2 Naval Ideas I always had

[Inverse Icarus]

In all, or at least most, games of civ, naval warfare has always been a major aspect. I have two ideas to improve it slightly.

1. Canals
Like roads, built by settlers. of course, there would have to be a limiting factor, like say 7 connected max, so that you couldnt just line your continent with them and have battleships patrolling. Or you could make it so you cannot attack while in a canal, but CAN be attacked, that would be cool. I believe that being able to connect two bodies of water via canal would greatly increase naval tensions in civ, as well as solve that occasion where you build a navy in what turns out to be a big lake

2. Naval Bases
Not like the ones in civ 2, which work like airports or barracks, but like the AIRFIELDS in civ 2. building them on a land square allows naval units to dock there and get repaired faster than if they weren't on one. Again, that whole not attacking but being able to be attacked would apply, and there couldnt be two of them connected in any way (even via canal).

i think these two ideas would be awesome additions to any civ game, but i also know its a massive addition to the heaping pile of code yet to be constructed.

[Andreiguy]

Naval bases is a good idea , but...

1. Canals
Like roads, built by settlers. of course, there would have to be a limiting factor, like say 7 connected max, so that you couldnt just line your continent with them and have battleships patrolling. Or you could make it so you cannot attack while in a canal, but CAN be attacked, that would be cool.

...how can you not attack but get attacked? Would the not attack rule apply only to you? Or do you mean from land? And I think canals should be much shorter, 3, or even 2, tiles max. And they should be VERY expensive and take long to build. (Thousands died building the Suez, many more building the Panama Canal).

Anyway, great ideas, keep thinking of more!

[Inverse Icarus]

yea, i meant via land. like a battleship in a canal getting pounded on by a tank.

[Lawrence of Arabia]

Civ3 will haev a Great Canal wonder where you can connect 2 oceans with a canal. No word yet on how it will function/length/tiloe bonuses
In civ2, you could build a port facility where your sihps could be repaired in one turn. Itsmore logical to have one in the city than anywhere on the coast.

[Inverse Icarus]

i stated the fact that i knew that, and no, it's not

more logical to have one in the city than anywhere on the coast.

,
because what if you want to have a strong naval presence in the southeast asian isles, (if your, say america), but you cant spare too many settlers. it would make a lot of sense to build a few naval bases rather than one city with a port facility.

[Cyclotron]

I'll have to agree with UberKruX. Airfields were valuable and different form cities because:

A) They exert no "borders"
B) They do not require improvements
C) They can change hands and not be destroyed
D) They can be pillaged

So in other words, airfields were cheaper and transient bases in Civ2, made so that you could make quick airfields to boost your next war with airpower.

To balance the quick-healing side of them, they could include the "pearl harbor" factor present in cities: Units docked woudl suffer from reduced firepower if attacked. Therefore, you could have an interesting situation where your destroyer and cruiser escorts are fighting tooth and nail to defend your naval base on a distant island where your flagship battleship is being repaired.

[Lord_Davinator]

I must say a port like the civ2 airfield would be very very valuable.

and say the layout here is getting really nice

[Inverse Icarus]

im so happy something i said or thought had some merit

[Tabun]

Ah, We're marchin' to the same drum!

Your canals request is a lot like my inquiry about navigable rivers from an earlier thread. After contemplation, I like the canals idea quite a bit more than navigable rivers (but in a perfect world, would both be instituted?). But at the same time, I like some of the others' qualifiers. I think canals should be EXPENSIVE in manpower for sure. I think the maximum length of the canals should be determined as the game is being balanced. However, canals should only be build-able in the 'flat' terrains such as plains, grassland, forest et al.

And dude! The naval bases concept rocks!

In both cases, I'd put my vote in for having naval (offensive) firepower be considerably reduced.

But back to canals; I can't agree that a battleship in a canal would be powerless, and if Civ3 adopts a bombard-as-opposed-to-engage option, I'd say naval units cabable of such should be able to bombard anything within their normal range.

Now running into an opposing naval unit in that canal... now THAT would be ugly. and I'm not even gonna touch what kind of modifiers should be used in such a confrontation! But I'm sure someone else will!

[BeBro]

Like the Naval Bases idea, but I see problems with the canals. If they are easy to build, many players would probably build canals on every place on the map, which I wouldn´t like. If they cost too much time/money, nobody would build them.

[SerapisIV]

Originally posted by BeBro
Like the Naval Bases idea, but I see problems with the canals. If they are easy to build, many players would probably build canals on every place on the map, which I wouldn´t like. If they cost too much time/money, nobody would build them.

I think canals should be limited to two or three continuous tiles. You shouldn't be able to make a canal connecting the Mediterranean with the Baltic Sea across Eastern Europe.

[Inverse Icarus]

does anyone from firaxis read these, or should i mail them the entire thread?

ME WANTY NAVAL SCHTUFF!

oops. there goes my 9 vear old civ I self

[Lord_Davinator]

Hmmm... we all know we're going to have canals in Civ3 but what I'd like to know is will all the civs be able to create them or only one?? I presume that all will be able to create them as I seem to recal them being a minor wonder.

One other thing will one civ be reduced to making only one canal or can one make more than one?

Ture I agree with the idea of restricting the canals to 2-3 squares. We don't want canals joining the atlantic and pacific through asia and europe now....

[Adm.Naismith]

Originally posted by UberKruX
2. Naval Bases
Not like the ones in civ 2, which work like airports or barracks, but like the AIRFIELDS in civ 2. building them on a land square allows naval units to dock there and get repaired faster than if they weren't on one. Again, that whole not attacking but being able to be attacked would apply, and there couldnt be two of them connected in any way (even via canal).

I suggested a very similar concept months ago (may be more, geez I'm around here since almost 2 years now ).

To avoid too much use of the naval bases, I suggested you can build one (by workers/engineers, as airfields) only inside City radius, just to reproduce Ports direct linked to city (e.g. ancient Rome, London).

Your model is more similar to modern Navy Bases, almost town itself, able to supply and do maintenance to ships.
May be it's a right use to connect oversea Civ III Colonies to home continent; Firaxis mentioned you can connect them by ports or airports, but in Civ II you need a city to build them, so you need at least a city oversea, or colonies are useless...

[Dauphin]

I think that certain units should only be allowed to board ships at a city with a harbour, or from a naval port.

For example in World War II, tanks heavy equipment were not unloaded onto the beach heads, they were disembarked using ports and harbours. Even in friendly territories you need a port to embark/disembark at.

I think canals should be limited to two or three continuous tiles. You shouldn't be able to make a canal connecting the Mediterranean with the Baltic Sea across Eastern Europe.

In reality there are extensive canal systems stretching thousands of miles across continents - just don't expect anything larger than a barge to travel down it. And definitely not a battleship.

[Cyclotron]

Tanks nowadays can be delivered by hovercrafft, amphibious barges, or be amphibious themselves. Perhaps tanks can only be loaded outside of a city with the discovery of amphibious warfare. Mech Inf. are so modern as to be outside these restrictions... just tanks.

[SerapisIV]

In reality there are extensive canal systems stretching thousands of miles across continents - just don't expect anything larger than a barge to travel down it. And definitely not a battleship.

But in the industrial age, all the ships (at least in Civ2) are bigger then barges (definitely by draft at least), so even by letting ships smaller then barges go through canals, you can't build such units. I think that movement bonuses along rivers satisfactorily models barge movement.

[Dauphin]

Serap, it was just a general point and not a game point.

But anyway: Canals in the general sense would really be more of a trade bonus than a movement bonus, and be outdated by the advent of railways. The Silver Cross network in Englnad built at the turn of the 18th century became obsolete within 20 years because of the railways of the 1820s and 1830s.

Only the canals that are shortcuts (Panama, Suez) are still used on a large economic and military level. So by the time you traversed an Eastern European canal system you could have gone the long way round anyway.

As a game issue perhaps there should be a "3 movement points to pass through a canal tile" rule. That would mean that you could build excessively long canals but it wouldn't be worthwhile from a time viewpoint. It could be used to link inland seas to the open seas/ocean.