainly don't think too much about my unit staging posts if i can move them all there in zero turns!

2. large empires would become less centralised and more fractured, (or federal) again making control of remote corners of said empire more difficult. This federal structure has a number of similarities with the provinces idea in the civ4 thread.

But as has been touched on regularly in this thread, the historical reason for maintaining a navy was to protect trade routes, and i think by altering trading to that of a system of designated routes a la CTP would be the best option. I particularly like Matt H, and Fosse's ideas.

Rather than just having these routes existing, and needing protection from the navy, one could apply a monetary cost to running the trade route. Imagine needing to pay for the merchant shipping, or in the case of overland trade, the courier company, or railroad company.

This is where a bias towards sea trade could be introduced. We all know that long distance transport of automobiles is done by sea. Why?: its cheaper than by land, and capacity is much greater.

By taxing the railroads say 3 gold per tile, roads 2 gold per tile, and sea 1 gold (or less) per tile, the preference would be to trade goods by sea.

To come full circle back to troop movement, rather than reducing the movement rate for railroads, i say sustain it at infinity, but tax each move, so players still have the option of rushing troops from one end of their empire to another, but it will cost them.

You could also have different tax rates for trade routes, workers, military units etc.

This also has the advantage of forcing the player to plan his railroad network efficiently, and not to cover the entire map with railroads, so the map is infinitely better looking!!

[HazieDaVampire]

Originally posted by skywalker
Hazie - moving trade vessels would a) KILL the AI (it probably couldn't use them effectively) and b) make it difficult to get resources consistantly. It would also add a ton of sheer micromanagement.

Yeah, i didn't think it about it that much.

Trade routes mite be better, but would the AI still have to defend them even more so?

[Demerzel]

be nice if the navy aspect was improved as at the moment there is only 2 "useful" uses for naval units

1) to transport units to another continent ( & normally airports take over from there )

2) to drive off raiders of your coastline though artillery can do this just fine too.


trade routes & the protection thereof might help spice it up some.

[TheArsenal]

CTP style visible trade routes, and protection of trade, as well as increased movement - at the very least - on huge/large maps, sounds good. I play a good deal of CTP2, and there's nothing more irritating than pirating of your trade routes. As it is now, while it is fun to put together a navy to go out and do battle with other naval units, I don't find it particularly essential, which is a shame. Enemy bombardment is a hassle, no doubt, but never such a problem that I would change priorities and beef up my navy to deal with it.

Originally posted by skywalker
Sandman, the problem with increasing ship mobility is that you cannot DEFEND against assaults from the sea, because they can hit you the same turn they launch to attack you. This means that the only worthwhile naval units would be offensive ones. It also means you can't intercept convoys.

For this to be a problem, the AI would have to first learn (a) to fill a transport to capacity and (b) group numbers of transports together in an invasion fleet before launching. Particularly after your nation is railroaded, there is nothing the AI can throw at you that matters when you can bring your entire garrisoned military to bear on it at the blink of an eye.

And in general: I like the idea of reduction of railroad movement.