City placement, water, and the changes coming with G&K
When I play Civ, I have a rule. Always always always place a city on water. That could be a lake, river, or the sea, but it must be. The reasons I feel are obvious. You can build gardens, build naval units, but also use great rivers for defense. Plus water and rivers give gold, making it more economically feasible.
But if any of you watched the PAX demo, I realized that things may change, for better or worse. Without much trouble the Huns took over the defenseless Ethiopian city. So I asked, if naval invasions are more likely now, how will this affect my water based strategy? Will I turtle into the continent? Or maybe increase my navy or coastal defenses?
I am curious to hear your ideas on water, cities, and the changes of Gods and Kings
Hmm, good point.
I too am a water builder. Hopefully, there will be some city upgrades that will defend against naval attacks. I think there was something in Civ IV that worked in this fashion but I can't remember what it was called.
I can't seems to remember either ha.
I think I'm actually better prepared than I realize. Even now I place emphasis on a strong modern navy, and generally place artillery on the high ground of my coastline with forts. I always thought it would make sense, but now that Marines and destroyers will be storming my beaches, I think it will work beautifully ^_^
I've had similar thoughts. My best guess would be to increase the size of your navy, as well as ensure that your coastal cities have plenty of land units around them. It also helps that a spy in an enemy's city can report any plans for attacking you, thus enabling you to redirect naval units as needed.
Here I would like to give my idea for a new naval unit: Cruiser!
Historically cruisers were more powerful than gunboats and destroyers, but also slower. Of course, they could outrun any battleship. As such, cruisers would specialize in attacking destroyers, providing a good defense for coastal cities. They would have a two tile ranged attack, and one or two movement points more than the battleship. In another historical parallel they wouldn't require any resources. That way if you have a small culturally based nation without such resources you can still protect your coastline reasonably well and bombard enemy coastal cities. Or, if you have small amounts of oil or coal you can just build cruisers and redirect those resources to building an air force or tanks or necessary buildings. This reflects how smaller nations (like Greece with the Georgios Averof) would purchase cruisers as a cheaper alternative to the battleship for coastal defense, while the cruiser if well manned could be expected to hold its own (with reinforcements) against a battleship. Cruisers were very important in naval warfare, some achieved legendary status, like the Previously mentioned Greek ship or the USS Olympia or USS Indianapolis. As a bonus, the cruiser could be upgraded to the missile cruiser. Frankly I'm surprised that they haven't thought of this yet. Personally, I would have the cruiser designed to look like the USS Olympia. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USS_Olympia_(C-6)
This is pretty obvious....
Do what any great seafaring civilization does.... build a navy and concentrate on naval power instead of land. Since you can now attack cities with ships you can do invasions without having a lot of land units invade....
Build a single city on the coast, all the rest inland. That's usually what I do, so the whole new naval invasion mechanic will really be non-existent for me. Even then, mass defensive buildings in that coastal city, if it's your capital, you might want to think about it early on. If you're still worried, build a navy.
A 'Coastal Battery' has already been mentioned, I think it was on one of the German sites, especially for defending coastal cities.
Originally Posted by Jazzterisk
Coastal Fortress was the Civ4 building, but the Cruiser idea makes sense.
I always end up with two coastal cities that I've built, but puppeting always adds more.