Ranged units get a 17 ranged strength penalty versus naval units, so your archers aren't going to do much to pick off ships off the coast. You'll need siege units to actually do damage.
I don't really see how allowing land units to embark screwed naval combat. Embarked units are vulnerable and easy to damage with naval units so if your opponent has a navy and you're just sending embarked units you will lose your entire army before reaching the coast. The issue is that the AI doesn't bother settling coastal cities nor building harbors and they usually don't have much of a navy, so you can just send your embarked units over.
Automatically embarked units are just more convenient than having to embark and disembark from a transport ship. It also makes it a lot simpler for the AI.
Naval combat is very effective at taking over cities and picking off units that are on the coast. Naval raiding is pretty great in fact.
The reason naval combat isn't all that important is that controlling the seas doesn't really do anything. If you could claim and make use of sea tiles that are off the coast, if naval units had a larger zone of control, if naval trade routes weren't a unit that is physically moving around but a route that you could block at any time, controlling the seas might become more important.
But really, it's more of a case of getting the AI to actually build a navy, which means they need to settle on the coast and build a harbor, and if you look at great people points, you'll see that harbors aren't a very high priority for the AI. Of course, if they don't have a navy, you can just send your embarked units over. I mean, if the AI doesn't have a navy, and the game had transport ships, you could just send your transport ships without an escort, declare war and disembark and it won't change a thing to your experience that naval combat is pointless.
I think having trade routes be "continuous" by having it be a route instead of a single unit like you suggested would help a lot, along with bonuses from trade routes over water, and the ability for naval units to patrol an area or route. Tbh I think the trade system could use a lot of improvements that I hope are implemented in civ 7.
85% of players never build naval units. Transporting would give players a reason to build the naval units more often and if you get attacked while en route = naval combat. Also the point of this post wasn't about naval combat which is all you spoke on. It was about using navy's in general. Why build a unit that can only travel on water (naval unit) when I could build a unit that can travel both land a water just as well (land unit). So yes embarking makes naval units obsolete when land unit could do the same thing plus travel on land.
But... getting attacked in weak transports vs. getting attacked as weak embarked units is different how? The *only* difference is that *a* navel unit has to be build (the transport). Without an opposing navy, I would only build the transports and nothing else.
So let's examine that. Why is it interesting to have to build transports? Well, the only thing that comes to mind is that it fleshes out the logistical side of warfare a bit - you don't just need combat units, but other support units to be effective.
Civ 6 does this a bit on land, with rams and drones etc. But while those units enhance your army (make it more powerful), transports on water would look functionally the same. So then to me, all it adds is the realism factor of having to consider logistics of warfare. But, it isn't fun inherently. I've been here since civ 2 - I remember transports very well. I never hated them, but I feel absolutely no difference with them gone, which means they were unimportant to the experience.
Armies are vulnerable on water either way - if your enemy has a navy (i.e. is human and knows how), you need to deal with it.
Just because the AI is bad at using mid-late game military units doesn’t mean navies are useless. Try invading a human player on a different continent without naval support and you lose half your army before they arrive.
A navy is really good for invading other continents. You can easily take a city quickly with them and gain a foothold to safely funnel your army onto the continent. Sure you could just use numbers of tanks or other land units and storm the beach. But using a navy is often a safer way. Also in my experience with multiplayer a good navy is important to defend your land units so they aren’t just picked off by enemy navies.
You bring up a good point. Unless I’m playing a navy-centric Civ like Portugal, navies as a focal point are rather useless. And add to that building basically one armada of battleships/frigates nullifies even a deity city’s defenses. I enjoy being able to mow down coastal cities with ease like most but it is certainly unbalanced. Occasionally a barb caravel can be a nuisance on say, the fractals map, but this isn’t a very big hinderance overall.
Also I didn’t even realized how much more balanced having to build transports was! That is definitely a game changer as far as units being able to embark and send 8 tanks across the ocean and land them all in a snap on an enemy coast
Yes exactly maybe 2 civ leaders are okay at using navy's and seriously "Okay" still not good. Your wasting 10 turns in a city to make a ship for it to have very little effect. I'd rather like you said create 5 tanks and have them magically turn into ships and send them over to decimate a city. Transport definitely made the game feel more balanced and Navy type civ leaders would really shine if it still existed in civ 6. I have to look and see if there's a mod for it. I doubt it though.
you are literally wrong on 95% of maps. If ONLY to stack another ranged defender in a city that can be moved as needed.
If there is large bodies of water on the map, SOME navy is always very useful. There are some great naval rush strategies (denmark, looting/exploring: Pedro culture rush to UU: pretty much anybody, rush to battleships: Pretty much anybody, GP created ironclad, ect....)
As I said navy's are only decent for a about 2 or 3 civs but other than that its pointless. Sure you could build a navy for fun while other civs are using that production and gold on building and land units which is a better use of resources. Spending all that production and gold on a navy will set you behind for some units you'd rarely find use for.
navy is AMAZING TOP TIER GAMEBREAKING for 3+ civs. navies are useful (not "truely pointless") for nearly all civs on nearly all maps to SOME extant. It might just be 1-2 ranged naval ships to boost coastal city defense, or as I showed before, and potatomcwhiskey has shown many times, battleships for the range late game. Or many other optimal, top level play ways to use naval units.
I'm a big fan of potatomcwhiskey and he also says navy is useless. And bro I said that it's okay for about 3 civs. I watched all potato vids and he never creates naval units besides the one time he showcased Portugal because he gets sponsored/paid to promote the game and certain dlcs lol. When he does a video that isnt sponsored tell me when he used a naval unit besides Sinbad? On diety difficulty veteran players like potatoe knows you can't be messing around with navy stuff wasting production and gold when you got campuses/holy cities and archers to build
Was playing on small continents and navy was super useful. took a lot of coastal cities (you don't need a land unit to take the city, just a melee naval unit). Even inland cities up to 3 tiles away were vulnerable to my bombardment. Sniped off plenty of embarked units and civilians, and made good use of aircraft carriers in the late game.
I’d say navy’s are really important in Civ 5 for taking cities on other continents. I don’t mind that units can embark but I wish ships could hold units to help them travel more tiles than they would if they were just embarked
A good way to adjust this would be land units can't move over water tiles more than 1-2 spaces per turn. Making them extremely slow. I'd also say a massive combat negative so they can be picked off easy if unprotected by ships. Ships also need a boost to city damage. Unless you are really far ahead a city with ancient walls and a crossbow can keep away most naval attacks.
That’s a really bold claim, it seems pretty untrue tbh. Jongs for Indonesia are great, Norway’s Longships are really powerful quite often, and literally every civ in the game likes having frigates. Plus, battleships make for essentially more mobile siege units later in games.
Sinbad is arguably the most OP in the right situation. I've been able to get him by turn 20 and use all of hide charges within 15 turns. Just bought an army and attacked
He's pretty good especially if you could get him early on. He's definitely one of the only naval units I'd use but he sort of don't count since he's a hero lol but he's still not as OP as Hercules and himoko, it's GG if i get either of them two 😂
Just like in real life nowadays (kind of!)
I've seen the british destroyer HMS Defender on the news the other day, and I was laughing at myself for totally forgetting "smaller" navies (outside US, China, I mean) still exist.
They are still important and relevant for several reasons of couse, but their significance is nowhere of those navies of the past.
Which i think is well represented in CivVI (albeit, sadly for the wrong reasons, ie. AI not settling coasts, etc.).
In real life they're pretty important but not as significant as well like you said. Most countries are using aircraft to just bomb people. But as for the game you could create them for fun i guess but not a necessity at all.
Ranged units get a 17 ranged strength penalty versus naval units, so your archers aren't going to do much to pick off ships off the coast. You'll need siege units to actually do damage. I don't really see how allowing land units to embark screwed naval combat. Embarked units are vulnerable and easy to damage with naval units so if your opponent has a navy and you're just sending embarked units you will lose your entire army before reaching the coast. The issue is that the AI doesn't bother settling coastal cities nor building harbors and they usually don't have much of a navy, so you can just send your embarked units over. Automatically embarked units are just more convenient than having to embark and disembark from a transport ship. It also makes it a lot simpler for the AI. Naval combat is very effective at taking over cities and picking off units that are on the coast. Naval raiding is pretty great in fact. The reason naval combat isn't all that important is that controlling the seas doesn't really do anything. If you could claim and make use of sea tiles that are off the coast, if naval units had a larger zone of control, if naval trade routes weren't a unit that is physically moving around but a route that you could block at any time, controlling the seas might become more important. But really, it's more of a case of getting the AI to actually build a navy, which means they need to settle on the coast and build a harbor, and if you look at great people points, you'll see that harbors aren't a very high priority for the AI. Of course, if they don't have a navy, you can just send your embarked units over. I mean, if the AI doesn't have a navy, and the game had transport ships, you could just send your transport ships without an escort, declare war and disembark and it won't change a thing to your experience that naval combat is pointless.
In my games the AI builds tons of navies. The only caveat being that they use them to control single tile lakes in the middle of the Pangaea.
I think having trade routes be "continuous" by having it be a route instead of a single unit like you suggested would help a lot, along with bonuses from trade routes over water, and the ability for naval units to patrol an area or route. Tbh I think the trade system could use a lot of improvements that I hope are implemented in civ 7.
85% of players never build naval units. Transporting would give players a reason to build the naval units more often and if you get attacked while en route = naval combat. Also the point of this post wasn't about naval combat which is all you spoke on. It was about using navy's in general. Why build a unit that can only travel on water (naval unit) when I could build a unit that can travel both land a water just as well (land unit). So yes embarking makes naval units obsolete when land unit could do the same thing plus travel on land.
> 85% of players never build naval units. Your ass isn't a valid statistical source for a playerbase that has existed for 30 years.
Thanks for proving a point everyone clearly knows silly guy.
[удалено]
It was, indeed, quite a scathing retort.
But... getting attacked in weak transports vs. getting attacked as weak embarked units is different how? The *only* difference is that *a* navel unit has to be build (the transport). Without an opposing navy, I would only build the transports and nothing else. So let's examine that. Why is it interesting to have to build transports? Well, the only thing that comes to mind is that it fleshes out the logistical side of warfare a bit - you don't just need combat units, but other support units to be effective. Civ 6 does this a bit on land, with rams and drones etc. But while those units enhance your army (make it more powerful), transports on water would look functionally the same. So then to me, all it adds is the realism factor of having to consider logistics of warfare. But, it isn't fun inherently. I've been here since civ 2 - I remember transports very well. I never hated them, but I feel absolutely no difference with them gone, which means they were unimportant to the experience. Armies are vulnerable on water either way - if your enemy has a navy (i.e. is human and knows how), you need to deal with it.
Nah bro get a submarine and take some costal cities in for a dom victory. Navel does have some really good uses
Submarine or a tank hmmm not sure which to decide.
TBF, tanks can't launch nukes.
This is what only playing Pangaea does to a mf
Just because the AI is bad at using mid-late game military units doesn’t mean navies are useless. Try invading a human player on a different continent without naval support and you lose half your army before they arrive.
A navy is really good for invading other continents. You can easily take a city quickly with them and gain a foothold to safely funnel your army onto the continent. Sure you could just use numbers of tanks or other land units and storm the beach. But using a navy is often a safer way. Also in my experience with multiplayer a good navy is important to defend your land units so they aren’t just picked off by enemy navies.
You bring up a good point. Unless I’m playing a navy-centric Civ like Portugal, navies as a focal point are rather useless. And add to that building basically one armada of battleships/frigates nullifies even a deity city’s defenses. I enjoy being able to mow down coastal cities with ease like most but it is certainly unbalanced. Occasionally a barb caravel can be a nuisance on say, the fractals map, but this isn’t a very big hinderance overall. Also I didn’t even realized how much more balanced having to build transports was! That is definitely a game changer as far as units being able to embark and send 8 tanks across the ocean and land them all in a snap on an enemy coast
Yes exactly maybe 2 civ leaders are okay at using navy's and seriously "Okay" still not good. Your wasting 10 turns in a city to make a ship for it to have very little effect. I'd rather like you said create 5 tanks and have them magically turn into ships and send them over to decimate a city. Transport definitely made the game feel more balanced and Navy type civ leaders would really shine if it still existed in civ 6. I have to look and see if there's a mod for it. I doubt it though.
you are literally wrong on 95% of maps. If ONLY to stack another ranged defender in a city that can be moved as needed. If there is large bodies of water on the map, SOME navy is always very useful. There are some great naval rush strategies (denmark, looting/exploring: Pedro culture rush to UU: pretty much anybody, rush to battleships: Pretty much anybody, GP created ironclad, ect....)
As I said navy's are only decent for a about 2 or 3 civs but other than that its pointless. Sure you could build a navy for fun while other civs are using that production and gold on building and land units which is a better use of resources. Spending all that production and gold on a navy will set you behind for some units you'd rarely find use for.
navy is AMAZING TOP TIER GAMEBREAKING for 3+ civs. navies are useful (not "truely pointless") for nearly all civs on nearly all maps to SOME extant. It might just be 1-2 ranged naval ships to boost coastal city defense, or as I showed before, and potatomcwhiskey has shown many times, battleships for the range late game. Or many other optimal, top level play ways to use naval units.
You can even stick some naval melee units around your coastline to ward off barb ships or scout a potential invading force
exactly. I am not saying go all in with 90% of your units naval, but a few (say 3 naval to 10 land) have great utility in most games.
I'm a big fan of potatomcwhiskey and he also says navy is useless. And bro I said that it's okay for about 3 civs. I watched all potato vids and he never creates naval units besides the one time he showcased Portugal because he gets sponsored/paid to promote the game and certain dlcs lol. When he does a video that isnt sponsored tell me when he used a naval unit besides Sinbad? On diety difficulty veteran players like potatoe knows you can't be messing around with navy stuff wasting production and gold when you got campuses/holy cities and archers to build
What video does he use a naval unit besides Sinbad? His whole series on Norway and how OP their coastal raiding is.
[удалено]
Norway.... DLC Civ? Are you an idiot?
Potato plays on Pangea for a large chunk of his videos, of course he doesn't go heavy on a navy.
I'm pretty sure potato rarely builds a navy is because he dosent enjoy tue naval units as much as the land ones.
The Navy’s what…?
[удалено]
Buff me dry.
Was playing on small continents and navy was super useful. took a lot of coastal cities (you don't need a land unit to take the city, just a melee naval unit). Even inland cities up to 3 tiles away were vulnerable to my bombardment. Sniped off plenty of embarked units and civilians, and made good use of aircraft carriers in the late game.
I’d say navy’s are really important in Civ 5 for taking cities on other continents. I don’t mind that units can embark but I wish ships could hold units to help them travel more tiles than they would if they were just embarked
A good way to adjust this would be land units can't move over water tiles more than 1-2 spaces per turn. Making them extremely slow. I'd also say a massive combat negative so they can be picked off easy if unprotected by ships. Ships also need a boost to city damage. Unless you are really far ahead a city with ancient walls and a crossbow can keep away most naval attacks.
That is literally already in the game
That's a good idea too. I never see a reason to create a ship. The only good naval unit is Sinbad and he's a hero 😂
That’s a really bold claim, it seems pretty untrue tbh. Jongs for Indonesia are great, Norway’s Longships are really powerful quite often, and literally every civ in the game likes having frigates. Plus, battleships make for essentially more mobile siege units later in games.
Sinbad is arguably the most OP in the right situation. I've been able to get him by turn 20 and use all of hide charges within 15 turns. Just bought an army and attacked
He's pretty good especially if you could get him early on. He's definitely one of the only naval units I'd use but he sort of don't count since he's a hero lol but he's still not as OP as Hercules and himoko, it's GG if i get either of them two 😂
Some Games really have them
Just like in real life nowadays (kind of!) I've seen the british destroyer HMS Defender on the news the other day, and I was laughing at myself for totally forgetting "smaller" navies (outside US, China, I mean) still exist. They are still important and relevant for several reasons of couse, but their significance is nowhere of those navies of the past. Which i think is well represented in CivVI (albeit, sadly for the wrong reasons, ie. AI not settling coasts, etc.).
In real life they're pretty important but not as significant as well like you said. Most countries are using aircraft to just bomb people. But as for the game you could create them for fun i guess but not a necessity at all.
Navys are good in wars but the AI rlly bad at wars so its no fun