Ranged Bombard Rework Project

dcm 2.5 has 2 accuracy related promos.

As far as I can tell what Thundebrd has done here is what is in dcm, ie it is bombardment as part of the combat phase not ranged combat which occurs before/after combat or when no combat is occurring at all.

I usually agree with most of your concepts but I think on much of what you said here I'm going to have to disagree. I'll try to explain why, not to be obstinate but to explain my thinking.

Rwn said:

Not directly related to this project, but I feel the current promotion system (especially with fight or flee) is too overwhelming to be really useful; if there are even more promotions, I'm afraid they will just add to the long list of promotions I never use... I don't know if I'm the only one, but the difference between most promotions appears too minor to be worth the effort - do I want +10% str or +1 first strike? removing xp cap from animals or barbarians? etc. - that I always pick the same ones.

Click to expand...

Are you trying to say that it's not a big difference from 10% strength vs the ability to remove the xp cap from animals or barbs?

Most of the first strike abilities on units and promos will probably get a rather large rework at some point here.

Now... I'm not trying to say I don't feel there are some promos that could be removed so we can keep our promotion lines a bit more pure of intent - nor am I trying to say that there aren't some promos that are in the game more for the AI to consider than the player which leads to some lists of promos that get ignored by player selection. But I do believe, strongly, that the variety we have does help in an environment where a lot of promos can be earned. I'm a big fan of specializing various units, even within the same unit type, to differing intended functions and the promotions have been added to give further consideration for this approach. Particularly with the promos added for Ranged Bombardment... My advice, strategically, would be to take some of the units in the stack and develop their ranged bombard ability while others develop attack and defense abilities. You'll find that differing weapon types play different ranged bombardment roles that can be used to your advantage when considering how to time your attack or defense procedures.

Rwn said:

I feel the current combat system is greatly biased in favor of defense, particularly regarding city invasion. I'm thus not a great fan of giving more possibilities for a city to defend; a walled city with damages on nearby units is already quite hard to take, if it's able to bombard stacks from inside, it will become nearly invincible...

Click to expand...

We've been gradually making cities harder and harder to capture for a reason. This is one of the ways we can get our limited map sizes to sustain a game long enough to reach later eras in play. Making it tougher to expand into another's territories is showing to be a big key in this. And of course since it feels harder to gain ground, it should also feel like a greater accomplishment when you do.

Therefore, I'm highly in favor of weighting towards city defense. Vanilla Civ makes defending a city almost impossible and it should not be a given that a city will be capturable. Perhaps with this adjustment we're finally getting the right difficulty.

My wife's game is showing the AI is somehow taking out cities in their wars with each other though despite the min defense for entry issue and the fact that they STILL aren't bringing any siege with them - something that does really need to be addressed!

Rwn said:

OK, once again that's a broader subject than just bombardment (and the way it works now seems to be unintended rather than a feature), maybe the answer is in removing the penalty while rebalancing something else, but simply removing the penalty without changing anything else would not be a good thing IMHO.

My suggestion:
- Remove the possibility to bombard from inside a city from all siege units (catapult, cannon, etc.) as well as ships. This would probably make sense from a historical point of view by the way - those units need a large space to be handled properly, something that is usually lacking inside a city's walls. Also, even though city fortifications could include some bombardment elements, one could argue this is already represented through the defense bonus (increased damage done to attacking units) and the area damage bonus (spike traps, etc. - there could also be some arrow bombardment buildings).

Click to expand...

IMO, units in the field are far more vulnerable than those in the city so there shouldn't be a penalty for bombarding from a city, only into one. Your statement about there being limited space to setup properly makes some sense but is it really that hindering? Maybe if it shows to be nearly impossible to capture cities thanks to this feature, we'll have to limit the amount of bombards that can be made from a city in a given round to reflect that.

Rwn said:

- For the other units (archers, riflemen...), either also remove it, or maintain it but significantly lower their defensive capabilities. Their defense (including first strike) already represent the capacity of these units to take advantage of their long range to damage incoming enemies, now that this bombard capacity is implemented, they would really become overpowered.
Currently, they are units that are very hard to dispatch, but not that great in attack - great potential for synergies with other units, but not outstanding by themselves: they stand their ground (particularly in cities), but if you don't attack them, they are not a threat to nearby units.
With added bombardment, they would become both hard to dispatch and dangerous for units around them - no weak point!
My personal preference would be to remove at minimum the base city defense bonus (including available city defense promotions) from these units if we let them keep the bombard option from inside cities.

Click to expand...

There's actually a downside for bombarding from the city that you might not be giving consideration to here - any action a unit takes breaks it from any fortification bonus it may have earned by rounds of remaining fortified. This loss of up to 25% defense bonus can be lethal for a unit and choosing to bombard probably wouldn't begin to pay off in light of the loss of combat strength.

First strikes, combat modifiers, all regard a closer range battle where the enemy really approaches with serious intent to kill. Ranged Bombard are basically little more than potshots. I think you'd find in play that the damage inflicted by Ranged Bombard is fairly minimal until much later as techs improve a great deal or unless the unit is very specialized towards it and as a result quite vulnerable to direct combat. And it can be horribly unreliable as a strategic gamble. It's probably a bit weaker in this version than it was previously if I'm reading the numbers correctly but I'm needing to test much more than I've been able to before I can say that for sure.

Rwn said:

Or, for a wholly different approach, allow only a limited number of units "inside" a city - any number of units may be on a city square, but only, say, size/4 units (or another combination based on unit size with Size Matters) get the defensive bonus of the city (including wall protection), and they are attacked last - thus you can't stockpile large amount of units (especially with bombardment) inside a city.

Click to expand...

I'd not limit the amount of units possible in the city but I might limit the amount of bombard attacks that can be made. There's AI problems with stack limits and Size Matters would really complicate any other attempts there.

There's the concept of overloaded plots approaching a development point though. I think it's Realism Invictus that has implemented this but the idea's been shared here and is now part of the eventual development plan. In RI they allow so many units on a plot before all of them get a temporary penalty promo for the plot being overloaded. The crowd harms their abilities. I'd implement it here by two mechanisms, one for Size Matters that would be based on the overall cargo volume of units on the plot and one for the core that would be based on the number of units. implementing penalties to bombard abilities would be appropriate as part of the penalty set for being overcrowded.

At the same time there's also another plan to bonus units for the teamwork enabled by having multiple unit roles in the stack so it will make for a very interesting pinching system when both are in use, one side promoting larger and more diverse stacks while the other penalizes stacks that are too big. Both systems would be rational and it would ask players to strike the right balances in their stacks and be prepared to reinforce them to appropriate degrees.

Dancing Hoskuld said:

As far as I can tell what Thundebrd has done here is what is in dcm, ie it is bombardment as part of the combat phase not ranged combat which occurs before/after combat or when no combat is occurring at all.

Click to expand...

Actually no... it's an adjustment to ranged combat and has no effect on an actual combat. The ranged bombardment system was terribly flawed and needed fixing so I not only fixed but hopefully enhanced that mechanism. New promos are available but they don't help units in actual combat so promote specializing some units in ranged bombardment and others in combat.

There ARE some plans for reworking how ranged combat takes place within actual combat however so that is pending further development. This was an interesting place to start applying the weapon combat classes before moving into the scope of them influencing an actual combat. It helps to bring the weapon types of units more to mind for our players in anticipation of some further developments there.

This is also a system that will be highly malleable with equipment so in many ways its setting up for further development there too.

@TB

Here is the Naval Unit timeline for Industrial through Transhuman Eras ...


Stuff I think should be changed ...

1. Fusion Transport should have much more strength than 60 and having it at Invisibility tech makes no sense. At least at Fusion tech I understand. In short we should remove the Invisibility tech requirement from it.

2. The Fusion Destroyer too should not require Invisibility tech either.

3. The Fusion Battleship is much too late and should be at Fusion tech.

4. The Fusion Cruiser and Fusion Carrier seems in the wrong place too.

5. Landing Ship Tank is a weird name. I would rename it to something else.

6. Unmanned Submarine should possibly be weaker and also be an upgrade in between the Stealth Sub and the Fusion Sub.

7. Stiletto Boat seems out of place and starts are off. This need major fixing.

8. Torpedo Boat seems also out of place.

9. QShip seems to be instantly replaced by the Coast Guard Cutter.

10. Also shouldn't most of the "Modern" ships be under "Modern Warfare" tech?

Well... at least I think you've become more fully aware of the mess.

I agree with much of your assertions though the Invisibility prereq on those ships... do they HAVE the invisibility ability that tech grants some units? I don't know without looking further.

I have to say I like a lot of the thinking you're giving this. I'd like to add that we need to consider the chain of naval unit types as has emerged:
Piracy Ships

This particular table is located in the Combat Mod Units document and not only is it growing to need some re-evaluation on its original intent which was to develop out withdrawal/early withdrawal and pursuit values, it could be useful for determining what grid x, strength, and actual tech they should be placed at... rearranging them directly there would help me a lot to re-evaluate the fight or flight tags as well.

There's some concepts that emerged here...
1) Battleships
Basic Function: The heavy hitter strongest ship line.
Special Ability: Collateral and VERY strong bombard
Most Weak To: Subs (Battleships can neither see subs nor can they pursue and subs are horrifyingly powerful at withdrawal despite being weaker than Battleships so can wear down these larger behemoths.) (Also somewhat weak to air units as they can't intercept.)
Less Weak To: Destroyers (Destroyers can be seen by battleships and easily overpowered but again, withdrawal is strong for Destroyers and Destroyers are fast enough to escape battleships or stay out of reach of counterattack.)
Strongest Against: Cruisers (Cruisers aren't as strong as Battleships and have little to no withdrawal ability)
Against Itself: Pretty much just like 2 elephants fighting, or the Hulk vs the Abomination. The benefit in taking a battleship up against its direct equal - another battleship - is that you'll deal collateral to the whole stack and if your ship is more promoted you'll probably win.

2) Cruisers
Basic Function: Medium Strength ship with powerful pursuit and Strong Bombard.
Special Ability: Amazing carrier of cruise missile type units that can make this the most lethal unit on the board if it unloads its payload.
Most Weak To: Battleships (They're simply not as powerful and have no valid defense against them with the exception of their missiles which are limited and battleships may be able to take the hit.)
Less Weak To: Subs (Can't see the subs but can pursue so when attacked may be able to lock down the subs into combat they aren't quite ready for as they should be a touch stronger than contemporary subs. Not being able to see them means they can't really use their missiles against them without a 'spotter' unit in the stack)
Strongest Against: Destroyers (Destroyers have nothing against cruisers except some ability to intercept means they might defeat the missiles the cruisers carry - so the cruiser simply attacks. Destroyers are weaker units than Cruisers and rely more on withdrawal for survival in combat and are thus completely countered by the pursuing cruisers.)
Against Itself: Even fight that depends on which one launches missiles first or which is more promoted.

3) Destroyers
Basic Function: Fast Low Strength ship with powerful pursuit and Sub Spotting technologies.
Special Ability: Equipped with the ability to intercept they fulfill the SAM unit role of the naval stack.
Most Weak To: Cruisers (As Noted - they do have a little better move than a cruiser though)
Less Weak To: Battleships (While massively outpowered by the battleship, the battleship has no pursuit so the destroyer can often get away and the destroyer has a lot better movement than a battleship so hit and run against them - but since they remain visible to the battleship they might be able to be hunted down eventually)
Strongest Against: Subs (Destroyers are completely capable of taking down subs. They can intercept the missiles some subs carry, pursue subs effectively, SEE them, and are a little stronger than them - AND can withdraw FROM subs if they get in over their head.)
Against Itself: They might take a number of jabs at each other before they make any final victory against one another.

4) Submarines
Basic Function: Lowest Strength ship with invisibility to most units and an incredible ability to hit and run with withdrawal/invisibility tactics.
Special Ability: Does carry some long range missiles in many cases - nowhere near the volume a cruiser can carry but can be enough to inflict a nasty early short range nuclear surprise attack on an unsuspecting nation and weaken battleships and cruisers with their missiles before going in. Subs can also hide under ice, which greatly assists in their hit and run tactics.
Most Weak To: Destroyers (As Noted)
Less Weak Against: Cruisers (Cruisers may carry missiles but unescorted they can't see subs any better than battleships can. They can pursue but the missiles can wear them down enough to make them not want to pursue the sub lest it lock itself into a battle it's not winning. But Cruisers are significantly more powerful than subs and again.. they CAN pursue so they're quite dangerous to subs when they can see them or when not worn down and being attacked by them.)
Strongest Against: Battleships (Unable to see subs, unescorted battleships can easily be destroyed by the sub who can launch surprise missile volleys and dart in like piranhas to take chunks out of the battleship until its worn down to the point another attack finishes the beast)
Against Itself: Unlike Destroyers which would have a hard time locking each other into a battle to the death, Subs are quite good at pursuing one another (or will be once those tags are implemented) and are otherwise quite equal and it will be determined by which ship is more promoted/healthy.



What all this means is that unit strength ratios of contemporary equivalent ships should be something along the lines of:
Battleship (4) : Cruiser (3) : Destroyer (2) : Sub (1)

Or perhaps something more like:
Battleship (8) : Cruiser (7) : Destroyer (6) : Sub (5)

So if we take a multiplier of a base strength for a given stage, like say, 10 for the Modern, then we get:
Modern Battleship (80 str), Modern Cruiser (70), Modern destroyer (60), Modern Sub (50)

Then extrapolate out keeping them in a similar ratio with each era advance (or walking backwards, each era retraction) on each line. We can skew these values a bit where one of these units is a little offset on the grid x access a step or two away from where the majority of the units take an upgrade but I think you get the overall balance idea right?

Does this make sense? From what I've seen, starting with this sort of thinking, we could (and maybe should) rework all of those core naval unit lines and let the rest of the naval units work themselves in around them.

There's also Carrier and Transport and the Carrier is big and slow but a little stronger and of course, carries air units which are very valuable in naval warfare while the Transport can be very fast and capable of withdrawal but is by far the weakest ship type and is the gem to be protected in the stack above all others (if loaded - if not it can be used as a sacrificed distraction.)

So along the strength ratios established above, adding those in we get:
Modern Battleship (80 str), Modern Cruiser (70), Modern destroyer (60), Modern Sub (50), Carrier (40), Transport (30) Or something along these lines.


Now about the stages of upgrades... wasn't the Fusion line supposed to be by far the most advanced an unchallengable upgrade for all naval vessels? (After Unmanned in many cases.) I dunno... intentions of old can be changed I suppose but the CCs given reflect that concept of them being the pinnacle in every way.

Also, keeping them all upgrading to the same stage within a range of 3 x grid would be advisable. The carrier to modern carrier upgrade points above show just how out of whack our current structure really is! And trying to keep that center point for contemporary naval upgrades on the x grid evenly spaced away from each other roughly in distance equivalent stages would also be highly valued.

It occurs to me battleships aren't on my chart because they don't have any withdrawal or pursuit but looking at your upgrade tracking chart up there it looks like I may have confused some cruisers with battleships or we're seriously lacking in battleship stages at a point. I'm really not sure.

I agree with much of your assertions though the Invisibility prereq on those ships... do they HAVE the invisibility ability that tech grants some units? I don't know without looking further.

Click to expand...

Oh! They do have invisibility. Hmm that is problematic now that the Fusion and Invisibility techs are so far apart. I recommend we have 2 units an earlier Fusion one and a later Invisible one.

EDIT: In fact all the types should do this. Just like how there are Nuclear Subs and Stealth Subs, we can have Fusion and Invisible. Fusion being the main power source upgrade and then Invisible making the ship harder to detect. So like ...

- Fusion Battleship -> Invisible Battleship
- Fusion Carrier -> Invisible Carrier
- Fusion Cruiser -> Invisible Cruiser
- Fusion Destroyer -> Invisible Destroyer
- Fusion Submarine -> Invisible Submarine
- Fusion Transport -> Invisible Transport

Strength wise the Fusions would be in the 100s while the Invisibles would be in the 200s.

EDIT2:

So grouping the ships a bit more so they keep your ratio idea I am seeing some key techs ...

- Steam Power (X62) - Important for Steam Ships
- Screw Propeller (X64) - Important for Non-Wooden Ships
- Combustion (X66) - Important for Diesel Ships
- Coast Guard (X71) - Important for Coast Guard Units
- Submarine Warfare (X73) - Important for Subs
- Sonar (X75) - Important for Subs
- Naval Aviation (X76) - Important for Carriers
- Nuclear Power (X80) - Key for Nuclear Powered Ships
- Modern Warfare (X84) - Key for Modern units
- Unmanned Naval Vehicles (X92) - Key for Unnamed based Vehicles
- Fusion (X98) - Key for Fusion Powered Ships
- Invisibility (X107) - Key for Invisible units.

Thunderbrd said:

Are you trying to say that it's not a big difference from 10% strength vs the ability to remove the xp cap from animals or barbs?

Click to expand...

No, that there's not a big difference between +10% str vs. +1 first strike, or remove the xp cap from animal vs. barbs. OK, there are some differences (first strike probably gives you a better chance of damaging the enemy even if you do not kill it; animals might be more common than barbs depending on your settings so it might be more useful, etc.), but I don't feel it's "specializing" enough to give so many options at the beginning.

My idea would not so much removing promotions as changing the promotion tree, with much less choice for the early promotions (though available choices would be radically different, for example just one to improve attack, another to improve defense, maybe a third one class-specific), then the options would gradually expand based on previous choices (if you selected defense, you may then chose terrain-based defense or weapon-based defense, etc.) - so that the more spending time to chose between several promotions you need, the more experienced (thus likely rare/valuable) the unit. Maybe this would need to decrease the xp between promotions to balance things up. Also, there could be a color-based code (or other mark) on the promotion to quickly identify whether they are first tier promotions, second tier, etc. to help see which promotions you unlocked.

We've been gradually making cities harder and harder to capture for a reason. This is one of the ways we can get our limited map sizes to sustain a game long enough to reach later eras in play. Making it tougher to expand into another's territories is showing to be a big key in this. And of course since it feels harder to gain ground, it should also feel like a greater accomplishment when you do.

Therefore, I'm highly in favor of weighting towards city defense. Vanilla Civ makes defending a city almost impossible and it should not be a given that a city will be capturable. Perhaps with this adjustment we're finally getting the right difficulty.

Click to expand...

Point taken.

My wife's game is showing the AI is somehow taking out cities in their wars with each other though despite the min defense for entry issue and the fact that they STILL aren't bringing any siege with them - something that does really need to be addressed!

Click to expand...

Yeah, my feeling regarding advantage from defense has a lot to do with the sad fact that I see so many AI units just crashing on my cities which only have one, maybe two archers to defend it and no wall... I don't think it's just an issue of bringing siege units, though, rather just to bring more/more powerful units to actually have to consider building defenses.

Also, though we were talking about cities, my remark on defense advantage also applies to non-city combat - 50% defense from forest/jungle, 75% from hills+forest (quite common terrains in the start) feels a bit much.

There's actually a downside for bombarding from the city that you might not be giving consideration to here - any action a unit takes breaks it from any fortification bonus it may have earned by rounds of remaining fortified. This loss of up to 25% defense bonus can be lethal for a unit and choosing to bombard probably wouldn't begin to pay off in light of the loss of combat strength.

Click to expand...

Fair point.

First strikes, combat modifiers, all regard a closer range battle where the enemy really approaches with serious intent to kill. Ranged Bombard are basically little more than potshots. I think you'd find in play that the damage inflicted by Ranged Bombard is fairly minimal until much later as techs improve a great deal or unless the unit is very specialized towards it and as a result quite vulnerable to direct combat. And it can be horribly unreliable as a strategic gamble. It's probably a bit weaker in this version than it was previously if I'm reading the numbers correctly but I'm needing to test much more than I've been able to before I can say that for sure.

Click to expand...

OK, I might have assumed that bombardment would be more powerful than it actually is. The ability to damage a unit without risking combat is intrinsically very strong, so there must be some downsides to that. But let's see how it works out in test

I'd not limit the amount of units possible in the city but I might limit the amount of bombard attacks that can be made. There's AI problems with stack limits and Size Matters would really complicate any other attempts there.

There's the concept of overloaded plots approaching a development point though. I think it's Realism Invictus that has implemented this but the idea's been shared here and is now part of the eventual development plan. In RI they allow so many units on a plot before all of them get a temporary penalty promo for the plot being overloaded. The crowd harms their abilities. I'd implement it here by two mechanisms, one for Size Matters that would be based on the overall cargo volume of units on the plot and one for the core that would be based on the number of units. implementing penalties to bombard abilities would be appropriate as part of the penalty set for being overcrowded.

At the same time there's also another plan to bonus units for the teamwork enabled by having multiple unit roles in the stack so it will make for a very interesting pinching system when both are in use, one side promoting larger and more diverse stacks while the other penalizes stacks that are too big. Both systems would be rational and it would ask players to strike the right balances in their stacks and be prepared to reinforce them to appropriate degrees.

Click to expand...

What I suggest is actually much simpler that the overcrowded concept you described: it's just that the various city defense bonus would only apply to some units (the "best" ones to defend the city + maybe civilians). With SizeMatters, instead of say citysize/4 units, you are allowed say citysize*2 (or citysize*2 + 3) total Group Volume (Battalion count as 5, etc.).

I really like the Rock-Scissor-Paper system you propose here. But when reworking ships, could we PLEASE do something against their totally out of logic movement points? Even Galleys can end up with 10 or more Movement when you keep them in the later eras. Or Destroyer can have easily 16 and more. I know this is because otherwise it would take to long to get over the atlantic and such, but it is not good for gameplay reasons:

1) If Destroyer are faster then Battleship (lets say by 3 points) it make a HUGE difference if you have 18 vs 15 or 6 vs 3 points.

2) You can't guard your coasts - ever.

3) Sea fights rarely take place since it's so much easier to avoid the enemy. Defensive Navy is almost useless.

4) Rockets/figher are almost useless in naval fights, especially when defending.

5) If MP have a connection to the speed, then you could argue that a Humvee should also have 15+ MP. It is faster then a ship and in a year (or a month) it can easily go from Portugal to Greece, even without Highend Roads.

Also, Radar of Ships (and later all units) should be improved.

Faustmouse said:

2) You can't guard your coasts - ever.

Click to expand...

What about lowering ship speed to 1 inside an enemy's borders? (automatically or through a city improvement or a national wonder)

What about increasing the movement costs along coasts for bigger ships (i.e. all but the very smallest; rafts and canoes) as well as for all ships in oceanic water?
Being inside own borders could give a reducing in movement cost as those waters would be well known (and a tactical promotion to reduce movement costs somewhat outside of own borders could be added too) but logically I don't see why and should not be enough to go below 2 MP per plot.
That way all the bonuses to water movement could be kept as is, flying would not be affected, and the difference of 3 movement between two boats wouldn't be that drastic any more.

Cheers

I don't mind reducing overall naval movement some but you said something in there that made me wonder...

The Mouse said:

Even Galleys can end up with 10 or more Movement when you keep them in the later eras.

Click to expand...

This makes me wonder why they can get THIS fast. Is it the promos, circumnavigation alone or is it coming from other 'national level' modifiers that should be looked into? If this is true, the base values are not enough to pull back on alone.

But yeah, some more reasonable movement speeds could be assigned to start and then we can look into some of the other concepts presented for naval movement here (that would mean some coding rather than just xml restructuring.)

Hydromancerx said:

Oh! They do have invisibility. Hmm that is problematic now that the Fusion and Invisibility techs are so far apart. I recommend we have 2 units an earlier Fusion one and a later Invisible one.

EDIT: In fact all the types should do this. Just like how there are Nuclear Subs and Stealth Subs, we can have Fusion and Invisible. Fusion being the main power source upgrade and then Invisible making the ship harder to detect. So like ...

- Fusion Battleship -> Invisible Battleship
- Fusion Carrier -> Invisible Carrier
- Fusion Cruiser -> Invisible Cruiser
- Fusion Destroyer -> Invisible Destroyer
- Fusion Submarine -> Invisible Submarine
- Fusion Transport -> Invisible Transport

Strength wise the Fusions would be in the 100s while the Invisibles would be in the 200s.

EDIT2:

So grouping the ships a bit more so they keep your ratio idea I am seeing some key techs ...

- Steam Power (X62) - Important for Steam Ships
- Screw Propeller (X64) - Important for Non-Wooden Ships
- Combustion (X66) - Important for Diesel Ships
- Coast Guard (X71) - Important for Coast Guard Units
- Submarine Warfare (X73) - Important for Subs
- Sonar (X75) - Important for Subs
- Naval Aviation (X76) - Important for Carriers
- Nuclear Power (X80) - Key for Nuclear Powered Ships
- Modern Warfare (X84) - Key for Modern units
- Unmanned Naval Vehicles (X92) - Key for Unnamed based Vehicles
- Fusion (X98) - Key for Fusion Powered Ships
- Invisibility (X107) - Key for Invisible units.

Click to expand...

Ok, feels like we're getting somewhere. A few thoughts:
1) At some point the concept of naval would be obsoleted entirely by space traveling vessels with anti-grav lev technology that can hover over land, sea and ascend to space. If we take naval units too far into the tech tree we'd intrude upon that space.

2) Invisibility is a technology we're working on in the Real World modern times. Reports from witnesses near 'secret' aviation test sites are coming in stating they're seeing planes appear and disappear in flight. We nearly have it already and while its speculative whether it could be as equally applied to anything but avionic units, other rumors about about invisibility technologies being applied to prototype tanks. If that can be done... then naval vessels can have it as well. My point here in the game is that whatever x grid layer we're currently at should possibly lead directly into the invisibility tech by all rights.

Now... invisibility at this level may be a trick of light whereas perhaps eventually it includes energy shielding and/or phasing into immateriality as the unit shares an existence here and in another dimensional state. And for game purposes we need to introduce invisibility in a way that makes it not totally negate itself overnight with equivalent detection capabilities completely muting the point. Even if you have an idea of where something is, if your laser targeting systems can't pick up the solid mass, it will greatly hinder accuracy.

Point being that invisibility as a whole concept needs some further thinking and development perhaps. But we should be right around the corner from it now.

Thus the concept of another layer of ships may not be a bad thing but let's consider where things are falling on the tech tree before locking in that much unit development - we don't want to find that our whole new line of naval units are coming up in a time when they'd be obsoleted by anti-grav military ships that blend land and naval vessel capacities into one massively powerful armada style collection of military force.

And perhaps invisibility is far too far into the future on the tech tree. I personally think we'll have invisibility mastered before contained harnessable fusion reactions. Might even be similar technological developments that enable both. (Energy field manipulation.) Then, keeping it useful will be the trick as new detection mechanisms and computer targeting systems that utilize these new sciences will make invisibility nearly meaningless quite as rapidly as Radar came forward to limit the impact of the submarine.

And on the topic of Fusion... we just MIGHT forego the technology in RL entirely. No matter how we contain it it's always going to be hella dangerous to attempt and we may well be, if some rumors are true, currently figuring out how to generate an even stronger reaction that is much more stable and clean (less radioactive pollution) with a very dense but astoundingly stable element that's a bit beyond what we're currently 'capable' of synthesizing. I can try to find more info on that subject if you're interested. Let's just say it comes from those reports you hear from those who state they'd worked on some of the back engineering projects that have taken place at Area 51. But theoretically the concept is pretty sound. And if we CAN synthesize the stuff now you'd bet the powers that be would NOT let the cat out of the bag until it knew all about this new cat.

I'm not suggesting we don't have a fusion tech and all its derivatives... I'm suggesting that at some point after it there's discovered something even more powerful and more stable that can offer FAR more power to vessels that would greatly justify another step up in naval tech (but should it still really be fully 'naval' at that point?)


Also... perhaps this thread isn't the one we should be filling with this naval unit evaluation. It's taking on a life of its own and perhaps should be a thread of its own.


Now, those points made, I love the tech trigger points you brought up. What would be, in light of those, your ultimate suggestions for each unit type upgrade stage?

What I'm asking is for you (Hydro at least) to consider say, Battleships first, and give each upgrade step with its proper unit name and tech. Then go through Destroyers, subs, carriers, cruisers and transports in the same way, transitioning out of the wood/steam era to the current fusion ships we have.

From there we can see if we have gaps in unit upgrade chains and what contemporary group category each unit type fits into. The from there we can establish more meaningful other stats. We can really re-design out the naval from the ground up this way.

But let's do that on a new thread. By the end of the night I'll start one but if y'all can get one started before me by all means go for it. We might want to quote in all that's been said on the subject so far (here and on other threads since we got a little disjointed in where we were posting on this subject!)

Thunderbrd said:

I don't mind reducing overall naval movement some but you said something in there that made me wonder...


This makes me wonder why they can get THIS fast. Is it the promos, circumnavigation alone or is it coming from other 'national level' modifiers that should be looked into? If this is true, the base values are not enough to pull back on alone.

But yeah, some more reasonable movement speeds could be assigned to start and then we can look into some of the other concepts presented for naval movement here (that would mean some coding rather than just xml restructuring.)

Click to expand...

It's been a while since my last game but:

Base: 2
Various Techs (I remember Sextant, Navigation maybe, Refrigeration....): 4-6 (or more)
"World is round": 1
Promotions: 2-3 (Nav I or even II was free with certain buildings)

My opinion:

1) Wooden ships (Rafts): 1 MP; Wooden Ships with Sails 2MP, High End Wooden ships (3 MP), Steam ships (2 MP), Dieselships (3 MP), Nuclear ships (3 MP), Fusion (3 MP).

2) Battleship -1 MP, Destroyers and Sub +1 MP

3) Change Navigation... 1 MP from Promos is enough.

4) All those techs... I dont know. I mean, we have other applications were your units don't get a benefit from, we have just new units then. Like better rifles doesn't make your old gunpowder units stronger. Armour Crafting doesn't effect your old units etc. Why would ship techs make your old ships faster then?

5) Increase ocean movement to 3.

Frigates have mysteriously picked up a range of 5 tiles. Everything I can find in this thread suggests that's a mistake, and it really is. Bombard being about unpowered projectiles, I don't see how a range of more than one tile (which is roughly 250 miles on Large btw) is possible, even for future tech.

Faustmouse said:

It's been a while since my last game but:

Base: 2
Various Techs (I remember Sextant, Navigation maybe, Refrigeration....): 4-6 (or more)
"World is round": 1
Promotions: 2-3 (Nav I or even II was free with certain buildings)

My opinion:

1) Wooden ships (Rafts): 1 MP; Wooden Ships with Sails 2MP, High End Wooden ships (3 MP), Steam ships (2 MP), Dieselships (3 MP), Nuclear ships (3 MP), Fusion (3 MP).

2) Battleship -1 MP, Destroyers and Sub +1 MP

3) Change Navigation... 1 MP from Promos is enough.

4) All those techs... I dont know. I mean, we have other applications were your units don't get a benefit from, we have just new units then. Like better rifles doesn't make your old gunpowder units stronger. Armour Crafting doesn't effect your old units etc. Why would ship techs make your old ships faster then?

5) Increase ocean movement to 3.

Click to expand...

1) I'd agree to something CLOSER to what you've suggested... my counter suggestion:
Wooden ships (Rafts): 1 MP; Wooden Ships with Sails 2MP, High End Wooden ships (3 MP), Steam ships (2 MP), Dieselships (3 MP), Nuclear ships (4 MP), Fusion (5 MP).

2) Continuing to counter:
Battleship 0 MP(in light of battleships would never be slower than the best high end wooden ship), Destroyers: +2, Sub +1 MP. Destroyers are in desperate danger of Cruisers if they get away from the stack so while there's the capacity and temptation to do so it can end up being to their detriment. Subs simply aren't as fast as Destroyers which is part of what makes Destroyers a bigger threat for subs.

3) Are you suggesting to change navigation to back it down to one +1 move only? What if we made the 2nd navigation REALLY hard to get? Like maxed out Flanking AND maxed out Combat promo chain (and having nav I of course)? And never for free! Then make sure that this is the only +1 movement you can get from promos? (Another problem emerges in the naval promos that reduce (halve) movement costs of the terrain which perhaps should be separated out from being a part of any other effect on a given promo and placed onto another difficult to achieve promo like one that you MUST have coast fighting capped out to get.)

4) From what you just expressed about what's getting Frigates so much movement I will have to TOTALLY agree with the tech issue. Personally I'd get rid of all of those modifiers on all techs - throwing off unit movements too much and yeah, they would be good techs for possible unit upgrade points but that's part of the naval unit evaluation. What exact techs are those that should have those removed at? Please go over that in the naval unit reevaluation thread pending here.

5) Problem with increasing ocean movement is that this is actually where ships can travel at top speed without worry. Coasts force ships to slow or be in danger of what their captains may have overlooked making it much smarter for us to have coast movement costs at 2 and ocean at 1. I like the idea of having naval plots in non-same team waters cost x2 though... that would be a good way of slowing them in their naval raids a bit and forcing even faster units to take a risk in enemy waters. That's going to take a little programming but shouldn't be toooooo bad.


Would all these be an acceptable concession to your points?

Yudishtira said:

Frigates have mysteriously picked up a range of 5 tiles. Everything I can find in this thread suggests that's a mistake, and it really is. Bombard being about unpowered projectiles, I don't see how a range of more than one tile (which is roughly 250 miles on Large btw) is possible, even for future tech.

Click to expand...

I think of plots in terms of how far they can see and go by visibility rules to determine that... They might be able to fire farther than 1 (with some development) but their accuracy won't be very good at hitting at that range most likely.

Now... that said, you found a horrendous xml bug where the tags were assigned one step off from where they should've been among the rbombard tag set for the Frigates. THANK YOU for pointing that out so I could fix it!

I have an update coming, either today or tomorrow that has a lot of little bugfixes - this included.

Keep your eyes peeled for any other inconsistencies between the plans and implementation k? Again - very appreciated spot.

Thunderbrd said:

Would all these be an acceptable concession to your points?

Click to expand...

Sounds good to me. But maybe you also should take into account that movement points also mean how often you can attack if you have a Blitz promotion. Being able to attack 15 times a turn is really crazy, so I think that´s another good argument to reduce movement points.

Added: Sorry, I just saw that this is discussion is continued in the other thread...

How does ranged bombard using rifles work? I really really think that's one weapon that should not have the ability.

Yudishtira said:

How does ranged bombard using rifles work? I really really think that's one weapon that should not have the ability.

Click to expand...

I'm not sure if I'm answering your question very well here but rifles have a very long range for a handheld weapon - more than that of an archer. The can take positions and fire at long range at others passing by without having to move in to engage them. Rifles aren't terribly EFFECTIVE at ranged bombard but they have a range of nearly what you can see.

So in the game, rifles have a very low amount of unit targets. They tend to strike the lead unit since they are a 'direct shot' rather than 'arched' weapon. They have ok accuracy, better than bows and such. They do ok damage. Later, when rifles start gaining sights and much greater range, they can reflect this in another range but their accuracy at that range is probably pretty horrible.

They're really much better in an all out attack but if you're trying to wear down your foes, they can take their shots, longshots though they might be. They're not going to mow down opponent forces but they can weaken them some.

Since this is fairly reflective of how rifles can actually be used from distant defensive positions, why should they not be capable of this kind of strategy in the game? I mean, even a musket has a greater reach than a catapult.

EDIT: Perhaps we need a No Small Arms Ranged Bombardment option for those who don't want archers, crossbowmen, rifles or lasers to have the ability.