No Destroyers?

[Soryn Arkayn]

Does anyone else agree that there needs to be Destroyers in Civ:Rev?

That said, I must admit that I prefer how Submarines are represented in Civ:Rev compared to Civ4. The obvious reason is that Civ:Rev has returned to the different Attack and Defence values, whereas they were combined into a single "Strength" value in Civ4. The problem with this in Civ4 was that Subs weren't represented properly; they were the weakest Modern era warship (other than the Transport, and not by much), which meant you needed a pack of subs to sink enemy warships. The other problem was that subs always had to attack the strongest warship in the stack, which was usually a Battleship -- which, aside from the Aircraft Carrier -- is the warship you wanted to protect the most! I actually liked Civ3 because if you had a Destroyer in the stack an enemy Sub had to attack the Destroyer first before it could attack the larger and more valuable warships; this was a great idea because it accurately reflected how Destroyers were used as picket ships to protect the Battleships and Carriers.

Returning to Civ:Rev, I think Destroyers should be added to the game as a dedicated Submarine-killer warship, and Cruisers and Battleships shouldn't be able to detect or attack Subs at all. And if Destroyers are added they should be able to protect Cruisers and Battleships in the same stack from enemy Subs; meaning the Sub has to attack the Destroyer(s) first before it can attack the other warships. I'm uncertain what the Destroyer's Attack/Defence rating should be, because it should should have lower Attack and Defence than a Cruiser, but somehow better Attack and Defence against Submarines. The Destroyer should have more Movement points than the Cruiser; perhaps one or two more. Also, Destroyers, like Subs, can't carry land units. I don't know if this is possible because it might be too difficult and complicated to implement -- but that's how it should work because Destroyers are intended to be anti-submarine warships only.

Basically Destroyers and Submarines should be like the Fighters and Bombers in Civ:Rev; Fighters aren't pretty useless except against Bombers and opposing Fighters. My proposed Destroyer should be weaker than Cruisers and Battleships, but deadly to Submarines. Also, if Destroyers were added then Subs should more Movement points -- at least as many as the Battleship (I think it's 4). I know that Subs are limited to only 2 Move points currently to balance them against Cruisers and Battleships so they can't attack and escape.

[FadingBeano]

Subs are the only unit I don't really use. They are just too slow to be escorted around everywhere.

[ShadowXOR]

No.

Just, no.

[Hodory]

I like this idea. Subs should not be detected by any units other than air units and other subs. Introduction of the destroyers will enable them to be used as the only naval unit able to detect subs. In the meantime, I do believe that subs move too slow to be of any use. If they can increase their movement by +1 with the stealth feature that subs should have been given in the first place, I think naval warfare will be much more interesting.

If not destroyers, then perhaps cruisers can be given as a substitute as being able to detect subs. In any event, I do agree that subs need to be given a little boost because at the moment, I think they are pretty useless.

[Soryn Arkayn]

I like this idea. Subs should not be detected by any units other than air units and other subs. Introduction of the destroyers will enable them to be used as the only naval unit able to detect subs. In the meantime, I do believe that subs move too slow to be of any use. If they can increase their movement by +1 with the stealth feature that subs should have been given in the first place, I think naval warfare will be much more interesting.

If not destroyers, then perhaps cruisers can be given as a substitute as being able to detect subs. In any event, I do agree that subs need to be given a little boost because at the moment, I think they are pretty useless.

If Subs are changed so they're undetectable except to Cruisers, why not just change their name to Destroyers?

Good point about Subs being detected by air units, I forgot about that.

[Axewielderx]

They do not have and aircraft carriers either and thos were awesome for messing with enemy cities while you land troops arived.

[Soryn Arkayn]

They do not have and aircraft carriers either and thos were awesome for messing with enemy cities while you land troops arived.

I think Aircraft Carriers should be in Civ:Rev too. I don't understand why Destroyers and Carriers weren't included.

Unless...

Does anyone else think that 2K intentionally withheld units from previous Civ games because they plan sell them to us as DLC? After all, they've already withheld several Wonders for retailer exclusives (which still aren't available yet; lame) and all of the Wonders won't be available for download until the Fall. I suspect that 2K plans to release downloadable "unit packs" in the future, just like the Guitar Hero downloadable songs.

[FloodOne]

I spend too much money on rockband to spend money on civ

[Soryn Arkayn]

I spend too much money on rockband to spend money on civ

I'd wager that DLC "unit packs" would be roughly the same price as a GH/RB track pack: maybe $5; although I'd want at least 5 good units for that price. For example, perhaps one of the unit packs could be a "Naval Warfare" and would include the Destroyer, Aircraft Carrier, Nuclear Submarine (that can be loaded with a Tactical Nuke), Marine, and possibly a Transport (instead of using Cruisers and Battleships to ferry troops across water).

Perhaps there could also be "building packs", which would include an Airport so units can be airlifted.

[Lazarus2k8]

Does anyone else think that 2K intentionally withheld units from previous Civ games because they plan sell them to us as DLC?

DLC was planned from the start, yes.